Dee Perez-Scott: Loyalty, Racism and Population

The open society of modern America—combining individual rights, a market economy and a modest safety net—is the closest the world has yet come to the good society. Mass illegal entry combined with excessive legal immigration into the U.S., without the appropriate metering and integration of newcomers, is endangering that unique combination of individual liberty and social unity.

It is doing so by changing the face of many towns and cities too rapidly, eroding the belief that existing citizens come first and weakening a sense of mutual obligation expressed through the tax and benefit system. Citizens who are the ethnic brethren of immigrants or illegal aliens often abandon their obligations to their fellow citizens, choosing instead to give precedence to the newcomers without regard to the cost and the tearing of the social fabric that results.

There is nothing mystical about the nation-state. Anyone can join (if invited) so long as they learn the language and respect the traditions of the country. A commitment to a nation-state requires loyalty and support for national sovereignty. After a long and often bloody pre-history the modern nation-state is still the only institution that can currently deliver what citizens, of both right and left, want: democratic legitimacy for the exercise of power; cross-ethnicity, cross-class and cross-generational unity and cohesiveness and even a sense of collective identification that is bigger, better and more tangible than ethnic identities, families and neighborhoods. There is little sign that any other type of organization would be an improvement over the nation-state.

And for the nation-state to work it must entail borders and boundaries and it must "belong" to existing citizens—on important matters they must have special rights over non-citizens. That means immigration must be managed with the interests of existing citizens in mind. The question is what are those interests? First and foremost must be the maintenance of the standard of living and quality of life of the existing citizens. Second, of course, is a feeling of solidarity regarding the national interest. Third and unbending loyalty to the nation-state rather than to any foreigners or foreign interest or potentates.

Immigration does not in itself endanger the nation-state, but when it happens illegally, very quickly and on a very large scale and when many illegal aliens and immigrants choose to live in cultural enclaves it does do so.

That, alas, is what has been happening in America. The intended or unintended consequences of the failure of government to enforce immigration policies combined with multicultural politics convey the message that you can enter and remain here illegally and that the rule of law means nothing. This state of affairs has alienated voters across the U.S and given rise to populist parties that assert that taxes are too high because of the demands of the immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny and their fellow-travelers among the liberals, progressives and disloyal citizens.

In several European countries the immigrant and ethnic minority population is rising to 15% or 20%. One leading demographer has said that on current trends Britain will be "majority minority" by 2066. Even in America there are now those who chortle about the rising majority-minority. Some large towns are already have a high percentage of minorities. This sudden and largely unplanned demographic shift has damaged trust between citizens and generated segregation, fear and unwarranted accusations of racism or hate.

The sheer size of some minority communities has made it easier to live apart in "little Kabul" or "little Havana", and so on. The rising influence of racist orgainzations like La Raza, MEChA and MALDEF is a harbinger of America's political future. A conservative Islam, insistent on Sharia Law first for their own communities and then for all of America, is yet another indication of a failed immigration policy that has balkanized a once united America. And unlike the America of a few years ago where hard work acted as an integrating force, today's overly-generous welfare system has created too many immigrant dependents and 14th Amendment baby families, triggering resentment among mainstream taxpayers who have to pick up the tab.

There is, of course, good immigration too. Supporters like to overstate the creativity and dynamism of some young migrants, their willingness to do dirty or under-rewarded jobs (like stoop labor) that few natives want, their relative youth in an ageing America. But these benefits would have to be very large, and demonstrable, to compensate for the cost and cultural and social disruption caused by over-rapid immigration and illegal entry. style="font-weight:bold;"> But they are not! Almost all the economic analyses of mass immigration in recent years have found that the positive effects on employment, wages and per head growth in economic activity is, at best, marginal. Similarly, on the question of fiscal benefit, productive immigrants like Poles probably pay in more than they take out, but less productive ones like Somalis (in Britain, only 25% of them work) do the opposite.

Moreover, costs and benefits are unevenly distributed: employers and richer people benefit, as do many consumers and, of course, immigrants themselves. But low-skilled workers (often recent migrants) face lower wages, and while immigrants create as well as take jobs, the creating takes longer than the taking. Because it is concentrated at the top and bottom, mass immigration reinforces inequality and reduces social mobility (one-third of professional jobs in London are taken by people born outside Britain). It adds to urban congestion, increases pressure on public services and housing, and discourages employers from training, especially hard-to-reach youngsters such as those who have been busy looting in recent days in London.

No sensible person wants a complete halt to immigration, but America needs a dramatic slowdown(like the "pause" from 1920 to 1965) to absorb the large inflows of recent decades and a re-focusing of the quotas on skilled or well-educated immigrants who are likely and There will be some economic costs of a slowdown, but if democratic politics fails to deal with this existential issue on which there is such a settled popular will the resulting backlash will threaten the sharp decline in overt racism of the past 30 years. Young people now have a somewhat liberal view of race and gender but they have become much less generous on welfare, poverty and redistribution of wealth. That is not just because of the mishandling of mass immigration—affluence. Individualism has played a role too. But that makes it even more important to rein in mass immigration before America loses its unique balance between individual rights and mutual obligation.

Dee Perez-Scott

Here she is! The chubby Dee Perez-Scott! The Face of Ethnocentric HATE! The Face of Vile Racism against el gapacho (pejorative Spanish slang for an American,especially a white American, similar to el gringo). This mendacious Grandmother who indulges in racial hatred! As proof..... above are some of her rants and images: She hides behind her grandmotherly smile. This vile woman refuses to apologize for the racist tirades on her blog. VIEW THE FACE OF THE GRANDMOTHER.. THE FACE OF RACIST Ethnocentric HATE!!!

Dee Perez-Scott Breaks Wind

Dee Perez-Scott is continuing her campaign to call everything with which she disagrees evidnece of "hate". Her latest flatulence pollutes the internet with a unilateral declaration that murderer Shawna Forde committed a "hate" crime. She recognizes no difference between a drug money-related murder and a "hate" crime. It's sad that her vocabulary is so limited that she is reduced to using monosyllabic words for everything when the truth is always more nuanced. Here's her reaction to the Shawna Forde death sentence.

"Hopefully, this harsh sentence will deter others from even contemplating the thought of such vicious, vicious HATE Crimes!
We never want to see such HATE Crimes happen again!"

Sounds like hysteria, doesn't? If anglos were the victims, you can be sure her reaction, if any, would be muted. Reading her blog you would never guess that anyone other than Mexicans have been victimized by murders, mayhem or robbery. When was the last time she gave so much detailed attention and space to crimes committed by Mexican illegals? The answer is: it has never happened!

Dee Perez-Scott Slides into Nonsense - Again!

Dee Perez-Scott, in another tirade against what she erroneously calls “Arizona’s 'Hate' Bill, SB1070”, crosses the line into nonsense yet again. Dee’s narrow, ethnocentric agenda makes her an icon of intolerance regarding every view that disagrees with hers. She is a heroine to every foreigner in our midst, every illegal alien, every border jumper, and every violator of immigration laws. She continues to have no regard for her fellow citizens or their wishes. Dee, the darling of the extreme left wing, has a lesion on the loyalty lobe of her brain. She likes to accuse the right of bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, racism and sundry other forms of what she mistakenly calls “hate”. She has never admitted the reasonableness of the many legitimate arguments against population growth, excessive legal immigration, illegal aliens, chain immigration, and instant citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, tourists, and temporary migrant workers. Instead she prefers to brand all those reasonable arguments as “hate”. In doing so, she demonstrates her own form of “hate” through her overt disdain for her fellow citizens and everything they stand for. She and her ilk will certainly be the downfall of the last great hope of mankind, the United States of America.

“Hate”-- A Term Designed to Appeal to Emotion rather than Reason

A recent Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) study identified 926 hate groups in the United States—defined as groups with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people. By this definition, the SPLC is itself a hate group because it attacks entire classes of people such as the KKK, the Skinheads, and the Neo-Nazis.
The term “hate” is entirely too simplistic to be applicable to the entire spectrum of opposing beliefs and approaches to achieving power or influence over others. It is a term designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. The beliefs of the so-called hate groups range from a political philosophy that merely differs from that of the SPLC’s to actual advocacy of violence against entire classes of people. This broad brush treatment of those who dissent from political orthodoxy or correctness is unwarranted. It undermines whatever good they could otherwise accomplish through regular and consistent criticism of those who would do harm to others whom they perceive to be a threat to their way of life or simply “different” or “inferior.” The feelings of these groups are, of course, very human qualities that have been demonstrated time and again throughout history. Nevertheless, as we strive to recognize the pervasiveness of political, social and cultural differences that have frequently resulted in violence and wars, we cannot accept this as the norm or the behavior we should be striving for. Therefore, we must condemn violence of all kinds whether directed against individuals or whole groups of people or minorities.
This does not mean in any case that anyone must approve of or accept without comment behavior which he or she finds abhorrent, distasteful, contrary to law, or a perceived threat to his or her way of life. Currently the opprobrium of some is focused on the nation's first African-American president and an economy that is hemorrhaging jobs. For the past decade, illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico and Latin America, have also divided our society. The purveyors of the “hate group” mantra inevitably overlook the legitimate reasons for opposing illegal aliens and a new president whose political philosophy is foreign to the capitalism that drove America to the heights of power, prestige, and a standard of living of living that is the envy of many.
During the election, many candidates pussy-footed around their disagreements with Obama because they were worried that they would be considered racist. Similarly, today the SPLC would mute the criticism of the president by attributing it to racism or “hate.” The SPLC conveniently overlooks all of the legitimate bases for disagreeing with and disliking the policies of Obama. People quite properly worry about what will happen to our beloved country as its Latino population increases to such a degree that America becomes Mexico Norte with all the ills of disease, crime, poverty, joblessness, and corruption evident in the original. In fact, there is little about Latin American culture, government, and economic and scientific achievements that recommends them over the America we all cherish.
The current economic conditions have exacerbated the opposition to the politics of the left and the politics and organizational methods promoted by Saul Alinsky that formed the basis for the successful Obama campaigns. People who had been complacent in the past are now upset and more motivated to do something. They didn’t fully appreciate the size of the illegal alien population until the economic crisis hit and it became clear illegals, by accepting substandard wages and benefits, were taking jobs Americans needed and wanted. The movement to provide amnesty to millions of illegals simply added fuel to the fire. But the ire resulting from these events is not “hate”, it is simply the current economic reality and the longer standing interest in secure borders and a preservation of the rule of law and our national sovereignty.