If Trump fails to get his wall, the crisis at the border
could easily become a mass migration that imposes incalculable burdens on those
Americans least able to bear them.
Gaffney: 'You Can't
Assimilate Vast
Numbers of People Who Don’t Want
to be Part' of U.S.A.
Frank Gaffney. (Photo by Win
McNamee/Getty Images)
During a discussion about the need for immigrants to assimilate
into American society and the spectre of sharia (Islamic law) in U.S.
communities, Center for Security Policy Chairman Frank Gaffney said it is
imperative to keep in mind "that you cannot assimilate vast numbers of
people who simply don’t want to be part of your society." Gaffney, a
former assistant secretary for Defense in the Reagan administration, added that
Judge Jeanine Pirro is being suppressed because she dared to ask a question
about the origins of the anti-Israel views expressed by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
When asked about assimilation during a March 20 interview
on Breitbart News Daily,
Gaffney said to host Alex Marlow, This topic "reminds me of the old story
that conservatives are liberals who’ve been mugged by reality, and the thing
you're describing, Alex, is being mugged by the reality that you cannot
assimilate vast numbers of people who simply don’t want to be part of your
society."
"They want to transform it into something very different
and ultimately, at some point, you either resist or you submit," he said.
"Submission is going to be pretty ugly, and it’s happening in parts of
Europe already, and there’s more in the offing, I’m afraid. [Garbled] This
rising tide of sharia supremacism, it’s chilling.”
He continued, "The trouble is, it’s not simply a problem in
its own right, it’s a foretaste of what the Ilhan Omars and the Keith Ellisons
and the André Carsons, Rashida Tlaibs, and so on, would have in mind for
America, too, if they had their way. This is the really vexing problem of our
time.”
“Again, not all Muslims want to live under sharia," said
Gaffney. "They don’t want to impose it on the rest of us. But
enough of them do and the authorities of the [Islamic] faith certainly
do."
As for Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose program on the Fox News
Channel has been suspended for a second week,
Gaffney said, "Jeanine Pirro, who is a friend of mine and much-admired former
public servant and now, extraordinary resource, on her program, Justice
w/Judge Jeanine, was suspended last week and may be again this
week, and maybe – who knows – indefinitely."
Jeanine Pirro. (Photo
by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)
On her March 9 program, Jeanine Pirro said, “This is not
who your party is" in reference to the Democrat Party. “Your party is not
anti-Israel, [Omar] is. Think about this. She’s not getting this anti-Israel
sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party,
where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which
according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get
molested."
Rep. Ilhan Omar
(D-Minn.) (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in
itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” said Pirro.
Comments and tweets made by Rep. Omar have been condemned by
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as "anti-Semitic" and
"deeply offensive."
MULTI-CULTURALISM
and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in
America’s open borders.
“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark
Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little
evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast
majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does
accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of
welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to
the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be
booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
What will America stand for in 2050?
The US should think long and hard about the high number of Latino
immigrants.
By Lawrence Harrison
It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with
citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of
uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin
America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION
By Tom Barrett
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through
Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run
with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants
who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop
the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant
population in the United States.
FINISHING AMERICA OFF: THE FOREIGN INVASION FOR “CHEAP”
LABOR
Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated,
impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three
America, as we know it, will be gone. JOHN BINDER
But many less-skilled migrants play their largest role by
simply shifting small slices of wealth from person to person, for example, by
competing up rents in their neighborhood or by competing down wages in their
workplace. The crudest examples can be seen in agriculture.
Overall,
the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration
shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
"Critics argue that giving
amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate
negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black
Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for
blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population."
JOHN BINDER
The U.S.-born baby is, of course, a U.S. citizen, whose
illegal alien parents are eligible to receive, on the baby’s behalf, food
stamps, nutrition from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and
numerous tax benefits, including the EITC.
Most importantly, the newborn is deportation insurance
for its parents. Illegal aliens facing deportation can argue that to deport one
or more parents would create an “extreme hardship” for the new baby. If an
immigration officer agrees, we’ve added a new adult to the nation’s population.
At age 21 the former birthright citizen baby can formally apply for green cards
for parents and siblings, and they, in turn, can start their own immigration
chains.
US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico
has more
· US has 41 million native speakers plus 11 million who
are bilingual
· New Mexico, California, Texas and Arizona have highest
concentrations
DYING AMERICA: Poverty, Open Borders, Widespread
Homelessness, Housing Crisis, Opioids, Corrupt Politicians and Then Suicide!
"In a state like Florida, where immigrants make
up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly
wages reduced by perhaps more than 12.5 percent. In California, where
immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly
wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent." JOHN BINDER
"In the last decade alone, the U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants,
forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage
foreign workers. Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents
living in the U.S. by 2060. This would represent an unprecedented electoral
gain for the Left, as Democrats win about 90 percent of
congressional districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national
average."
Atlantic Op-Ed: The
Migration Wave
Has
Barely Begun
File Photo: John Moore/Getty
3:27
Americans need to reform their immigration laws before
hundreds of millions of foreigners decide to take up residence in the United
States, says David Frum, an author at the pro-globalist Atlantic magazine.
“If Americans want to shape their
own national destiny, rather than have it shaped by others, they have decisions
to make now,” says Frum, a Canadian-born Never
Trump advocate who is also a consistent voice for the immigration reforms which
would help young Americans rejuvenate American society.
Frum writes:
With immigration pressures bound to
increase, it becomes more imperative than ever to restore the high value of
national citizenship, not to denigrate or disparage others but because for many
of your fellow citizens—perhaps less affluent, educated, and successful than
you—the claim “I am a U.S. citizen” is the only claim they have to any resources
or protection. Without immigration restrictions, there are no national borders.
Without national borders, there are no nation-states. Without nation-states,
there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no democracy. If
liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire
fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.
…
Americans are entitled to consider
carefully whom they will number among themselves. They would be
irresponsible not to consider this carefully—because all of
these expensive commitments must be built on a deep agreement that all who live
inside the borders of the United States count as “ourselves.” The years of slow
immigration, 1915 to 1975, were also years in which the United States became a
more cohesive nation: the years of the civil-rights revolution, the building of
a mass middle class, the construction of a national social-insurance system,
the projection of U.S. power in two world wars. As immigration has accelerated,
the country seems to have splintered apart.
Many Americans feel that the
country is falling short of its promises of equal opportunity and equal
respect. Levels of immigration that are too high only enhance the difficulty of
living up to those promises. Reducing immigration, and selecting immigrants
more carefully, will enable the country to more quickly and successfully absorb
the people who come here, and to ensure equality of opportunity to both the
newly arrived and the long-settled—to restore to Americans the feeling of
belonging to one united nation, responsible for the care and flourishing of all
its people.
Frum’s article was written before
homeland security chief Kirstjen Nielsen said March 6 that 900,000 migrants may
cross the southern border this year. That is one migrant for every four
Americans who will be born in 2019.
However, Frum’s task of persuasion
is difficult because there are enormous social and professional pressure on his
college-educated readers to go along with the cheap-labor immigration policies
which are moving income and wealth from young employees up to
older CEOs and investors
Immigration to
America Is Not What It
Used to Be
Speaking at a naturalization
ceremony in Texas on March 18, former President George W. Bush said immigration
to America “is a blessing and a strength.” He also said that “borders need to
be respected,” and praised the work of border patrol agents, but that’s not
what the media seized upon.
The Washington
Post inserted
“blessing and strength” into the lead of its story, headlined “George W. Bush:
‘May we never forget that immigration is a blessing and a strength’,” also
working into the first sentence the following dig at Donald Trump: “a message
that sharply contrasts with President Trump’s rhetoric on the issue.”
CNN
Politics covered
the speech, making sure to note “the rhetoric and policy positions from Bush
came in contrast to much of the modern Republican Party and President Donald
Trump.” The BBC
said,
“Mr Bush’s comments were seen as an implicit rebuke to President Donald Trump’s
administration.”
And on and on. CBS News: “Bush urges politicians
to ‘dial down rhetoric’ on immigration.” The Boston
Globe:
“described immigration as ‘a blessing and a strength,’ a message that sharply
contrasts with President Trump’s rhetoric on the issue.” People: “it was a soft rebuke
of the prevailing anti-immigrant position of some members of the Republican
Party, including President Donald Trump.”
Get it? George W. Bush
has won his grim battle with history. Various photos showed him inviting dozens
of new citizens up to the podium, including Muslims in headscarves, Hispanics,
and Africans. Apparently including anyone of European descent would have been
bad optics.
And never mind that if
Bush II hadn’t bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq, the Middle East might be
relatively stable today. Iraq, for all its problems, would nonetheless provide
a strategic counterweight to Iran. We would have saved trillions of dollars and
spared millions of lives, and additional millions of refugees would have stayed
home.
What’s Really Happening
The problem with all this media-spun anti-Trump “wisdom” from Bush is simple:
President Trump is right, and the spin is wrong.
It is true that America
was enriched in the past by waves of new immigrants. It is true that in the
past, these waves of new immigrants benefited the economy. And it is true that
even now, if immigration were brought under control, reduced somewhat, and
reformed so that only highly skilled immigrants with a commitment to learning
English were vetted and admitted, it would again be beneficial to our economy and
enrich our culture. But that’s not what’s happening.
According to CarryingCapacity.org, the United States “now
accepts over one million legal immigrants each year, which is more than all of
the other industrialized nations in the world, combined.” Additionally,
according to ImmigrationCounters.com, nearly 28 million
illegal immigrants currently live in the United States.
Attempting to quantify
the costs and benefits of immigration into the United States is not easy.
According to a study conducted by the Federation
for American Immigration Reform, the cost to America taxpayers to provide
illegal immigrants government funded education, health care, justice and law
enforcement, public assistance, and general government services is estimated at
$135 billion per year. According to the Center for Immigration
Studies,
“63% of non-citizen households access welfare programs compared to 35% of
native households.”
Statistics abound—and for
every study suggesting that America’s immigration is creating a burden on the
economy, there is another that concludes the opposite, that immigrants continue
to provide a net economic benefit to the economy. So rather than provide yet
another regurgitation of battling statistics, it is important to note some
crucial qualitative differences between immigration trends in America today,
compared with past centuries in America.
Why Immigration to
America Today Is
Different
- Immigrants
today are not coming from nations of equal or greater economic
achievement. In the past, immigrants from Europe, for the most part, were
emigrating from nations that were as advanced as the United States was, if
not more so. Today the overwhelming majority of immigrants are coming from
developing nations.
- Immigrants
in the past came primarily from European nations which had cultural
values—educational, religious, and political—that were, if not nearly
identical to American cultural values, at shared a similar trajectory
towards achieving those values. Immigrants today come from nations that,
relatively speaking, have far fewer cultural similarities to America than
past waves of immigrants.
- Immigrants
today, for the most part, are coming from nations that are rapidly
increasing in population and, in aggregate, dwarf the United States in
population. Related to this is the fact that in the past, the people
already in America were themselves rapidly increasing in population, but
this is no longer the case, except among populations of recently arrived
immigrants.
- Immigrants
today arrive via 10-hour hops on an airliner. In the past, waves of
immigrants spent 10 months traversing land and sea in a journey of
staggering expense and significant dangers. While this isn’t universally
true, particularly for the overland migrants that cross America’s southern
border, the general point stands: coming to America today does not require
the commitment it required in the past.
- Similarly,
in the past, immigrants pretty much renounced their countries of origin.
They made a one-way trip and they adopted the language and values of
America. Today, retaining cultural unity with one’s country of origin is a
few clicks on the internet, a cheap telephone call, an affordable airfare.
Technology has greatly eroded the forces that used to impel immigrants to
become Americans.
- Immigrants
in the past arrived in an America that had a voracious need for unskilled
workers. Today the American economy is relentlessly automating jobs that
used to require unskilled labor, and the American population already has a
surplus of unskilled workers.
- Immigrants
today are arriving in a welfare state, where they are assured of food,
shelter, and medical care that are, in general, orders of magnitude better
than anything available to them in their native countries. This creates a
completely different incentive to today’s immigrants. In past centuries,
immigrants came to America to find freedom and to work. Today they are
offered a smorgasbord of taxpayer-funded social services.
- Immigrant
students today—especially in the coastal urban centers where most of them
settle—enter a public education system that teaches them with a
reverse-racist, anti-capitalist bias. They are taught in our public
schools not to assimilate, but to “celebrate diversity”; not to earn
opportunities through hard work, but through fighting discrimination. They
are taught, often in their native language, that they have arrived in a
nation dominated by racist and sexist white males, who exploit the world
to amass evil profits.
Recipes for Disaster
These final three points are the most troublesome. If immigration reform
advocates made those a priority and addressed them decisively with new
policies, the other concerns might be manageable. But we must address the
problems caused by immigrants with low job-skills, who encounter the welfare
state, and are subjected to anti-Western cultural messaging.
To suggest Americans
should resist competing with highly skilled immigrants, for example, is not
only xenophobic, but it smacks of an entitlement mentality. Allowing immigrants
into the United States who are qualified to join our ranks of scientists,
engineers, researchers and doctors will only help our economy and overall
standard of living. Allowing unskilled immigrants into this country, however, when
we already have tens of millions of unskilled workers who are either in our
prisons or unemployed and collecting welfare—who themselves could perform this
work—is much more likely to constitute a drain on our economy.
Similarly, it is a recipe
for disaster to allow immigrants into an America where the curricula in K-12
schools and universities—beholden to powerful left-wing teachers and faculty
unions—indoctrinates immigrants to resent the alleged evils of capitalism and
the incorrigible racist, sexist core of our American culture. This is
particularly true when accompanying this siren song of corruption is easy
access to social services of all kinds, including welfare. If new immigrants
are taught the cards are stacked against them, and at the same time they are
offered a free ride that provides a standard of living many times greater than
what they knew in the countries they came from, why work?
Clearly an increasing
population, all else held equal, does cause overall economic expansion. It
isn’t clear at all, however, that this is the optimal way to create economic
expansion. First of all, global human population is destined to level off by
2050 anyway, so rather than expanding the population through immigration,
economic policy needs to search for the answer as to how to continue to
experience economic growth despite a stable, aging population. In Japan, they
have already made this policy decision—with zero net immigration and the oldest
population on earth, Japan leads the world in the development of androids that
will, presumably, become caregivers to the elderly. Economic growth oriented
towards improving the quality of life for the elderly is one example of a
sustainable growth sector—economic growth dependent on an immigrant-fueled
population expansion is not sustainable.
There is another factor,
of course, that makes immigration today far more problematic than it was in
previous generations. Now more than ever, mass immigration of unskilled
economic migrants and political refugees has become a strategy to move America
sharply to the Left by dramatically transforming the electorate.
What the establishment
uniparty is doing in America today is a deliberate devaluation of American
votes, and a deliberate thwarting of the political rule of Americans who
have lived and worked in America for generations. Trump’s bellicosity may scare
the soccer moms, but they along with everyone else who loves America ought to
reflect on his actions instead of his tone. He is the only major politician in
modern times who has tried to do anything to stop this. George W. Bush, God
bless him, should stop letting the media use his words as weapons in their war
against Trump.
Content created by the
Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible
news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing
opportunities for our original content, please
contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.
Photo Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty
Images
Edward Ring
is a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a co-founder of
the California Policy Center, a free-market think tank based in Southern
California, where he served as their first president. He is a prolific writer
on the topics of political reform and sustainable economic development. Ring, a
fifth-generation Californian, has an undergraduate degree in political science
from UC Davis, and an MBA in finance from the University of Southern
California.
THE AZTLAN INVASION & THE LA RAZA
FASCIST PARTY FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY
“The
radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to
form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification
with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost"
territories in the American Southwest.”
MULTICULTURALISM,
IMMIGRATION AND AZTLAN
By
Maria Hsia Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno
One
of the standard arguments invoked by those in favor of massive immigration into
the United States is that our country is founded on immigrants who have always
been successfully assimilated into America's mainstream culture and society. As
one commentator put it, "Assimilation evokes the misty past of Ellis
Island, through which millions entered, eventually seeing their descendants
become as American as George Washington."1 Nothing more vividly testifies
against that romantic faith in America's ability to continuously assimilate new
members than the events of October 16, 1994 in Los Angeles. On that day, 70,000
people marched beneath "a sea of Mexican flags" protesting
Proposition 187, a referendum measure that would deny many state benefits to
illegal immigrants and their children. Two weeks later, more protestors marched
down the street, this time carrying an American flag upside down. Both protests
point to a disturbing and rising phenomenon of Chicano separatism in the United
States — the product of a complex of forces, among which are multiculturalism
and a generous immigration policy combined with a lax border control. The
Problem Chicanos refer to "people of Mexican descent in the United
States" or "Mexican Americans in general." Today, there are
reasons to believe that Chicanos as a group are unlike previous immigrants in
that they are more likely to remain unassimilated and unintegrated, whether by
choice or circumstance — resulting in the formation of a separate quasi-nation
within the United States. More than that, there are Chicano political activists
who intend to marry cultural separateness with territorial and political
self-determination. The more moderate among them aspire to the cultural and
political autonomy of "home rule". The radicals seek nothing less than
secession from the United States whether to form their own sovereign state or
to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire reunification with Mexico are
irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's "lost" territories in the
American Southwest.
Whatever
their goals, what animates all of them is the dream of Aztlan. According to
legend, Aztlan was the ancestral homeland of the Aztecs which they left in
journeying southward to found Tenochtitlan, the center of their new
civilization, which is today's Mexico City. Today, the "Nation of
Aztlan" refers to the American southwestern states of California, Arizona,
Texas, New Mexico, portions of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, which Chicano
nationalists claim were stolen by the United States and must be reconquered (Reconquista)
and reclaimed for Mexico. The myth of Aztlan was revived by Chicano political
activists in the 1960s as a central symbol of Chicano nationalist ideology. In
1969, at the Chicano National Liberation Youth Conference in Denver, Rodolfo
"Corky" Gonzales put forth a political document entitled El Plan de
Aztlan (Spiritual Plan of Aztlan). The Plan is a clarion call to
Mexican-Americans to form a separate Chicano nation: In the spirit of a new
people that is conscious not only of its proud historial heritage, but also of
the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano
inhabitants and civilizers of the nothern land of Aztlan from whence came our
forefathers ...declare that the call of our blood is...our inevitable
destiny.... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and
gather the crops, and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize
capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.... Brotherhood unites us, and
love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come .... With our heart
in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our
mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world,
before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we
are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan.
How
Chicanos are Unlike Previous Immigrants Brent A. Nelson, writing in 1994,
observed that in the 1980s America's Southwest had begun to be transformed into
"a de facto nation" with its own culture, history, myth, geography,
religion, education, and language. Whatever evidence there is indicates that
Chicanos, as a group, are unlike previous waves of immigrants into the United
States. In the first place, many Chicanos do not consider themselves immigrants
at all because their people "have been here for 450 years" before the
English, French, or Dutch. Before California and the Southwest were seized by
the United States, they were the lands of Spain and Mexico. As late as 1780 the
Spanish crown laid claim to territories from Florida to California, and on the
far side of the Mississippi up to the Great Lakes and the Rockies. Mexico held
title to much of Spanish possessions in the United States until the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American war in 1848. As a consequence,
Mexicans "never accepted the borders drawn up by the 1848 treaty."
That
history has created among Chicanos a feeling of resentment for being "a
conquered people," made part of the United States against their will and by
the force of arms. Their resentment is amply expressed by Voz Fronteriza, a
Chicano student publication,
which
referred to Border Patrol officers killed in the line of duty as "pigs
(migra)" trying to defend "the false frontier."
Chicanos
are also distinct from other immigrant groups because of the geographic
proximity of their native country. Their physical proximity to Mexico gives
Chicanos "the option of life in both Americas, in two places and in two
cultures, something earlier immigrants never had." Geographic proximity
and ease of transportation are augmented by the media. Radio and television
keep the spoken language alive and current so that Spanish, unlike the native
languages of previous immigrants into the United States, "shows no sign of
fading."
A
result of all that is the failure by Chicanos to be fully assimilated into the
larger American society and culture. As Earl Shorris, author of Latinos: A
Biography of the People, observed: "Latinos have been more resistant to
the melting pot than any other group. Their entry en masse into the United
States will test the limits of the American experiment...." The continuous
influx of Mexican immigrants into the United States serve to continuously renew
Chicano culture so that their sense of separateness will probably continue
"far into the future...." There are other reasons for the failure of
Chicano assimilation. Historically, a powerful force for assimilation was
upward social mobility: Immigrants into the United States became assimilated as
they rose in educational achievement and income. But today's post-industrial
American economy, with its narrower paths to upward mobility, is making it more
difficult for certain groups to improve their socioeconomic circumstances.
Unionized factory jobs, which once provided a step up for the second generation
of past waves of immigrants, have been disappearing for decades. Instead of the
diamond-shaped economy of industrial America, the modern American economy is
shaped like an hourglass. There is a good number of jobs for unskilled people
at the bottom, a fair number of jobs for the highly educated at the top, but
comparatively few jobs for those in the middle without a college education or
special skills. To illustrate, a RAND Corporation study forecasts that 85 percent
of California's new jobs will require post-secondary education. For a variety
of reasons, the nationwide high-school dropout rate for Hispanics (the majority
of whom are Chicano) is 30 percent — three times the rate for whites and twice
the rate for blacks. Paradoxically, the dropout rate for Hispanics born in the
United States is even higher than for young immigrants. Among Chicanos,
high-school dropout rates actually rise between the second and third
generations. Their low educational achievement accounts for why Chicanos as a
group are poor despite being hardworking. In 1996, for the first time, Hispanic
poverty rate began to exceed that of American blacks. In 1995, household income
rose for every ethnic group except Hispanics, for whom it dropped 5 percent.
Latinos now make up a quarter of the nation's poor people, and are more than
three times as likely to be impoverished than whites. This decline in income
has taken place despite high rates of labor-force participation by Latino men,
and despite an emerging Latino middle class. In California, where Latinos now
approach one-third of the population, their education levels are far lower than
those of other immigrants, and they earn about half of what native-born
Californians earn. This means that, for the first time in the history of
American immigration, hard work is not leading to economic advancement because
immigrants in service jobs face unrelenting labor-market pressure from more
recently arrived immigrants who are eager to work for less. The narrowing of
the pathways of upward mobility has implications for the children of recent
Mexican immigrants. Their ascent into the middle-class mainstream will likely
be blocked and they will join children of earlier black and Puerto Rican
migrants as part of an expanded multiethnic underclass. Whereas first
generation immigrants compare their circumstances to the Mexico that they left
— and thereby feel immeasurably better off — their children and grandchildren
will compare themelves to other U.S. groups. Given their lower educational
achievement and income, that comparison will only lead to feelings of relative
deprivation and resentment. They are unlikely to be content as maids,
gardeners, or fruit pickers. Many young Latinos in the second and third generations
see themselves as locked in irremediable conflict with white society, and are
quick to deride successful Chicano students as "wannabes." For them,
to study hard is to "act white" and exhibit group disloyalty. That
attitude is part of the Chicano culture of resistance — a culture that actively
resists assimilation into mainstream America. That culture is created,
reinforced, and maintained by radical Chicano intellectuals, politicians, and
the many Chicano Studies programs in U.S. colleges and universities. As
examples, according to its editor, Elizabeth Martinez, the purpose of Five
Hundred Years of Chicano History, a book used in over 300 schools throughout
the West, is to "celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed
by racist empire builders." The book calls the INS and the Border Patrol
"the Gestapo for Mexicans."
For
Rodolfo Acuna, author of Occupied America: The Chicano's Struggle Toward
Liberation, probably the most widely assigned text in U.S. Chicano Studies
programs, the Anglo-American invasion of Mexico was "as vicious as that of
Hitler's invasion of Poland and other Central European nations...." The
book also includes a map showing "the Mexican republic" in 1822
reaching up into Kansas and Oklahoma, and including within it Utah, Nevada, and
everything west and south of there
"This
is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a
common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is
taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational
program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA
$800,000.00 in March of 2009!
No comments:
Post a Comment