Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Sunday, August 5, 2007

La Raza II

I have often posted about the shortsightedness and disloyalty of those who support illegal aliens, amnesty, and/or an increase in legal immigration. I have also used the term Mexifornia to characterize what California is becoming.

National Council of La Raza leader Cecilia Munoz clucks about Americans' "discomfort with Latinos." She and others trivialize such discomfort as arising in a "wave of hate."
Munoz seems to feel that enforcing our laws is racist.If there are indeed such things as "Hispanic communities," those communities have provoked our discomfort with their repeated noisy demands that American laws be winked at and that American institutions assimilate to newcomers, especially in the arena of language. They would like us to believe that there is no need to designate English as the official language of the United States because foreigners are speaking English by at least the second generation. However, Munoz rails against making English the nation's official language because she is interested in preserving the Spanish language [as though it is not already well-preserved in almost all of Latin America and Spain].

Mrs. Munoz professes that she is only supporting legal immigration, but she is actually supporting efforts to give amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens residing in the
United States while doing everything possible to defeat any attempt to secure our borders. Sounds a lot like disloyalty to me. She has no regard for what her ideas will mean for the standard of living and quality of life in America.

For those who object to the term Mexifornia, consider an article from the Los Angeles Times last summer ("6 + 4 = 1 Tenuous Existence," July 28, 2006). The article quotes Alejandra, a Mexican woman, who, with several sisters, originally entered California illegally and then somehow gained legal status. [One has to wonder why our laws or those who interpret them permit those who entered illegally to gain legal status. This is at best an anachronism.]

Nearly a decade ago, the sisters fled
California. As the article explains, "Alejandra and her family moved to Lexington, Kentucky, where a friend said there was more work and there were fewer Mexican immigrants bidding down the wages for unskilled jobs." Thus, in Kentucky, they can "earn more than they did in Los Angeles, in a city where the cost of living is lower. Kentucky is now their promised land, and they talk about California the way they used to talk about Mexico." [Perhaps it won't be long before we begin to see bumper stickers in Kentucky that say "Don't Californicate Kentucky!]

Said Alejandra in the article: "What we weren't able to do in many years in
California, we've done quickly here. We're in a state where there's nothing but Americans. The police control the streets. It's clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico — everyone thinks like in Mexico. California's broken." In a word, it has become Mexifornia.

If Mexican immigrants working unskilled jobs leave
Los Angeles because they don't like the effects of the mass influx from Latin America, is it terribly surprising or outrageous that Americans also dislike what's happening? And for this we're excoriated by a spokesperson for the ethnic chauvinist organization, La Raza?

[Paraphrased from Paul Nachman, et. al.]

No comments: