Ann Coulter writes in her new book:
THE ISSUE THAT WON’T GO AWAY: SHOULD DEMOCRATS BE GIVEN 30 MILLION NEW VOTERS?
The media convince people to believe lies by the simple process of repetition: Diversity is a strength! We’re a nation of immigrants! It’s a crisis to have people living in the shadows! If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit! It’s like the hypnotic repetitions drilled
into infants’ sleeping brains 150 times a night, three times a week, in Brave New World.
By neurotic perseveration, mass-immigration proponents have completely moved the goalposts. After Reagan’s amnesty, no one talked about allowing new illegal aliens to stay. The only issue was: When are we going to get started on those promised employer
sanctions and securing the southern border? Now we’re told we have to both allow new people in and amnesty the illegal immigrants already here. We’re getting the exact same arguments that were made for the old amnesty, but this time with attitude: Wait a minute — you ’re not seriously telling me that you don ’t want to give amnesty to the people already here? To which Republican politicians whimper: We hope were not inconveniencing you by not moving more quickly to forgive you for the laws you broke, illegal aliens.
I don’t mean to be obtuse, but why is it a crisis that illegal aliens are “living in the shadows”? I forget. We need to bring in more people who will drive down the wages of our fellow Americans because — why again? It is not a crisis for Americans that other
people have come into their country illegally and now find it uncomfortable to be living here breaking the law. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable to break the law. Perhaps illegal aliens should have considered that before coming.
Americans are being asked to respond to the world’s oldest joke: A guy kills his parents, then throws himself on the court’s mercy as an orphan. How did all these illegal aliens get into “the shadows” in the first place? They weren’t kidnapped and dragged across the border. They came here. At most — and this is dubious — it’s a crisis for the illegal immigrants. But “living in the shadows” is evidently better than living in Guadalajara, otherwise, there’s an easy solution. Living in the shadows doesn’t seem to be much of a crisis even for them.
Historically, Democrats have found it fun and profitable to bully Republicans into taking suicidal positions. This latest push for amnesty is approximately the Republicans’ fifth mugging. As with all disastrous legislation, Republicans are being told, “We have
got to do this yesterday!” If we don’t produce a global warming bill, the American people will have our heads! If we don ’t pass campaign finance reform tomorrow, the voters will punish us! You ’re not seriously thinking of blocking a new gun control bill, are you ? It always turns out, no, there’s no backlash. The only politician who was ever punished for his position on global warming was A1 Gore. Debate any urgent liberal demand long enough, and the problem usually just goes away.
It’s entirely possible that the only Hispanics enraged about amnesty are the ones we see on TV. In polls, a majority of Hispanics answer “Don’t know” to the question “Who is the most important Hispanic/Latino leader in the country today?”
Self-appointed Latino spokesmen, claiming to speak for millions, apparently speak for about fifteen people. At least A1 Sharpton has a posse of two hundred losers he can drag around with him. Most Hispanics seem completely unaware that they’re part of some angry
movement led by Jorge Ramos. The notion of Hispanic unity — much less Hispanic-black unity — is pure liberal fantasy. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans hate one another, blacks and Mexicans hate one another, Haitians and African Americans hate one another, and everyone hates the Cubans.
Republican elites apparently don’t talk to their servants: They’re convinced Cuban Marco Rubio will be catnip to Hispanic voters. Yes,
remember how Manhattan women flocked to Sarah Palin just because she was a woman? GOP political consultants will never steer you wrong.
The only place a failure to pass amnesty will produce genuine, heartfelt remorse is in the better sections of town, when wives of Wall Street bankers realize that Manuela the nanny will not be able to get taxpayer-subsidized healthcare.
There is simply no reason for Republicans to legalize 30 million people who will vote 8-2 against them. They don’t have to be embarrassed about opposing immigration because of how the immigrants vote. The reason Democrats support immigration is because of how they vote. A1 Gore didn’t mind challenging military ballots during the Florida 2000 recount. Obama challenged the petition signatures of every single Democrat running for an Illinois senate seat in 1996, disqualifying all of his opponents and “winning” by being the last man standing. Israel won’t allow Palestinians to return
to homes they used to live in because of how they’d vote. Palestinians demand a right to return to their pre-1967 homes, but Israel says, quite correctly, that changing Israel’s ethnicity would change the idea of Israel. 8 Well, changing America’s ethnicity changes the idea of America, too. Show me in a straight line why we can’t do what Israel does. Is Israel special? For some of us, America is special, too.
Democrats aren’t big on amnestying other lawbreakers. They don’t hysterically demand amnesty for accounting cheats or polluters — not even for “the children” of accounting cheats and polluters. Enron executives were hard workers. They loved their families and wanted the best for them, just as I’m sure MS- 13 gang members love their
families. Think of how the executives’ children have suffered — the divorces, the broken families, the prison sentences. Why do we have to punish the children? 9 How many breaks did liberals cut the Amirault family in Massachusetts after they were sent to prison in the child molestation hysteria of the 1980s, even after it was proved they were innocent? Martha Coakley fought like a banshee to keep Gerald Amirault in prison well after the charges were exposed as a fraud. Where was his amnesty? Democrats only care
about the children of lawbreakers when it will get them 30 million new voters. Convicted felons are next.
Republicans have no obligation to make a grand forgiving gesture toward lawbreakers, hoping that Hispanics will applaud their sportsmanship. This doesn’t require bravery. It requires that Republicans not be idiots. Democrats are just going to have to get 30 million new voters some other way.
STEP ONE: SECURE THE BORDER;
STEP TWO: REPEAT STEP ONE
As Reagan’s amnesty proves, it’s pointless to talk about what to do with the illegal aliens already here until we’ve secured the border. When the bathtub is overflowing, the very first thing you do is: TURN OFF THE WATER. You don’t debate whether to use a rag or a mop to clean up the water, whether to get a bucket or put a hose out the
window, whether to use towels or sponges. The No. 1 priority is: Shut off the water.
Obviously, any amnesty functions as a magnet for more illegal aliens. Nothing shows the bad faith of amnesty advocates with more blinding clarity than their steadfast refusal to seal the border. Ordinary people see this and know they’re being lied to.
The “border security” measures of every amnesty bill all employ the same meaningless Washington metric of success. In government, effectiveness is measured not by results, but by how much money is spent. How effective is it? Why, we’ve tripled the budget! That’s what Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee actually said
about Rubio’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, formally titled “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013” — which was way better than its original title: “We Surrender.”
“The fact is,” Corker exclaimed, “we are investing resources in securing our border that have never been invested before.” 10 Why, he’s so serious about getting in shape, he’s taken out three gym memberships! Increasing the pensions of border agents is not a
measure of border effectiveness. We’re interested in results, not outlays. Even within the meaningless category of “Money Spent,” it can be spent in ways that are counterproductive. If the bill includes one dime for ACLU attorneys to process immigration claims, then part of the money we’re spending to make the border more
secure is going to make it less secure. Rubio’s bill gave $150 million to nonprofits to help illegal aliens apply for amnesty. 1 1
Most Hispanics are smarter than Marco Rubio. In 2011, 73 percent of California Hispanics said they’d support a candidate who wanted to “secure the border first, stop illegal immigration, and then find a way to address the status of people already here illegally.” 12 In a 2014 Univision poll, 58 percent chose “require border security first” over “pass immigration reform.” 13
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GATED COMMUNITIES TELL US FENCES DON’T WORK
Americans ought to be suspicious about being incessantly told fences “don’t work.” It’s like being told wheels don’t work. The media maniacally repeat this nonsense, hoping to lull people into thinking, Maybe it is impossible to control the borders. The
New York Times explains, for example: “Would-be migrants still find ways over, under, through and around them.” 14 Wheels still find ways to bend, break, or spring leaks. China built a thirteen-thousand-mile wall several centuries before Christ, and it’s still working.
The Times gave the game away with this sentimental glop about border fences being “the approach favored by ancient empires: the raising of a wall.” The article continued: “The barrier wasn’t very likely to overturn the law of supply and demand, but it did serve as a useful symbol of the process of alienation, a closing-off of lives and minds, along the line it traces.” 15 Yes, that’s precisely the idea! Aren’t fences peachy? Tellingly, the Times added: “Still, the tattered ideal of a world without borders holds great power.”
For whom is a “world without borders” an ideal? People who don’t much care for America, I gather.
Even Republicans who pretend to want a secure border are always telling us fences won’t work. The NEW WAY of stopping tubs from overflowing is to use mops and blow-dryers. Sure, we can always turn the water off, but that won’t work because it could always spring a leak. Let’s just keep mopping. Responding to an increasingly
annoyed public, Congress has repeatedly voted to build a border fence. But somehow, the fence never gets built — and Congress does nothing. In January 2011, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had “ended the Secure Border Initiative Network” on the grounds that “it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards.” 16 And if there is one thing the Obama administration absolutely insists upon, it’s cost-effectiveness and viability!
The steadfast refusal of the amnesty crowd to agree to a fence tells us that Americans should not budge on the point. In addition to being the only sane, logical thing to do, demanding a fence forces amnesty proponents to admit that they have no intention of ever sealing the border. The surge of ninety thousand poor Central
Americans across the border in 2014 proved that. Obama pretended his hands were tied. It’s the law! It wasn’t the law. So either Obama is stupid or he was deliberately lying, and the smart money is on “deliberately lying.” But Democrats — and some Republicans — insisted there was some mysterious “loophole” in the law that prohibited this country from stopping illegal aliens at the border. If politicians really believed that, why didn’t they close the loophole?
Instead, amnesty supporters tried a surprise argument: To stop illegals pouring across the border, Congress had to pass amnesty. They were hoping to stun us into silence with the stupidity of their argument. No one was prepared for it. I’m sorry, Your Honor, we didn’t bring our notes on that. We were ready for “It’s wrong” or “What about the children ?” We weren ’t expecting: To stop the surge at the border, we need to reward the people surging across it.
Everyone knows that one amnesty begets more illegal aliens, which begets another amnesty. It’s called an “incentive.” There’s less of an incentive if the gate is locked. First lock the gate, then figure out what to do with the people already here. Any amnesty is
an inducement to illegal aliens. If you choose to argue it’s not, I refer you to history.
This is not the first time Americans have been promised secure borders in return for amnesty. The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, also known as “The Charlie Brown and Lucy with Football Act,” was supposed to end illegal immigration forever: Give us amnesty
one time, then: Never again. 17
As with all laws that combine the bitter with the sweet, such as tax hikes and spending cuts, we got one and not the other. The amnesty came, but the border security never did. Illegal immigration sextupled. There have been a half dozen more amnesties since then, legalizing millions more foreigners who broke our laws. 18 Perhaps we could have trusted Washington’s sincerity thirty years ago, but Americans have already been fooled once — then, six more times. They aren’t stupid.
The two parts cannot be done simultaneously. A border fence must be started first — and completed first. Only after all the ACLU lawsuits and INS rulings have run their course, and the border is still secure, do we move to Step Two. I happen to think we
don’t do the amnesty part ever, but it’s tendentious even to discuss what to do with illegal aliens already here until we can prevent more from coming. We’ll talk about legalization as soon as it’s as hard to get into the United States as it used to be to get out
of East Germany.
To review:
Step One: Secure the border.
Step Two: Discuss what to do with illegals already here.
AMNESTY IS GOODBYE, AMERICA
Contrary to everything you’ve heard, the only options are not: Amnesty or deporting 11 million people. There’s also the option of letting them stay in the shadows — or the same thing we’ve been doing for the last thirty years. Americans are under no moral
obligation to grant amnesty to people who have broken our laws. “The moral thing to do” is usually defined as “following the law.” The fact that Democrats want 30 million new voters is not a good enough reason to ignore the law and screw over American workers, as well as legal immigrants already here. How about Republicans try this:
We’re not giving you anything — not even half — because there’s no reason to do so.
The demand for amnesty is not going away. Nothing ever gets struck from the Left’s “To Do” list. Democrats had been angling for national healthcare since the FDR administration. Conservatives thought they killed it with the ignominious defeat of Hillarycare in 1994, but the very next time Democrats controlled both Congress and the presidency — we got Obamacare. To paraphrase what President Bush used to say about terrorists: The anti-amnesty side has to be perfect every time; the pro-amnesty side only has to win once. And then the country is finished. There won’t be any reason to care about politics, anymore. At least I can finally clean out my attic.
Any other bad law can be repealed. Roe v. Wade can be overturned. Obamacare can be repealed. Amnesty is forever.
2
TEDDY: WHY NOT THE THIRD WORLD?
HOW DID IMMIGRANTS BECOME A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MORE POWERFUL than Americans? I’m not a high-priced political consultant, but shouldn’t politicians be more concerned with what citizens think of them than what foreigners do? It’s a measure of how out of whack public dialogue is on immigration that it comes as a startling concept to even ask if our laws should help our country rather than help other countries solve their problems. Wouldn’t any sane
immigration policy be based on the principle that we want to bring in only immigrants who will benefit the people already here? Why not take immigrants who are better than us, instead of immigrants who are worse than us?
A good-for- America immigration policy would not accept people with no job skills. It would not accept immigrants’ elderly relatives, arriving in wheelchairs. It would not accept people accused of terrorism by their own countries. It would not accept pregnant
women whose premature babies will cost taxpayers $50,000 a pop, 1 before even embarking on a lifetime of government support. It would not accept Somalis who spent their adult lives in a Kenyan refugee camp and then showed up with five children in a Minnesota homeless shelter. 2 An immigration policy that benefits Americans would not
result in news items like this one: “After arriving from Kampala, Uganda, Ayan Ahmed and her nine children, ages four to eighteen, spent six months in Phoenix. There, Catholic Charities had lined up a furnished four-bedroom home for the family and a neurologist for Ahmed’s eldest son, who is blind [emphasis added].” 3
If our government were in the international charity business, they’d be doing a fantastic job. America takes in half the refugees of the entire world.
In fact, however, taking in refugees is not even in the top hundred jobs we want the government doing. At what point will Americans remind their government that it has a responsibility to us, not to every sad person in the world? We can’t solve everyone’s problems — and that’s not what we’re paying taxes for our government to do. Catholic Charities may enjoy taking in immigrant families, so they can feel like the Harriet Tubman of Uganda, but they don’t have a right to do it on the taxpayers’ dime. 4 It’s not “charity” if we have to pay for “their” good works. It’s charity if they pay. But I notice that we always end up paying, while they go to all the awards dinners at the Ugandan-American Society.
Try calling another country’s embassy and asking to immigrate there.
Consulate: What do you do?
You: Well, I can’t read or write, I have no skills, and I’ve got nine kids. Oh and by the way, if I can’t make it in your country, would you mind cutting my family a check once a month?
Consulate: Click.
Other countries must be laughing their heads off at us. Our “family reunification” policies mean that being related to a recent immigrant from Pakistan trumps being a surgeon from Denmark. That’s how we got gems like the “Octomom,” the unemployed single mother on welfare who had fourteen children in the United States via in vitro
fertilization; Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsamaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring hundreds, a few years after slitting the throats of three American Jews; and all those “homegrown” terrorists flying from Minnesota to fight with ISIS. Family reunification isn’t about admitting the spouses and minor children of immigrants we’re dying to get. We’re bringing in grandparents, second cousins, and brothers-in-law of Afghan pushcart operators — who then bring in their grandparents, second cousins, and brothers-in-law until we have entire tribes of people, illiterate in their own language, never mind ours, collecting welfare in America. We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, unskilled, and lonesome.
LIVING IN THE SHADOWS— COLLECTING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
We’re told — as if it’s good news — that immigrants use welfare only at 18 percent above the native-born rate. 5 No, the fact that any immigrants are on welfare proves we’re not taking the right immigrants. It’s like saying, Only 18 percent of our cars burst
into flames when you start them. We don’t want any cars bursting into flames. These aren’t native-born citizens who are poor. Aren’t immigrants who immediately go on government assistance, by definition, immigrants we don’t want? We can’t pay for our
own poor people, but now we have to be the welfare ward of the world?
Our government does such a terrific job at choosing who gets to immigrate to America that 52 percent of legal immigrant households with children are on government assistance. In all, nearly 60 percent of immigrants — legal and illegal — are on government assistance, compared with 39 percent of native households. 6 Why would any country voluntarily bring in people who have to be supported by the taxpayer?
Immigrants from nineteen of the top twenty-five source countries are more likely to be in poverty than native white Americans, generally far more likely. 7 Immigrants from Mexico and Honduras, for example, have a poverty rate three times higher than white Americans. 8 The only immigrants less likely to be in poverty than white Americans are those from Canada, Poland, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, and the Philippines. 9 Needless to say, we take fewer immigrants from these countries than from the neediest immigrant countries. Poland and Germany aren’t even in the top ten source countries,
and Canada and the United Kingdom combined send us fewer immigrants than Mexico does.
Business lobbyists have an irritating habit of dismissing the massive welfare use of immigrants by saying, Yes, of course, we have to get rid of welfare. First of all, their cheap labor wouldn’t be so cheap if not for all the goodies provided by the U.S. taxpayer, so this is a ruse. The immigrants get a taxpayer subsidy to work for the rich, and the rich get a break on the maid. This cozy deal is funded by the long-suffering middle class.
Second, it would be easier to repeal the law of gravity than to prevent immigrants from accessing welfare. The Republicans’ 1996 welfare reform bill barred immigrants from receiving direct welfare payments for a mere five years. That turned out to be the single biggest cost savings of the entire welfare reform. Most people said, THAT’S NOT ALREADY THE LAW? But at the New York Times , needy immigrants are the most desirable immigrants. The Times hysterically attacked the immigration provisions as one of the “cruelest aspects” of welfare reform. Congress immediately restored welfare for
immigrants who arrived before the law passed on the grounds that it would be unfair to take welfare away from immigrants who came here expecting to live off the American taxpayer. Subsequent Congresses restored welfare for elderly immigrants, immigrants with children, refugees, and immigrants who are hungry, get pregnant, or brought a
wife-beater with them. 10
America should be choosing immigrants like the New England Patriots choose players. They don’t have a lottery system for their draft picks. No one guilts them into taking a blind kid with one leg over an All American — much less the blind kid’s cousin, to keep him company. But that’s America’s immigration policy. We’re in a seller’s market, but instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit cripples, illiterates, and the desperately poor. A strange idea has taken hold that it’s unfair to get
the best immigrants we can. Why should that top model be allowed to date only rich, good-looking guys? She should be forced to date poor, balding losers. Maybe Kate Upton should have a lottery system to decide whom she goes out with.
Proposing an immigration policy that serves America’s interests should not require an apology.
THIS IS ON THE KENNEDY HIGHLIGHTS REEL, RIGHT AFTER THE PART WHERE HE KILLS THAT GIRL
It’s our current immigration laws that demand an apology. It was Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act that snuffed out the generous quotas for immigrants from the countries that had traditionally populated America — England, Ireland, and Germany 11 — and added “family reunification” policies, allowing recent immigrants to bring in their relatives, and those relatives to bring in their relatives, until entire Somali villages have relocated to Minneapolis and Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol. 12 America has to take in all the poor people of the world, so that Ted Kennedy could get his face on commemorative plates. I’m sorry the Kennedy family felt awkward in Brahmin Boston, but that isn’t enough of a reason to wreck our country.
Kennedy’s immigration law was enacted during the magical post- 1964 period, when Congress had free rein to push through the craziest left-wing legislation since the New Deal. It was the most destructive period in American history. Anything the Left had
ever dreamed of became law, in such profusion that it could have been a test to see if members of Congress were actually reading the bills. The premise of the 1965 immigration act sounds like the bizarre belief of a weird hippie cult: The poor of the world have the right to come to America, and we have to take care of them!
Liberals had tried convincing Americans to vote for them, but that kept ending badly. Except for Lyndon Johnson’s aberrational 1964 landslide, Democrats have not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them in any presidential election since 1948. 13 Their only hope was to bring in new voters. Okay, fine. You won’t vote for us, America? We tried this the easy way, but you give us no choice. We’re going to overwhelm you with new voters from the Third World. As Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote for the Roper Center in 1998: “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and
pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.” 14
Since then, the Democrats’ insatiable need for more voters has continued unabated. A year before the 1996 presidential election, the Clinton administration undertook a major initiative to make 1 million immigrants citizens in time to vote. The White House
demanded that applications be processed twelve hours a day, seven days a week.
Criminal background checks were jettisoned for hundreds of thousands of applicants, resulting in citizenship being granted to at least seventy thousand immigrants with FBI criminal records and ten thousand with felony records . 15 Murderers, robbers, and rapists
were all made citizens so that the Democrats would have a million foreign voters on the rolls by Election Day . 16 The Washington Post reported — after Clinton was safely reelected — that the citizenship initiative was intended to create “a potent new bloc of Democratic voters.” Even the INS had objected to “running a pro-Democrat voter
mill .” 17 Democrats didn’t care. Clinton’s reelection was more important than the country.
The mass migration of the poorest of the poor to America is bad for the whole country, but it’s fantastic for Democrats. Ask yourself: Which party benefits from illiterate non-English speakers who have absolutely no idea what they’re voting for, but can be instructed to learn certain symbols? The foreign poor are prime Democratic
constituents because they’re easily demagogued into tribal voting. A white person can vote Republican or Democratic without anyone saying to him, “HOW CAN YOU VOTE AGAINST YOUR RACE?” By contrast, every nonwhite person is required to vote Democrat . 18 Republicans’ whispering sweet nothings in Hispanic ears isn’t going to change that. Voting Democratic is part of their cultural identity. Race loyalty trumps the melting pot.
Moreover, poor people are never opposed to big government because they’re exempt from all the annoying things that government does. They’re not worried about taxes: The government is not going to raise any taxes that they pay. They drive unlicensed cars,
have no insurance, flee accidents, and couldn’t pay a court judgment anyway. The government doesn’t want to get in touch with the poor for any reason other than to give them things. So it’s lucky, in a way, that Democrats are the party of government workers. Unending immigration means we need rafts of government workers to educate
non-English speakers, teach cultural sensitivity classes, arrest criminals, man prisons, clean up parks, distribute food stamps, arrange subsidized housing, and work in hospital emergency rooms to deliver all those premature babies.
MSNBC is constantly crowing about Democrats sweeping every ethnic group. Could we see the party preferences of voters whose great-great-grandparents were born in America? Republicans would win that demographic in a landslide. The American electorate isn’t moving to the left — it’s shrinking. Democrats figured out they’d never
win with Americans, so they implemented an evil, genius plan to change this country by restocking it with voters more favorably disposed to left-wing policies than Americans ever would be. Unfortunately, this scheme was implemented long before I was able to
object.
But that’s not how the story of the end of America will be written. Rather, it will be: THEN, FINALLY, PROGRESSIVE POLITICS SWEPT THE NATION! THERE WAS RESISTANCE, BUT, IN THE END, THE LEFT’S ARGUMENTS WON. No minds have been changed. Democrats just brought in a new group of voters whose minds don’t need to be changed. It’s as if the Democrats switched teams at halftime, from the worst team in the NBA to the best. We’ve got five NBA All-Stars guarding LeBron — Woo hoo! We won! Don’t pat yourselves on the back, Democrats. The country
isn’t changing — you changed the voters.
Occasionally, Democrats speak openly about what they’re doing. In 2002, liberal journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira wrote a book boasting that immigrants, combined with the Democrats’ usual disgruntled voters — divorcees and college professors — would give Democrats an insuperable majority within a few decades. Third World immigration, they said, would consummate “George McGovern’s revenge” — which up to that point I thought was a particularly nasty lower intestinal condition. A decade later, when Obama won his 2012 reelection, Teixeira gloated that — as he had predicted — ethnic minorities were voting 8-2 for the Democrats, and had grown to nearly one-third of the electorate. “McGovern’s revenge only seems sweeter,” Teixeira said. 19
McGovern’s revenge also represents the Democrats’ switch from a party of blue-collar workers to a party of urban elites — feminists, vegans, drug legalizers, untaxed hedge fund operators, and transgender-rights activists. Back when Democrats still claimed to represent working Americans, they opposed illegal immigration. Since being taken over by the Far Left, all that matters to them is changing the electorate to one that doesn’t mind liberal insanity.
PROUD TO BE UN-AMERICAN
It’s striking how so many immigration activists don’t seem to particularly like this country. They tell us that America is a teeming mass of racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. But then they insist on bringing the rest of the world to live here. As Jesse Mills, an ethnic studies professor at the University of San Diego, put it: “The legacy of race, gender, and class oppression in the United States has transported many Somali refugees from one epic struggle to another.” 20 Why are liberals so determined to drag innocent Somalis to this hell on earth?
Immigration is how the Left decided to punish America. The anti-American crowd used to dash off to fight with Communist insurgencies in Third World jungles. But the fun of being self-righteous was sometimes cut short when they ended up in prison, like Lori Berenson, who was arrested for her activities with the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement in Peru. Rather than hating America from abroad, today’s radicals can hate it right here at home by bringing the Third World to America! Google immigrant rights group files suit and you’ll get 20 million hits.
Even after the country had twice elected the angel Obama, only 40 percent of liberals told Pew Research they were “proud to be American” — compared with more than 70 percent of conservatives. 21 Our recent immigrants agree with liberals! They may like the money, the jobs, and the government benefits, but — like liberals — most
immigrants have zero emotional attachment to the United States. According to a Washington Post poll, a majority of second-generation immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Vietnam, and the West Indies did not refer to themselves as “Americans” and said America was not the best country in the world. 22 They’re not the hottest immigrants in the world, so maybe a solution presents itself.
Being openly hostile to America has become a part of ethnic pride. U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez calls on his own country (technically, the USA) to “stop the deportation of our people [emphasis added]!” 2 ” Don’t be thinking that just because
he’s a member of Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, that his first loyalty is to the United States. That’s where you always make the same mistake. Gutierrez told Newsweek that he has “only one loyalty, and that’s to the immigrant community.” 24
When demanding special treatment, immigrants are minorities oppressed by America; when they commit crimes or terrorist acts, they’re “local man.”
Sending undesirable immigrants to an enemy nation is a war tactic, such as, in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter idiotically offered to take any Cubans who wanted to come to America and Fidel Castro responded by emptying Cuba’s prisons and mental institutions onto the Mariel boatlift. 2: Today, immigration is again being used as a war technique by America’s enemies: Democrats. Instead of Communist dictators conniving to send their headaches to the United States, American liberals are conniving to bring them here — and then hand them voter registration cards. Third World immigration is a
win-win for the Left. They can instruct immigrants on hating the country and get their housework done at the same time!
It is a striking fact that Communists have managed to infect the working class everywhere in the world — except the United States. Nineteenth-century anarchists hoped to stir up labor unrest with mob violence such as the Haymarket Riot. Stalinists infiltrated labor unions in the 1930s and 1940s. Long-haired student radicals tried to
organize blue-collar workers in the sixties. How did that work out? All their efforts fizzled. By 1970, building trades guys were beating up antiwar hippies on Wall Street and storming City Hall to raise the American flag — then being flown at half-staff by
Mayor John Lindsay to honor students killed at Kent State University. Blue-collar workers voted overwhelmingly for Reagan, who, along with Nixon, was endorsed by the Teamsters Union.
To its dismay, the American Left is utterly bereft of working-class members — the very proletarian masses they hoped to champion! Instead, their meetings are jammed with college professors and feminists. But you know where liberals have finally found a
working class amenable to left-wing politics and violent political demonstrations? Take a look at Latin American politics for your clue.
The immigrants themselves are window dressing for left-wing activists’ campaign to destroy America. Foreign names go on the masthead, but left-wing zealots lead the team. 26 Michele Waslin, for years the spokesman for “La Raza” — meaning “a race other
than hers” — denounced a legislative proposal to encourage immigrants to learn English and American history, saying “patriotism and traditional American values” are “potentially dangerous to our communities.” 27 Leftists have no trouble adopting the persona of an oppressed Third World person. The only identity they have difficulty
assuming is: “American.”
At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they’re fighting for: Their plan is to turn America into another Third World hellhole, where the two parties are the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party and the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party. Republicans
can’t think past the next election. They need campaign cash, and their big donors want cheap workers now. We’re lucky if we can get Republicans to think past their kids’ summer jobs. Karl Rove praises illegal immigration, saying: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” 28 How about one illegal alien gets to stay if Karl Rove goes?
