Tuesday, October 28, 2008

America Under Obama and a Democratic Congress/Pat Buchanan and Immigration

I like him alright, but I was never a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I particularly differ with his longstanding emphasis on the menace of immigration: with typical reference specifically to Hispanics crossing our southern border. Obviously, immigration needs to be legal and orderly: the first lesson to immigrants shouldn’t be that the law is not a very serious matter. Isn’t it a little ironic that those who most indulge illegal immigration are many of the same who seek all manner of virtue in the words of the law: I find that striking.

But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.

But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.

You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).

During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.

Obama's First 100 Days

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good post. America has always attracted hard working people looking to flee economic stagnatic and succeed. Unfortunately, there are also major secularist and socialist influences in Central and South America, especially since the Mexico PRI revolution in 1920's. But the overall point is sound: encourage those attitudes which drive many immigrants to come here in the first place, while encouraging legality and I would add discouraging immediate jumping onto the social welfare system. One idea I've been kicking around is legal sponsorship, where a private organization, church, group, or family (not the impersonal government) can sponsor immigrants and help them assimilate, and be financially responsible if they don't. It has worked in the past, and still works with Cubans and other immigrant communities. Liberal immigrant advocates tend instead to insist that other people (the gov't, the rich, corporations, etc.) pay for what they want to be done; it is now an advocacy industry.
I also use people's reaction to John Lennon and "Imagine" as a litmus test for their sense.
In Ohio people are fleeing Cleveland without learning and destroying the rest of the state.

Anonymous said...

Broghesius:

"Unfortunately, there are also major secularist and socialist influences in Central and South America,..."

Sure there are. Let people choose between a cold government crust of bread and a warm human helping hand, like you are suggesting. I'm saying that conservatives are blowing it by standing aside and alowing themselves to be seen or portrayed as snarling adversaries.

As I said, they blew it with blacks. A couple of times today, I heard it mentioned that in California, an expected big turnout for Obama may play in favor of the amendment to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which they favor. Speaking personally, I have already voted twice years ago, for a black candidate for president: a CONSERVATIVE black candidate for president. Ifr Republicanss had nominated a conservative black candidate for President long ago, I don't think people would be expecting such an enormous turnout for Obama, today.

Anonymous said...

What we need with regard to immigration is a sensible, organized policy that allows a reasonable number of immigrants into the country each year, that is blind to their country of origin. The other part of that is doing our dead level best to make sure we control the southern border. Ironically, or practically, depending on how you look at it, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is probably the first American politician to figure out that a border wall isn't necessary if you devote the available resources to seeking out illegals employed by businesses, and prosecute the businesses to the fullest extent of the law for hiring them. If there are no jobs, and no money, there are no illegals. That's why more than 300,000 illegals, employed and living in Arizona, left the state after the law went into effect, and headed to Texas where the state refuses to do anything about this issue. That's also among one of several reasons why Gov. Napolitano, a Democrat, won re-election in a landslide in what was once a reliably Republican state, and why she is the odds on favorite to take McCain's senate seat away from him in 2010 when her term limit to serve as governor runs out. Since she is Obama's chief cheerleader in Arizona, it could also be why the polls there, including ultra conservative Rasmussen, show McCain's lead in his home state as just 2 percent today.

McCain had a chance to develop an immigration policy and take control of this issue. It's interesting that a Senator from a border state would not have done so.

Rickey said...

Eh, despite your blathering, it really doesn't matter any more. Spoiler alert!: Obama wins!Your foolish pick of Palin cost you guys the election. Rickey says good riddance. Have fun losing the Presidency and the entire legislative body. Your own party betrayed you. You sad silly fool.

Anonymous said...

Rickey:
An Obama win may seem probable, but is not a metaphysical certainty. We are having a serious discussion regarding current and future policy issues that extend beyond the current election. See and read lee's discussion of Gov. Neapoliano in AZ. These issues will not go away with the election, rather we will see what the Democratic congress, President(?), and Judges do with them without a second party check. Oh, and the Democrats already run both houses of the national legislature:
they took over in 2006 just before the economy started folding. Coincidence? Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Acorn, Jesse Jackson et all were pressuring under threat of civil rights lawsuits banks to extend loans to high risk customers which the same people are now calling predatory loans and blaming on lack of government oversight. Also a coincidence.
Before McCain's pick of Palin he was having serious problems with his own party base, including a lot of those who call on the phones, knock on doors, and donate money. The Palin pick earned him a 6-8 % point bounce in the polls (as opposed to Biden's 0-2%), brought a major surge of campaign cash, and energized that base, which was lukewarm about all the other possibilities, and she maybe gave him a fighting chance, despite unprecedented negative coverage. I doubt if you would have approved of any of the other possible picks, except for Lieberman or Hillary Clinton, or if you would have voted for John McCain no matter who. I'm also guessing you like John Lennon's "Imagine" ;)

I've voted also for (primary) black presidential candidate, governor candiate in Ohio, and would do so again, provided that the ideas/experience/character was preferable. We conservatives are issue, not identity stereotype voters. We are also more interested in actually doing good than in being seen doing good, and have a huge media PR disadvantage; we are portrayed as snarling adversaries against our will, especially when we point out that someone's softheaded well-intentioned scheme will have the opposite affect that is intended (such as pointing out that women are harmed, sometimes to death by abortion, not helped). That's why I distrust the advocacy/awareness industry so much: they are more interested in easing guilt by making it appear that one is doing something, than in actually doing anything. Blow the trumpets! I'm going to the temple to give alms! And in exchange, I get this lovely coffee mug and a tote bag, a pink tee shirt, and at the family gift level tickets to see "Peter, Paul, and Mary" in concert!

Anonymous said...

I'm a little off the high-profile conservative reservation on a few things like immigration. As I said, conservatives should work to help and embrace immigrants and make them Republicans. I oppose a wall. They should use aerial and electronic surveillance. But a priority should be to clean uo and expedite the legal immigration process.

That process should screen and sort benefit-collectors and criminal elements. But, we should welcome and we need immigrants who are industrious and who have a natural appreciation for sound values and equality under the law.