2006 April 03 Monday
Some Senate Republicans Push For Illegal Immigrant Amnesty

Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez want an amnesty for illegals who have been in the United States for at least 5 years.

Under the compromise proposal, still in the early stages, illegal immigrants who could produce pay stubs, billing records or other documentation showing they have lived and worked in the United States for five years would qualify for a work visa and an opportunity to apply for citizenship. They could stay in the country as they apply for a green card.

Those not meeting the requirements would have to return to their native countries. New measures in the larger immigration bill, such as a tamper-proof identification card and sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants, would convince recent illegal immigrants they have no choice but to comply, advocates of the compromise said.

I have a simple response to these jerks: The US Congress has had decades of opportunities to show that it will seriously enforce immigration laws and has failed to do so. The Congress has passed bills that purported to toughen immigration law enforcement and then proceeded to gut enforcement by pressuring agencies of the US government to hold back from doing vigorous enforcement. Any time the employer fines or round-ups of illegals began to scale up to a level that would make a difference Congressional committees applied pressure to gut the enforcement initiatives. See past posts from my Immigration Law Enforcement archives for descriptions of how Congress sabotages immigration law enforcement.

In a nutshell: Congress can't be trusted. Unless Congress does enforcement first any supposed compromise that purports to combine an amnesty with enforcement will inevitably become an amnesty only. When people like Martinez and Hagel try to tell us differently they are just flat out lying. I feel insulted by the brazenness of their lying.

Update: John O'Sullivan makes a very similar argument:

Responding to the pressure of corporate America and the White House for cheap labor and to demands from ethnic lobbies and labor unions for cheap recruits, senators now seem likely to insist that any such enforcement law must also amnesty the 12 million illegal immigrants already here and admit more legal immigrants by a "guest-worker" program and higher quotas for legal immigration.

In other words, the Senate will act on the following logic: In order to have fewer immigrants, we must admit more of them. In order to halt illegal immigration, we must legalize it. And in order to enforce the law, we must reward those who have broken it.

As Steve Sailer points out: Time to build a wall. We need a fence. A border barrier similar to the Israeli barrier with the West Bank would cost well under $10 billion dollars or less than 2 months costs of the war in Iraq. Or we could look at highway construction for construction costs for a wall. The materials that are used to build sound barriers along highways in populated areas would cost about $3.2 billion for a 5 meter high wall 2000 miles long (see my comment below the original post where I calculate out the numbers). There'd be additional costs for barbed wire, sensors, and additional fencing layers as well as an access road. But we could easily afford all this. It'd be similar scope to building an interstate highway along the border.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 03 08:55 PM  Immigration Politics

Angry Anthony said at April 3, 2006 9:31 PM:

Great, just great. We knew it was gonna happen-- the first major amnesty was the fault of Reagan, after all, and a House and Senate who claimed to be increasing border security when in fact they ultimately just settled for the amnesty with the IRCA bill back in 1986. Same damn thing here. Unbelievable, how useless our current politicians are. George W. Bush, slave to his corporate masters, pushes for the amnesty in the first place. Hastert, Frist and the other Congressional leaders cave in. Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, while claiming at first that they'd clamp down on immigration, then turn around and pander to the most extreme of the ethnic pressure groups and announce that no, they'd never be against unsustainable immigration, they want even more of it! (Hillary, in particular, seems intent on breaking every damn promise she's ever made-- the epitome of the untrustworthy politician.) Wow, how blessed our country is to have such wonderful politicians in high places-- not! The worst thing is, illegal immigration isn't even the most pressing problem-- it's *legal* immigration, the ludicrously high quotas (well over 1 million) that are allowed in "legally" every year, mostly through stupid and outdated family reunification policies.

How much else are we conservatives supposed to take? First it was the excessive spending and the further growth of the federal government under this supposedly cautious Republican Congress and Administration. Then it was this immigration bill. Now, Bush even wants to effectively provide hundreds of nuclear weapons-- oh, sorry, "nucular weapons"-- to India in exchange for, uh, oh, that's right, those tasty mangoes. What a fscking idiot! This is just about the dumbest idea I've ever seen. Hey, why not just provide a bunch of gift-wrapped nukes to Bangladesh? They're a democracy too, and they get bonus "PC Points" for having elected a woman prime minister to rule the country (Khalleda Zia and some other lady before her) for the last 10 years. Why not give a few nukes to South Africa while we're at it-- you know, South Africa, the place where White farmers and workers (like in Zimbabwe next door) are being systematically pushed off their property? But, hey, they're a democracy so everything'll work out of course. Or how about Chile, or Peru, Brazil? All democracies, so why not just schedule a junket to them and provide a few extra nukes as a "token of friendship"? Since having a bunch of nukes is now the big route to prestige and "arrival" on the world scene, thanks to Jorge Bush, why not hand out a few nukes here and there to every "democracy" we can find? Or why stop at democracies? Wouldn't it be more "democratic" to just give out a few nukes to every country in the United Nations? That why, we'll get to have a nice, big nuclear free-for-all to provide the fireworks for our next Fourth of July, complete with mass radiation sickness, global fallout and radiation suits at a big discount at your local neighborhood Wal-Mart.

I can't believe I actually voted for Bush, I want to kick myself all day for it. Me and most of my college buddies in my old frat were active with College Republicans and have stayed with the party since then, but it's getting increasingly difficult. If on top of all this bullshat, they even consider approving this moronic nuclear deal with India, we will never, ever vote for a Republican again.

Jorge D.C. said at April 4, 2006 12:23 AM:

The worst thing is, illegal immigration isn't even the most pressing problem-- it's *legal* immigration, the ludicrously high quotas (well over 1 million) that are allowed in "legally" every year, mostly through stupid and outdated family reunification policies.

Mass legal immigration is unfortunately politically untouchable right now. It is historically unprecendented in size. The Fourteenth Amendment perversion allowing children of illegals born in the US automatic citizenship is another untouchable monstrosity.

The lesson is that western white affluent society is generous to a fault. They think they can afford to be magnanimous with the future of their countries. But La Raza and the Muslims are going to bring them back to reality.

Jorge D.C. said at April 4, 2006 12:38 AM:

Parapundit says:

In a nutshell: Congress can't be trusted...I feel insulted by the brazenness of their lying.

This is a real pickle. Public outrage over mass immigration has been boiling since shortly after the 1986 Amnesty. That was twenty years ago and there still is not a true immigration restrictionist a la Tancredo in the senate.

But public outrage has been there since '86. It just never had a voice besides talk radio (Rush Limbaugh never gave a damn). It is only bubbling to the mainstream media surface now because of the extreme situation we face and the ability to impact the media through the internet blogs and cable news.

Don't give up. And don't underestimate the blogs. The intelligentsia read the blogs. Guys like Steve Sailer, Larry Auster and yourself are having an impact. The infamous National Review which purged all immigration control views in the 90s is now undergoing a revolution it appears. Mainly because they simply have no choice.

Check out the interview with JD Hayworth at NRO. It is awesome! Until recently this stuff was absolutely taboo at National Review.

Lou Dobbs and O'Reilly have brought major heat obviously also. But it is discouraging to watch the network news broadcasts. They are still offer nothing less than mindless left wing gruel and they still have the vast majority of viewers.

The story of our times is the oldest story of all: the elites will utterly screw you if you let them. Utterly. And so what do we do about the Senate? We must get bodies on the floor. I watched them today on cspan and it is a sad situation. There is no one there to physically shake them up.

Here's another great NRO article on senatorial immigration incoherence by the formerly marginalized John O'Sullivan.

I take the cynical view and assume the Senate can BS their way through this year. The polls (and poll headlines especially) are being shaped and slanted in their direction. Think about how the public is polling so strongly against the Senators' views even though the public is being fed mostly leftwing agitprop. If your average voter knew how what percentage of prisoners across the nation were illegals and the true intentions of groups like La Raza there would be seismic shift.

I am not sure if there has been another issue on which the Senate and President have been so disconnected with the will of the people in the history of this nation. It would seem that at some point the public's voice finally prevails.

But there is the scary possibility that we have entered into a new era in which the public's voice does not prevail. Well we're gonna find out just who's in charge. The Left waged a campaign through most of the 20th century to disarm the American people. They failed and history shows dictatorship is not possible without a disarming of the public. This century of American history will probably be the most interesting yet.

Angry Anthony said at April 4, 2006 8:33 AM:

Mass legal immigration is unfortunately politically untouchable right now. It is historically unprecendented in size. The Fourteenth Amendment perversion allowing children of illegals born in the US automatic citizenship is another untouchable monstrosity.

That's precisely the problem here in the US-- practically everything about the immigration issue, even the most commonsensical reforms, has become almost untouchable politically, to the point when we can't do a damn thing but watch as the USA slowly and agonizingly but surely becomes just another Third-World outpost.

The irony about this is that Europe-- to my own tremendous surprise-- actually has managed to summon up enough cojones to make restrictive changes to their immigration laws. Denmark is leading the crackdown, with tight restrictions on newcomers to reduce numbers and to ensure skills and cultural knowledge. Germany's immigration policy is now on a points system basis, with the most points given to skilled immigrants and those with ethnic ties to the Germanic regions in general, cultural knowledge (which is actually being formally tested), Christian background-- IOW, much tighter restrictions on the Dhimmis and a *frank* and unabashed acknowledgement of the desirability of northern European kinship and Christian faith. This would never happen in the USA-- the PC police would stage a coup. Even the Netherlands and France of all places are cracking down. The Netherlands, where in the past 5 years half the people on the subways in the big cities have been from Third World countries, has at last been introducing a tougher testing system and "job-directed" immigration regime that sharply cuts the dhimmi factor. Even France has gotten harsh, not just because of Sarkozy but b/c the people there have finally let the politicians know they'll get tarred and feathered if they invite in even more unemployable rioters. Immigration from North Africa has slowed to a trickle and they're even actively deporting any immigrant who even mutters a peep suggestive of Islamist sympathies. Meanwhile, the French have also introduced an immigration-to-skills shortage link to very finely tune the immigrants they receive, while requiring demonstrated knowledge of French culture and history and a full acceptance of the *European* nature of France. Spain and Italy are doing the same thing, with very tightly controlled immigration policies that are unabashedly favoritist and restrictive to Third-World mass immigration.

Explicit favoring of people who have accepted Western culture, blatant points systems, matching immigrants to skills shortages, frank limitations of immigrants from dhimmi countries, strict quotas with immigration restrictions from "problem countries," examinations and even outright deportations of people who evidence sympathies for dhimmitude-- Europe is finally toughening up and doing the unpleasant but necessary things that have to be done. (Except for Britain, which still seems to be mired in such a haze that they're filling up London with Caribbeans, Africans and South Asians, though admittedly at a much slower pace than the with our own idiotic policies.) But in the US, we could probably never bring about these necessary reforms, short of a nationwide revolution. Our politicians are too cowardly and our press is bought out-- IOW, the entire checks-and-balances system has broken down, and so we're stuck with the unquestioned dominance of the corporatist and ethnic pressure group lobbies with both parties.

The US political system has broken down on immigration, and yes, it would take a revolution to change things around. The alternative is to just meekly sit and watch as our country is destroyed slowly but steadily, but it seems that it's impossible anymore to make changes from the inside.

eh said at April 4, 2006 8:46 AM:

"Mass legal immigration is unfortunately politically untouchable right now."

Perhaps not for much longer: I have heard one estimate of 30 million -- granting permanent legal status and then shortly thereafter citizenship (so they can vote) to just the Mexican nationals now here illegally will potentially add another 30 million residents to the US via family reunification. And the vast majority of them will no doubt settle in areas of the country where immigration in recent years has been so intense that it has brought demographic change and many social problems, e.g. southern California.

It is national suicide. Or murder, depending on how you want to look at it. For a nation, as a matter of policy, to overturn its majority demographic heritage, as the US is surely doing now, is just crazy. It is hard to believe the Congress, fully aided and abetted by a series of irresponsible executive branch governments, would be so foolish.

And the MSM, always so busy pumping "diversity", is extremely irresponsible for not publishing more of the truth about what is really happening.

Angry Anthony said at April 4, 2006 10:12 AM:

Sometimes I halfway wonder if Continental Europe will be the only reserve for Western culture 20 years from now. A couple of my old college friends worked there for multinationals and have moved there already, spent a couple years taking the language courses (the governments helped) and took off mostly to Central Europe where Western culture still seems to be remarkably strong. I'm in a wait-and-see mode myself, I want to see how well these new immigration reforms take off. So far, so good-- Europe's somehow managed to do the politically incorrect but necessary things we could never do here in the States, and if say 10 years from today they continue with it while the US continues to hurtle along this same disastrous path, I see no reason to stay in the States. It'll be a wasteland here, economically, culturally and socially.

Dave said at April 4, 2006 10:28 AM:

You can't be serious Anthony, about the only Western European country who has made a strong crack down in immigration fraud is Denmark. The Dutch and French might have tougher policies than they used to, but its already too late for them. France is over 10%+ North Africa and Arab which might sound low but in reality most of them are very young and most of the white French are old. When the olds die off whites will barely be a majority. 30% of Germans women don't have babies, don't want to..
Western civilisation will last much longer in the USA than in Western Europe.

This is the future of Europe:

I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Angry Anthony said at April 4, 2006 4:24 PM:


Were you actually paying attention to my post? Western Europe has had rather doltish immigration policies, *until recently*. That's the point-- I agree that they've had rather foolish policies for quite a while, but *in the past year* they've actually been making changes. I've been working in Europe for a while so I keep up with these things, and you're wrong-- there have been major shifts in the past year that are already having important effects and fundamentally changing the arithmetic. There's still a long way to go, but there's an honesty about the immigration issue and a far greater freedom to state politically inconvenient facts than in the US (and UK), since in Europe, they see themselves as ancient countries with a firmer sense of identity, of *European identity* than in the US. France has markedly toughened its policies to reduce the North African intake rate to a tiny number, while substantially *boosting* the birth rate among its White population (with *deliberate* inducements), actively deporting North Africans with any Islamist sympathies whatsoever (tens of thousands deported every year), *plus* inviting in Christian immigrants from Eastern Europe in high numbers. Note that the North African birth rate is *not* higher than the White birth rate in France, it's actually a bit below it (Algeria and Tunisia e.g. have fallen down close to European TFR's), and the average age of the North African vs. White population is not that different. Remember too, a large number of the Arab/North African population is Christian, not Muslim, and the Christians tend to be a more "Europeanized" group in general (probably many of them descended from the Germanic tribes and Crusaders who settled in those lands).

I point this out b/c frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised-- the French in general I find to be rather annoying, and their Socialist policies need to be changed for a variety of other reasons, but on the immigration issue itself, they've done a surprising about-face recently. I give credit where it's due, and frankly, it's due here.

As for Germany-- the childless rate is in large part b/c couples have been delaying childbirth, not forgoing it entirely. In case there was any doubt, the German government has also recently introduced a harsh crackdown on employed couples who stay childless for too long-- there's an enormous pension and tax benefit (with family leave assistance) to couples with large families, and rather strong penalties against the well-to-do who stay childless, similar to what Sweden has been doing with substantial success. This in fact has been pioneered in a few German cities mostly in the south of the country, and unsurprisingly, they have much higher birth rates than the rest of the country (especially in the east, which has been the main laggard). There's also official encouragement of Christian churches and an interest in the Christian faith there. They're not stupid and again, we see something in Germany that we'd never see in the US-- an explicitly pro-natalist policy for the White, Christian population, and unabashed support for them. Plus, in Germany, as I said the immigration policy has been explicitly reformulated to favor White, Christian Eastern Europeans and especially those with Germanic ancestry and an understanding of German culture, something that would be politically imposssible in the US. The Eastern European (and White South American) immigrant contribution to Germany's pool constitutes the vast majority of immigrants, vastly more than Turkey or Middle Eastern countries.

The Netherlands is still an area of concern, but as I wrote above, even they have made very strongly nationalistic and pro-nativist White changes that we could never do in the US. Again, the example shows, they can do things in Europe that are politically manageable to maintain their populations, that we can't do in the US. So in fact yes, Europe is indeed very different in its approach to immigration than the US, with higher selectivity and much more openness and freedom in encouraging and praising their own Western culture, while gearing their immigration policy in the same direction. They do things there that we couldn't do in the US, and in fact there's been a very explicit crackdown throughout the Continent against dhimmification. Remember e.g. that when those Danish cartoons were published, it was chiefly *Continental European countries*-- Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and even France-- where the Danes got the most support, and the cartoon was reprinted. The US trashed Denmark for it publicly, while in the UK they refused to even countenance discussion of the cartoons, let alone reprinting. Continental Europe showed solidarity there.

So in fact, Europe is taking the right steps. They still need to do more to boost their own native birth rates and to deport many of the Arabs and North Africans that are there, but they have bought themselves the time to develop such solutions, while helping to meet immediate labor needs chiefly from Eastern Europe while that region is still a source of immigrants (which it'll be for at least another couple decades, until they basically run out due to their own demographic problems). In contrast, our government in the US insists on pushing headling into demographic disaster, sending the White birth rate plummeting downward while actively replacing the White founder population with Third World immigrants. This is the country on an unsustainable course.

Randall Parker said at April 4, 2006 4:54 PM:

What percentage of the people in prison are illegal immigrants?

What percentage of the people in prison are legal immigrants?

Anyone have a good source for this information?

Dave said at April 4, 2006 8:19 PM:

France does not invite in Christian immigrants from Eastern Europe in high numbers. The last election in France was fought on a campaign of keeping them "out!" because they are accused of stealing French jobs.
The white French 'are' on average a lot older than the immigrants, the French have been worrying about their aging population for years and is one reason they invited in so many young immigrants.

"one German minister recently warned of the country "turning the light out" if its birth rate did not pick up"

"In Italy, where the population could shrink by as much as one third by 2050"


"Dutch Feminazis Want to Punish Educated Mothers"


I wish what you say about Europe was true Anthony, I fear it isn't.

Sorry to have gone OT, Randall.
Although I think the politics of mass-immigration affect the whole world. Thats why I although not American am very interested to see what happens with the US border.

James Bowery said at April 4, 2006 9:15 PM:

I am reminded of this precious passage from Machiavelli's Discourses, which tells me we may be in for some very tough times from the Federal government due to the fact that it has been tyrannical about immigration and now must face a very large number of challenges to its legitimacy -- from within as well as without -- risking its demise if it loosens the thumbscrews:


Although the Romans succeeded happily in being liberal to people, yet when danger came upon them from Porsenna coming to assault Rome in order to restore thy Tarquins, the Senate apprehensive of the plebs who might want to accept the Kings than to sustain a war, in order to assure themselves (of the plebs), relieved them of the salt gabelle and all other taxes, saying that the poor did much for the public benefit if they reared their children, and that because of this benefice that people should submit itself to endure siege, famine, and war: let no one who trusts in this example defer in gaming the people over to himself until the time of danger, for it will not succeed for him as it succeeded for the Romans; for the people in general will judge not to have gotten that benefit from you, but from your adversaries, and becoming afraid that once the necessity is past, you would take back from them that which by force you gave them, they will have no obligation to you. And the reason why this proceeding turned out well for the Romans was because the State was new, and not yet firm, and that the people had seen that other laws had been made before for their benefit, such as that of the appeal to the Plebs: so that they could persuade themselves that that good which was done, was not caused so much by the coming of the enemy as much as the disposition of the Senate to benefit them: In addition to this the memory of the Kings, by whom they had been ill-used and injured in many ways, was fresh. And as similar occasions rarely occur, so it rarely occurs that similar remedies do good. Therefore Republics as well as Princes ought to think ahead what adversities may befall them, and of which men in adverse times they may have need of, and then act toward them as they might judge necessary ((supposing some case)) to live. And he who governs himself otherwise, whether Prince or Republic, and especially a Prince, and then on this fact believes that if danger comes upon him, he may regain the people for himself by benefits, deceives himself, because he not only does not assure himself, but accelerates his ruin.

Angry Anthony said at April 4, 2006 10:11 PM:


I have *worked in* Europe to varying extents and in a variety of countries, for over a decade now. I speak the languages there (German and French fluently, Italian and Spanish passably) and can read the newspapers and follow the local news, which I do on a regular basis. Please don't patronize me-- I know what I'm talking about. I was one of the people just like you, 5 years ago, looking in rage at the stupidity of the governments in Europe who were allowing their Continent to be dhimmified, and I'm telling you that in the past year there really has been a sea change. The points systems, the filters, the exams to screen the immigrants carefully-- these are just part and parcel of the things being done.

I'm not going to repeat all the details for you, but you're missing the big picture with your quotes. Of course the ministers in these countries are worried about the birth rates, and that's why they're actually *doing things* about them, i.e. implementing very explicitly pro-natalist policies for the White native population (and assorted punishments for affluent couples who stay childless). As I said, in Germany they know they have a problem now, which they're confronting aggressively by modifying the pension, tax and education systems to be aggressively, unabashedly pro-Natalist-- i.e., mimicking the policies of southern German cities where they already have these in place and have gotten the birth rate up. It's not some fundamental antipathy to having kids-- Germany through much of the 1960's and 70's had a higher birth rate than the US *overall* including minorities (it's fluctuated quite a bit), the main problem is that eastern Germany has been such an utter social and economic mess and has never really adjusted well since integration. Fertility rates elsewhere in the country have been more robust, and to address the TFR problem (again, mostly in the East, where pensions and tax issues are paramount), the public and private sectors are introducing all kinds of pro-Natalist incentives, though most are only about 6 months old at this point and so haven't yet registered an effect.

The fertility issue is all over the media, you can't watch the evening news w/o it coming up, and in fact, it's working its way into the culture such that a kind of stigma is arising against being childless. Pretty TV anchorwomen and stars come onto the programs, with 3 and 4 kids, show how they're successful and have maintained their appearances while raising kids. It's a sort of basic checks-and-balances that crops up in response to a problem like this-- the society is adjusting, and since the people there really do have an ethnic sense of themselves as Germans and a pride in their own culture and their identity, they allow themselves to implement such pro-Natalist and restrictive immigration policies, in a way that we couldn't do in the USA w/o being ostracized for being racists or bigots. Here are some links (sorry, all in German):
(A translation of the last line in that second article, 'Das Koalitionsprogramm von CDU/CSU und SPD liest sich ehrgeizig:"Wir wollen mehr Kinder in den Familien und mehr Familien in der Gesellschaft. Wir wollen deutlich machen, ohne Kinder hat Deutschland keine Zukunft."'-- 'The program of the CDU/CSU and SPD [governing] coalition sets ambitious goals for itself: "We want more kids in each family and more families in our society. We want to make this unmistakably clear, that there's no future for Germany without children."' The "Elterngeld" referred to here, specifically addresses rewards in Germany to long-resident couples, especially professionals who have larger families.)

The point is, they're practical people there, they *openly* acknowledge the problem (again, largely in the East), and they *openly* advocate pro-Natalist solutions for the native population, while discouraging pseudo-solutions like filling up with Arabs that would only make things worse. There's nothing explicitly racist about it, it's just hard-headed common sense mixed with *a strong sense of ethnic identity* and a desire to preserve it, to offer up productive solutions for it. It may not be perfect and it'll take a while to work out, but there's an openness to acknowledging the quality and desirability of the native ethnicity and culture and in taking steps to preserve it, including notoriously politically incorrect pro-Natalist policies and also immigration selectivity policies that would be absolutely taboo in the US.

Any politician or commentator in the US, even raising ideas related to what they're doing in Germany now, would be practically locked up for suggesting them, then ostracized from all respectable social company. That's why we're heading for disaster here. The White birth rate in the Blue States is disastrously low, edging down to the levels of Spain and Italy. It is closer to replacement level in the Red States but still below it, and in any case some of the biggest drops in White TFR have been in Red States with expansion of education and more urbanization. Meanwhile, the black birth rate hovers a bit over replacement, while the Latino rate is well above it and in some cases over 3 in many states. This obviously points to a major and fundamental demographic shift in large swaths of the country-- a collapse of the White majority, flat-out. But it's too politically incorrect to even mention this fact here. Countries like Italy can sustain a temporary plummeting of TFR, even if sharp, since they aren't busy replacing the native population with Third World immigrants-- that provides some breathing room for the problem to be discussed, pro-Natalist policies to be formulated and then for them to work their effect. We in the US by comparison (and the UK to a lesser extent) are pushing down the White TFR sharply while simultaneously replacing the White majority population with Third World immigrants. That's just not sustainable.

Italy is slowly moving in a similar direction, though without as much success since the corrupt Silvio Berlusconi has a chokehold on the press, and he's more concerned about his own personal aggrandizement than the country's future. But the people there are starting to respond (Berlusconi himself is in political trouble), and FWIW they are also modifying their immigration policies accordingly. France, yes, I know about the all the slogans of the "dangerous Polish plumbers" stealing French jobs which were there in the last election, but one way or another, in the past year (and especially since the riots and the Muhammad cartoons), French immigration policy has been reoriented eastward-- mostly to SE Europe (the Balkans, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria), but most crucially, with a greater emphasis on skill sets and familiarity with French culture. Sarkozy is only one small part of this-- there's been a frank acknowledgment that the immigration there can't be blind anymore, that there have to be strict standards restricting who's allowed in. And France really does deport the North Africans more than any other country in Europe. Don't get me wrong, I think that France really does still have a dhimmi problem and needs to be addressing it even more aggressively, but they're actually doing so openly-- even the so-called "mainstream" politicians and press-- and actively changing the policies. As for the Dutch, yes there are feminazis there who spew their lame venom at women who have kids, but they have less and less traction and are increasingly derided by the people. Dutch couples with kids really are celebrated, and there really are strong efforts to introduce tougher immigration filters that screen out most of the dhimmi immigrants and favor other Europeans in particular. Again, the root of this is that the people in those countries know and respect their own ethnicities and their country's national culture and want to preserve it, and thus are able to openly discuss things like pro-Natalist policies for the native Whites and immigration selectivity, which we just can't do in the US, to the consternation of I'm sure just about all of us posting here.

Ned said at April 5, 2006 8:03 AM:

One of the few areas on which the Republican and Democratic elites agree is the need for more mass immigration, which means an endless supply of cheap labor for business plus lots of yardboys, cooks and nannies. Their kids attend expensive private academies, not the crumbling public schools. Their hospitals aren't being overwhelmed with uninsured immigrants, and it's not their exclusive neighborhoods that are being ruined. Indeed, any poor immigrant who showed up near their homes, other than to work, would probably be arrested. Sure, they have to pay a bit more in taxes to support all the indirect costs of illegal immigration, but they still think it's a good deal. And they will maintain that it's a win-win situation (I've heard this argument numerous times). The US employer wants cheap labor, and the immigrant wants the job (remember that the per capita GDP in Mexico is only about one fourth of the US, so, while $5 per hour picking lettuce looks horrible to an American, in Mexico the same job would only pay about $5 per day). Great deal for everybody, except the Americans who pay taxes or who work on the low end of the wage scale or who have their schools and neighborhoods ruined by illegal immigration. Too bad for them, but the elites of either party don't really give a damn about these Americans, so the problem never really gets fixed.

Q said at April 8, 2006 8:52 AM:

Don't forget about the cost of adding landmines in front of the wall, security forces, and some sort of subterranean detection to eliminate tunnels. A wall is very doable. All claims that this will not work are ludicrous. Of course, the most effective way to end the illegal problem is to start arresting the employers. A lot of illegals would probably go home if they couldn't get a job. We've never had a wall along the southern border, but this flood of illegals was never a problem until businesses started to hire them en masse, and the government stopped enforcing the law. When people say "oh, you can't possibly round up 15 million people and deport them, there's just no way!", that's a lie too. They came here in dribs and drabs, and they can be sent home that way. If every state in the US were to send just 100 illegals home per day, every day of the year, that's 1.8 million illegals a year. In ten years, the problem would be solved. As for finding them, just offer $1000-$2000 dollar rewards for turning them in. That's just 40 billion dollars over 10 years, or a measly 4 billion per year out of a 2.8 trillion dollar federal budget. Heck, make it $10,000 dollars per illegal. You'd get the illegals turning in each other then! I'd start a sham business that promised them work, get 10 or 12 of them together, and then have the fed's bust em. That would take care of me for a year or 2. The first wave of people who did this would be millionaires. Those daylabor sites would dry up quickly if that happened! Then it's load up La Cheby and head south with what we got before we even lose that. Case closed.

Our real problem isn't illegal aliens. Its sellout whoring politicians and soulless businessmen. Their only culture is money. And the only reason most of us ignored what was going on was that we had the same values they did. I hope that changes.

I think the Europeans are getting serious because they know they have no other place to go. Americans always can think that can run away to some other predominantly white country or Europe. Canada and America are far down the road in destroying themselves with non-white immigration, or past non-white immigration (forced black immigration--look at what a boon blacks are to our county's health). Europeans see this, and they know that the problem is worse here than there. Thank god they are beginning to wise up. People here are beginning to wise up, but not fast enough.

Cindy said at April 10, 2006 12:03 AM:

Angry Anthony,

PC does prevail in this country, but not for much longer. Pretty soon ethnic anger and hatred will take its course and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Remember, someone always gets rich from war, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that various administrations have purposely led us to this scenerio. I left NYC 6 mos ago after I read "Civil War Two" by Thomas Chittum. All the things Chittum wrote in 1996 are coming true. Chittum predicted talk of a civil war and now even mainstream media is talking about the reconquista movement to regain the southwest. Read a few books on Yugoslavia and you'll see that we'll be ther in about 5 years. The anger over multiculturalism, demographic destruction of whites and political correctness will be answered by slaughters from all groups. You can bet on that.

Cindy said at April 10, 2006 12:05 AM:

Angry Anthony,

PC does prevail in this country, but not for much longer. Pretty soon ethnic anger and hatred will take its course and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Remember, someone always gets rich from war, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that various administrations have purposely led us to this scenerio. I left NYC 6 mos ago after I read "Civil War Two" by Thomas Chittum. All the things Chittum wrote in 1996 are coming true. Chittum predicted talk of a civil war and now even mainstream media is talking about the reconquista movement to regain the southwest. Read a few books on Yugoslavia and you'll see that we'll be ther in about 5 years. The anger over multiculturalism, demographic destruction of whites and political correctness will be answered by slaughters from all groups. You can bet on that.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright