Steve Sailer writes: It’s sad that Rubio isn’t smarter, richer, and more independent-minded. As the Likable Latino, he would have been ideal to lead the charge toward immigration sanity.
But instead in 2013 he signed up to lead what the Republican Brain Trust and its billionaire backers was telling him was a sure thing — Chuck Schumer’s amnesty bill — even though it was obviously nuts, both as policy and as politics.
Too bad.
COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:
* Re Cruz: per Kaus, he’s been for amnesty as well in the past. He’s clearly smarter than Rubio, but it’s possible that his current immigration hawkishness is just tactical posturing. We are left hoping that Trump, at least, is sincere, but his extemporaneous comments haven’t always been ask hawkish as his immigration policy paper.
* The NYT is talking about the 3rd and 4th place candidate in mid-Nov, when we are about a week, 10 days from the “acceleration time” of the Holidays, then 3 weeks after New Years and it’s on. And neither of these two guys has a prayer’s chance in hell of finishing in the top 2. The skewing of the primaries intentionally done in past years to benefit the front runner (who typical was GOPe’s guy) has almost insured that Trump will roar out Super Tuesday massively ahead. The states in the first primaries other than Iowa are exactly the toothless, low info voters that pundits claim are Trump people.
They only thing they can hope is some self implosion. The latest prayer involves the Fort Dodge speech that they claim was a rant. I am at 57 minutes into the 1 hour 45 minute talk and I personally haven’t heard anything I would consider outrageous. He’s like a New York dad at Thanksgiving going off about shit he thinks is really messed up. Sure, if you aren’t a supporter, particularly if his ideas on immigration annoy or offend you, then you would hate this speech.
To write about Rubio and Cruz at this point is slightly more relevant than speaking about Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes in Nov 1999. I had to look into Wikipedia to even get those names. They didn’t matter.
The NYT will bend over backwards to avoid saying the T word and I am surprised they even wrote about the I word in the first place.
* We should be so lucky that cynics start taking hard line immigration stances to get elected.
* And we have Donald Trump to thank for finally bringing it up and showing them its a winning issue. I never could have predicted this turn of events a few years ago.
When Ted Cruz came out hard against immigration in the debate, the day after Trump gave his “deportation force” interview, which is encouraging. He wants to make sure he doesn’t get outflanked from the right and that this remains HIS issue.
* Can’t have the goyim contemplating having for themselves what the Jews have for themselves in Israel.
Unspoken Jewish oligarch problem with Trump: he doesn’t need their money. Doesn’t even seem to want it. Big Problem.
* Powerful people want to be respectable.
Those who control respectability controls the elites.
Once homo stuff was made respectable, elites complied cuz status means so much to them.
There are leader-elites and follower-elites.
Leader-elites, largely Jewish, get to decide what is respectable.
* A restrictionist president could do a great deal without new legislation just by enforcing existing laws, (build the border fence, for instance), and using executive orders. For instance, make E-Verify mandatory on hiring. Crack down on the thousands of illegals who use false SS numbers by withholding tax refunds. Have ICE raid all the big slaughterhouses. Nothing will change until you get employers’ attention. And that won’t happen until you hit their bottom line.
Employers truly are color blind; all they see is green.
* Donald Trump has been an economic nationalist for years. I have seen his statements on stupid (traitorous is the accurate word) trade deals going back 15 or more years. This shows Trump is pro-average American. He has long known that phony free trade deals depress US wage levels for the peasantry. He has come to criticize illegal immigration (also depresses wages) more recently but both go hand in hand as economic nationalist issues and Trump is an unabashed economic nationalist candidate like we haven’t seen for years. The same ones that Pat Buchanan has been railing against since 1992. Pat and Ross Perot were right!! And have been ignored for years while we lost more industrial base and illegal immigration got way out of hand. Damn right I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and despised NAFTA!
So this is more of my reasoning to trust The Donald on immigration, H1Bs and illegal immigration. To do right by us when he gets to be President. First he’s got to beat Hillary.
* Whether they say it or not, immigrants are coming to the USA and other New World English-founded nations because they are politically, socially and economically superior to the alternatives. I know this because my immigrant parent told me so. In most cases the immigrant, such as my parent, is eager to ape the norms and ideals of the founding stock and has no qualms cutting themselves off from the Old World.
However, I think with Latin Americans there is a different dynamic going on. First, they are coming in such large numbers that they feel they are going to change the US into their image. And the proof is there. Spanish is now our de facto second language. And the media tell us everyday that someday soon we will be a Latin nation.
Second, Latin Americans are carrying a couple of huge chips on their shoulders. They have the embarrassment of knowing that their culture has utterly failed to create in the New World what the English people did, despite the fact that in many cases the Latin nations had superior climate and natural resources. Venezuelan writer Carlos Rangel wrote:
“For Latin Americans, it is an unbearable thought that a handful of Anglo-Saxons, arriving much later than the Spanish and in such a harsh climate that they barely survived the first few winters, would become the foremost power in the world. It would require an inconceivable effort of collective self-analysis [emphasis mine] for Latin Americans to face up to the fundamental causes of this disparity. This is why, though aware of the falsity of what they are saying, every Latin American politician and intellectual must repeat that all our troubles stem from North American imperialism.”
Additionally as others have pointed our here before, some Latin Americans still feel there is unfinished business from the rivalry between England and Spain that goes back to the sinking of the Armada.
With this in mind I think it’s conceivable that Rubio is a cultural imperialist. It wouldn’t matter if he was richer or smarter, so long as he has strong ties to his immigrant community, and you did say he lives in Miami, he will probably feel this way. And it doesn’t help that the GOP kneels down before him and promotes him ONLY because of his Latin American ancestry. It must be a confirmation to him that the tide has turned against the English.
So long as immigration is mainly an issue concerning Latin Americans, a cultural imperialist like Rubio will do his level best to keep the gates open.
