See other Immigration Articles
Title: A Righteous Invasion
Source:
Taki's Mag
URL Source: http://takimag.com/article/a_righte ... eve_sailer/print#axzz36t1UYoJM
Published: Jul 9, 2014
Author: Steve Sailer
Post Date: 2014-07-09 12:04:39 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 65
Comments: 1
The current surge of Central American children and mothers across the border has made a travesty of the schmaltzy arguments long employed to rationalize the government’s winking at illegal immigration. George W. Bush famously assured us that we shouldn’t worry about illegal aliens because “Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande River [sic].” Yet we are now witnessing the extreme cynicism of Central Americans dispatching their unaccompanied children and nursing mothers across the drug war zone of northern Mexico to exploit the talk of amnesty among American leaders. Similarly, we’ve been told that illegal aliens do the jobs that Americans won’t do, but what job are these children going to do? Chimney sweep? A Central American mother, baby in one arm, told a TV news crew in Murietta, CA—where for the first time in years American citizens have dared to take a stand against the exploitation of themselves—that women like her were flocking across the border because “We can’t have children in our country.” But how much work that Americans just won’t do are they going to do here while having more babies? Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. takimag.com/article/a_rig...ailer/print#axzz36t1UYoJM Having overpopulated their own countries, they come here to overpopulate ours. During periods of high immigration, such as during amnesties, the birthrate among foreign-born Hispanics shoots upward. For example, the big amnesty of the late 1980s drove up the total fertility rate for foreign-born Latinas in California from 3.2 babies per lifetime to 4.4, which then choked the public schools in the Golden State around the turn of the century. Obama’s announcement last week of plans for a massive de facto administrative amnesty would likely have a similar effect. Eventually, the newcomers realize that raising children in America to middle-class standards of parental investment is enormously more expensive than they had foreseen—a new study suggests that to be comfortable a family of four needs an annual income of $130,000—and they can’t afford the ones they’ve already had. So fertility rates finally start to drop. But the efforts of Democrats to lure in future voters assure us that we won’t go long before a new crop of illegal aliens arrives to procreate with abandon. A commenter of mine, who for the moment calls himself Sky Islander, notes some other opportunistic paradoxes in the conventional wisdom: We need them because they make us richer, and we need them because we are too rich and must share with the poor immigrants. They are so hardworking and will stoically work to contribute to American society. They are so helpless and weak that we must work harder to take care of them. Likewise, we have to let them in because we will no doubt discriminate against them viciously. Therefore we must discriminate in favor of the newcomers by giving them ethnic preferences over ourselves. Clearly, the people who control the Narrative simply want, for reasons of their own, more immigrants. They’re willing to emit whatever they think will temporarily stymie the public while more foreigners pile in and produce anchor babies. For example, weren’t we assured during the depths of the recession that illegal immigration would never happen again? Isn’t there supposed be “zero net immigration” from Mexico? But how could our leadership have known there were more Third Worlders out there somewhere beyond Mexico? Nine years ago, I counted up how many people lived in countries where the average per capita GDP was below Mexico’s. I titled the resulting essay “The Five Billion.” Among them are the 43 million people left in Central America. To put that in perspective, that’s as large as the population of Mexico was in 1962. And there are now about 35 million Mexicans in the U.S. We have another interesting test case in Puerto Rico. A sizable majority of all the Puerto Ricans in the world now live in the 50 states, despite massive subsidies intended to keep them on their island. From 2009-2001, Gallup asked 452,199 adults in 151 countries if they’d like to immigrate somewhere: About 13% of the world’s adults—or more than 640 million people —say they would like to leave their country permanently. Roughly 150 million of them say they would like to move to the U.S. Notice that’s just counting adults, not dependent children. Gallup found the urge to move to the U.S. high among Central Americans: 14 percent of Guatemalans would like to come here, as well as 15 percent of Nicaraguans, 18 percent of Hondurans, and 19 percent of Salvadorans. Do they need to be here because they are starving to death at home? In a 2004 Presidential debate, George W. Bush encouraged illegal immigration by telling foreigners, “…you’re going to come here if you’re worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families.” Yet life expectancies are now over three score and ten years in all Central American countries, with Costa Ricans outliving Americans. Fortunately, Latin America now suffers less from hunger than from too much food on the table. Mexico has overtaken the U.S. for the title of the large country with the highest percentage of obese adults, 33 percent to 32 percent. But little Belize in Central America tips the scales at 35 percent, and obesity rates in the other Central American banana republics range from 20 percent in Honduras to 27 percent in El Salvador. Granted, Central Americans commit murder at appalling rates. But why that is a good argument for admitting huge numbers of unaccompanied adolescent Central American boys remains unexplained. Our rulers protest that the Mesoamerican surge is a misinterpretation of the letter of the law. And why haven’t they read all the New York Times editorials calling Obama the Deporter-in-Chief? The Central Americans seem to believe that’s just a hoax cooked up by Democrats and the media to gull voters. After all, for at least the last two years, the bipartisan establishment has been denouncing any American citizen so racist as to ask for the immigration laws to be finally enforced. Somehow, Central Americans have gotten the idea that President Obama, Senator McCain, Univision, the Chamber of Commerce, the Democratic Party, Silicon Valley, the billionaire donors to the Republican Party, the Catholic Church, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all favor their children showing up in vast numbers. Seriously, the border boarders are here because they are responding rationally to the Narrative our elites have been propounding. It is intimated repeatedly that not only are average white American citizens demographically doomed, but that they deserve their fate due to their ancestral guilt. Thus, American citizens have no moral right to defend their territory. We need to change not just the laws, but the Narrative.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
generally speaking, they are cows by 30. gorgeous when they first hit the feed bags tho.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest