Redstate

would agree. The consider NM, AZ, CA, NV as 'theirs' and expect to 'get it back' someday.. mostly due to illegal immigration, not integrating into american culture and breeding.

Should sound familiar...

The children of our latin immigrants are becoming assimilated into our society.

And I find the term "breeding" somewhat racist.

As I may have stated before, legal immigrants and the latin population hate illegal immigration as much as others in this country.

There is no need to fear wide spread unrest among the latin population in this country.

But something must be done to protect our borders.

though I don't get the "racist" connotation in the least.

A certain percentage of the "children of our latin immigrants" are being radicalized by groups like MEChA.

And, while about half of "Hispanics" might oppose illegal immigration, the thought leaders do not. And, even the GOP pushes the myth that you need to open the borders in order to get the mythical "Hispanic vote". And, many media sources fail to distinguish between "Hispanic" and "illegal alien or a supporter of illegal immigration".

And, the Mexican government has a policy of keeping their citizens Mexican. They've publicly stated that, and here's a quote from a couple days ago: "The ultimate goal is an immigration agreement that benefits the U.S. economy and ... that ensures respect for the human and labor rights of the Mexican population that is planting roots in the United States," (from Bosco Marti, "Mexico's Foreign Relations Department's point man on North American affairs").

And, let's say we tried to forcefully eject most illegal aliens in the U.S. How many would resist? Even if it was just 1%, that's at least 100,000 people. They could cause a lot of damage, and the PC media would make it difficult to fight back.

We've got millions of people here who have no allegiance to this country, and, as the open borders apologists keep telling us, we can't deport them all.

So:

• Millions of people have come here illegally
  
• We don't have the force to deport them

How do you define "invaded"?

... maybe that's a fancier word you will find more acceptable (breeding is probably more crass a word)

If this post feels a bit heavy, please understand that this man has questioned my loyalty to my country, my patriotism, and my moral fortitude. He insulted my father and grandfather--the Cuban people--and basically called them cowards. How would you feel?

As much as assimilation is a problem, and some of KDaddy's concerns are valid, this cannot be an excuse for racism and hate towards immigrants.

Beware of those that would foster hate and extremism for the sake of a immoral racial arrogance. Patriotism should never call for racism.

I would invite you all to read a few exchanges between the author of this post, and myself--a child of immigrants.

You tell me--am I a threat to this nation? Do individuals like me--sworn loyal, English speaking citizens--present a threat to our cultural values? Read Latino Issues and you decide.

Posts related to KDaddy, his blog and his comments to me as a son of immigrants:

Immigrants are Patriots Too

Ethnic Arrogance and Racism?

Compassion Regarding Immigrants

This post will give you a hint at my positions on immigration.  Immigration: The No Truth Zone

I'm sorry KDaddy--your racist perspectives, attitudes and words take away from the importance of the discussion--the problem of illegal immigration, assimilation, and the American culture.

Mkamornick, you are correct. Most Latinos are against illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants are law abiding individuals, who in desperation and frustration, have illegally entered this country. This should not be allowed, but there is a lot that can be done on our side.

I agree--we must protect our borders. Border security is a simple problem--secure it. Illegal immigrants in this country is a more complex issue. How do you correct the problem of years of lack of immigration enforcement, and at the same time, consider the lives of thousands? I don't know, but there has to be a solution, and we must live under the order and rule of law.

by the success on the part of leftwing race hustlers at turning what is a somewhat diverse flow of immigrants, comprising blacks, whites, Asians, and Amerindians, some of whom don't even speak Spanish into "Hispanics," conscious of that identity rather as Honduran-Americans, Mexican-Americans, or what have you.  From the point of view of assimilation and the prevention of the formation of a hostile voting bloc, even that sort of hyphenation would be vastly preferable to the racialization and radicalization of such a rapidly-growing part of the population.  I wish we would stop playing along by speaking of "Hispanic" immigrants, though I know I don't have an alternative designation.

and hope everyone shuts up, eh?

I am not asking anyone to shut up. I am saying the debate has to center around what is true, and around the values we respect as Republicans and as conservatives.

Racism is not it.

I'm sorry, but I'm in agreement with the folks questioning a highly questionable diary.

Or do you intend to use the insinuation of race-baiting to shut up the people who think this diary crossed the line?

that this diary makes me very uncomfortable both from its ahistorical perspective of Latin American immigration and assimilation and from its strained-to-the-breaking-point equivalence of a Eurocentric Christian Latin American population with an Middle-Eastern Islamic North African population.

The author treads dangerously close to the bounds of acceptable discourse.

but Highly Questionable? Is the topic or what has been written which could be Highly Questionable?

Just about as close as one could come to crossing the line if you want my opinion.

I think the Title normally would be the worst thing. But with the French situation in the news, this topic isn't that off base.

And its not like an angry illegal immigrant base in this country couldn't propagate the same thing here. Why not look at what the French/EU has done wrong and figure out how to avoid those root causes? I think the 'secret' here is to avoid picking out immigrants from 'certain' countries... keeping this an egalitarian debate (which has not be done here).

which is the questionable part (just wondering).

Today, foreign-born Latin Americans represent between 6% and 10% of this nation's population,

I did find this... which seems to be false/mis-written.

You tell me--am I a threat to this nation? Do individuals like me--sworn loyal, English speaking citizens--present a threat to our cultural values? Read Latino Issues and you decide.

You?  I doubt it.  Are you representative of Latin American immigrants as a whole?  Probably not.

I'd like Mr. Sierra to take a different tack, and stop crying racism.  Firstly because it has a chilling effect on dialogue, and should therefore be reserved for blatant cases, secondly because "Hispanic" or "Latino" isn't a race, but an increasingly confusing artifact of US government counting practices.  I don't want him to "shut up."  

And in this case, KDaddy's diary seems racist to me as well, and for the record, my descent is European (pretty much a mutt - some Scottish, some royalty in the mix somewhere, German, etc.).

but I stop at the word "seems."

I didn't want to appear too judgemental.

Cyrus asks me to

stop crying racism.  Firstly because it has a chilling effect on dialogue, and should therefore be reserved for blatant cases.

No Cyrus--it is racism that has a chilling effect. It is people that use anger, and fear, to express their dislike for other individuals, because of ethnic or racial heritage. I appreciate discourse as much as anyone else, but when we allow racist remarks to go unchallenged, we allow a poison to grow and possibly spread. It must be challenged. Judging by remarks here, I don't think I was way to off in my comments.

As for calling myself a Latino, sure, its an imperfect label. I am American, US Born, and sworn loyal to my country. A Citizen. Never in the 14 years I lived abroad did I swear elegance to any other flag--I refused, sending me plenty times to the principals office.

So, my use of Latino only refers to my heritage--the history that shapes me in a great way. If you prefer a different label, that's fine by me. It doesn't change who I am.

Perhaps I'm insensitive to such things.

If it sounded like I took it personal, it is because the author of this post made it personal with me.

From KDaddy's web site: (not worth linking to)

So, yes Josue, you are soft...just like so many of those who fled Cuba instead of fighting for freedom. I know that's going to seem harsh to you, but having lived as a derogatorily-labeled "Anglo" in Miami, I can testify only to what I experienced first-hand to be fact. There's a lot of talk from you folks, but no action. The whining of those who spring from your easily corruptible culture now falls on increasingly irritated, deaf ears outside Miami-Dade. If one quarter of Miami's "refugees" had the cojones to stay and fight, you wouldn't have Castro to complain about today. That's not to say ya'll wouldn't be jawboning sorrowfully at El Centro Vasco about some other corrupt regime you let come in to replace Fidel's.

What does this sound like to you? It sounds like racism to me.

the use of the word "breed" is insensitive.  But racist?  I don't see anything objectionable in voicing concerns over whether Latin American immigrants are assimilating to America.  Now, it appears you and kdaddy have a history of conflict; whether it's appropriate to revive that on this site is beyond my purview.

Is this at least semi-accurate? You two have a previous 'amero-cuban' rift going on that all the rest of us are getting dragged into?

If so, both of you should meet somewhere between Denver and Miami and duke it out (anywhere else but here).

Side Note: Does what goes on at someone else's blog matter much here? It seems that some/most of this stuff is coming from Non-Redstate postings.

It's bitter and disparages Cuban refugees, but racist it's not.  Whether he means it to apply to all Latin Americans depends on how you interpret the "your" in "your easily corruptible culture."  Given that the rest of the paragraph refers explicitly to Floridian Cubans, I suspect that, too only refers to Floridian Cubans.  That's not a very nice thing to say, but it doesn't make him a racist.  One presumes he is aware that genetically identical Cubans stayed behind, after all, and that some of them died fighting Castro.  While I understand about national pride, I think it's less objectionable than referring to the French as "surrender monkeys," which isn't racist either.  Against whom would he be a racist, anyway?  Mexican mestizos?  Argentinean Italians?  Guatemalan Mayans?  Dominican blacks?  Do you speak for all of them?  Whatever they are, they're not the same race.

it seems that you two have and unpleasant history off this site. Keep that history off this site.

I don't intend to be sucked into your fight and I'd rather not ban someone for using this forum to further a vendetta.

Please note: I am not a participant in any sort of vendetta in this virtual community. And I hope I'm always considerate enough of my friends here to know better.

Might I be shrill at times?  Yep.  Use aggressive debate tactics?  Sometimes.    

But is there something I have written in this thread that justifies your addressing any admonition to me?

I authored the original post because I believe it covers an issue of vital concern.  I'd much rather have seen this thread discuss today's ideas I posited here rather than the "he's a racist" sideshow that came up.

Yes, I could have used a different title, but it was a good hook for what I had to say.

So I went with it.  

In any case, I appreciate your weighing in.  Thank you!

Sorry, but breeding sounds like something you say about animals.

I really am not worried about the radicalization of the hispanic community.

Most hispanics are conservative socially (because of the catholic church), many are becoming conservative politically as they become more successful.

There's a reason there are more and more spanish speaking radio outlets....economics.

Yes, some in the leadership remain radicallized (like our wonderful new mayor here in la) but more and more are becoming conservative. And this will be apparent during the next election cycle.

Yes, some in the leadership remain radicallized (like our wonderful new mayor here in la) but more and more are becoming conservative. And this will be apparent during the next election cycle.

A hearty YES to that. I sure hope so.

The point was not to drag anyone into a rift, but to point out what Kdaddy's perspectives are all about--nationalism, white supremcay, and what seems to me like racism.

It is funny that we both agree on various issues related to immigration, but disagree on the solutions. My intent was to point out what seems to me to be a racist bent, not re-live or revive anything.

The debate has been strong and I welcome it. I am glad the issue of racism is being discussed in light of the debate on immigration. It's important for conservatives to not get swept away on these fringe ideals that hold back real progress in fixing our immigration problem, securing the border, and continuing to be the great nation we are.

I find this all too breathless by half. And the article you cite, despite it's scholarly airs, seems to be a classic xenophobic tract. To attack a group within a community the first step is to say that it maintains its own "original" identity as more important than its "new" identity. Worked in Bosnia, worked to justify Japanese internment, [leaving out the Godwin's law invoking example]...just keeps on working.

But what really sticks in my craw is that you draw no distinction between France's stodgy protectionism and America's dynamism. Let's take one example: the American economy is designed to promote assimiliation whereas the French have made specific economic choices to effectively exclude the 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from the mainstream economy by not including them in their "job protection" quota system.

Immigrants who seek opportunity and advantage gain a foothold here and they become over time among the biggest boosters of the American way. This is happening in the southwest and everywhere that Latin immigrants settle in our country. Sure there will be malcontents and those that don't get what they think is coming to them--always will be no matter your immigration status or anything else. Just human nature. However, many will be energized and assimilated. Unless by assimilation you mean they will aspire to be 50's country club Republicans and will somehow develop a nostalgia for Ozzie and Harriet. That's not going to happen. Our culture will be changed by any significant influx; has been in the past, will be in the future. That's how we remain culturally dynamic as opposed the to French. But those who contribute to changing our culture will be much more changed by it than they will change it.

Anyway, lay off the fear, seek out difference--especially any difference between America and Old Europe.

Godwins law still applies even if you intentionally skirt using the actual word.

If you really believe that today's immigration, and that of the past 40 years, is in any way comparable with that which has traditionally worked, you aren't very studied in American history, particularly its history of immigration.

I'm sure that there were Romans who wrote similar defenses of the immigration status quo as you have here:  

"Vandals who seek opportunity and advantage gain a foothold here and they become over time among the biggest boosters of the Roman way."

What I write about immigration doesn't differ in content from that of Teddy Roosevelt, or Thomas Jefferson for that matter.

Jefferson wrote in Notes on Virginia:

"...But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies [the equivalent of today's despots, tyrants and kleptocrats]. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."

By calling me a xenophobe, you've put me in good company with Jefferson.

Thank you!

First, I didn't call you a xenophobe. I said that the article you cited seemed xenophobic. Try not to be thin-skinned. It makes lively discussion impossible.

Your analogy with Rome is very interesting and I think points to where we fundamentally differ. I was a little surprized to read that you think America is akin to Rome at her collapse. I would have said that the US today is like the late Republic post-Punic wars. Just starting to feel our oats as a world power. I think I have an optimistic view of our future and don't think immigration poses a serious threat.

Rome was over by the time the Vandals sacked the city, of course. Prior to that, a small city had grown to encompass the known world and most of its citizens never saw Italy, let alone Rome.

Anyway, interesting observation. Thanks.

conservatism?