← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 4471 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2003-01-16
2003-01-16 05:02 | User Profile
A Conservative Manifesto on Immigration WSJ 02/29/96
[Original text available at the Sen. Spencer Abraham website using a search engine to search the internet using the title above.]
Spencer Abraham, Dick Armey, and George Bush, Jr.
We believe in freedom and we believe in immigration. Whether it was the Pilgrims who fled religious persecution or the Vietnamese who escaped communism, America has been a land where those who yearn to be free can live and prosper. All Americans are either immigrants or their descendants.
Immigrants are the ultimate entrepreneurs, they are people willing to risk it all in a new and different land. They are self-selected and seek to make a better life for themselves and their families. As Thomas Sowell writes in Ethnic America: A History, "The fact that immigrants not only equal, but eventually surpass, their native-born counterparts suggests that they brought some advantage in terms of human capital, that migration is a selective process, bringing the more ambitious or venturesome or able elements of a population." These are the kind of people we want to become Americans. These are the kind of people who sacrifice so their children can rise to the top of their class.
Immigrants create a "brain gain" for the United States. During the final days of their empire, Soviet officials decried the "brain drain" of Russian Jewish physicists, engineers, and computer specialists who emigrated to America as refugees. Today, knowledgeable immigrants from around the world continue to want to come to our shores. Why would we want to stop them? Our nation's schools must teach math and science better, and knowledgeable immigrants can help. Attracting inspired minds from around the world is America's greatest strength, not a weakness.
Restrictionist argue that immigrants are stealing our citizens' jobs. In fact, for the most part immigrants create jobs through entrepreneurship, and do not take jobs from native-born Americans or harm the environment, as those in the population control movement contend. Immigrants own a significant share of small businesses which are the engines of job growth in the U.S. economy. Analyses by mainstream economists have concluded time and again that immigrants do not increase unemployment. A study by Princeton University economist David Card shows that even the rather large influx of Cuban immigrants during the Mariel boat lift -- equal to 7% of the labor force locally -- did not displace native-born workers from jobs in the Miami area.
Restrictionist also argue that immigrants cost American taxpayers, who pay for welfare and other benefits for immigrants. But we can adopt a policy of immigration yes, welfare no. Current law already forbids almost all immigrants from receiving welfare their first three years in the country and we can legitimately toughen these standards. But restrictionist seek both to reduce the level of immigration and in the same stroke deny all benefits to immigrants. In other words, welfare use among non-refugee immigrants, which remains lower than among the native-born, has become not a serious problem in search of a solution but a stalking horse to achieve other ends.
It has been said that America needs a reduction or even a time-out in immigration both to help assimilate recent immigrants and because pauses have occurred previously in our nation's history. Yet no evidence exists that allowing fewer immigrants into the country will benefit assimilation of those already here. Moreover, historian Paul Johnson points out that those previous pauses were not well-reasoned plans but rather unfortunate overreactions to the perceived public sentiment of the time. These were sad chapters in American history, not guideposts to our nation's future.
Those of us who support generous legal immigration policies do, however, believe that something must be done to halt illegal immigration. We need tougher border enforcement, quicker deportation for criminal aliens, a streamlined INS bureaucracy, and market-oriented solutions to the . Spouses, parents, siblings, and minor and adult children of U.S. citizens should be eligible, as they are under current law, to join their families in the United States. Many came to this country by themselves with the goal of becoming U.S. citizens, working hard and acquiring the resources necessary to bring family members to America. It flies in the face of the American immigration experience to keep brothers and sisters, parents and children separated. Family unification is by definition "pro-family."
2) Our belief in free markets requires us to recognize that businesses possess the *** right *** to hire scientists, engineers, and high-skilled workers from other countries since such individuals enhance the competitiveness of America's companies, thereby creating jobs for everyone. Enterprises should be able to find needed employees without paying exorbitant fees and without being forced to go through regulatory hoops designed with protectionist intent. Protectionism does not work for trade, and there is no reason to believe it makes for a sound immigration policy. And pro market conservatives should not encourage INS interference in the workplace that we would never tolerate from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
3) Finally, our long-standing tradition of providing succor to those in need calls on us to maintain a refugee policy that is flexible and humane. Too few countries respect human rights and too many people suffer from tyranny, persecution, and acts of war for America to adopt rules and ceilings that will do nothing more than make us appear inhumane.
Our immigration policy both reflects and projects our character and level of decency. One man above all said it best. In his farewell address to the nation, President Ronald Reagan declared, "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still." The question for conservatives is this: Shall we have a shining city on a hill or will we construct a fortress America? We choose the shining city.
Wall Street Journal, February 29, 1996 The content of the article may have been edited by the publisher
Somebody asked a question related to this. I thought this was already posted some time in the past, but what the heck, this stuff coming from the dubbya horses ass's mouth never gets old. - Okiereddust
2003-01-16 05:09 | User Profile
After this Armey and Bush sign on, you still think it is mainly Jews who are the problem? Let me suggest that evil and stupidity know no ethnicity--just like Armey and Bush don't.
2003-01-16 06:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 05:09 After this Armey and Bush sign on, you still think it is mainly Jews who are the problem? Let me suggest that evil and stupidity know no ethnicity--just like Armey and Bush don't.
I hadn't even mentioned the Jewish question. You're really obsessed with this aren't you? :huh:
Since you mention it though, anyone who has ever listened to any of the three knows there is not a genius among them. The guiding spirit behind this manifesto of course was that of Julian Simon, who was an advisor to Spencer Abraham. Dick Armey's stance was obtained from staffer Stephen Moore, a Simon protege, of the Cato Institute.
It is a general pattern repeated often in 20th century intellectual history, Jews picking a frontpiece gentile to carry the public banner and act as populizer for their ideology. Thank of what Margaret Mead did for Boasnian anthropology or John Dewey did for progressivism and socialism.
2003-01-16 06:14 | User Profile
Armey and Bush were just duped into it? Face facts: the Jews are geniuses at creating radical ideology. It is only to be expected that radical Gentiles like Armey and Bush would turn to Jewish sources when attempting to advance their neocon agenda.
If you want to claim that anti-white whites elites learnt their behavior from the Jews--then I totally agree. However, the infection spread long ago. To focus on a particular ethnic group because it is the historical source the most virulent strain of anti-white ideology--this just racist closing of the barn after the livestock has fled for pastures well up the road.
2003-01-16 06:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 06:14 **Armey and Bush were just duped into it? Face facts: the Jews are geniuses at creating radical ideology. It is only to be expected that radical Gentiles like Armey and Bush would turn to Jewish sources when attempting to advance their neocon agenda.
If you want to claim that anti-white whites elites learnt their behavior from the Jews--then I totally agree. **
At last, we agree on something.
However, the infection spread long ago. To focus on a particular ethnic group because it is the historical source the most virulent strain of anti-white ideology--this just racist closing of the barn after the livestock has fled for pastures well up the road.
You trying to make me feel old? Spencer Abraham wasn't even elected till 1994. Those of us in the hinterlands only recently found out the basic story about what happened. Its not exactly ancient history.
2003-01-17 00:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 06:14 **... ÃÂ It is only to be expected that radical Gentiles like Armey and Bush would turn to Jewish sources when attempting to advance their neocon agenda. ÃÂ
If you want to claim that anti-white whites elites learnt their behavior from the Jews--then I totally agree. ÃÂ However, the infection spread long ago. ÃÂ To focus on a particular ethnic group because it is the historical source the most virulent strain of anti-white ideology--this just racist closing of the barn after the livestock has fled for pastures well up the road.**
Nope. The desires, the goals of the "elite" whites like Armey and Bush have ended up dovetailing for the most part with the goals of the jews. The immigration fiasco, devised and given propulsion by jews (everyone here is familiar with MacDonald, familiar with the authors of the Immigration Act of 1965, etc.) ended up giving the elites a benefit they hadn't forseen; cheap labor, and the potential for a huge population of subservient "subjects". Now we have the elitists pushing for immigration as do the jews - it serves the needs of both groups, and at the same time, the signs of backfire are already showing.
There are differences between the way the white elitists work and the way the jews work, obviously. The most important element, in my estimation is their group loyalty: The jews are loyal to jews, first and foremost, regardless of social standing, income, national origin, etc.,. Their first concern when dealing with anyone is if the person is jewish. The white elitists have loyalty only to social status, not their racial kinsmen. Jorge Bush would rather stick up for cheap mexican laborers, cheap Indian programmers, cheap Taiwanese engineers and the like because they help elements of his "class". They look down on whites that are not of their social standing, consider them an embarrassment it seems, worse than any child raping mexican. The jews it would seem get some sort of visceral, secret thrill out of that same baby raping mestizo. As long he isn't raping a jewish baby.
There is faint grumbling amongst the jews regarding immigration because the laws they worked decades to pass are now blowing up in their faces in terms of the numbers of Muslim immigrants rolling into the land of milk and honey to take advantage of the freebies, and possibly get in a few shots at the funders of Zionism down the line. Also amusing is the dislike most mexicans have for the "judios". Contrast this with the rampant enthusiasm for immigration amongst the white elite - no grumbling at all from the upper echelons in business or government. Not the faintest.
So, while we have elements of both sides loading up the Titanic, the fact is it's still jews doing most of the pushing through their media control and "lobbying" in DC. Heck, jews have had their own tribe's status as "refugee" immigrants renewed four (it may be up to five by now) times. And then they fight for the mexicans, for the somalis, for ... anyone who isn't white, but has the potential to create chaos in white communities. And the bulk of immigrants are these types of people, not programmers, not physicists, not geniuses. If there weren't organized jewish pressure for unrestricted non-white immigration, the white elites would not have these people as pseudo-allies, so wouldn't see near the mess we see now. The elites are in an "uneasy" alliance with a group that is their enemy in many other ways.
While both groups are responsible for the mess we are now in, the jews got the ball rolling. No doubt about it. To deny this is the definition of disingenuous. For the most part, the radical Zionists wish to continue their agenda for the destruction of America and Europe - the destruction of whites to be more precise. One look at the people and organizations fighting for and funding the invaders bears this out. Peter Schey, anyone? Once again, overreaching, always overreaching. The whole mess will collapse in a smouldering heap. It's too bad, but that's the only way it will be corrected. The jews aren't so much geniuses at creating radical ideology as they are determined to carry those ideologies out - and they do by working as a group. This works well in atomized socities like ours in the U.S.. Yet, time and again, they have demonstrated a real lack of long range planning in many ways, some have said jews have a "boom or bust" mentality. They're probably right. Yes, the jews have their gentile frontmen in sh*tbirds like Bush and Armey, but this is a result of the above mentioned unforeseen results of the Zionist Immigration Act of 1965. If one thinks that people should ignore the jews today, because of the way the white elites are acting, well, that can come off as someone trying to cover for the main enemy of white civilization. Always keep in mind that they hate us. They really do.
2003-01-17 02:25 | User Profile
Roy - I'm a little confused by your use of the term "Zionist." Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and the other Nation Jews are as anti-Israel as they come, and they can barely conceal their hatred and resentment of Anglo-Saxon America.
2003-01-17 10:36 | User Profile
Roy,
My compliments. That is some of the clearest and most concise writing that I have seen on this unpleasant subject. The average person can understand it. That is exactly what we have here. What rank and file conservatives fail to realize is that trying to solve the immigration problem without taking into account the Jewish angle is akin to trying to drive an automobile with the brake pedal pushed down as hard as one can while flooring the gas pedal. All you accomplish is destroying the vehicle as we are starting to see not only in terms of America, but the G.O.P. as well.
For all their mutual backscratching, Jews are not as brilliant as they think. One can point to the fight between Stalin and Trotsky to see that. They don`t do a good job in long term planning at all and their realization that all these Muslims they helped into America to use as a weapon against Whites might decide to bit them instead has them disturbed. Good, if something bad happens, then let it be them to reap it.