0 comment Monday, August 11, 2014 | admin
Linda Chavez's opinion piece on immigration is hardly a surprise. Despite her claims to being a conservative, she has consistently been on the side of illegal immigrants, and in fact at one point, was denied a cabinet post in the first Bush adminstration because of the fact that she had harbored an illegal immigrant in her home as a domestic.
Linda's piece is full of name-calling and race-baiting, all of which confirms my impression that she is no conservative, but a neocon right-liberal. The neocons are as fond of using the race card as any of the liberals are. And although Linda Chavez accuses 'nativists' of not having any logic or facts on their side, she presents none herself. She simply states that the xenophobes believe all sorts of negative stereotypes of Mexicans, and it's obvious she takes offense at this fact, although she herself, being an American, should have no reason to take offense. There's the rub: obviously she identifies with the Mexican illegals more than with Anglos or other Americans. She has shown us clearly where her allegiances are, and they are not with conservatism, and most certainly not with traditional America. Blood trumps culture, as I have said before. Linda is born and bred an American. She is culturally American. She probably speaks Spanish with an American accent. But she has as much as admitted that her heart is with her illegal distant cousins, not with her fellow Americans, not with me. and not likely with you, my readers.
So again, as with Ruben Navarrette, her ethnic kinsman who writes pro-illegal articles gloating about the "re"conquest of America by Mexicans, Linda has shown us where her allegiances are. She is siding against fellow Americans in favor of illegal Mexicans, just as Navarrette and Mel Martinez and Luis Gutierrez and so many others are doing.
I'm not even going to protest at her labeling people like me and other immigration restrictionists as racist or xenophobic. I have no interest in playing that game; liberals of both right and left love to race-bait, and they love to see the target wriggle and squirm and protest and sputter their innocence. I won't dignify the race-baiting by any rebuttal; one can't refute a charge of racism anyway, and the race-baiter is not interested in hearing any defense. They simply want to silence and discredit people. And they are in the wrong for trying to do so. Plain and simple. I won't get caught up in their game.
Am I a 'nativist'? Probably. Is that bad? Not in my book or my ancestors' book either; it's just the natural state of being. We are all born with an inclination to side with our own and to put our own people first. Linda proves that, but her people are the Mexican people, evidently. So Linda is just as nativist or ethnocentric, but merely in favor of Latinos.
Some people insist, in the absence of any real evidence, that people of Hispanic descent who were born in this country are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm a skeptic on that point; I say show me. Prove it. Anecdotes don't count, such as 'I have a friend (neighbor, co-worker, colleague) who is Hispanic and he/she doesn't like illegal immigration.'
Fine; show me your friend/neighbor/coworker who opposes illegal immigration and I'll show you quite a few more Hispanic legislators, congressmen and congresswomen, Senators, local officials, journalists and 'pundits' (like Ms. Chavez) who are avid proponents of amnesty, and who identify as Hispanic first, American being a distant second.
When push comes to shove, I think blood trumps all, and as Lionel Sosa says today in the Los Angeles Times, quoted here at the VDare blog, 'blood runs thicker than politics.' Sosa, apparently a Republican, has decided to work for self-proclaimed Latino Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson Lopez (Bill Richardson as was; but he wants to go all Hispanic on us all of a sudden. He's another exhibit in my case here.) So Lionel Sosa says right out that 'blood runs thicker than politics' and it looks as though it certainly is for Linda Chavez, as she sacrifices whatever tatters of conservative principles she may have had in favor of sticking up for her race, her people. Shouldn't her people be Americans? I have read that her Mexican ancestors came here many generations ago, and she is, after all, half Anglo-American. Sosa, at least, is all Hispanic as far as I have been able to determine.
What is it with people like Chavez, Richardson (Lopez), and Geraldo Rivera, who have only half Hispanic ancestry, but who suppress their allegiance to the non-Hispanic side in favor of the Hispanic ancestry? It is almost always that way with people of mixed parentage: the European ancestry is shunned while the non-European is emphatically embraced. I suppose that simply reflects how our society has devalued European heritage as inferior or 'boring' or dull, or guilty, while non-European ancestry is exciting and 'vibrant'. And then one has the heady experience as a 'minority' of being a self-righteous victim. There are a lot of benefits and power that go along with being a member of a 'victim' group these days. It must go to one's head; it must feel empowering and morally superior.
I would bet that, as the Latino presence becomes more dominant here, and as our collaborationist government sides with the Latinos consistently, those in our country of Hispanic descent will start to identify more strongly with their Latino roots. Many American-born Hispanics will probably take up Spanish more avidly and speak it more often with their Mexican-born friends and neighbors. They will likely become less Americanized, especially in border states and other areas with a large Mexican/Central American colony. The same process has happened in some European countries with their Moslem populations; the more assimilated ones began to become more radicalized and more Islamic in culture and religious practice with the growing presence of Moslem immigrants in European countries. Some of the third-generation descendants of immigrants began to be more Moslem than their parents. The same will likely happen in America. We will see a lot of triumphalism and gloating among the Latinos as they see our worthless politicians truckling to them and taking their side.
Just as lots of people in the West comfort themselves by believing strongly in the 'moderate Moslem majority', the same people, liberals and neocons, believe with little evidence that Hispanics are mostly opposed to illegal immigration, and moreover, that they are conservative, well-assimilated, and on our side. No doubt some are, but we will shortly find out how many, as Hispanics will start to choose whether they are on the side of Americans or on the side of their kin from South of the border. As the country becomes polarized, the 'Hispanic community' will choose one way or the other, and if human nature holds true, blood will be the stronger tie.
So we will see more Hispanics in public life openly siding with their own over the rest of us.
I would like to think I am wrong; I would be happy to be proven wrong by events, but I am calling it as I see it at this moment, based on what people like Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, and Ruben Navarrette are telling us.
Linda's piece is full of name-calling and race-baiting, all of which confirms my impression that she is no conservative, but a neocon right-liberal. The neocons are as fond of using the race card as any of the liberals are. And although Linda Chavez accuses 'nativists' of not having any logic or facts on their side, she presents none herself. She simply states that the xenophobes believe all sorts of negative stereotypes of Mexicans, and it's obvious she takes offense at this fact, although she herself, being an American, should have no reason to take offense. There's the rub: obviously she identifies with the Mexican illegals more than with Anglos or other Americans. She has shown us clearly where her allegiances are, and they are not with conservatism, and most certainly not with traditional America. Blood trumps culture, as I have said before. Linda is born and bred an American. She is culturally American. She probably speaks Spanish with an American accent. But she has as much as admitted that her heart is with her illegal distant cousins, not with her fellow Americans, not with me. and not likely with you, my readers.
So again, as with Ruben Navarrette, her ethnic kinsman who writes pro-illegal articles gloating about the "re"conquest of America by Mexicans, Linda has shown us where her allegiances are. She is siding against fellow Americans in favor of illegal Mexicans, just as Navarrette and Mel Martinez and Luis Gutierrez and so many others are doing.
I'm not even going to protest at her labeling people like me and other immigration restrictionists as racist or xenophobic. I have no interest in playing that game; liberals of both right and left love to race-bait, and they love to see the target wriggle and squirm and protest and sputter their innocence. I won't dignify the race-baiting by any rebuttal; one can't refute a charge of racism anyway, and the race-baiter is not interested in hearing any defense. They simply want to silence and discredit people. And they are in the wrong for trying to do so. Plain and simple. I won't get caught up in their game.
Am I a 'nativist'? Probably. Is that bad? Not in my book or my ancestors' book either; it's just the natural state of being. We are all born with an inclination to side with our own and to put our own people first. Linda proves that, but her people are the Mexican people, evidently. So Linda is just as nativist or ethnocentric, but merely in favor of Latinos.
Some people insist, in the absence of any real evidence, that people of Hispanic descent who were born in this country are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm a skeptic on that point; I say show me. Prove it. Anecdotes don't count, such as 'I have a friend (neighbor, co-worker, colleague) who is Hispanic and he/she doesn't like illegal immigration.'
Fine; show me your friend/neighbor/coworker who opposes illegal immigration and I'll show you quite a few more Hispanic legislators, congressmen and congresswomen, Senators, local officials, journalists and 'pundits' (like Ms. Chavez) who are avid proponents of amnesty, and who identify as Hispanic first, American being a distant second.
When push comes to shove, I think blood trumps all, and as Lionel Sosa says today in the Los Angeles Times, quoted here at the VDare blog, 'blood runs thicker than politics.' Sosa, apparently a Republican, has decided to work for self-proclaimed Latino Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson Lopez (Bill Richardson as was; but he wants to go all Hispanic on us all of a sudden. He's another exhibit in my case here.) So Lionel Sosa says right out that 'blood runs thicker than politics' and it looks as though it certainly is for Linda Chavez, as she sacrifices whatever tatters of conservative principles she may have had in favor of sticking up for her race, her people. Shouldn't her people be Americans? I have read that her Mexican ancestors came here many generations ago, and she is, after all, half Anglo-American. Sosa, at least, is all Hispanic as far as I have been able to determine.
What is it with people like Chavez, Richardson (Lopez), and Geraldo Rivera, who have only half Hispanic ancestry, but who suppress their allegiance to the non-Hispanic side in favor of the Hispanic ancestry? It is almost always that way with people of mixed parentage: the European ancestry is shunned while the non-European is emphatically embraced. I suppose that simply reflects how our society has devalued European heritage as inferior or 'boring' or dull, or guilty, while non-European ancestry is exciting and 'vibrant'. And then one has the heady experience as a 'minority' of being a self-righteous victim. There are a lot of benefits and power that go along with being a member of a 'victim' group these days. It must go to one's head; it must feel empowering and morally superior.
I would bet that, as the Latino presence becomes more dominant here, and as our collaborationist government sides with the Latinos consistently, those in our country of Hispanic descent will start to identify more strongly with their Latino roots. Many American-born Hispanics will probably take up Spanish more avidly and speak it more often with their Mexican-born friends and neighbors. They will likely become less Americanized, especially in border states and other areas with a large Mexican/Central American colony. The same process has happened in some European countries with their Moslem populations; the more assimilated ones began to become more radicalized and more Islamic in culture and religious practice with the growing presence of Moslem immigrants in European countries. Some of the third-generation descendants of immigrants began to be more Moslem than their parents. The same will likely happen in America. We will see a lot of triumphalism and gloating among the Latinos as they see our worthless politicians truckling to them and taking their side.
Just as lots of people in the West comfort themselves by believing strongly in the 'moderate Moslem majority', the same people, liberals and neocons, believe with little evidence that Hispanics are mostly opposed to illegal immigration, and moreover, that they are conservative, well-assimilated, and on our side. No doubt some are, but we will shortly find out how many, as Hispanics will start to choose whether they are on the side of Americans or on the side of their kin from South of the border. As the country becomes polarized, the 'Hispanic community' will choose one way or the other, and if human nature holds true, blood will be the stronger tie.
So we will see more Hispanics in public life openly siding with their own over the rest of us.
I would like to think I am wrong; I would be happy to be proven wrong by events, but I am calling it as I see it at this moment, based on what people like Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, and Ruben Navarrette are telling us.
Labels: Amnesty, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Political Parties