Immigration and the Right-Wing

In response to all the alarmists that think illegal immigration and Mexicans are to blame for most of our troubles, I have this for you:

Statistics Show Decrease in Arizona Crime Rates LINK: http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/pre...do-not-support-new-immigration-law-151706.php

While combating the soaring crime rates caused by illegal immigrants has been the main rationale for passing SB 1070, a closer examination of state crime statistics shows that these rates have been severally overstated by supporters of the immigration law. In fact, Arizona currently is experiencing the lowest crime rates it has seen in the last four decades.
According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes reported in Arizona between 2005 and 2008 dropped by almost 1500 while the number of reported property crimes during the same time period decreased by 8000.
Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that the violent crime rates in Arizona from 2006-2008 are the lowest they have been since 1983. In 1998, the rate of violent crime was 577.9 per 100,000. However, according to the Department of Homeland Security, by 2008, this rate had dropped to 477 per 100,000 - despite the fact that Arizona's illegal immigrant population had increased by 70% during this same time.

Personally, I think the law is racist shit. HOWEVER, I may be wrong. Because as long as the Right and other wackos continue to alienate Hispanics and Blacks, all they’ll accomplish is to further see Conservatism die off. Blacks account for about 1 percent of Republicans. As Hispanics continue to grow and outnumber Caucasians, the nation will slip from the grasp of Conservatives. I call this a win-win situation.
The blindness of the Right along with their resistance to any change, will only marginalize your “party” and then where will you be ?
As the old tactics of “The black man is your enemy” doesn’t work anymore, you need to find a new “enemy” of America. Presto, the Mexican fits the bill nicely. It’s just another tactic to keep us distracted from the CAUSE of the problem, which is our lifestyle and attitude.
You see, the attitude of the Right is that they should be worshipped. Because they have a job, a shiny car, more toys then the Middle and Lower class peons, they think of themselves as “Royalty.” They are under the delusion that they’re better then most everybody. THAT is un-American thinking. We broke from the British because the Founding Fathers didn’t want a aristocracy, we wanted a government of the people. ALL the people, not just rich ones. Your attitude is one of “Fuck you, I’ve got mine!” It is intrinsically selfish and self-centered and the antithesis of what we ought to be. If we knocked off all this bullshit we could evolve into a race that could literally do and solve ANYTHING. But until such time as you’re willing to even admit to the possibility that you *might* be wrong, we will continue to diminish as a country.
The Left is not the answer either. I won’t get into this here, but they piss me off in other ways. Yes, I’m all over the place with this little screed, but I’m sleepy and deserve a little leeway. Just a little.

I want to chime in here before this devolves into mutual flaming...

I'm going to just grant this analysis - though I've seen others to the contrary
- just because i DON'T think stopping crime is itself central to the immigration debate.

are you wrong to think that those who ARE "racist" (with the caveat that Hispanic is not, after all, a race but a culture) are all for this law and probably think it doesn't go far enough?

Not at all.

are you wrong that the intent of the law is racist, or that one has to be racist to support it?

Absolutely.

One of the major weaknesses of the left in the course of political debate is to knee jerk an aspersion upon the character of the ideological opponent.

And this is virtually exclusive to the left. if a right winger wants to name-call an opponent, they call them - for instance - a "socialist." Now, they might in fact be dead wrong about that but the "slur" is a false description of their opponents political philosophy, not their character (unless one considers it derogatory to be called a socialist or a communist)

On the other hand, from the left the #1 charge thrown into ANY conversation where it can REMOTELY be wedged in is - racist. which is a direct aspersion upon the character of their opponent (they are not above "hateful" "heartless" and "cruel" among many others, by the way). in response, the worst a righty usually offers is "stupid" or other slurs against the lefties intellect.

IMO, it severly undermines the position of the leftist to be so VERY quick to try to paint that which the oppose in such terms rather than simply defeating the proposal on less inflammatory grounds. the law in question can EASILY be wrong-headed without being racist.

Even if it were racist in intent, it is still a weak position, intellectually, to default immediately to that charge. if it is racist, surely it is fatally flawed in other respects as well. shouting "racist!" at the slightest provocation lessens the impact of the charge when true racism appears.

Actually it is a bit higher than that (in terms of where the votes are cast) but the fact is that Republicans CAN'T alienate Blacks any more than they have (albeit the "alienation" is almost entirely a result of left-wing propaganda that has no acquaintance with reality), the only way to go is up

And indeed, very very slowly, they are moving up a bit. but honestly, until the blacks get off the liberal/media driven plantation, they don't have an open mind to Republicans. If a black Republican ran for president on the platform of cutting a $50,000 reparation check for every black houshold in the U.S. in his first week in office, 4 out of 5 blacks would surely go right out and vote Democrat.

\
Grow? Yes. Outnumber Caucasians? you won't live to see it. they are about 16, 17% right now. Caucasians are something like 60%. there is a bad trend line but it's many decades out, and a LOT can and will change in that time.

if you meant blacks and Hispanics combined - the problem with that is that VERY few locations outside a few cities are heavily populated with BOTH. there are places where blacks are already the majority (and, truth is truth, most of them are quite the shithole though i will not speculate on the relationship of those two factors)
But the places which are heavily hispanic have a negligible black population in most cases. Check the demographic maps for where the minority races are most heavily located.

there's not a state in the union (DC isn't a state) in which there's any danger of the Caucasian vote becoming a minority.

That doesn't mean you can't get LEFT WING majorities - there are still enough addle-brained whites for that.

The myth that to be conservative is to oppose any change is...a myth.

that said, I assume you mean on the social issues (which, by the way, is why I won't call myself conservative anymore) and it IS true that a powerful minority of the republican party insists that they resist social change (to the long term detriment of the Party, but the party CAN'T succeed NOW without that group - or at least they haven't been able to before. Quite possibly economic crisis will galvanize enough votes that the social conservatives will have to bite their tongue for now)

However, the flaw in your reasoning is that the one thing that the GOP most has in common with ethnic minorities is - social conservatism.

Um....no one has employed that tactic since around 1970 - and when it was being employed, it was by Democrats.

Almost every bit of common political rhetoric is a distraction from the real problems

A LOT of the middle and lower class people....are conservatives.

A LOT of the left-wing liberals....are VERY rich. And, by the way, VERY elitist. By the way, have you seen John Kerry's new yacht?

THAT my dear, is VERY much the thinking of virtually EVERYU person on both sides of the aisle who's spent any time working in Washigton - especially in elected office.

Seriously - you don't believe Barak obama, nancy pelosi, and harry ried don't just THINK - KNOW they are better than you and me?

you don't think every person who gets charged with making decisions that control our lives from SCOTUS to The Fed to the Cabinat to the Senate and house isn't FIRMLY convinced of that?

out of that whole collection of maybe 2,000 people or so, I doubt 1 in 50 has ever given any thought to the possibility that they aren't.

I'm not debating that - but that's not "conservative" thinking - i's the thinking of the privileged of both parties.

Sure the Kennedys and their ilk CLAIM to bleed in their heart for the little folks like us - because they know lots and lots of little folks will vote for them if they maintain that illusion.

the truth is - we have to STAY little folk in order for that game to work so how much can they really want the little folk to get bigger?

Agreed.
but i'll let you in on a secret - humanity will NEVER EVER "knock off the bullshit" - it's woven into the human condition. The world of Jean-Luc Picard AIN'T COMING.

We all might be wrong - no check that - we all ARE wrong in various and sundry ways.

and we're all too flawed to sort the right from the wrong with any reliability.

Eat, drink, and be merry - for tomorrow will be just as fucked up as today.

Actually, Arizona crime rates do support laws like 1070. A major factor in the decline of crime in Arizona is 287(g), the Federal law which supports 1070 and which has led to over 26,000 deportations to date. Again, these deportations, stemming from a law nearly identical to 1070, are a major part of why crime in Arizona is decreasing.

http://countusout.wordpress.com/201...fed-287g-partnership-helped-deport-thousands/

To argue that laws like 1070 should be opposed because crime is going down is like arguing that a person with a broken leg should run a marathon just because the bone has been set.

But wasn't the supposed problem that the feds aren't enforcing their law?

They aren't. Local and state cops are and -- oh. Wait. As per usual, your ignorant ass has no idea that that's what 287(g), like SB1070, empowers local and state cops to do.

If you're doing just fine and getting rid of the damned Messicans by enforcing federal law yourselves, then why do you need your special little racial profiling law, too?

Which law is that, exactly?

Does Arizona's low crime rate not count the fact that each illegal alien entering the country has, by default, committed a crime by doing so? If you add each of those incidents to the total crime figures, how do they look?

Fact is it has nothing really to do with crime. Or jobs, or anything like that.

The immigrants are illegal, and therefore either the laws need to be changed, they need to be sent back, or they need to be given something to work with that will make them legal.

Simply sitting back and doing nothing isn't the answer.

Hell, I have no objection if, instead of deporting them, we find some way to help them along the process to become citizens.

Then what is the sudden impetus to change this issue above all others?

Here is the problem. Almost no one has a problem with immigration as long as it is done in some sort of a controlled fashion according to law. Its this unregulated, out of control bullshit that people have a problem with, and rightfully so.
We are a nation of immigrants, not a nation of illegal immigrants. This something that the liberal mind seems to be incapable of understanding.

To include executing illegal aliens!

And exiling the traitorous scum who defend 'em.

We could deport them to Canada and let you guys deal with them.

Has someone been making an argument that the current set of laws is in no need of alteration?

Oh, bullshit. How many times have lefties here been accused of "hating America" or "hating Jews?" How many times have right wingers referred to people as "dick suckers" for not going along with the demonizing of a left-leaning politician? Let's not even get into how many times I've been called a pedophile or a rapist for playing Devils Advocate on the Polanski thing.

The liberal mind realizes that current immigration law is far more restrictive than it used to be. Under the current laws, a good deal of your ancestors wouldn't have made it into the country.

Fortunately, our ancestors aren't trying to immigrate. Why does the subject of our ancestors keep coming up? Same reason the liberal slobber machine keeps using "immigration" and "immigrants" as catch-alls for both law-abiding and criminal alike?

Honestly, is there going to come a time when those who do it realize that it's the equivalent of shouting down an empty hallway?

And this would explain why the ONLY Americans originally allowed to vote were free white males who owned land?

Mainly because the current situation doesn't exist in a vacuum, and because those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

Funny, I don't recall most of our ancestors coming here to see how much they could suck off the system either!!

Really? Funny, since that's the charge made against every wave of immigrants.

"They refuse to assimilate!"

"They're bleeding us dry!"


Rinse, repeat.

Tautology two-fer! Are you pro-crime idiots having some kind of contest the rest of us don't know about?

But did they refuse to acquire citzenship?
Which is, after all, the entire point.

Unskilled foreigners, many of whom had no family members to sponsor them? For your ancestors, no problem.


For the same class of person today? Basically impossible.




All the folks who say "they should immigrate legally" ignore the fact that, under the current system, most of them couldn't if they tried.

Bla Bla Bla, just get the damned freeloading spics out of my country. If Hitler could round up a group of people with the technology of his day, I'm SURE we could do it today. Gas them, and then dump them back over the border. That should send a message.

Sucks doesn't it? Pity. Tell me something I actually care about.

Latinos seem to have a higher tolerance for dictatorships, so increasing their numbers will aid the chances of your long desired coup being successful in the long term?