The Imaginary Hispanic: What the Illegal War is About

[Guest shiloh357]

The Imaginary Hispanic: What the Illegal War is About

And why a border wall is a threat to the survival of the Democrats.

There are two statistics that explain the Democrat obsession with illegal immigration and open borders.

97% of immigrants in the appropriate grouping identify themselves as Hispanic, but by the fourth generation that number falls to half. Only 7% of immigrants describe themselves as Americans, but 56% in the third generation call themselves Americans. Even the use of Spanish is slowly declining.

If a minority stops existing after a few generations, did it ever actually exist?

The Democrats had abandoned their working class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration.

In the economics of identity politics, Hispanics, unlike African-Americans, are not an enduring group. And that is a serious challenge for Democrats and their leftist allies who treat politics as a game of demographic Risk played with minorities across the states and cities of the United States.

Democrats have pinned their hopes for a national majority on a European origin group whose minority status is cultural and linguistic. And even without the old melting pot, foreign languages and cultural affinities decline across generations as immigrants become Americans. What Democrats really want aren’t a lot of Hispanics, but an endless firehose of first generation immigrants.

Democrat political affiliation falls with each succeeding generation and Republican affiliation rises. A family that speaks English is less likely to vote Democrat or view themselves as an oppressed minority. Even in California, support for subsidized lawyers for illegal aliens falls from a decisive majority among immigrants to a near tie by the second generation. It’s why Trump improved on Romney’s numbers with Hispanic voters despite defying every politically correct recommendation of the post ‘12 RNC autopsy.

Hispanic immigration becomes less politically helpful with each generation. The Dem majorities grow thinner and less reliable. Hispanic immigration, unlike Islamic migration, produces diminishing political returns for its sponsors. The only solution to the retention problem lies with open borders.

The Democrats don’t value the DACA illegal aliens who benefited from Obama’s equally illegal amnesty because, as they claim, they’re really Americans. They only care about them to the extent that they aren’t. And even they’re useful only as a wedge issue for open borders and unlimited migration.

As long as the census counts heads instead of citizens, migration creates Dem districts. And in machine politics, illegal aliens and non-citizens can even vote in those districts. But it’s momentum, not minorities, that the Dems are really after. A constant flow of immigrants transforms America. But when the flow stops, then the immigrants are the ones who become transformed by America.

The decline of legal immigration makes illegal immigration into an even more urgent cause for the left. The troubled economy of the Obama years paradoxically dissuaded legal immigrants leading the Dems to lean more heavily on illegal migrants. Those statistics eventually led Obama to openly endorse illegal immigration, to implement an illegal unilateral amnesty and to push hard for a total alien amnesty.

The problem was political, but so was its solution. The Dems had to normalize illegal immigration (right down to banning the use of the term and replacing it with the euphemism ‘undocumented immigrant’) not just for the immediate political benefits of putting tens of millions of potential voters on the table, but the long term benefit of maintaining the momentum of unlimited migration through open borders.

It’s why the Democrats will never agree to secure the border. They might have cut such a deal decades ago (though they would have sabotaged it, as indeed they did after the last amnesty), but these days it’s a political third rail. Legalizing illegal aliens is a sideline to maintaining an open border. If they have to choose between the two, the Democrats will always choose the political lifeline of open borders.

Illegal aliens will produce diminishing returns. It’s the open border that feeds the Dem pipeline. The Dems will take amnesty if they can get it, but they’ll never trade it for an end to their political pipeline.

That’s why California has become a sanctuary state. It’s why so many Dem cities are going sanctuary. It’s why Dem officials are actively targeting businesses and local law enforcement that cooperate with immigration authorities. It’s because illegal aliens have displaced Hispanics as the core minority.

Hispanics, in their totality, are less politically reliable than illegal aliens. The future of the Dems does not lie with an imaginary minority that dissipates after a few generations, but with the open border. Illegal aliens embody the borderless state of the country. The symbol is politically compelling for the post-national left, but the reality is even more compelling for Democrat electoral demographics.

The new conquerors of California understand just how shaky their grip on power really is. 44.6% of California residents speak a language other than English at home. Almost a fifth don’t speak English very well. California has no close competitors among other states in this category. But these same numbers have been declining nationwide even as they continue to cluster in California and other entry states.

The Democrats have secured their overwhelming grip on power. Migration and immigration ended democracy in California. It’s transformed formerly contested elections into single party affairs where Republicans need not even bother showing up. But the Jerry Brown junta won’t last forever. A fresh supply of immigrants and migrants is needed to keep the post-democratic California in Dem hands.

That’s why California’s political elites have gone the furthest in embracing open borders. It’s why the new sanctuary state is backed by the threat of state power against those following the law of the land. They aren’t protecting illegal aliens, in the usual lefty arrangement they are protecting their own power. The power struggle over illegal immigration isn’t just about cheap votes today, but tomorrow.

The Democrats need to maintain higher percentages of immigrants relative to the immigrants of previous generations. It’s a demographic Ponzi scheme that like all such schemes can only end in disaster. But the Democrats have embraced it out of greed and have no choice now but to keep the scam going even if it bankrupts cities and states, and eventually tears the entire country apart.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

When the Democrats bet everything on illegal migration, they alienated millions of voters who went on to help elect President Trump. The alienated working class vote forced them to double down even harder on illegal aliens. Losing traditional constituencies to identity politics has always radicalized Dems. And 2016 was no different. Instead of political accommodation, the Dems embraced #resistance.

But their new majority depends on open borders. A wall doesn’t just cut off the pathway of illegal aliens into this country; it cuts off the pathway of the Democrats to their new majority. And then their political Ponzi scheme falls apart, as such schemes usually do, when the momentum feeding it fails.

That’s why a border wall is a threat to the political survival of the Democrats. And it’s why they will do everything they can to stop it.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268953/imaginary-hispanic-what-illegal-war-about-daniel-greenfield

[Oh Hamburgers!]

That's an interesting take on the situation.

For me personally, I think the wall is a bad idea because it's a) extremely expensive and b) inflames relations with other countries (Mexico) and c) won't be effective at actually stopping people who do want to get into the country illegally. Basically, I feel it's just a big waste of public money  that hurts relationships with neighbors- something I assume none of us want!

It also seems like the wrong conclusion is being drawn. Instead of operating with the assumption that "immigrant = democratic vote so they want more immigrants" I think the better question is "why do immigrants tend to vote democrat?". 

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, Oh Hamburgers! said:

That's an interesting take on the situation.For me personally, I think the wall is a bad idea because it's a) extremely expensive

There is already money budgeted for it.  And the money we are cutting from the UN and the Palestinians can easily go toward paying for the wall.  

Quote

and b) inflames relations with other countries (Mexico)

So what?   Other countries don't get to decide who we let in.  The only reason Mexico doesn't want the wall is that they won't benefit from illegal aliens working here and send their money back to Mexico.  The wall is also a deterrent to drugs and human sex trafficking.  

 

Quote

and c) won't be effective at actually stopping people who do want to get into the country illegally.

Yes it will.   The security fence in Israel has been an excellent deterrent to terrorism and has benefited the Israeli economy. No one can just walk over from the West Bank anymore.  They have to through check points and they cannot climb over or tunnel underneath.   It has saved lives on both sides.  A wall on our southern border makes good sense to everyone but liberals who want illegals to come into our country unfettered.  Those days are over. 

Quote

Basically, I feel it's just a big waste of public money  that hurts relationships with neighbors- something I assume none of us want!

They should take care of their own people.   If expecting them to take care of their own problems and their own people is going to hurt our relationship with Mexico, then Mexico isn't worth having a good relationship with.  

No one has a right to come to the US.  Immigration to the US is not a right; it is privilege we grant and we, NOT Mexico, not anyone else, WE will decide who can come here .We are sovereign nation and will operate as one.   America comes first before Mexico or anyone else.

Quote

It also seems like the wrong conclusion is being drawn. Instead of operating with the assumption that "immigrant = democratic vote so they want more immigrants" I think the better question is "why do immigrants tend to vote democrat?". 

Because the Democrat party abandoned the working man and became the party of the Hispanics.   They vote Democrat because the Democrats are bending over backwards to not only buy their votes but are trying to change laws in order to let illegals vote in our elections.    In truth, the Democrat Party is a party of anything but America and Americans see it.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

38 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There is already money budgeted for it.  And the money we are cutting from the UN and the Palestinians can easily go toward paying for the wall.  

Well, that doesn't mean it isn't expensive. I could think of many other things I'd rather that money go towards than something I think is impractical and ineffective. 

 

Quote

So what?   Other countries don't get to decide who we let in.  The only reason Mexico doesn't want the wall is that they won't benefit from illegal aliens working here and send their money back to Mexico.  The wall is also a deterrent to drugs and human sex trafficking.  

I'm not saying Mexico should dictate what we do as a country, but given the choice between making our neighbors happy or making them mad, I'd like there to be a good reason to make them mad. Since I don't see the wall as being a good/effective solution I would rather not to make them mad, if that makes sense. 

We agree the US is a sovereign nation and alone has the choice to allow/deny entry. Where we disagree I think is the upsides vs downsides of allowing immigrants to enter the country. 

Quote

Yes it will.   The security fence in Israel has been an excellent deterrent to terrorism and has benefited the Israeli economy. No one can just walk over from the West Bank anymore.  They have to through check points and they cannot climb over or tunnel underneath.   It has saved lives on both sides.  A wall on our southern border makes good sense to everyone but liberals who want illegals to come into our country unfettered.  Those days are over. 

Well, first off we're talking about a 400 mile wall compared to the proposed southern border wall which would need to be about 5x as big to cover the entire border...although it sounds like Trump isn't proposing a 2000 mile long wall, more like a 700-900 mile one. 

But then you have to factor in things like the mountains and rivers that won't have a wall built...and of course there's the whole ocean thing on either side of the wall. 

The wall might stop some people, but if people are desperate enough to enter the country they'll find a way in, unless we would somehow fully barricade our land & coastal borders (which would be even more absurdly expensive). 

 

Quote

Because the Democrat party abandoned the working man and became the party of the Hispanics.   They vote Democrat because the Democrats are bending over backwards to not only buy their votes but are trying to change laws in order to let illegals vote in our elections.    In truth, the Democrat Party is a party of anything but America and Americans see it.

That's one perspective. Thing is if we allow immigrants to live in our country, take part in our political system, pay taxes to our government, and raise families in America, they become Americans. That's what our country was built on (the whole Statue of Liberty thing). 

I agree there need to be some restrictions - not just anyone should be allowed in. But I also think our current system is too slow & broken to effectively let the right people in. Maybe some of that money being budgeted for building the wall could be better spent staffing the organizations that vet immigrants requesting legal entry  

[ayin jade]

3 hours ago, Oh Hamburgers! said:

Well, that doesn't mean it isn't expensive. I could think of many other things I'd rather that money go towards than something I think is impractical and ineffective. 

 

I'm not saying Mexico should dictate what we do as a country, but given the choice between making our neighbors happy or making them mad, I'd like there to be a good reason to make them mad. Since I don't see the wall as being a good/effective solution I would rather not to make them mad, if that makes sense. 

We agree the US is a sovereign nation and alone has the choice to allow/deny entry. Where we disagree I think is the upsides vs downsides of allowing immigrants to enter the country. 

Well, first off we're talking about a 400 mile wall compared to the proposed southern border wall which would need to be about 5x as big to cover the entire border...although it sounds like Trump isn't proposing a 2000 mile long wall, more like a 700-900 mile one. 

But then you have to factor in things like the mountains and rivers that won't have a wall built...and of course there's the whole ocean thing on either side of the wall. 

The wall might stop some people, but if people are desperate enough to enter the country they'll find a way in, unless we would somehow fully barricade our land & coastal borders (which would be even more absurdly expensive). 

 

That's one perspective. Thing is if we allow immigrants to live in our country, take part in our political system, pay taxes to our government, and raise families in America, they become Americans. That's what our country was built on (the whole Statue of Liberty thing). 

I agree there need to be some restrictions - not just anyone should be allowed in. But I also think our current system is too slow & broken to effectively let the right people in. Maybe some of that money being budgeted for building the wall could be better spent staffing the organizations that vet immigrants requesting legal entry  

Heres the thing though. They are not becoming american citizens. They have no desire to become american citizens. They live here, get money, send it all back to mexico. 

I live in arizona. The reality of life here is that we have armed checkpoints we have to go through on the interstates and other roads, as far away as one hour north of the border. Ive gone through as many as 4 checkpoints a day. Parts of public land, of monuments, are off limits to americans because of the illegals. There are signs banning american citizens from american public land because of the problems with illegals. The problems in mexico with cartels and assasinations are happening now in my state. Gradually it is getting worse. Ranches in southern arizona are all but destroyed, their values nonexistent, because of the destruction by the river of illegals that go across their lands every day. The ranchers, american citizens, have been threatened and some even killed, by the illegals and the "coyotes" that bring them across. The media neglects to report this outside arizona. 

We need a border wall. 

[Guest shiloh357]

12 hours ago, Oh Hamburgers! said:

Well, that doesn't mean it isn't expensive. I could think of many other things I'd rather that money go towards than something I think is impractical and ineffective. 

It is expensive.  But it is not as expensive as the hundreds of billions the Democrats want to spend on taking care of thousands of illegal aliens that come here illegally and live off of the American taxpayer.    I just don't see the "expense" as a valid argument.  Democrat agendas would costs many times more than the wall.

Quote

I'm not saying Mexico should dictate what we do as a country, but given the choice between making our neighbors happy or making them mad, I'd like there to be a good reason to make them mad. Since I don't see the wall as being a good/effective solution I would rather not to make them mad, if that makes sense. 

But that IS letting them dictate our policies.   If them being mad at us is the justification for not building the wall, then yes it is a matter of them dictating to us what we can or cannot do as a country.  

Quote

We agree the US is a sovereign nation and alone has the choice to allow/deny entry. Where we disagree I think is the upsides vs downsides of allowing immigrants to enter the country. 

I think, on a deeper level, we disagree on who qualifies as an "immigrant."   Immigrants come here legally.   Illegal aliens come here illegally.  So illegals are already showing no regard for our laws, and many of them come here with no means of support and we end up having to pay for them to live here.  THAT is not immigration.  

Immigrants come through the front door.   They assimilate into our nation, they contribute.  The support themselves and they become Americans.

Quote

 

Well, first off we're talking about a 400 mile wall compared to the proposed southern border wall which would need to be about 5x as big to cover the entire border...although it sounds like Trump isn't proposing a 2000 mile long wall, more like a 700-900 mile one. 

But then you have to factor in things like the mountains and rivers that won't have a wall built...and of course there's the whole ocean thing on either side of the wall. 

 

That's not a problem.   And the ancient Romans could tunnel through entire mountains to build aqueducts, so I don't think negotiating hills and rivers will be a problem for us.

Quote

The wall might stop some people, but if people are desperate enough to enter the country they'll find a way in, unless we would somehow fully barricade our land & coastal borders (which would be even more absurdly expensive). 

If someone wants to break into your house bad enough, they will.  Does that mean you don't lock your doors and pay out each month to have a security alarm system set up to prevent it?    It doesn't follow that we scrap border security and stopping illegal aliens from entering 'cause they will find a way to come here.   Your argument doesn't make sense, and we don't apply that logic in other contexts.

Quote

That's one perspective. Thing is if we allow immigrants to live in our country, take part in our political system, pay taxes to our government, and raise families in America, they become Americans. That's what our country was built on (the whole Statue of Liberty thing). 

but that doesn't apply to illegals.  Most of them don't want to be Americans.  They want financial benefits of living here, but they don''t want to become Americans.   Again, I am all for immigration and immigrants paying taxes and stuff.   But simply livng here long enough doesn't make you an "American."   And real immigrants won't game the system.  They will not live off of us and expect that they are somehow entitled to become Americans. 

Immigrating to the US is a privilege, not a right.  We don't owe anyone any right to live here and we obligated to no one who comes here to let them stay.

 

Quote

I agree there need to be some restrictions - not just anyone should be allowed in. But I also think our current system is too slow & broken to effectively let the right people in. Maybe some of that money being budgeted for building the wall could be better spent staffing the organizations that vet immigrants requesting legal entry

I agree the system needs to be streamlined and improved.  It takes too long for immigrants to become citizens.   But it is not fair to immigrants for us to allow illegals the same benefits  and let them game the system.   The wall is far less expensive to this nation than illegal aliens.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Yeah, clearly it's a pretty complicated problem. Setting aside the outlier opinions about immigrants (some will treat immigrants as walking votes, others might dislike them because of skin color) I think most of us can agree that at the end of the day we want the same thing - we want the 'good' immigrants who pay taxes and contribute to the economy to come in, and we want to keep the 'bad' immigrants who draw on our resources or have criminal/dangerous histories. 

Obviously the million dollar question is how we bring in the good and keep out the bad. My point is I don't see the wall doing a good enough job at keeping out the bad. Shiloh you yourself said the ancient Romans could navigate mountains and rivers - that was my intended point of the comment, that the wall isn't going to be a solid wall covering the entire land barrier between our countries, it was going to rely on natural barriers at many points, which can and will be traversed by those desperate enough to enter the country.

You asked if I lock my doors or have security systems in my house - my answer is we do lock our doors but do not pay for a security system. My reason would be one I think applies to the border wall; the locked doors represent a cheap & effective way to protect my house from the majority of people who would try to enter uninvited. If I make a larger investment in a security system it's true it might prevent a fringe group of potential intruders, but at the end of the day if someone wants to break in they'll do it - security system or not. 

That's how I see the wall - we're investing in the deluxo-premium security package, but to the criminals who have an incentive to find a way into the country (drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc) it's not going to have an enormous impact on their ability to find a way in. We might keep out more poor would-be migrant workers with the wall, but the big fish will figure things out pretty quickly.

That's why I think it's better to spend our time $$$ and resources on making it easier for the 'good ones' to get in, instead of trying to keep the 'bad ones' out...but that's a different conversation entirely  

[Steve_S]

3 minutes ago, Oh Hamburgers! said:

Yeah, clearly it's a pretty complicated problem. Setting aside the outlier opinions about immigrants (some will treat immigrants as walking votes, others might dislike them because of skin color) I think most of us can agree that at the end of the day we want the same thing - we want the 'good' immigrants who pay taxes and contribute to the economy to come in, and we want to keep the 'bad' immigrants who draw on our resources or have criminal/dangerous histories. 

Obviously the million dollar question is how we bring in the good and keep out the bad. My point is I don't see the wall doing a good enough job at keeping out the bad. Shiloh you yourself said the ancient Romans could navigate mountains and rivers - that was my intended point of the comment, that the wall isn't going to be a solid wall covering the entire land barrier between our countries, it was going to rely on natural barriers at many points, which can and will be traversed by those desperate enough to enter the country.

You asked if I lock my doors or have security systems in my house - my answer is we do lock our doors but do not pay for a security system. My reason would be one I think applies to the border wall; the locked doors represent a cheap & effective way to protect my house from the majority of people who would try to enter uninvited. If I make a larger investment in a security system it's true it might prevent a fringe group of potential intruders, but at the end of the day if someone wants to break in they'll do it - security system or not. 

That's how I see the wall - we're investing in the deluxo-premium security package, but to the criminals who have an incentive to find a way into the country (drug trafficking, human trafficking, etc) it's not going to have an enormous impact on their ability to find a way in. We might keep out more poor would-be migrant workers with the wall, but the big fish will figure things out pretty quickly.

That's why I think it's better to spend our time $$$ and resources on making it easier for the 'good ones' to get in, instead of trying to keep the 'bad ones' out...but that's a different conversation entirely  

I tend to disagree with the sentiment regarding the usefullness of a wall. I'm not even sure I think one should be built, but I don't doubt that it would stop a significant number of people from entering if it were done correctly, including those who have nefarious intentions.

It's really all in the purpose of the wall. Is it going to be built in a vacuum, i.e. planned, built, and left alone? Or it is going to be designed to be an obstacle? If it were designed as an obstacle, it would stop the vast majority of people who cross from crossing.

By being designed to be an obstacle, I mean something that slows down anyone who has intent to cross long enough until the border patrol can arrive to prevent it. If you staffed a wall with quick reaction teams and used motion sensors, cameras, and drones to monitor it, and it was multi-tiered (instead of just a wall, a series of light fences, a wall, followed by another series of fences), then you could basically slow anyone attempting to cross down to the point that the border patrol could arrive and stop them. With drone coverage, even if they got past, you could track them (even at night using infrared) until you caught them. This configuration would also virtually end "easy" crossings, which are the vast majority currently, basically where folks just walk right across through a fairly flat and open area.

As far as the places where there wouldn't be a wall, but are instead natural obstacles, you simply apply those same techniques, with the added benefit that naturally difficult terrain such as that takes far longer to traverse.

I don't disagree with a home security system being synonymous, but the one thing you left out was that it would be complete with professionally trained armed guards. Could a very well funded and concerted group still manage to penetrate such a thing? Yes. However, most won't attempt it, particularly after the first few groups that aren't well equipped try and fail miserably. You can never stop smuggling, but you can make it incredibly difficult and costly.

[ayin jade]

The wall was built in california and the amount of illegals crossing dropped significantly in that sector. 

Arizona has a natural barrier called the sonoran desert. Illegals routinely die crossing it. Mexico encourages them to cross it, offering pamphlets on how to cross, signs telling them how to cross and even an app on how to cross it. The illegals refuse to believe what the us govt or anyone else in the us says about its dangers. And so they die. But they still cross that region in high numbers, with armed guards, with mountain lookouts 30 minutes from my home. The traffic from them is so high that you can see their tracks, their trails. They have damaged the desert with their crossings.

From an article written in 2016

 

Despite a decrease in migrant crossings and Border Patrol apprehensions on the southern border, the number of bodies recovered from the desert remains high.

So far this fiscal year, which started in October, more than 50 bodies have been found. And the deadliest months for migrants are coming.

In fiscal year 2015, there were 21 deaths per 10,000 apprehensions in the Tucson Sector. That year alone, remains of 135 migrants were found in the desert, while the Border Patrol reported a little more than 63,000 arrests.

That’s more than double the rate in 2010, the deadliest year on record. Until 2007, the death rate for border crossers never exceeded 4 per 10,000 apprehensions.

http://tucson.com/news/local/border/deaths-per-border-crossers-are-up-times-from-a-decade/article_c1279aaf-4ad8-51c9-82d8-3143b836f52e.html

[ayin jade]

22 minutes ago, Yowm said:

(Rhetorical question ahead) How do you damage a desert? By definition, I thought a desert was a damaged piece of land. lol 

You don't have to answer, I'm just being silly.

The sonoran desert is called the living desert because it contains a large variety of life. The desert can be damaged by large amounts of people traveling across the land. We still can see wagon trails in the desert today. 

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/96c0f55dc407b5a700a235455eecc40cab357fe8/c=0-0-2128-1600&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/09/11/Phoenix/Phoenix/636407692075578205-Sonoran-Desert.jpg

The illegals often set deliberate wildfires to distract border patrol. It takes hundreds of years for the desert to return to what it used to be. Those big cacti you see in that photo are saguaros. The saguaros you see are hundreds of years old. They do not even grow arms (branches) until they are 50 years old or more. 

Silly or not yowm, I felt compelled to respond lol.