Tuesday, January 04, 2011

The reality of "Dream Act": a cynical and opportunistic power grab by the most greedy and tribalistic forces in America

From:
The DREAM Act: ¿Reconquista Mañana?

(TakiMag) -- by Jim Goad --

...In what could be dubbed “soft amnesty,” the DREAM Act would enable illegal aliens between 12 and 30 to apply for US citizenship so long as they’ve been in the States for at least five years and had been brought here by others when they were 15 or younger. They must be of “good moral character” and have a GED or a high-school diploma. They must agree to either serve in the US military or attend college for at least two years. Upon completing either of those conditions, they could become US citizens six years after initially applying. Six years after that, they could begin sponsoring immediate family members for citizenship, who, in turn, could conceivably begin sponsoring all of La Raza.

DREAM Act supporters tend to rely on schmaltzy tugs at your heartstrings. They say that only bigoted Nazi assholes would choose to punish “the kids,” especially ones who came here through no fault of their own. They say that the estimated one or two million aliens who could qualify under this bill represent the “best and brightest,” the “most talented and driven,” America’s “future professionals” who will “make this a better place” and compete against scientists in China and India, and that one of them may even become a doctor and save your life one day. Dreamers assert that Republicans blocked the bill right before Christmas just to be mean and that Jesus would have voted for it...

These days, anyone who so much as questions unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico is immediately scolded with the following pair of admonitions:

1) We are, and always will be, a nation of immigrants, so shut up.
2) The white man stole this land from the Native Americans, anyway, so shut up.

Yes, we’ve always been a nation of immigrants—but that includes the Paleo-Siberians who crossed the Bering Strait anywhere between twelve and fifty thousand years ago as well as the European-derived Solutreans who may or may not have crossed the frozen Atlantic into North America fifteen to twenty thousand years ago. One of the oldest skulls ever found in the Americas had Caucasian features and was discovered, of all places, near what is now Mexico City.

That’s the thing about the Americas—if you go back far enough, there are no true “natives,” only waves of immigrants who often wound up extinguishing one another.

But there’s no equating the recent unchecked tsunami from Mexico with previous immigration waves. We’re talking apples and avocados here.

A crucial difference is that prior immigrants to the USA seemed to genuinely want to become “Americans.” In contrast, studies of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans in San Antonio and Los Angeles revealed that a majority of them still identified mainly as Mexican. A 2002 Pew Hispanic Center survey revealed that among naturalized American citizens of Mexican descent, only 18 percent saw themselves as primarily Americans, while 80 percent still viewed themselves as Mexican or Latino. A study by Duke University found that of all American immigrant groups, only Salvadorans assimilated slower than Mexicans. The book Generations of Exclusion revealed that rather than assimilating, third- and fourth-generation adult Mexicans lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths.

But the most troubling distinction from all previous waves of American immigration is that many of these new “immigrants” say they’re reclaiming land that was stolen from them—a much different and potentially more dangerous dynamic.

I can’t decide whether American journalists are uninformed or lying—maybe it’s a 50/50 split—but they hardly ever address the seemingly important idea that Mexican immigrants seem less concerned with “becoming American” than they are with reclaiming, by sheer force of numbers, what they believe is stolen Mexican territory. The National Council of La Raza—a lobbying group for “The Race” that is frequently quoted by American journalists who wouldn’t dare call them racist—publicly pooh-poohs the idea that many Mexican immigrants are driven by Reconquista (“reconquest”) ideology, depicting it as “so far outside of the mainstream of the Latino community that we find it incredible that our critics raise it as an issue.”

A 2002 Zogby poll of 801 adults in Mexico revealed that the National Council of La Raza is either lying or they’re completely out of touch with how the Raza actually feels. Fifty-eight percent of poll respondents agreed with the statement, “the territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.” Fifty-seven percent agreed “that Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission.” That doesn’t quite sound like an extremist fringe. And it doesn’t stretch credulity to believe that many, if not most, of the dozen million or so Mexicans who chose to tiptoe into the U.S. without permission also agree with such statements.

What modern Reconquistadores claim to be reconquering is a mythical land called Aztlán, comprised of areas ceded by Mexico and legally purchased by the United States after the Texas Revolution and the Mexican-American War. But this was no ancient, thriving kingdom—Mexico had only claimed these territories in the early 1820s and had lost them all by the late 1840s. Although roughly the size of Western Europe, Aztlán was largely unsettled and contained only one percent or so of Mexico’s population. In 1830, only around 3,000 Mexicans lived in the massive expanse of dirt now called Texas. What is now the megalopolis called Los Angeles, modern host to millions of Mexicans, was so sparsely populated in 1846, an army of around fifty gringos conquered it. And what many would now like to pretend were indigenous “Mexicans” in the American Southwest were actually hostile Apaches who’d been perpetually at war with Mexicans.

But although it never really existed, even Aztlán was based on ethnic murder and bloodshed. The Aztecs had subjugated the Huastecs, Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Otomis, Totonacs, and Tlaxcalans. They were racial chauvinists who considered themselves “chosen people.” So following Reconquista justice, the only noble thing would be for Mexicans to renounce their imperialist Spanish blood, revert back to Aztecs, then back to all the splinter tribes the Aztecs had slaughtered and sacrificed and cannibalized, and then back to the continent’s original invaders, who then should be forced to walk barefoot over ice back to Siberia and make reparations to indigenous yeti.

Would that make everyone happy?...MORE...LINK
------------------------

------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Let's not forget, it isn't just tribal Mexicans, left-wing flakes and opportunistic liberal politicos looking to piece together vast ethnic coalitions in order to dominate American politics pushing this kind of open borders nonsense; it's also "free trade" corporatist forces looking to drive down the price of labor and additionally grow and milk the vast American consumer market for as much filthy lucre to their own bottom lines as possible. These kinds of despicable money-worshippers would sell their own mothers if the price was right, so they don't hesitate in the least to sell out the country.

Additionally, notice one of the conditions for citizenship under the Dream Act was either college or military service. Given that plenty of semi-literate immigrants have neither the educational background nor the financial resources to succeed in college, military service would have no doubt been the only choice available to large numbers of participants in the Dream Act -- "service" that basically amounts to mercenary indentured servitude. Hence, no wonder so many neocons push for open borders and programs like Dream Act: it provides canon fodder for yet more wars for Empire and Israel.

Thus, a federal program like the Dream Act satisfies primal, self-serving neocon and neoliberal instincts on multiple levels: 1) It facilitates tribalism, which is in the interests of the ultimate tribal entity: Jewry; 2) It satisfies their lust for corporatist lucre; 3) It facilitates wars for ideological Zionist hegemony and Israel; 4) It erodes "anti-Semitic" Christian Western Civilization in favor of a neo-American tribal construct over which, as the wealthiest and most tenacious tribalists, they will rule (similarly to the way in which Jewry rules over the Democrat Party).

In short, if it's good for the neocon and neoliberal elites, you just know it's bad for Christianity, Western Civilization and America.

1 comment:

Marycatherine Barton said...

You are absolutely correct. Thank you, Chris, and Happy New Year to you.