[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: Legal Mass Immigration Is The Ultimate Threat The great on-going debate at VDARE.COM is: "Which of the two—legal or illegal immigration—does more to destroy the fabric of America?" Legal immigration often takes a back seat to illegal immigration in terms of how much time we spend writing and talking about it. But on any given day—like today— I’ll tell you that legal immigration is the bigger of the two threats. The immigration reform movement has made enormous strides in raising America’s awareness about the destructive consequences of illegal immigration. You can feel the progress we’ve made the grassroots level. And you can see how influential we’ve been in Congress by checking its recent voting records. Note the May 5th overwhelming victory in the House of the REAL ID bill—arguably flawed, but bitterly opposed by the Treason Lobby. Final tally: 368-58. But as easy as taking a stand against illegal immigration has become, it’s still tough to argue for limiting legal immigration. Calling for a return to traditional levels of annual legal immigration—about 200,000—may even be less politically correct than demanding that the borders be sealed. Propose less legal immigration and all the old bromides get dusted off—most notably the painfully tiresome "We are a nation of immigrants." But since the time we actually were a "nation of immigrants" around the turn of the 20th Century, look at how the definition of legal immigration has expanded When you say legal immigration, are you are talking about chain migration, temporary protected status, extended voluntary departure, asylum or refugees? All offer ample opportunities for fraud…and for a ticket to the U.S. The only question that should be asked regarding the multiple U.S. legal immigration policies is will they in any tangible way enhance the quality of life for Americans? Answers are hard to come by if you count on the Mainstream Media (MSM) for your information. It dwells only on the supposed benefits of multiculturalism. But VDARE.COM readers know that, on balance, the quality of American life has not been improved through mass legal immigration. Consider this on the scene report from a health care professional living in Columbus, Ohio. I will call him William Edwards. For the last three months, Edwards has kept me posted about the 30,000 Somalis in his community. The Somali Bantu resettlement program has been one of the most controversial since the enactment of the 1980 Refugee Act. You will not read any of what Edwards has to say in the Columbus Dispatch—that’s for sure. Edwards explains the lack of MSM negative comment about the Somalis this way: "It is as though a flying saucer landed in your back yard but no one wanted to report on it for fear of being accused of hallucinating on drugs. "This is a subject that is taboo. Some of the nurses have risked their jobs by talking about the Somali. The city announced that 30,000 more would be relocate in Columbus and vicinity but is tight lipped on talking about specific plans. The Somalis speak their own language and the translators are all Somali so their loyalties are to their families. You have to rethink your basic ideas about medicine to understand their motives. They see western medicine as an adjunct to their own medicine. They are extremely private and will not talk about their own remedies. If you give them medicine they will take it home and use it as they feel would be most appropriate. They don't consider western medicine as superior to their own. There is a sort of arrogance to their attitude to Columbus Ohio. The government uses the Somalis as their anointed children. Also the city government uses them as England and George III used the Hessians or the Pope used the Swiss Guard, as their private army to force the natives into submission. The Somalis are no longer being relocated to the inner city where Section 8 (welfare) housing is located. Instead they are being located in the middle class suburbs and smaller towns. This results in a plunging of real estate values in whichever town the Somalis are placed. One of my patients is a builder. He explains that there is a project to build 150 houses in a nicer suburb that will be given to Somalis to "teach them home ownership," a George W. Bush project. One Somali family was given a nice home in a middle class suburb. The family now has 40 people living in the house with attendant cars parking all over the place. The nurse who related the story explained that they have tried to sell her home but instead of the $300,000 they had hoped for, they are now relegated to living in the home since they are unable to sell the house at all. Their retirement hopes have been devastated. The Somalis elicit fear in the people who are forced to deal with them. No one wants to confront this for fear of being branded a racist. No one talks to the Somalis, they are a closed society with their own language. The media has its own take on the Somalis. The families don't speak English but talk through an interpreter, so no one can judge whether the families are telling the truth when they declare some in Columbus as racist. It is just unbelievable to people in Columbus that our government can perpetrate such fraud on our city. I suspect the people in California are smiling that others are finding out what they have had to accommodate to. The population of Columbus is moving out to the smaller towns surrounding the city but the government is locating the Somalis in the middle of the smaller towns. Sort of like telling the populace—you can run but you can't hide." The constant danger is that, despite what is going on in Columbus and other small American cities, Congress will continue to press for more legal immigration, especially via refugee resettlement. Consider the consequences when, in February, President Bush met with a Liberian refugee. Based on her personal story, Bush jumped into the fray to successfully push through an increase in the refugee cap to pre-9/11 levels. Even our two biggest heroes, U.S. Representatives Tom Tancredo and James Sensenbrenner, voted for the increase. At the risk of coming across as the world’s most unsympathetic man, may I point out the problem with our refugee approach? Even if the U.S. were to increase its annual commitment to refugees by ten fold, conditions in the war-torn, hellhole countries like Liberia and Somalia do not change one iota. But Somali refugees have radically changed Columbus—and not in ways that serve the best interests of the American population already residing there. My warning: Beware the humanitarians! And don’t forget that legal mass immigration is the ultimate threat.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#12. To: Zipporah (#0)
Why is that do you think?
#14. To: 1776 (#12)
Why is that do you think? It's a taboo topic.. it is somewhat more politically correct to be against illegal immigration and those who are .. are certain to define it as ONLY illegal immigration they are against.. such as Lou Dobbs who recently made that distinction.. I was surprised to read in this that Tancredo voted for increased immigration.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||