Courting tomorrow's majority
0 comment Monday, May 5, 2014 |
Bush asks graduates' help on immigration
Why, I wonder, didn't he just give the speech in Spanish?
Bush gave the commencement address at Miami Dade College, where more than half the students were raised speaking a language other than English. He gave the graduates an assignment: Tell their elected representatives in Washington to get going on immigration overhaul.
"You see every day the values of hard work and family and faith that immigrants bring," the president said. "This experience gives you a special responsibility to make your voices heard." '
In this nauseating display of indifference to the will of the American people, the President appeals to the graduating students at a college in Miami.
My first thought was : why Miami? Is that the only place where he can find a sympathetic, majority Hispanic audience for this speech?
James Fulford at the VDare blog says that the student body at Miami Dade College, all campuses included, is 65 percent Hispanic. And the demographics of Miami-Dade are majority Hispanic and actually a majority is foreign-born, according to the statistics Fulford gives.
The Fulford blog entry is very informative; worth reading in full if you haven't already.
Over at one of those big Republican forums, where the real diehard party loyalists hang out, some of them are insistent that Hispanics in Florida are not at all like Mexicans or other Hispanic immigrants; they are all pro-American and good Republicans and just as anti-amnesty as the most conservative of us.
Yeah, right. Explain Florida Senator Mel Martinez, then.
According to Americans for Better Immigration, Martinez has a 'D' grade on his voting on immigration issues.
And he is Cuban-born, if I recall correctly. Now aren't they all staunch conservatives, or is the Hispanic bond something that trumps all else?
Then, among other Cuban-Americans in Congress, we have Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who receives an F minus on his voting record, and Mario Diaz-Balart, who is much better, (!) with only an F. And then there's Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who despite her non-Spanish-sounding surnames, is Cuban, and who is often paraded as a conservative voice on the cable news networks. She too receives an F minus.
So where is the proof of this Cuban conservatism and their opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty?
All I can go by is the stance of the Congressmen (and women) they elect, and their records are abysmal on immigration. They may be 'conservative' on social or fiscal issues, but since the subject here is amnesty, and since immigration is THE most important issue, that's all I am looking at here.
This source provides a lot of information and statistics on people of Cuban origin in our country, and although it does seem true that they are economically better off than Mexicans or other Hispanics, and that they may be more conservative in some senses, (probably it is more a matter of being anti-Castro) they do seem to be more sympathetic to Mexican immigration and amnesty, if we are to look at their elected officials as any indication.
Again, all this hogwash about Hispanic immigrants and their 'values of hard work and family and faith' is insulting to the rest of us; the clear implication is that nobody in America is capable of hard work, and that we don't have 'values' of family and faith. That is another slap in the face of traditional America. Even if it were true that Hispanics have those values, (and evidence of crime and social pathology statistics belies that cliche) it is dishonest and defamatory to insinuate that Americans lack those qualities.
Even if all the immigrants who wanted to come here were proven to be the hardest working, most family oriented, religious people on earth, how does it follow that they have a right to live here, and to make demands on us?
There are likely many millions of people in this world who work hard and who have 'family values' but that does not mean they have a right to live here, or more importantly, that they would be a good fit in our country.
And it also does not take into account the will of the American people, whose country this rightfully is.
The President's plea to these mostly-Hispanic students to support his subversion-through-demographics of America is I think a manifestation of his divisive approach. (And he campaigned as a 'uniter, not a divider.') I take it as an in-your-face to majority Americans: a way of saying 'you can help me in my quest to change America in defiance of the American majority.' To pit groups against each other in this fashion, to appeal to Hispanic ethnic/linguistic solidarity as a tool to use against the majority is not in the tradition of America as it was intended. This is just plain wrong.
Yet, despite its blatant wrongness, despite its obvious dismissal of the majority of us, there are still the blind loyalists over at those web forums who will take the President's side, and accept this slap in the face from him, on the grounds that 'the Democrats are worse.' And that same kind of lesser-of-evils rationalization will very possibly result in our being presented with a liberal GOP candidate. It looks as though, just as long as the Republicans run somebody who is just a hair to the right of the far-left Democrat candidate, whoever that may end up being, the 'conservatives' will fall in line behind any Republican. I am sure the elites are pleased with this situation; they keep pushing the political debate farther to the left, and the 'conservatives' obediently move left on cue. So no matter who gets elected, the elites get what they want. We edge ever closer to this 'North American Union' or to the globalized, borderless world.
And in the process, our country is being made less livable, and our lives less peaceful.

Labels: , , , ,