0 comment Saturday, September 27, 2014 | admin
I've always maintained that the Ellis Island wave of immigration led to our current immigration tsunami, as the descendants of the original Ellis Island immigrants, who were essentially the vanguard of ''diversity'', tend to side with immigrants and against the core population of America, the old-stock colonist descendants.
We know the story; those Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who were bigots, were naughty and mean to the Ellis Island immigrants, writing harsh editorials about them and generally being snobbish and elitist.
Memories are long, and grudges persist for generations it seems, and so to compensate for having been so mean to the ethnic immigrants, we must now make amends in perpetuity by allowing Moslems to immigrate here. It's only fair, isn't it?
And isn't America a nation of immigrants, whose sacred duty is to provide a home for anybody who is dissatisfied or just plain restless? Don't they have a God-given right to immigrate here? Apparently so.
What, I wonder, would have happened if those old-stock WASPs who ran America then had simply said 'no, thanks' when the immigrant ships began arriving in great numbers? What if they had closed the 'Golden Door' as Emma Lazarus called it and said 'we're full up; we can manage just fine by ourselves.' Which we could, because we did, for 200 years or so.
Was it better for us to have opened those ''Golden Doors'' that have been just about torn off their hinges in recent years by the stampede of would-be immigrants, or would we have been better off without having put out the welcome mat?
The one factor that is almost never taken into account in discussing immigration is the interests of the native-born citizenry. Our interests and wishes should have been paramount; instead, the emphasis shifted to sympathy for the poor downtrodden, the 'huddled masses', and away from native-born Americans, and there it has stayed until this day.
In one immigration sob story of a year or so ago, I remember some Pakistani immigrant being quoted as saying that ''this country is for everybody; it doesn't belong to Americans only.'' And that's the party line that the media and our political classes hew to, to our great detriment.
We often say that the guilt trip began in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Revolution, but it began during the Ellis Island wave of immigration, and it's still going strong.
Blacks want reparations for the injustices they feel were done to them by our ancestors, but Ellis Islanders require penance of us, which involves opening our doors to all and sundry, without discriminating (that is, picking and choosing). The loss of our country and our majority status, along with our children's future, is the price being demanded ultimately in payment for our 'sins' against their ancestors.
However, I refuse to feel guilt on this score; there were legitimate reasons why the bad old WASPs wanted to choose carefully who came here to live among us; they wanted to preserve their existing order of things, which had been bought at a considerable price by their fathers. I suspect many of the Ellis Islanders don't appreciate that; their ancestors came to a country that had been carved out of the wilderness by others, and they did not even have to do the hard work of winning the country from nature and from the Indians. It's often said that what you yourself don't work for, tends to be valued lightly. That appears to be so, as many of the descendants of later immigrants seem not to care that this country might no longer be ours very soon. It seems they would prefer to give it away to strangers rather than let the resented WASP descendants enjoy it.
I think our present diversity debacle illustrates perfectly how diversity, far from being a strength, undermines and weakens and ultimately destroys the foundations of a nation.
And that diversity debacle was begun by allowing ever more disparate groups of people free entry into our country. Now that we can see the pattern, it may be too late to reverse it -- and it will be, if the EI descendants continue to try to extract their revenge on WASP America, or its tattered remnants.
We know the story; those Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who were bigots, were naughty and mean to the Ellis Island immigrants, writing harsh editorials about them and generally being snobbish and elitist.
Memories are long, and grudges persist for generations it seems, and so to compensate for having been so mean to the ethnic immigrants, we must now make amends in perpetuity by allowing Moslems to immigrate here. It's only fair, isn't it?
And isn't America a nation of immigrants, whose sacred duty is to provide a home for anybody who is dissatisfied or just plain restless? Don't they have a God-given right to immigrate here? Apparently so.
What, I wonder, would have happened if those old-stock WASPs who ran America then had simply said 'no, thanks' when the immigrant ships began arriving in great numbers? What if they had closed the 'Golden Door' as Emma Lazarus called it and said 'we're full up; we can manage just fine by ourselves.' Which we could, because we did, for 200 years or so.
Was it better for us to have opened those ''Golden Doors'' that have been just about torn off their hinges in recent years by the stampede of would-be immigrants, or would we have been better off without having put out the welcome mat?
The one factor that is almost never taken into account in discussing immigration is the interests of the native-born citizenry. Our interests and wishes should have been paramount; instead, the emphasis shifted to sympathy for the poor downtrodden, the 'huddled masses', and away from native-born Americans, and there it has stayed until this day.
In one immigration sob story of a year or so ago, I remember some Pakistani immigrant being quoted as saying that ''this country is for everybody; it doesn't belong to Americans only.'' And that's the party line that the media and our political classes hew to, to our great detriment.
We often say that the guilt trip began in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Revolution, but it began during the Ellis Island wave of immigration, and it's still going strong.
Blacks want reparations for the injustices they feel were done to them by our ancestors, but Ellis Islanders require penance of us, which involves opening our doors to all and sundry, without discriminating (that is, picking and choosing). The loss of our country and our majority status, along with our children's future, is the price being demanded ultimately in payment for our 'sins' against their ancestors.
However, I refuse to feel guilt on this score; there were legitimate reasons why the bad old WASPs wanted to choose carefully who came here to live among us; they wanted to preserve their existing order of things, which had been bought at a considerable price by their fathers. I suspect many of the Ellis Islanders don't appreciate that; their ancestors came to a country that had been carved out of the wilderness by others, and they did not even have to do the hard work of winning the country from nature and from the Indians. It's often said that what you yourself don't work for, tends to be valued lightly. That appears to be so, as many of the descendants of later immigrants seem not to care that this country might no longer be ours very soon. It seems they would prefer to give it away to strangers rather than let the resented WASP descendants enjoy it.
I think our present diversity debacle illustrates perfectly how diversity, far from being a strength, undermines and weakens and ultimately destroys the foundations of a nation.
And that diversity debacle was begun by allowing ever more disparate groups of people free entry into our country. Now that we can see the pattern, it may be too late to reverse it -- and it will be, if the EI descendants continue to try to extract their revenge on WASP America, or its tattered remnants.
Labels: American History, Diversity, Ellis Island Syndrome, Mass Immigration, Melting Pot, Multiculturalism, Nativism, Proposition Nation
0 comment Wednesday, August 20, 2014 | admin
...brown-eyed resentment.
Steve Sailer has a second post relating to Maureen Dowd's article on 'blue-eyed greed.'
Maureen Dowd's NYT column "Blue Eyed Greed?" convinced me to sit down and take a vaguely systematic stab at figuring out the ethnic backgrounds of the people whose names come up these days in relation to the universe of American finance.
I first wasted time some time squinting at pictures of Angelo Mozilo and Bernie Madoff trying to figure out what their eye colors were, but then I gave that up as hopelessly literal-minded. Obviously, Dowd (a red-haired Irish Catholic who felt undervalued because she has brown eyes) is using the code terms "blue eyed" and "white bread bankers" to refer to Northern European Protestants. So, it made more sense to look up ancestry, religion, and self-identification directly.
[...]
So, here's what I found.
- The old stereotype that the financial world is run by Northern European Protestants from the Northeast appears outmoded. I came up with six WASPs out of 40, but three were politicians (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Phil Gramm, only one of whom grew up wealthy); one was an accused crook of working class rural origin (Sir Allen Stanford); one was a Southern army sergeant's son (Ken Lewis of Bank of America); and one was from the Northeastern media elite, Daniel Mudd of Freddie Mac, son of newscaster Roger Mudd and a descendant of the doctor who set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg, who has managed to make the family name mud again. (If you want to count Barack Obama as half-WASP, you can make it 6.5.) This 6 out of 40 feels a little low, but that's what I've got.''
(Incidentally, this relates to some of the information posted on the Race/History/Evolution blog a while back, starting with the linked post and continuing in subsequent posts.)
Sailer goes on to examine the ethnic origins of the various figures in top positions in finance, and concludes:
So, what does it add up to?
Well, first, Maureen Dowd's media stereotype about the financial world as dominated by an Old Boy's Network of blond, blue-eyed WASPs is badly out of date. Finance has evolved from an old Relationship Model to a newer Transaction Model about who can make you the most money in a New York minute.''
[Emphasis mine]
Dowd is hardly the only one spreading this popular misconception that some kind of WASP blueblood elite really runs everything; the idea is surprisingly persistent though when challenged, the people who assert this idea as fact never seem to be able to name names and be specific.
Recently when I was challenged on why I write so much on this blog about WASPs (it's divisive, don't you know; it makes others feel excluded, apparently) I gave some thought to it, and I think the main reason why I do focus more on WASPs is because nobody else seems to, at least not in a favorable way; those who do mention WASPs usually do so in a resentful way, referring to them as elites, snobs who lord it over others. How often do any of us hear anything favorable said about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Usually they are mentioned along with terms like 'white-bread' or along with synonyms like 'uptight', 'strait-laced', 'boring' 'bland', and so on.
WASPs are essentially the quintessential White Americans, whether that's viewed as good or as bad -- and these days it's considered mostly bad. Everybody is willing to disparage WASPs and few people even want to claim their WASP ancestry, considering it a non-heritage, an absence of a heritage, sort of a nonentity ethnicity. So who steps up to defend WASPs? I can't think of anybody, off the top of my head, who does so. So I feel compelled to step into the breach.
And the fact is, (and I know that it rankles, for some people) WASPs made this country. The overwhelming majority of the colonists of Massachusetts and Virginia were English. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were English. Some people insist otherwise, but they were English and Protestant for the most part. After a century or so of pro-immigrant, pro-ethnic propaganda, it's become difficult to discuss this fact because many people want it to be otherwise, but WASPs made this country, and put their stamp on it, which others now want to efface and to remove forever. And I think this is an injustice and an affront to the truth, and I won't let it go unchallenged.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a kind of orphaned heritage; nobody wants to claim it or to own it. It's bland, it's empty, it's "dull" and everybody knows WASPs oppressed all those vibrant immigrants who arrived here later. They put up signs saying 'no Irish need apply', (which never happened, but millions are convinced it did in fact happen, nonetheless) or they enslaved blacks, whereas we know that no other ethnicity did so, supposedly, and so on. And of course they were wealthy and educated and snobbish and bland.
One ironic thing that occurs to me as I read the Sailer comments: in determining who is WASP and who is not, the issue is confused because many people of ethnic ancestries saw fit to adopt Anglo-Saxon surnames, and first names, obscuring their actual ethnicity. Why? I mean, if you dislike WASPs as those awful snobs who discriminated against your immigrant ancestors, why adopt a hateful WASP surname and why get cosmetic surgery to make yourself look more WASP-like?
The comments on the earlier Sailer piece on the topic were interesting as usual
One commenter quoted Camille Paglia:
I have been at war with WASPiness since I grew up in upstate New York in the 1950s and early '60s. There is no way to describe the brute social power of the WASP establishment of that period -- the smooth, bland, coded good manners; the hidden past interconnections of families and business associations; the mysterious alliance between chic sororities (overpopulated by blondes) and the most prestigious Presbyterian church in town.
"College at the State University of New York at Binghamton in the revolutionary mid-1960s was a delicious relief for me. The counterculture was booming amid a fantasia of new influences from psychedelia, African-American blues, London Mod, and Andy Warhol's glittery Factory. And at my college there were so many dynamic, super-articulate, politically activist, and screamingly funny Jewish students from downstate New York that I felt the world had changed forever.''
So sorry that Paglia and lots of other ethnics like her felt inferior to WASPs (or those they believed to be WASPy) but that's not my problem. If they were affronted by 'good manners' and 'interconnections', too bad. But that's no reason to carry grudges all these years and to codify your personal shortcomings and resentments into political agendas, as many ethnics do. I don't know whether libertarian Paglia supports open borders or not, but many of her ethnic counterparts do, with a vengeance --- literally. Half of this open borders fanaticism is fueled by people who are envious of WASPs just for being WASPs. The chip-on-the-shoulder attitude is what drives much of this multiculturalism and diversity nonsense.
The WASP continues to be the favorite bogeyman of many different groups of people in this country, and even non-WASP Whites get to feel the brunt of it; if you are White, Protestant, and generally of Western European ancestry, you are considered a kind of WASP, regardless of whether you have any English ancestry. And since the WASP has been such a handy scapegoat and whipping boy for the perceived travails of ethnic Americans, he will continue to be pilloried, even if and when the last WASP is six feet under -- unless more of us stand up for ourselves and stop accepting all the blame for whatever grievances the others are nursing.
Steve Sailer has a second post relating to Maureen Dowd's article on 'blue-eyed greed.'
Maureen Dowd's NYT column "Blue Eyed Greed?" convinced me to sit down and take a vaguely systematic stab at figuring out the ethnic backgrounds of the people whose names come up these days in relation to the universe of American finance.
I first wasted time some time squinting at pictures of Angelo Mozilo and Bernie Madoff trying to figure out what their eye colors were, but then I gave that up as hopelessly literal-minded. Obviously, Dowd (a red-haired Irish Catholic who felt undervalued because she has brown eyes) is using the code terms "blue eyed" and "white bread bankers" to refer to Northern European Protestants. So, it made more sense to look up ancestry, religion, and self-identification directly.
[...]
So, here's what I found.
- The old stereotype that the financial world is run by Northern European Protestants from the Northeast appears outmoded. I came up with six WASPs out of 40, but three were politicians (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Phil Gramm, only one of whom grew up wealthy); one was an accused crook of working class rural origin (Sir Allen Stanford); one was a Southern army sergeant's son (Ken Lewis of Bank of America); and one was from the Northeastern media elite, Daniel Mudd of Freddie Mac, son of newscaster Roger Mudd and a descendant of the doctor who set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg, who has managed to make the family name mud again. (If you want to count Barack Obama as half-WASP, you can make it 6.5.) This 6 out of 40 feels a little low, but that's what I've got.''
(Incidentally, this relates to some of the information posted on the Race/History/Evolution blog a while back, starting with the linked post and continuing in subsequent posts.)
Sailer goes on to examine the ethnic origins of the various figures in top positions in finance, and concludes:
So, what does it add up to?
Well, first, Maureen Dowd's media stereotype about the financial world as dominated by an Old Boy's Network of blond, blue-eyed WASPs is badly out of date. Finance has evolved from an old Relationship Model to a newer Transaction Model about who can make you the most money in a New York minute.''
[Emphasis mine]
Dowd is hardly the only one spreading this popular misconception that some kind of WASP blueblood elite really runs everything; the idea is surprisingly persistent though when challenged, the people who assert this idea as fact never seem to be able to name names and be specific.
Recently when I was challenged on why I write so much on this blog about WASPs (it's divisive, don't you know; it makes others feel excluded, apparently) I gave some thought to it, and I think the main reason why I do focus more on WASPs is because nobody else seems to, at least not in a favorable way; those who do mention WASPs usually do so in a resentful way, referring to them as elites, snobs who lord it over others. How often do any of us hear anything favorable said about White Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Usually they are mentioned along with terms like 'white-bread' or along with synonyms like 'uptight', 'strait-laced', 'boring' 'bland', and so on.
WASPs are essentially the quintessential White Americans, whether that's viewed as good or as bad -- and these days it's considered mostly bad. Everybody is willing to disparage WASPs and few people even want to claim their WASP ancestry, considering it a non-heritage, an absence of a heritage, sort of a nonentity ethnicity. So who steps up to defend WASPs? I can't think of anybody, off the top of my head, who does so. So I feel compelled to step into the breach.
And the fact is, (and I know that it rankles, for some people) WASPs made this country. The overwhelming majority of the colonists of Massachusetts and Virginia were English. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were English. Some people insist otherwise, but they were English and Protestant for the most part. After a century or so of pro-immigrant, pro-ethnic propaganda, it's become difficult to discuss this fact because many people want it to be otherwise, but WASPs made this country, and put their stamp on it, which others now want to efface and to remove forever. And I think this is an injustice and an affront to the truth, and I won't let it go unchallenged.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage is a kind of orphaned heritage; nobody wants to claim it or to own it. It's bland, it's empty, it's "dull" and everybody knows WASPs oppressed all those vibrant immigrants who arrived here later. They put up signs saying 'no Irish need apply', (which never happened, but millions are convinced it did in fact happen, nonetheless) or they enslaved blacks, whereas we know that no other ethnicity did so, supposedly, and so on. And of course they were wealthy and educated and snobbish and bland.
One ironic thing that occurs to me as I read the Sailer comments: in determining who is WASP and who is not, the issue is confused because many people of ethnic ancestries saw fit to adopt Anglo-Saxon surnames, and first names, obscuring their actual ethnicity. Why? I mean, if you dislike WASPs as those awful snobs who discriminated against your immigrant ancestors, why adopt a hateful WASP surname and why get cosmetic surgery to make yourself look more WASP-like?
The comments on the earlier Sailer piece on the topic were interesting as usual
One commenter quoted Camille Paglia:
I have been at war with WASPiness since I grew up in upstate New York in the 1950s and early '60s. There is no way to describe the brute social power of the WASP establishment of that period -- the smooth, bland, coded good manners; the hidden past interconnections of families and business associations; the mysterious alliance between chic sororities (overpopulated by blondes) and the most prestigious Presbyterian church in town.
"College at the State University of New York at Binghamton in the revolutionary mid-1960s was a delicious relief for me. The counterculture was booming amid a fantasia of new influences from psychedelia, African-American blues, London Mod, and Andy Warhol's glittery Factory. And at my college there were so many dynamic, super-articulate, politically activist, and screamingly funny Jewish students from downstate New York that I felt the world had changed forever.''
So sorry that Paglia and lots of other ethnics like her felt inferior to WASPs (or those they believed to be WASPy) but that's not my problem. If they were affronted by 'good manners' and 'interconnections', too bad. But that's no reason to carry grudges all these years and to codify your personal shortcomings and resentments into political agendas, as many ethnics do. I don't know whether libertarian Paglia supports open borders or not, but many of her ethnic counterparts do, with a vengeance --- literally. Half of this open borders fanaticism is fueled by people who are envious of WASPs just for being WASPs. The chip-on-the-shoulder attitude is what drives much of this multiculturalism and diversity nonsense.
The WASP continues to be the favorite bogeyman of many different groups of people in this country, and even non-WASP Whites get to feel the brunt of it; if you are White, Protestant, and generally of Western European ancestry, you are considered a kind of WASP, regardless of whether you have any English ancestry. And since the WASP has been such a handy scapegoat and whipping boy for the perceived travails of ethnic Americans, he will continue to be pilloried, even if and when the last WASP is six feet under -- unless more of us stand up for ourselves and stop accepting all the blame for whatever grievances the others are nursing.
Labels: Anti White Racism, Elites, Ellis Island Syndrome, Ethnic Division, Stereotyping, Wasps
0 comment Wednesday, July 2, 2014 | admin
As Rick Darby put it the other day, on his Reflecting Light blog,
New Haven secedes from the Union
New Haven, Connecticut might in fact be said to have seceded, like all other such cities who decide to officially flout our existing laws on immigration. In the article linked and excerpted below, the arrogance and defiance of the Mayor, John DeStefano, Jr., and a number of other 'diverse' scofflaw residents, is on parade for all America to see:
Immigrants, Supporters Pour in For ID
...Visitors signing up for the city�s new Elm City Residency Card passed through a gauntlet of protesters on the way into City Hall. The line included undocumented Mexican immigrants, like Jaime Rojas and (pictured with Ruby Diaz), who saw the card as an "opportunity" for a safer life.
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
[...]The city created the program because U.S. legislators "don�t have the will to pass a coherent border strategy," the mayor said Tuesday. Instead legislators have allowed immigrants to move here, but forced them to be "invisible," said the mayor.
The card, which offers a range of services to people of all ages, was conceived as a symbolic gesture of recognition and a way give immigrants acceptable ID to open bank accounts, so that they won�t be easy prey for robbers. DeStefano urged those who live in the city to support one another by getting the card.
[...]West River Alderman Yusuf Shah heralded the program: "We believe that services should be given to everyone equally, to everyone." Two days after aldermen approved the ID plan with an overwhelming 25 to 1 vote, federal immigration agents swept the city, arresting 32 people whom they charged were illegal immigrants. In the terror that followed, parents were afraid to leave their homes to pick up their kids from school. Some said that sense of fear would scare immigrants away from signing up for an ID.
Pasqual Rojas (pictured at left), who came here illegally from Mexico 14 years ago, said he wasn�t afraid. "I want to be part of New Haven," he said in Spanish. The card would be signify "they respect us as citizens of New Haven."
[...]Kimber said he was supporting the ID because "it is every religious leader�s moral obligation to stand up for the disenfranchised� I do not want people to suffer as African-Americans did when they came to this country."
"If you look on the coin, it says 'E Pluribus Unum� � so they�re right on the money!" said Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh (pictured at left) before snapping a photo for his city ID. ''
So, in the above article, those heard from include Mayor DeStefano, Alderman Yusuf Shah, Pasqual Rojas (who, after 14 years in New Haven, still no habla Ingles), Harold Koh, and an African-American, Mr. Kimber, who sympathizes with illegals.
What's wrong with this picture? It seems the 'diversity' is being heard from: apparently all hyphenated 'Americans', one of whom can't or possibly won't speak the language of the realm, but where are the old-stock Americans? Do they not have a right to be heard?
Here is one of the most outrageous parts of the article, for my money:
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
Apparently, the Mayor prefers his fellow scofflaws, the illegal immigrants, to the real Americans who exercised their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, and express their disagreement with his actions. And notice the protesters are referred to as 'suburban hecklers.' What kind of snide putdown is that?
So it takes 'courage' to be a sneak thief and a criminal? Or does it take 'courage' to step up and get your freebies from a scofflaw, aiding-and-abetting city government? Courage is not the word that comes to my mind; brazenness comes to mind, as do phrases like unmitigated gall, shamelessness, arrogance, and nerve. But those don't mean the same as 'courage.' Courage implies a nobility of spirit, and a willingness to act heroically despite great danger, none of which are evident in any of this 'diverse' collection of individuals from victim groups.
The use of the word 'courage' implies that the illegals are somehow beset by various dangers. Dangers from whom? From mostly emasculated law enforcement officials, who have been hamstrung by PC judges and federal officials who don't want them to do their jobs? Danger from whom? Torch-carrying, pitchfork-wielding redneck citizens? Name me any attack on illegals by 'nativist' Americans. It hasn't happened. They are in danger from no one, and they know it; their brazen, in-our-face, behavior proves that. If they were afraid, and if they were in danger, illegals would not be stampeding across our borders by the thousands every day, and they would not be pelting our Border Patrol agents with stones or otherwise taunting and baiting them.
This nonsense about the poor beleaguered immigrants 'living in the shadows' is ridiculous, and whoever invented that silly cliche is as dishonest as whoever invented the laughably inaccurate phrase 'Religion of Peace.'
Mayor DeStefano is of course a Democrat, but to be fair, there are many Republicans who support open borders and illegals.
The most common factor in these attitudes seems not to be political party, but ethnicity and recent immigrant roots. And true to form, we read here:
An hour�s drive from Danbury, in New Haven, where almost a quarter of citizens are Latino, the contrast in attitudes toward the undocumented population couldn�t be more stark.
It starts at the top with Mayor John DeStefano Jr., a second generation American.
"I am all for extending the same benefits and opportunities to these folks that were extended to my grandparents," he said.
As for deputizing police to act as immigration agents, DeStefano said no such request will ever come out of New Haven.
"In the process you will collapse our economy and paint with a broad brush immigrants to this country under the guise of people�s fears about terrorism," he said.
In fact, the police are weighing a policy that would specifically prevent their involvement in immigration matters.
DeStefano�s response to these issues is visceral. Fears about anarchists at the beginning of the 20th century fed the execution of Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, he pointed out. "I don�t think it is a part of American history that we should be proud of or should repeat," he said.''
So here we have the Immigrant Grandfather/Ellis Island Syndrome. Sure, there is the occasional exception but far too often there is a correlation. And notice that DeStefano associates immigration restrictionism with the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which many Italian-Americans see as 'persecution' of Italian immigrants. Whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty is inconsequential to their apologists: they were poor immigrants and that makes them martyrs. The popular liberal wisdom is that they were victims of the 'Red Scare' and xenophobia.
So as the quote from Mayor DeStefano indicates, he has a 'visceral' response on the issue of immigrants. This, in my mind, disqualifies him from being a public official, because it's tantamount to saying that he has a deep-rooted bias based on his own ancestry and family history, a bias in favor of immigrants. This to me is reminiscent of the Illinois school board official who ruled in favor of admitting illegal immigrants to the school system; in an angry outburst he declared that his parents were immigrants and that he would not brook any anti-immigrant sentiment. How is this kind of naked bias allowable in a public official, who is supposed to be capable of objectivity, and to be 'disinterested' in the true dictionary definition of the word?
It appears as though objectivity and disinterestedness are simply quaint cultural artifacts of Anglo culture; it seems only those of Anglo or other European descent even acknowledge the desirability of those qualities. Everybody else seems to operate on the basis of ethnic bias or plain old resentment of traditional majority America.
And of course ethnic solidarity is intrinsic to all of us, even those of us who have learned to subordinate it to some kind of greater good. But maybe we who have tried to be objective and fair to all are being taken advantage of and suckered by all the 'new Americans' who laugh at our gullibility while they unashamedly act on behalf of their own ethnic interests.
As America becomes ever more a house divided, we will see more polarizing, and people of non-Anglo ancestry, whether they be Italian-Americans or other Ellis Island descendants, or Americans of Hispanic descent, will have to declare which side they are on. It won't be possible to stay neutral as the sides line up.
We saw that in the events in Morristown, N.J. yesterday, too.
New Haven secedes from the Union
New Haven, Connecticut might in fact be said to have seceded, like all other such cities who decide to officially flout our existing laws on immigration. In the article linked and excerpted below, the arrogance and defiance of the Mayor, John DeStefano, Jr., and a number of other 'diverse' scofflaw residents, is on parade for all America to see:
Immigrants, Supporters Pour in For ID
...Visitors signing up for the city�s new Elm City Residency Card passed through a gauntlet of protesters on the way into City Hall. The line included undocumented Mexican immigrants, like Jaime Rojas and (pictured with Ruby Diaz), who saw the card as an "opportunity" for a safer life.
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
[...]The city created the program because U.S. legislators "don�t have the will to pass a coherent border strategy," the mayor said Tuesday. Instead legislators have allowed immigrants to move here, but forced them to be "invisible," said the mayor.
The card, which offers a range of services to people of all ages, was conceived as a symbolic gesture of recognition and a way give immigrants acceptable ID to open bank accounts, so that they won�t be easy prey for robbers. DeStefano urged those who live in the city to support one another by getting the card.
[...]West River Alderman Yusuf Shah heralded the program: "We believe that services should be given to everyone equally, to everyone." Two days after aldermen approved the ID plan with an overwhelming 25 to 1 vote, federal immigration agents swept the city, arresting 32 people whom they charged were illegal immigrants. In the terror that followed, parents were afraid to leave their homes to pick up their kids from school. Some said that sense of fear would scare immigrants away from signing up for an ID.
Pasqual Rojas (pictured at left), who came here illegally from Mexico 14 years ago, said he wasn�t afraid. "I want to be part of New Haven," he said in Spanish. The card would be signify "they respect us as citizens of New Haven."
[...]Kimber said he was supporting the ID because "it is every religious leader�s moral obligation to stand up for the disenfranchised� I do not want people to suffer as African-Americans did when they came to this country."
"If you look on the coin, it says 'E Pluribus Unum� � so they�re right on the money!" said Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh (pictured at left) before snapping a photo for his city ID. ''
So, in the above article, those heard from include Mayor DeStefano, Alderman Yusuf Shah, Pasqual Rojas (who, after 14 years in New Haven, still no habla Ingles), Harold Koh, and an African-American, Mr. Kimber, who sympathizes with illegals.
What's wrong with this picture? It seems the 'diversity' is being heard from: apparently all hyphenated 'Americans', one of whom can't or possibly won't speak the language of the realm, but where are the old-stock Americans? Do they not have a right to be heard?
Here is one of the most outrageous parts of the article, for my money:
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
Apparently, the Mayor prefers his fellow scofflaws, the illegal immigrants, to the real Americans who exercised their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, and express their disagreement with his actions. And notice the protesters are referred to as 'suburban hecklers.' What kind of snide putdown is that?
So it takes 'courage' to be a sneak thief and a criminal? Or does it take 'courage' to step up and get your freebies from a scofflaw, aiding-and-abetting city government? Courage is not the word that comes to my mind; brazenness comes to mind, as do phrases like unmitigated gall, shamelessness, arrogance, and nerve. But those don't mean the same as 'courage.' Courage implies a nobility of spirit, and a willingness to act heroically despite great danger, none of which are evident in any of this 'diverse' collection of individuals from victim groups.
The use of the word 'courage' implies that the illegals are somehow beset by various dangers. Dangers from whom? From mostly emasculated law enforcement officials, who have been hamstrung by PC judges and federal officials who don't want them to do their jobs? Danger from whom? Torch-carrying, pitchfork-wielding redneck citizens? Name me any attack on illegals by 'nativist' Americans. It hasn't happened. They are in danger from no one, and they know it; their brazen, in-our-face, behavior proves that. If they were afraid, and if they were in danger, illegals would not be stampeding across our borders by the thousands every day, and they would not be pelting our Border Patrol agents with stones or otherwise taunting and baiting them.
This nonsense about the poor beleaguered immigrants 'living in the shadows' is ridiculous, and whoever invented that silly cliche is as dishonest as whoever invented the laughably inaccurate phrase 'Religion of Peace.'
Mayor DeStefano is of course a Democrat, but to be fair, there are many Republicans who support open borders and illegals.
The most common factor in these attitudes seems not to be political party, but ethnicity and recent immigrant roots. And true to form, we read here:
An hour�s drive from Danbury, in New Haven, where almost a quarter of citizens are Latino, the contrast in attitudes toward the undocumented population couldn�t be more stark.
It starts at the top with Mayor John DeStefano Jr., a second generation American.
"I am all for extending the same benefits and opportunities to these folks that were extended to my grandparents," he said.
As for deputizing police to act as immigration agents, DeStefano said no such request will ever come out of New Haven.
"In the process you will collapse our economy and paint with a broad brush immigrants to this country under the guise of people�s fears about terrorism," he said.
In fact, the police are weighing a policy that would specifically prevent their involvement in immigration matters.
DeStefano�s response to these issues is visceral. Fears about anarchists at the beginning of the 20th century fed the execution of Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, he pointed out. "I don�t think it is a part of American history that we should be proud of or should repeat," he said.''
So here we have the Immigrant Grandfather/Ellis Island Syndrome. Sure, there is the occasional exception but far too often there is a correlation. And notice that DeStefano associates immigration restrictionism with the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which many Italian-Americans see as 'persecution' of Italian immigrants. Whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty is inconsequential to their apologists: they were poor immigrants and that makes them martyrs. The popular liberal wisdom is that they were victims of the 'Red Scare' and xenophobia.
So as the quote from Mayor DeStefano indicates, he has a 'visceral' response on the issue of immigrants. This, in my mind, disqualifies him from being a public official, because it's tantamount to saying that he has a deep-rooted bias based on his own ancestry and family history, a bias in favor of immigrants. This to me is reminiscent of the Illinois school board official who ruled in favor of admitting illegal immigrants to the school system; in an angry outburst he declared that his parents were immigrants and that he would not brook any anti-immigrant sentiment. How is this kind of naked bias allowable in a public official, who is supposed to be capable of objectivity, and to be 'disinterested' in the true dictionary definition of the word?
It appears as though objectivity and disinterestedness are simply quaint cultural artifacts of Anglo culture; it seems only those of Anglo or other European descent even acknowledge the desirability of those qualities. Everybody else seems to operate on the basis of ethnic bias or plain old resentment of traditional majority America.
And of course ethnic solidarity is intrinsic to all of us, even those of us who have learned to subordinate it to some kind of greater good. But maybe we who have tried to be objective and fair to all are being taken advantage of and suckered by all the 'new Americans' who laugh at our gullibility while they unashamedly act on behalf of their own ethnic interests.
As America becomes ever more a house divided, we will see more polarizing, and people of non-Anglo ancestry, whether they be Italian-Americans or other Ellis Island descendants, or Americans of Hispanic descent, will have to declare which side they are on. It won't be possible to stay neutral as the sides line up.
We saw that in the events in Morristown, N.J. yesterday, too.
Labels: Ellis Island Syndrome, Illegal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Rule Of Law, Sanctuary Cities