Buchanan's Big Score

David Weigel | August 22, 2006

A Drudge plug, a few controversial passages, and boom - Pat Buchanan's newest book (with his oldest cover) hits #1 on Amazon. Josh Marshall calls it a "xenophobic hairball," but really it's not too different from what Buchanan has been shouting into the dark for years, or what Peter Brimelow made a splash saying a decade ago (before boarding himself up into the VDARE.com sanitarium).

America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control
of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a
minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has
ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived.

This really is no different than the old Brimelow spiel, although PB always personalized it by noting he didn't want his young son to grow up in this scary, swarthy future Mexamerica.

I'm sympathetic to Buchanan's arguments. It makes no sense to ignore, as our midterm-fearing Congress would like to, the bad law and worse economics that have created the border crisis with Mexico. It makes even less sense to introduce de jure bilingualism in communities surfeited with Mexican immigrants. But this idea hat Mexican immigration will topple the nationhood and traditions of European-Americans is nine parts alarmism and one part B.S.

Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos? Have Arizona, California, and the rest of the Southwest become less American or less loyal? Restrictionists are too quick to compare America's immigration with that of Europe or of collapsed empires of the past. But it's a false comparison between, say, Muslim immigrants who settle in Rotterdam and refuse to integrate with Dutch society, and Mexican immigrants who go to Catholic mass and long to become American citizens. The former pose a real challenge to a society's stability, but the latter can be sucessfully assimiliated if policymakers want to assimilate them. (Yes, controlling the immigration flow would be the keystone of any successful assimilation.)

I sense some cognitive dissonance at the Wall Street Journal op-ed desk about this, though. Liberal and conservative politics can apparently be transmitted genetically. But culture can't. Anyone able to crack that logic?

(Cross-posted at AS.com.)

Comments

|8.22.06 @ 5:04PM|#

"Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?"

Laredo, Texas. I lived in San Antonio last year. It is very well known among the white community of Central and South Texas that you cannot go to Laredo, much less Nueva Laredo safely anymore. My best friend had a Hispanic girlfriend who is an assistant U.S. attorney down there and she would not let him come and visit her because it just was not safe unless you were Hispanic looking and could blend in and not too safe outside of the north side of town even then.

I would also point you to the Cries from the Border documentary looking at the plight of ranchers who live on the Arizona border. It looks a hell of a lot more like Mexico or some banana republic down there than the United States. Yes, I know the people who live on ranches in Arizona and in places like Laredo and their property rights and their rights as Americans don't matter when compared to the importance of "free immigration" and "open borders". But, I am sure they probably don't view it that way. Stupid fucking racist philistines that they are.

|8.22.06 @ 5:04PM|#

"by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a
minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. "

Aren't Latin Americans largely also of European descent? How many illegal immigrants are of 100% indigenous ancestry?

|8.22.06 @ 5:07PM|#

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this Anglophonic, western-derived culture under threat, is this the same one that I'm told is so goddamn compelling that people who've never seen an American, or a caucasian, are abandoning their traditions en masse to imitate?

|8.22.06 @ 5:10PM|#

"by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a
minority in the nation their ancestors created and built."

Hey, chill. I'm sure the Latinos will provide some nice reservations on land that isn't too abysmal. Then you white folks can open casinos!

|8.22.06 @ 5:12PM|#

Have Arizona, California, and the rest of the Southwest become less American or less loyal?

When has California ever been American or loyal?

John, I find the part in your story where the girlfriend is unwilling to let people come visit her in Laredo but remains there herself (apparently unharmed) pretty interesting.

tomWright|8.22.06 @ 5:14PM|#

Jon H Beat me to it.

Unless Iberia has been declared non-European.

Not surprising really, the Europeans declared themselves non-Asian centuries ago.

(Hey, if Kamchatka, Japan and Taiwan are Asian, so are Europe, Britain and Ireland)

|8.22.06 @ 5:15PM|#

We could always annex the rest of Mexico. We've already got a big chunk of it.

First dibs on Cabo San Lucas! El Gobernador Pro Libertaté has a nice sound to it.

|8.22.06 @ 5:22PM|#

Perhaps by 2051, secession will seem like a good idea to the North.

|8.22.06 @ 5:26PM|#

I think maybe the "girlfriend" has come up clever way of getting rid of a loser who keeps stalking her. "Don't come down here, Trevor. You'll get knifed."

|8.22.06 @ 5:29PM|#

John - your anecdotal story seems a little fishy to me. I live in Phoenix, and while I definitely see a latino influx in certain parts of town, I'm not any more afraid to go into run-down latino areas than I am to go into run-down black or white areas. But hell, my anecdote may be bullshit, too.

I do know, through a friend doing field work down at the AZ-Mexico border, that it's a clusterfuck down there. The guard has no idea what it's doing and haven't been given the proper equipment to the jobs they do have, the border patrol is outmanned, the drug-runners pray on the poor folks trying to cross the desert and have "service stations" setup all along the border for their mules, many people are armed, and on top of it all you've got the indian agents just trying to make sure we don't disrespect some ancient burial grounds or village.

My liberal friend told me he could definitely see things from my libertarian POV due to the blatant waste of money and manpower down there and it doing absolutely nothing it's intended or assumed to do.

|8.22.06 @ 5:30PM|#

JonH: "How many illegal immigrants are of 100% indigenous ancestry?"

8

|8.22.06 @ 5:32PM|#

No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived.

Ask the Iroqouis about that.

|8.22.06 @ 5:34PM|#

As a point of fact, most 'Latinos' living along the border, both sides, are mostly indigenous Indians. Those Norwegian albinos you see on the Mexican soap operas are not much in evidence in these parts.

|8.22.06 @ 5:34PM|#

But this idea hat Mexican immigration will topple the nationhood and traditions

I totally want an idea hat.
Would you kindly direct me to the haberdashery or millinery where I may procure such a chapeau?

|8.22.06 @ 5:43PM|#

highnumber,

I think the server squirrels ate the spell-checker.

|8.22.06 @ 5:53PM|#

Since I was a child, I have been to border towns from San Diago to El Paso to Loredo to the Valley. The diffence between what the border looks like now versus even 10 years ago is stark. They used to be safe if you were smart and not a stupid tourist. Then about five years ago, you couldn't go accross to border anymore and now the American towns are not safe either. Things are just much worse than they once were. How many of you people have ever actually been to a border town in the last 2 years? Those of you who have feel free to argue with me. The rest of you, go visit Loredo and then come back and tell me about it.

The willful ignorence of people about immigration is just unbelievable. As far as the "she is just trying to loose that looser", they are fucking married now you clown and she no longer lives in Loredo.

|8.22.06 @ 5:54PM|#

Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?

I guess it depends what you mean by "collapased." John seems to think that a deomocracy is collapasing when there is a high crime rate present.

I lived in San Antonio last year. It is very well known among the white community of Central and South Texas that you cannot go to Laredo, much less Nueva Laredo safely anymore. comment made by John

I think when a democratic government declares Marshall Law, then you can say that it collapased (temporally). Example L.A. Riots.

If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a
minority in the nation their ancestors created and built.

As long as my rights (and others) are protected, I can careless who is the majority and who is minority.

|8.22.06 @ 6:02PM|#

"Laredo, Texas. I lived in San Antonio last year. It is very well known among the white community of Central and South Texas that you cannot go to Laredo, much less Nueva Laredo safely anymore."

Wow! A whole year in San Antonio. Thanks for that in-depth analysis. You need look no further than you home-for-a-year for an example of successful integration. San Antonio's charm is the successful integration of American and Mexican cultures. They thrive on it.

Nuevo Laredo's problems are the result of turf wars between drug traders (thanks to the war on drugs) and a small portion spilled into Laredo for a brief period, but Laredo is safe. I'm anglo and travel there regularly, as well as Brownsville, Harlingen and McAllen regularly and one's safety requires no more care than it does anywhere else.

Most of the Texas border towns are exceptionally well integrated, with hispanics working at all levels of society. "Illegals" in in border towns are typically transient, seeking to get to more northern distinations or seasonal. I would guess by a quick survey of ranch gate signs that most of the ranches/farms along the Texas border are legally owned by Mexican-Americans.

|8.22.06 @ 6:04PM|#

I was down in Tijuana a couple years ago, and the most fear I felt was concerning the Mexican police and the border patrol.

The hookers and drug-dealers? Not so much.

|8.22.06 @ 6:08PM|#

Bruce writes: "As a point of fact, most 'Latinos' living along the border, both sides, are mostly indigenous Indians. "

100% genetically pure indigenous? After 500 years of genetic mingling with Europeans?

I'm skeptical.

|8.22.06 @ 6:10PM|#

"Bruce writes: "As a point of fact, most 'Latinos' living along the border, both sides, are mostly indigenous Indians. "

100% genetically pure indigenous? After 500 years of genetic mingling with Europeans? (And early on, the Spaniards off the boat really liked to mingle with the native ladies.)

I'm skeptical.

|8.22.06 @ 6:11PM|#

How many of you people have ever actually been to a border town in the last 2 years?

I live in San Diego. Never feared for my life.

Then again, the appearance of brown faces doesn't necessarily provoke that reaction in me. I also know how to spell San Diego and even Laredo, even though I've never lived there.

As zener points out, high crime rates don't necessarily mean the breakdown of democracy. One in fact suspects that crime rates are lower in totalitarian societies.

raymond|8.22.06 @ 6:13PM|#

The Know Nothings are alive and well and posting on this forum.

One likes to think there is progress in human history - that we are all somehow becoming better. More civilised.

One is wrong.

From xenophobia to creationism to eugenics to torture, we make the same mistakes over and over again, in waves.

Plus ça change...

|8.22.06 @ 6:14PM|#

"Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos? Have Arizona, California, and the rest of the Southwest become less American or less loyal?"

According to Tom Tancredo, opponents of immigration restriction are secretly being financed by Mexican drug cartels which are also rigging elections to take over local governments in the American Southwest. No, really, he said that:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50518

Tancredo reports he has had confidential briefings with top officials in big-city law enforcement who say there are entire cities under the virtual control of Mexican criminal street gangs and their associated businesses, in some cases, making it dangerous for county, state and national law enforcement officers to venture in and rendering any interdepartmental cooperation impossible

|8.22.06 @ 6:14PM|#

Things are just much worse than they once were. How many of you people have ever actually been to a border town in the last 2 years?

It's scary down there, let me tell you. I was walking down the street away from the border and I kept hearing, "Click...Click." I thought, "What the hell is that clicking?" After looking around, I realized that the clicking was the sound of car doors locking as I walked by cars waiting at a red light. The Hispanic occupants of the cars were looking at me wide-eyed. This gringo is scary.

|8.22.06 @ 6:16PM|#

How much of the "problems" on the border are actually due to something known to cause similar problems in communities regardless of ethnicity: poverty. The "white folks can't go there" problem has certainly never been limited to Latino areas. Plenty of majority-black areas are seen the same way. And even poor white neighborhoods have been seen as a place you probably don't want to be after dark, especially if you're well-off.

It's well known that the border region is the ass-end of the country, economically speaking.

The solution to that is probably to just build some new military bases down on the border, or move some down there. The economic run off would create lots of jobs, boosting the standard of living down there.

|8.22.06 @ 6:19PM|#

Gosh, John, I'll have to call my family and let them know that the Rio Grande Valley is not a safe place to live and that democracy is falling apart around them. I'm sure they'll be glad to get the heads up.

I visit the Brownsville/Harlingen area every year to visit my fmaily and know of no significant crime problems in the area. Frankly, most of the complaints I hear aren't about the illegal immigrants but the Winter Texans they get in every year from parts north.

I'd even go so far as to say they've cleaned up the Brownsville border. Matamoros, the town on the mexican side, is much more clean now than it was 10 years ago. I had a friend down and had warned her about being swarmed by beggars when we went across but they'd removed most of them, to make the tourists more comfortable I guess. They even made it harder for American kids to go across and drink underage. They're doing everything they can to keep that American tourist trade coming.

I can't speak to what's going on in Laredo/Nuevo Laredo, but last I heard it was a drug/gang war. Not something endemic to border towns.

|8.22.06 @ 6:20PM|#

I was down in Tijuana a couple years ago, and the most fear I felt was concerning the Mexican police and the border patrol.

The hookers and drug-dealers? Not so much.

|8.22.06 @ 6:41PM|#

"she is just trying to loose that looser"

I will not say this again: the word "lose" is spelled with one (1) "o" in the middle. Same with "loser." "Loose" refers to your grip on the English language. "Lose" is what you do when you play Scrabble.

You have been warned.

|8.22.06 @ 7:07PM|#

Dear Mr. Norris,

Can I contract you to spend some time with my boss? She still has this maddening problem with "there," "their," and "they're" which I've had no success correcting. I suspect a good ass-kicking might be just the thing.

|8.22.06 @ 7:22PM|#

""Loose" refers to your grip on the English language."

Chuck Norris of Spelling:

As Mark Twain found, sometimes alternative spellings do a better job of conveying an accent than standard spelling...

In much of southern New Mexico, you do not "lose" your wallet (pronounced with a voiced /z/ at the end), but "loose" you wallet (pronounced with a voiceless /s/).

Also, you do not tie your "shoes" but you tie your "choose" (also pronouced with with a voiceless /s/ at the end).

When I read "loose that looser" I hear mi amigo Manuel talking quite clearly.

Later Homes,
The Vato of Spanglish spelling

|8.22.06 @ 7:23PM|#

I'm afraid John is right. As someone who's seen those Mexican narco-dramas on TV, I know just how dangerous our southern border truly is.

|8.22.06 @ 7:31PM|#

"Shouting into the dark"? Seems to me between Buchanan, O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Tancredo, et al (not to mention several hundred pandering radio squawk hosts as well as people like that bitch in Pennsylvania quoted in today's Reason Express), the xenophobes are winning big time in the marketplace of ideas.
It's those of us who advocate a halfway rational approach whose hoo-hahs are flapping in the wind...

|8.22.06 @ 7:42PM|#

Just givens even more wieght (as if thats needed) to my long held position the US should declare war on Mexico to make them take Texas back.

Shannon Love|8.22.06 @ 7:45PM|#

Personally, I think America lost something important when Irish and German Catholic immigration in 1840's diluted the county's "essential protestant Anglo-Saxon character" but I doubt the Irish Catholic Buchanan would agree with me.

Conditions on the Texas border are extremely rough in places but that has far more to do with the drug trade than illegal immigration. Larado has always been a tough town but the near open civil war in Nuevo Larado has spilled across the border to a degree not seen since Pancho Villa raided New Mexico. I don't expect that to last.

I do think that Mexican culture does flavor politics in Texas. Mexicans tend toward statism, xenophobia, nepotism and cronyism so they fit right in to the deep south culture of coastal Texas. Parts of southern Texas feel like Louisiana and thats not a complement. Having said that however, I don't think Mexican immigrants, illegal or not, have any interest in recreating the politics of their homeland. They're not stupid. They know why Mexico is poor.

|8.22.06 @ 7:52PM|#

How can anyone doubt that Laredo is dangerous? "The Streets Of Laredo" wasn't a song about a cab driver, buckos.

Tim Cavanaugh|8.22.06 @ 7:54PM|#

Don't mention his name, Jon H, and his name will pass on.

|8.22.06 @ 7:55PM|#

I think everyone should give John a break.

I've always found that the perception by suburbanites of the prevalence of crime and violence in the city they never go into is highly accurate.

Especially if the city is majority-minority.

Especially of the suburbanites in question are "the white community of South and Central Texas."

John, don't worry. I for one believe you when you say that you and your friends from the white community of South and Central Texas stand a serious risk of getting your asses knifed if you go into Hispanic neighborhoods.

Tim Cavanaugh|8.22.06 @ 8:01PM|#

I've always found that the perception by suburbanites of the prevalence of crime and violence in the city they never go into is highly accurate.

Before I went to Atlantic City High School, the word on the street (always from milquetoasty Michelle Malkin types who were headed to Holy Spirit High) was that to survive in that school you needed "a knife, a gun, and a chain." I think I had something stolen from a locker once, but that was the extent of my experience with crime (other than smoking pot during cut days) at that majority-minority school. In fact, I can say literally that it was a bunch of multihued kids holding hands and singing "We Are the World." At our graduation they made us hold hands and sing "We Are the World" as the exit song. So now you have some idea how old I am.

|8.22.06 @ 8:01PM|#

Controlling borders is as fundamental to governistas as "Jesus died for our sins" is to Christers.
Governments exist to differentiate between us and them so the flame of war will never go out.
After everyone is clear on who is "them," then the namecalling can begin:
job-stealers
...use the wrong kind of drugs
terrorists
Muslim extremists

Down with governments!
Up with people and peace!

|8.22.06 @ 8:16PM|#

Ruthless: Down with governments!
Up with people and peace!

There is a point when a government gets so small that liberties can be stated but not protected. Yes, the reverse is also not favorable.

Can liberties exist without government?

"Give me liberty or give me death" may someday be a routine last request.

|8.22.06 @ 8:21PM|#

Shannon Love,

Personally, I think America lost something important when Irish and German Catholic immigration in 1840's diluted the county's "essential protestant Anglo-Saxon character"

Sarcasm...I hope? Not to mention that the upstanding Anglo-Saxons had already screwed that pooch by "importing" millions of people who were not Protestant Anglo-Saxons by any stretch of the imagination up 'til 1808...

|8.22.06 @ 8:30PM|#

"Can liberties exist without government?"

RU Sirius?

govern (v), to restrict liberty. to keep it in check.

|8.22.06 @ 8:42PM|#

Would it be racist of me to say that people like Pat Buchanon make me embarassed to be Irish?

|8.22.06 @ 8:53PM|#

Considering your anti-Indian slurs but a few threads down, I'm leaning towards yes.

|8.22.06 @ 9:05PM|#

Joe, Forget Pat Buchanon and remember the beer. Go Ireland!

|8.22.06 @ 9:08PM|#

LOL, crimethink.

As if I didn't already know to ignore anything you say abour race.

|8.22.06 @ 9:17PM|#

This gringo is scary.

That's gabacho, gabacho. ;)

|8.22.06 @ 9:29PM|#

Current unrest in Mexico could have what impact on illegal immigration? Things seem to be cooking there. Maybe all this immigration stuff was foreseen circumstances and shields are going up for a reason. Interesting.

Google "Mexico unrest"

Gene Berkman|8.22.06 @ 9:34PM|#

"Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?"

Washington D.C. Of course, I am talking about the federal government, not the corrupt local government.

But the problems with the federal government are more the result of the long-standing caudillismo characteristic of Texas & Louisiana politics, going back to the French and then Mexican control of those areas. The Texas ruling class has never shaken that style, which Bush epitomizes.

|8.22.06 @ 9:41PM|#

"But it's a false comparison between, say, Muslim immigrants who settle in Rotterdam and refuse to integrate with Dutch society, and Mexican immigrants who go to Catholic mass and long to become American citizens. The former pose a real challenge to a society's stability, but the latter can be sucessfully assimiliated if policymakers want to assimilate them. "

At least we have the admission that culture may matter for something. Now the specific and crucial point is, do the vast majorities of immigrants "go to Catholic mass and long to become American citizens." We have to look out for equivocation on "longing to be American citizens", which I would think should mean wanting to participate in and defend our hard fought freedoms and not just to get a piece of the goodie pie. What is the level of knowledge and appreciation of the U.S. heritage of limited government, seperation of powers, individual rights among these immigrants? I'm doubtful its high...

|8.22.06 @ 10:30PM|#

What is the level of knowledge and appreciation of the U.S. heritage of limited government, seperation of powers, individual rights among these immigrants? I'm doubtful its high...


That pretty much applies to any random person on the street.

|8.22.06 @ 10:49PM|#

Makes no sense to have mass immigration with a welfare state. All it does is grow the government. About the only libertarian who will admit to this very simple fact is Milton Friedman. And yes, as a 7th generation Texan, parts of the state no longer feel like Texas or the United States culturally. If it weren't for trade, Buchanan makes lots of sense. Especially on foreign policy and immigration.

|8.22.06 @ 11:18PM|#

LOL joe, you were the one who said that the Indians allied with the Nazis during WW2. Ignore away, you're only hurting yourself.

raymond|8.22.06 @ 11:59PM|#

the Indians allied with the Nazis during WW2

Was he talking about this kind of Indian?

|8.23.06 @ 12:16AM|#

If it weren't for trade, Buchanan makes lots of sense. Especially on foreign policy and immigration.

I'm going to call Godwin's Law on myself before I even respond to that.

|8.23.06 @ 12:29AM|#

Liberal and conservative politics can apparently be transmitted genetically. But culture can't. Anyone able to crack that logic?

Easy. Culture is acquired primarily from, surprise surprise, the culture you live in. Your parents have a relatively minor impact (which is why the children of, say, Vietnamese immigrants are American to the core). This is also why there's concern about bilingualism and "Spanish-only" culture in major American cities; the children grow up in America, but in a non-American culture, which makes them culturally much less likely to assimilate.

Basic political and moral views, however, are generally acquired (genetically or through teaching) from your parents -- which is why, for example, almost everyone ends up the same religion as their parents, even if raised in a culture that is overwhelmingly not of that religion, and why there is a statistically significant correlation between childrens' and parents' political views.

So there's no paradox in the idea that we get our culture from our surroundings and our morals from our parents. That much has been well-known for years.

|8.23.06 @ 12:40AM|#

American citizens." We have to look out for equivocation on "longing to be American citizens", which I would think should mean wanting to participate in and defend our hard fought freedoms and not just to get a piece of the goodie pie.

Wanting to get a piece of the goodie pie is always the first and foremost consideration, of any immigrant, of any time. As well it should be. Getting a piece of that goodie pie encourages participation in and defending our hard fought freedoms.

What is the level of knowledge and appreciation of the U.S. heritage of limited government, seperation of powers, individual rights among these immigrants? I'm doubtful its high...

I rarely meet a citizen who has much knowledge and appreciation of the U.S. heritage of limited government, seperation of powers, individual rights. Let alone an immigrant.

And yes, as a 7th generation Texan, parts of the state no longer feel like Texas or the United States culturally.

Parts of Texas have never felt like the United States culturally. And some will change. People need to get over the fact that the country will not be the same in 25 years, or 50, or 100.

|8.23.06 @ 12:50AM|#

Mexicans are catholic!?!?!

Holy shit we need a wall!

|8.23.06 @ 1:49AM|#

Well, Buchanan certainly makes lots of sense on foreign policy.

|8.23.06 @ 2:02AM|#

Buchanan's interesting and impressive knowledge of history is a big bonus in all of his books. This volume is probably no exception.

|8.23.06 @ 4:17AM|#

David,

But this idea hat Mexican immigration will topple the nationhood and traditions of European-Americans is nine parts alarmism and one part B.S.

Not entirely, for reasons I explained on a previous thread.

Restrictionists are too quick to compare America's immigration with that of Europe or of collapsed empires of the past.

I think you need to read more history. Past nations have in fact been over run with immigrants. The Middle East is a disaster to this day because it's been similarly over run so many times in history. They've never been able to assimilate, and today I doubt they ever will.

By the time you see clear evidence of disloyalty, it really will be entirely too late to do anything about it.

Mexican immigrants who go to Catholic mass and long to become American citizens.

I live in Tucson and I know lots and lots of Mexican immigrants. I will tell you flat out: they don't necessarily want to become American citizens. They just don't want to live in the El Hell Hole on the other side of the border.

If you get to know these people (I've spent more than a few hours with them), you'll quickly learn that it's just a bit paradoxical to say they're here entirely "by choice".

It's not a choice based on a burning desire to flock to Mother Liberty, or even to become American. It's a desire born of the need to escape from the animals they have running things south of the border.

In fact, they try really, really hard not to become too American. And they work hard at creating cultural environments where their children will not become too American. Not all succeed, but their communities are becoming large enough these days, that they don't always fail either.....

Your assumption that every immigrant who comes here, just wants to be a good American, is not accurate.

Yes, controlling the immigration flow would be the keystone of any successful assimilation.

Well, all other things aside, I'll take this one statement as evidence that I (if I may be so arrogant) might have made a little progress.

There does have to be some kind of control over the immigrant flow rate. We cannnot allow any number in who wishes to come, at any rate they please, whether or not anybody would care to face this unpleasant truth.

Which is why a "complete open borders" policy is a misnomer, at minimum.


But as James said,

Makes no sense to have mass immigration with a welfare state. All it does is grow the government. About the only libertarian who will admit to this very simple fact is Milton Friedman.

Don't feed me the "let them in and then fix the welfare state" crap. Everybody here knows it's never, ever going to work that way.

Which, of course, the "Open Borders" crowd has flatly refused to address head on. They've got this assinine idea that immigrants have no way of getting a hold of welfare.

The Open Borders people have never talked with Mexican immigrants, I swear. They betray their own ignorance with the things they say. There's a nice, thriving black market for fake IDs and paperwork here in Arizona. Any hispanic can become a citizen today, if you got the cash.

These fake IDs are good enough that the Feds can't tell which are real and which aren't. But don't let that bother you for a second, just keep agitating for all out open borders. We can take anything, we're America. Fuck yeah.

|8.23.06 @ 4:21AM|#

ACalifornia,

One in fact suspects that crime rates are lower in totalitarian societies.

Not so. I knew and still know many people who grew up in totalitarian countries (engineering grad schools are filled with furiners ya know). Crime in those countries is worse, and they all say it gets worse the more totalitarian the government gets. Presumably because poverty levels go up, but that's a guess.

|8.23.06 @ 4:42AM|#

btw, if anybody is looking for examples of places in the world where immigrant assimilation has been a problem (because there were just too damn many of them relative to the existing population mass), take a close look at the Pacific islands where there were, successively, waves from India and then Muslims, on top of which there's been a perpetual influx of Chinese. Then the Europeans came (and curiously enough, they're the only ones who condemned themselves for doing so and apologized for it after the fact...go figure).

Indonesia and Malaysia come to mind. Stability was achieved in Singapore only by implementation of an Iron Fist policy.

But the Middle East remains the ultimate case en point. Nobody including the Romans has kept it under control without periodically going in and just knocking heads together (and you have to have the guts to ignore the blood while you're at it).

And the ME was NOT a nice, quiet, stable little paradise under the Ottomans, in case anybody is still under that illusion. The Ottomans were willing, and at times did, knock heads together.


I don't know at exactly what point the immigration rate becomes high enough to be a genuine problem. But I have no doubt that such a point exists and by the time you reach it, it's near-impossible to turn things back around.


Last point -- look at the size of the unhappy Third World. Roughly a billion in the ME, roughly half of which would like to leave. Add to that the populations of Africa, Central & South America, and Asia. Now assume that maybe 1% of all of them, have both the means and the will to come to the US.

Do you still think it's impossible for us to get over run, with a real Wide Open Door policy? We're talking 1% of many, many billions.

I really don't think it's impossible at all.

|8.23.06 @ 5:13AM|#

The Open Borders people have never talked with Mexican immigrants, I swear. They betray their own ignorance with the things they say.

He's not Milton Friedman, but Douglas Massey seems to have actually studied why Mexicans immigrate. From his recent contribution to Cato Unbound...

Despite my appreciation for the cultural ramifications of Mexican immigration, I am a social scientist and ultimately believe that accurate understanding needs to be grounded in empirical reality. In 25 years of research on a variety of public policy issues, I have never seen so much misinformation as in the debate on Mexican immigration during 2006. Thanks to the media and political entrepreneurs, Mexican immigrants are routinely portrayed as a tidal wave of human beings fleeing an impoverished, disorganized nation who are desperate to settle in the United States, where they will overwhelm our culture, displace our language, mooch our social services, and undermine our national security.

This profile, however, bears no discernible relationship to the reality that I know as a social scientist...

|8.23.06 @ 5:29AM|#

That's gabacho, gabacho. ;)

That's right, but I wasn't sure how many on this forum would know that. My little story is actually true. The Mexicans were locking their car doors as I walked past in Eagle Pass, Texas.

My long experience living in Arizona leads me to want the Mexicans to change the culture of the natives. I prefer people who roll out of bed in the morning ready to work hard rather than the pasty white tweaker who only lives to steal enough to pay for the next packet of crystal meth.

|8.23.06 @ 5:46AM|#

But the Middle East remains the ultimate case en point. Nobody including the Romans has kept it under control without periodically going in and just knocking heads together (and you have to have the guts to ignore the blood while you're at it).

Granting for the sake of argument that Rome, Parthia, the Sassanids, the Caliphates, and the Ottomans could not keep the Middle East under control, why again should anyone presume the reason for such is the failure of the region to assimilate immigrants? Why wouldn't such difficulties arise from, say, the fact that the Middle East is a geographically trying location, mostly desert yet on every trade route, sparsely populated by necessity, and the birthplace of several religious traditions that at various times have tried to destroy each other?

Do you still think it's impossible for us to get over run, with a real Wide Open Door policy? We're talking 1% of many, many billions.

1% of many, many billions is many, many tens of millions. 1% of the population of the world is less than a quarter of the population of the US, from several dozen different cultures. I don't think there is any chance that such an influx would overrun the US in any meaningful way.

|8.23.06 @ 7:10AM|#

It's well known that the border region is the ass-end of the country, economically speaking.

Yup, those Canadian border towns sure do suck, don't they?

|8.23.06 @ 8:07AM|#

On vacation I like to look at the mountains or coast. My wife will be in the gift shop looking at postcards. I ask her why she would be looking at postcards when she can see the real thing just out the door?

Similarly, studying history when you have a real situtation is pedantic. We need to step up and analysis this current immigration issue or we could be just more history.

All this reminds me of the old "free love" era.

|8.23.06 @ 8:25AM|#

I think New Orleans is very happy with the trade of cultures it recently made with Texas.

|8.23.06 @ 9:22AM|#

Wait a second. Gandhi was a Nazi? That explains a few things, doesn't it?

He must've seen the light after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor :)

|8.23.06 @ 9:33AM|#

Josh Marshall [yet another liberal scribbler - yawn.]...but really it's not too different from what Buchanan has been shouting into the dark for years

I gather that "shouting into the dark" means writing books (not just one), which end up on the NYT's best seller lists. Either that or jealousy clouds your own scribbling.

|8.23.06 @ 10:03AM|#

why does this douche buchanan get so much media attention?
There are plenty of other crackpots out there worthy of our attention and money.

|8.23.06 @ 10:15AM|#

"It's not a choice based on a burning desire to flock to Mother Liberty, or even to become American. It's a desire born of the need to escape from the animals they have running things south of the border."

Sounds a lot like the Russian and Polish Jews who came to this country circa 1900. There were enough of them to have their own neighborhoods, where people could speak Yiddish and do just fine. That didn't turn out so badly.

And what is "culturally American," anyway? We are a multicultural society, and always have been. Pennsylvania was largely German-speaking at the time of the Revolution; so what?

Hispanics living in majority-Hispanic neighborhoods in the southwest has also been a constant feature of our Republic, with the only ill effect being the violence and idiocy they've had to put up with from white people.

Some people are just afraid of people who are different from them.

|8.23.06 @ 10:23AM|#

Bottom line, illegal immigration benefits the few at the expense of the many.

First, it's just corporate welfare in the worst way. Pay em cash under the table thus there's no FICA or mandated insurance etc etc. In some states, the hourly wage is a very small part of the entire package employers have to deal with. Employers make out like bandits but the public picks up all the social service expense. Schools, medical, crime, and lower property values. So taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor. All the while the unemployment rate among black men ages 17-25 is close to 50 percent.

Next is slows productivity and innovation. If it weren't for this flood of humanity from south of the border, agriculture in many sectors would have mechanized at a much quicker pace thus increasing productivity.

Skilled immigration is very good for the economy.

Unskilled immigration turns into a huge social services boondoggle. Drives down wages for working class Americans. Privatize the gains cheap labor provides and dump the expense on the taxpayers. No wonder Big Agricutlure, Hotel, Restaurant, Construction, and Religion favor this flood.

|8.23.06 @ 10:31AM|#

"Sounds a lot like the Russian and Polish Jews who came to this country circa 1900. There were enough of them to have their own neighborhoods, where people could speak Yiddish and do just fine. That didn't turn out so badly."

In 1900 the welfare state didn't exist. People from Russia and Poland crossed an ocean and modern communications didn't exist. Mexicans live right next to their homeland thus culture. They have their own TV and Radio stations. Which makes them much less likely to assimilate into the broad American culture thus they're slowly turning parts of the country into Mexico.

Hey, that's what Buchanan's book is about isn't it.

|8.23.06 @ 10:40AM|#

Just remember, Mexicans (except for a few from the Yucatan and the Gulf Coast) are soccer fans!

We don't need that Godless, commie, faggot sport here.

You'd figure that Mexico would show some Leadership By Example by opening their border with Guatemala or by at least stopping their cops from robbing, raping and murdering Central Americans trying to sneak through.

|8.23.06 @ 10:54AM|#

James,

The only point you raise that is relevant to the willingness of immigrant communities to assimilate is the specialized media.

Unfortunately for your argument, immigrant communities had vibrant, popular, profitable, widely read non-English newspapers throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. In Fitchburg, Massachusetts, a city of about 40,000 people, there is still a Finnish-language newspaper published.

The major difference in media consumption among immigrant communities in the two periods is that today's immigrants have much MORE exposure to the mainstream, English-language media that the rest of the country consumes than did their allegedly better-assimilating forerunners.

|8.23.06 @ 11:18AM|#

Joe, in 1900, Newspapers and magazines were the media. But once outside their neighborhoods, immigrants had to interact with the broad dominate culture. Today Mexicans can function and make a damn good living in many parts of the country without ever having to utter a word of english. The result, the Mexican border keeps moving north. That's exactly what the Mexican government wants.

Again, that's what Buchanan's book is about.

|8.23.06 @ 11:53AM|#

They have their own TV and Radio stations.

So do Polish, Russian, etc. immigrants in cities with large populations of them. No one ever complains that Russian or Polish immigrants are destroying our culture or nation.

Today Mexicans can function and make a damn good living in many parts of the country without ever having to utter a word of english.

Why do most of the immigrants and all of their children bother learning English then?

|8.23.06 @ 11:57AM|#

James,

That is exactly backwards. Immigrants today have more contact with mainstream society, not less. Take that great assimilator, business. In 1900, most of the purchases made for a household were made at a neighborhood store. In many immigrant communmities in 1900, this meant a store whose employess and customers were all from that community. Today, even Mexicans living in Mexican neighborhoods go to the mall, and to the Safeway (which is why Safeway has an "ethnic food" aisle). There, they interact with English-speaking people at the deli counter, the bakery, and the checkout line.

Same thing with places of employment. In 1900, it was quite common for Yiddish-speaking men to be employed by another Yiddish speaker in a commercial or industrial shop in their neighborhood, and never have to learn a word of English to earn their paycheck. Today, their analogues are out there in the mainstream economy, annoying you with their imperfect English as they work among English-speakers.

Buchanan is just flat out wrong about insular, non-assimilating communities. They are far fewer and far less isolated today than they were 100 years ago. His comparisons are based on an idealized past, not reality. The growth of mass media and the universal economy has caused our society to be more assimilationist, not less so.

|8.23.06 @ 11:58AM|#

Despite my appreciation for the cultural ramifications of Mexican immigration.... This profile, however, bears no discernible relationship to the reality that I know as a social scientist...

I could care less what he says. I've talked with a lot of Mexicans first hand. Their stories bear no resemblance to what he's published.

Believe what you like. I'll stick with the empirical evidence I have at hand. You can hide behind an "expert" if you like.

|8.23.06 @ 11:59AM|#

Joe,

I think you need to be careful comparing earlier waves of immigration with the current wave. For one the current wave not only has gone on longer but is becoming bigger.

Data on the assimilation of second and/or third generations seems to be irrelevant when the number of first wave immigrants continues to grow.

Xenophobia/bigotry is not an exclusively Caucasian trait.
Come to my neighborhood, I'd love to see how you would react to the F**k you looks and jeers of go home white boy(if you look white), etc. In fact I could take you on an extensive tour of Chicago where you meet similar responses.

|8.23.06 @ 12:04PM|#

I don't think the real complaint is that Mexican immigrants don't learn English, because they plainly and demonstrably do in overwhelming numbers.

I think the complaint is that they don't forget their Spanish, their cuisine, and their music. Immigrants today are changing American culture, as immigrants always have. And that's threatening to cultural traditionalists, who don't want their culture to change.

The real fear isn't that immigrants won't become part of mainstream American culture; the fear is that they will, and by doing so, influence that culture.

|8.23.06 @ 12:17PM|#

StupendousMan,

I will admit that there are neighborhoods that one should be careful in at any time of day, but I have been through some of the more ethnically exclusive neighborhoods of Chicago both with and without people who "belonged" in those neighborhoods. I eat soul food in Austin, Mexican food in Pilsen and Little Village, I go to bars in other ethnic neighborhoods. Those looks you've been getting, they would probably stop if you weren't looking at them like you were scared to death of people different than you.

|8.23.06 @ 12:21PM|#

He's not Milton Friedman, but Douglas Massey seems to have actually studied why Mexicans immigrate. From his recent contribution to Cato Unbound...

At this point, I'd expect Cato to be about as objective in their views as I expect Vdare to be in theirs.

Realistically, none of us knows what the consequences of massive immigration would be. You can find anecdotal support for either a pro or con position in previous migrations, but none of them precisely mirrors the current situation.

But here's a thought - if you control your borders, and the resulting consequences aren't all you had hoped for, you can easily reverse your position and open your borders or liberalize your immigration laws to accommodate more immigrants.

But if you open your borders, and the consequence turn out to be not so hot, what's your contingency plan? Obviously, you can't deport tens of millions of people with a "Sorry guys - our mistake!".

|8.23.06 @ 1:12PM|#

So, it has been said that the NYC is the most diverse city in the world, yet it is also one of the least "integrated" in the sense that there are neighborhoods sorted along ethnic and linguistic lines. Ride the subway from Manhattan to Coney Island and you see waves of people come on and off the train in relatively homogenous groups, speaking a different language at each stop.

This situation has not destroyed NYC or its ability to function. It has been that way as long as the city has existed.

Most other countries are bilingual. Why would the US be destroyed by such a situation.

Those who describe the way Mexican immigration is changing the border region are very ingnorant of the situation in border states. The culture in NM, for instance, predates the United States by quite a bit, and has always included Spanish speaking, Native American, and Anglo elements. Hell, the state constitution recognizes NM as a bilingual state (Spanish and English). How would an influx of Spanish speaking Mexicans change the culture of NM? It would end up looking more like it did prior to WWII. NM culture(and to a lesser extent Arizona) survived the influx of Anglos after WWII without losing its essential nature. It will survive an influx from the south that returns it to the ethnic make up that has been the norm across history. And it will still be part of America. And America will be better for it.

|8.23.06 @ 1:16PM|#

Joe, you're in denial. Utopian. The evidence just doesn't back you up.

Briefly. In the last great immigrant wave 100yrs ago, people crossed oceans to get here. They moved into immigrant neighborhoods. Hell's Kitchen in NY city for example. Irish, Jewish and Italians. They spoke their native language at home, but came in constent contact with the dominate culture. They're children were forced to assimilate. There were social service agencies that handled assimilation. Today, immigrants are told the exact opposite. There's no need to assimilate because we're a multicultural society. And beside, those that advocate assimilation are evil white people.

Today in parts of the country thanks to illegal immigration from Mexico, Mexican culture is dominate. So the Mexican border continues to expand northward. Utopian open border advocates think this is great!

|8.23.06 @ 1:18PM|#

At this point, I'd expect Cato to be about as objective in their views as I expect Vdare to be in theirs.

Massey is from Princeton, actually, not Cato -- though to be fair they surely selected him for his strong and empirically backed position that immigration is not the threat others make it out to be.

But Cato Unbound is supposed to be a conversation and on the current issue they do have Buchanan's side represented by Victor David Hanson.

|8.23.06 @ 1:23PM|#

The myth that there were great numbers of Spanish speaking people in the SW United States before the Anglos arrived is pure fiction.

|8.23.06 @ 1:29PM|#

I could care less what he says. I've talked with a lot of Mexicans first hand. Their stories bear no resemblance to what he's published.

Believe what you like. I'll stick with the empirical evidence I have at hand. You can hide behind an "expert" if you like.

Assuming you clicked through the link to Massey's article, you would have read

Since 1982 I have co-directed a large data-gathering effort known as the Mexican Migration Project. My collaborators and I have conducted representative surveys in communities all over Mexico and the United States, and over the years, we have surveyed 20,000 households and 120,000 individuals to gather detailed information from U.S. migrants about their experiences crossing the border, living in the United States, and returning to Mexico. My understanding of Mexican immigration rests on these data, and if anyone thinks I've got it all wrong, they are free to download the data, analyze it, and see for themselves.

Surveys of 120,000 individuals versus your conversations... I think I'll pick the "expert".

|8.23.06 @ 2:16PM|#

The myth that there were great numbers of Spanish speaking people in the SW United States before the Anglos arrived is pure fiction.

James,

Elaborate. Please cite your sources.

|8.23.06 @ 2:18PM|#

"The myth that there were great numbers of Spanish speaking people in the SW United States before the Anglos arrived is pure fiction."

There were not "great numbers" of people in the SW United States before Anglos arrived. But the people that were there were primarily Native American and Spanish speaking.

A bit of history

It took New Mexico more than half a century to shed its territorial status and become a state. New Mexico's citizens first attempted to gain statehood in 1850, when local officials drafted a state constitution which was overwhelmingly approved by voters. A legislature and executive officers were elected. That same summer, however, this statehood plan was nullified when Congress passed the Compromise Bill of 1850 which granted New Mexico territorial status. Other attempts to develop and implement a state constitution followed, including proposed constitutions which were defeated at the polls in 1872 and 1889. There was even an effort at joint statehood with Arizona in 1906, but this too was defeated by the voters.

Many reasons have been suggested why it took New Mexico so long to become a state. Early efforts were hampered, in part, by a general ignorance about the territory and suspicions towards its people. Statehood was opposed by those who felt that New Mexico's predominantly Hispanic and Indian population was too foreign and too Catholic for admission to the American Union. There was even periodic debate as to whether a new name for the territory would help the cause of statehood. Names such as Navajo and Lincoln were suggested and seriously considered.

There were also questions about the loyalty these recently conquered people had for their new country. This issue was slowly laid to rest by the honorable service of New Mexico's citizens in the Union cause during the Civil War and later in the Spanish American War.

|8.23.06 @ 2:21PM|#

"James,

Elaborate. Please cite your sources."

I am gonna guess those sources primarily involve movies with John Wayne in them.

|8.23.06 @ 2:31PM|#

Pat Buchanan has it right, he just left out the part about how it will happen. History has a way of taking it's time, and time takes it's toll, , , , on the unwary.

If anyone here is 50 years old you will remember Haight Asbury, the "flower children" of the 60's, Woodstock, Joan Baez, and that Bill Clinton "didn't inhale", or go to jail. You will also remember that over a hundred of his close associates did go to jail. You may even remember that he left a trail of dead bodies from Mena, Arkansas, where two 16 year old friends, after they were caught by some guards one night watching a C-130 unload marijuana, decided to lay down on a railroad track and commit suicide; how a state trooper's wife traveled over a thousand miles to testify against Clinton, only to jump out of a window the night before; to a park in Washington DC when his own lawyer was found with a bullet in his head and the gun in the wrong hand. Between those events you may recall other dead bodies scattered in several states who had been, before their demise, on the trail of something shady that Bill Clinton was involved with.

How did Bill Clinton escape? One of the last things he did as governor of Arkansas was sign into law a provision that if the first decision on a death was "suicide", then no investigation would follow. The lawyer's "suicide" happened inside the District of Columbia rather than in one of the 50 states. When the Park Police notified the White House of the lawyer's death, Clinton was President and Arkansas law was applied the death, ergo: no further investigation. The gun was still in the wrong hand to have put the bullet in the lawyer's head the way it got there.

Beyond that Clinton had, and still has, a political machine to protect himself. That machine is now manifested in his wife.

How does any of that relate to Pat Buchanan?s State of Emergency? Through the politics of "time".

Admittedly, illegal immigrants, per se, don't present a political threat. But their supporters do. Case in point: Bill Clinton was heart and sole behind the move to allow "drive by" voter registration at Motor Vehicle licensing offices, and gave 60,000 illegals amnesty just before the 1986 elections.

History takes time, remember? As illegals have babies, those babies become American citizens with their first breath, and that anchors the illegals better than anything written down in any document, anywhere. It also makes the babies a minority, with all the rights afforded minorities, and that means education and job preferences. It does NOT mean the babies are red, white and blue Americans. It means they are not required to perform as well, while achieving as much or more through preferential treatment, as their red, white and blue American contemporaries.

Massachusetts has recently voted to allow reduced college tuition to illegals, while refusing the same benefits to Americans. Even the servicemen and women returning from the war in the Middle East get no reduced tuition benefit in Masachusetts.

The Mayor of Los Angeles is an admitted director in "La Raza". La Raza's mottos is "Por la raza, toda, pro todas otras, nada". Simply translated that says, "For the race, everything. For everybody else, nothing".

One of La Raza?s goals is stated in the Aztlan Manifesto. That Manifesto says everything from Costa Rica to Utah actually belongs to "La Raza", and their goal is to return it to it's rightful owners. Not through direct confrontation, but through intimidation if it will work, and through the ballot box if it doesn't.

Maybe some of us remember the signs, when the illegals and their supporters took to the streets a while back. In particular some of the signs said "We are not invaders, we are in our homeland, it was the border that moved, and we are going to move it back".

San Francisco Board of Supervisor member Gerado Sandoval was instrumental in preventing the retired battleship USS Iowa from being placed there. It was to be a monument to the efforts that won WWII, a museum, and a disaster command center in case of earthquakes and/or tidal waves. His own California US Congresswoman, and former San Francisco Mayor, Diane Feinstein was instrumental in getting the Navy to spend 3 million dollars on upgrading the ship for those purposes. Still Sandoval was against the idea. He even went so far as to say we don't even need a military force. When asked how we would defend ourselves in case of an attack he said, "Well, we have the cops".

Who is Gerardo Sandoval? He is the son of illegal immigrants, an "anchor baby" himself, who openly admits having had preferential treatment for education, hiring, and grade performance to get into law school. He practices law on the side in San Francisco and his entire clientele is made up of illegal aliens.

Read the transcript of his comments and/or watch the entire interview video at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184951,00.html

I am acquainted with a high school teacher in the Midland/Odessa Texas Independent School Systems. She is the daughter of what we used to call "Wetbbacks". (That is a pejorative term these days, but like a rose, , , by any other name it's still a thorn bush.)

Her job is to teach remedial English to juniors and seniors so they can speak English well enough to graduate. Her attitude is that she'll do it for her paycheck, but only for her paycheck. She says they'll never speak English after the last school bell rings anyway, so why should she make any effort to teach them English in the first place.

There is a website that opposes any border enforcement. One of the entries on it says: "Immigrants contribute 7 billion in social security per year. they earn 240 billion, report 90 billion, and only are reimbursed 5 billion, "where are the 85 billion?"

That is interesting. They make 240 billion, but only report 90 billion. To me that means they already have 150 billion in under-the-table income. Then they complain about taxes on the 90 billion they do report, but they want that back, too.

See it all on: www.nohr4437.org.

History has a way of taking it's time. And time takes it's toll, , , , on the unwary.

Pat Buchanan has it right. He just didn't lay out the details.

|8.23.06 @ 2:35PM|#

One reason that the Mexican government invited the Americans into Texas in the 1820s was because there weren't enough Mexicans there to prevent the territory from being grabbed by one of the European powers. There were a lot of Amerindians and a relative handful of Mexicans, mostly in missions. For whatever reason, Mexicans were more settled back then and never really developed the 'pioneer spirit.'

"Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?"

You have to be a subscriber to read the entire article, but here's a very interesting article on a very interesting "big man" in the border country:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-08-01/feature2

|8.23.06 @ 2:37PM|#

The 1700s were a period of extraordinary change for New Mexico. After New Mexico was settled by the Spanish in 1598, the colony became essentially a government subsidized Franciscan mission for the Pueblo Indians. Following the Pueblo Revolt and reconquest, the authority of the Catholic Church was reduced substantially, and because of the expanding influence of the French, English, and Russians in North America, the Spanish government held on to New Mexico principally as a defensive buffer against these enemies of the Spanish Crown.

One of the most significant modifications of Spanish policy occurred as a direct result of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. On that fateful August morning, the Pueblos were on the verge of losing their cultural identity due to the suppression and exploitation they had endured since New Mexico was colonized by the Spanish in 1598. While the revolt succeeded in only temporarily expelling the Spanish from New Mexico, it did force changes in Spanish attitudes which enabled the Pueblos to maintain their language end ancient religious practices. After the reconquest, it became apparent that the Spanish would have to demonstrate tolerance towards Pueblo religious and cultural ceremonies and cooperate with their neighbors in order to defend the colony against the various tribes which besieged New Mexico from all directions.

|8.23.06 @ 2:42PM|#

Elmo,
You tickle me.

|8.23.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Calling someone a paranoid, lying, misinformed, bigot who should crawl back under his hateful Vdare sponsored rock does nothing to further discourse, so, Elmo, I got nothing for you.

Lumpy Moose|8.23.06 @ 2:53PM|#

Good call Neu and high.

Do either of you know:

Is Elmo Foie Gras still legal in Chicago?

Cuz the Kermit-style frog legs and Miss Piggy schnitzel are fantastic. But avoid the Grover cutlets.

cheers,
L(V)M

|8.23.06 @ 2:57PM|#

New Mehikin and highbinder I didn't ask for anything from you, thank you very mush, and I'm glad my standup comedy was funny. Even Black comedy is funny, , , , to some people.

But history still has a way of taking it's time, and time still takes it's toll on the unwary.

|8.23.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Cuz the Kermit-style frog legs and Miss Piggy schnitzel are fantastic. But avoid the Grover cutlets.

Indeed.

|8.23.06 @ 3:23PM|#

Not to mention that the upstanding Anglo-Saxons had already screwed that pooch by "importing" millions of people who were not Protestant Anglo-Saxons by any stretch of the imagination up 'til 1808...

I would think that the continuing legacy of racial conflict that we brought down on ourselves through that little exercise in bringing in foreigners to "do the work that [white] Americans won't do" would have taught us to think twice before importing large numbers of immigrants from dissimilar cultures.

|8.23.06 @ 4:19PM|#

Seamus,

Isn't that legacy more important to look at in terms of our attitude towards those that are different (from dissimilar cultures). I would posit that the continued conflict comes more from a tendancy to see the "other" as the "inferior."

The myth about "jobs Americans won't do" needs to be restated in market terms... "won't do for the wages offered." Slavery allowed the US to thrive off of artifically devalued labor. Illegal immigration is driven by a desire to do the same thing in the modern context.

If a business can not stay afloat by paying the real labor costs, it can reduce those costs by hiring illegals who will work at the lower rate. Their illegal status allows them to be exploited in other ways that also reduce costs. We currently value the products of this illegal labor market based on those reduced labor costs, rather than what it would cost to hire Americans to do the job. This is also the source of pressure for outsourcing. Free movement of labor across borders would improve the prospects for business, and allow the labor to benefit from the structural benefits built into the legal labor market. A win/win.

But that is an oversimple summary of the problem, of course.

|8.23.06 @ 4:27PM|#

This also argues for the idea that if we level the playing field internationally, the situation improves for everyone. Better working conditions and wages in Mexico would do more to solve our "immigration problem" than anything that could be done in the US. Same for outsourcing. If workers in Thailand, say, expected the same treatment as American workers, there would be less reason to look out of country for labor.

How this international situation would come about is uncertain, but I think a change in the goals of groups like the WTO and US trading policy might help. But what do I know, I ain't an international business expert.

|8.23.06 @ 6:09PM|#

Seamus,

The only aspect of that comparison that is even remotely illuminating is this: the use of force and law to keep African-Americans from being full members of our society led to a disruption of the assimiliation process that normally occurs when immigrants come here, and the use of force and law to keep undocumented immigrants from being full members of our society is likely to do the same.

If you want people who come to this country to live like ordinary Americans rather than remaining in insular, distrustful, secretive communities, you shouldn't use the govenrment to forbid them from living like ordinary Americans, because it's going to force them to live in insular, distrustful, secretive communities.

|8.23.06 @ 11:11PM|#

Why don't you listen to Chicano activists and politicians talk about their plans in their own words?

Nation of Atzlan

Marcus Epstein|8.24.06 @ 6:46AM|#

Dave said "Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?"

Yes, Southgate, CA

http://www.amconmag.com/05_19_03/feature.html

There are many others,

Currently because our federal and state governments ahve not been completely mexicanized, the complete collapse of republican institutions has not happened all over the southwest, because they can always bail them out or force them to act somewhat responsible.

Just for the sake of argument, lets pretend you're right Southgate is the exception, and mexicans end up becoming model Americans. What do we lose by not letting them in? A few mexican restaraunts and I have to pay 50 cents more for a head of lettuce

Lets say Buchanan's right, and America ends up looking like Southgate, CA? What do we lose? Our country.

|8.24.06 @ 9:06AM|#

If you believe Dr. Massey, then there is absolutely no need for us to make illegal aliens or Mexicans at all eligible for U.S. citizenship because all they want to do is earn some money and return home to Mexico. (Of course, the Bracero program didn't turn out the way he suggests--many of them, including my sister-in-laws parents, preferred to stay here.) And if our nations are so inter-twined, as he suggests, then isn't it reasonable for Mexico to pay for the education and medical care of its citizens who reside here temporarily?

|8.24.06 @ 10:24AM|#

Pat Buchanan is a racist. People are people, it doesn't matter what race the majority is.

|8.24.06 @ 10:52AM|#

Marcus,

Who's going to pay for Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire? We need more young (legal) workers in this country to pay into the Medicare and Social Security systems. Not that I'm such a fan of those programs, but as long as we depend on them, we need somebody to pay into them.

Immigrants also contribute to the economy through their consumption which increases the number of jobs for the suppliers of those services and products.

|8.24.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Two wrongs don't make a right, highnumber.

|8.24.06 @ 8:06PM|#

>>>>>>Pat Buchanan is a racist. People are people, it doesn't matter what race the majority is.

|8.25.06 @ 7:31PM|#

...damn. Blankin the name. The guy who wrote MonkeyWrench Gang 40 years ago had a answer to this. You meet Latin Americans trying to pass the border w/o the "legal" papers with rifles. You GIVE them the rifles, & 200 rounds, & send them back South, to sort out the decadent oligarches & thier hired gunmen who make them leave in the first goddam place. Arming & supporting thugs & degenerates, then squawking about people fleeing the scumbags we arm, is pretty dumb shit to these ears. But thats just me.

|8.27.06 @ 5:07PM|#

Well, this is fascinating. I seldom read libertarian-oriented blogs, too utopian for me, too much Correctness. And I stay away from Liberal ones for the same reason most do, they are childish and hateful for the most part, and that's no surprise.

But I am taken aback, after being led here by a link and seeing most of these responses to the book and to people favorable of it. Most of the respondees read like a speci of Liberal. Almost nothing insightful or particularly informed. Leads off with snarky personal shots at the poster there, followed by some obviously uninformed declarations & opinions. In other words... quintessently Liberal.

Consider the possibility that people like Buchanan have a record of being right most all of the time. And he's probably right with this book. Most of the ridiculous things people like him were saying 20 years ago have actually come to pass. And what he's talking about now will likely come to pass if nothing is done.

But anyway, I just wanted to say... You people play ball like a bunch of Libs, and it's disgusting. It's hard to see what value the Libertarian mind offers if this is how it pans out. Disgusting.