From Magic City Morning Star|
The ethnic voting patterns in Congress will determine the course immigration into the United States in the next decade. In fact, it will determine whether there will be a United States. The three ethnic voting blocs are the Hispanics, Africa-Americans and Jews. It will be shown that Catholics are not an ethnic group concerning immigration.
An ethnic voting block is defined as a block of voters who will vote for candidates and policies that answer the wishes of their ethnic group, even if these policies might be damage the remainder of the population. Ethnic groups tend to be ethnocentric, that is, almost exclusively intermarrying, defining their in-group as intellectually and morally superior to the outgroup. They characterize the outgroup as morally, historically and intellectually corrupt. In demographic terms, this means the ethnic groups versus the largest ethnic group of Americans, white Protestants and Catholics.
There are now three Presidential candidates committed to amnesty and open borders, which means current laws will not be enforced after they are elected. However, it would a far worse situation if an amnesty is passed and the twenty million illegals are granted citizenship.
Despite the promise of the utopia of multiculturalism, there is little historical evidence that a peaceful country can exist in which major ethnic groups compete for power. In fact, in dozens of countries, Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), the mid-East (Jews vs. Muslims), Kosovo (Muslims vs. Christians), India (Muslims vs. Hindus) and Rwanda (Tsutis and Hutus), there is only conflict and bloodshed.Hispanics
In 1960, there were so few Hispanics that they were not counted as a demographic entity in the census. Pressure by Hispanic groups added them to the census and thus entitled them to minority status treatment and government benefits. Prior that, they were simply classified as White.
The 1965 Immigration Reform Act led to a radical increase in the number of Hispanics in the United States. Although the 1965 Act was not supposed to change the demographic patterns of the United States, it in fact changed them drastically. Hispanics grew to a population of 35 million and exceeded the number of African-Americans. If demographic trends of massive legal immigration and illegal immigration continue, this group will be half the size of Whites by 2050.
As with other ethnic groups, the leaders of the Hispanics attempt to portray their ethnic group's entry into the United States as being within the broad historical pattern of a "nation of immigrants" and that they wish to assimilate and become citizens like generations before them. The Hispanic radicals tell another story of demonizing European Americans, outright hatred and a desire to demographically conquer this country.
"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him... We are the future of America. Unlike any prior generation, we now have the critical mass. We're going to Latinize this country." -- Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor and former head of the Mexican-American Studies Center at the University of Texas, Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida, a Hispanic political party.
The Mexican government makes no secret of its territorial ambitions on the United States.
"I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of it." -- Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo at the National Council of La Raza (The Race) Soiree, Chicago on July 23, 1997
The Hispanic members of Congress actively pursue their ethnic group interests. Their records on immigration are for amnesty, open borders, visas and paths to citizenship. It should be of note that this is true despite the fact that Puerto Rican Hispanics are United States citizens and Cuban Hispanics are refugees from a totalitarian regime. Despite these differences in the nationality, the objective of the Hispanics in Congress is clear: to challenge the majority of Americans for control of the United States.
In 1965, Barbara Jordan, the African-American Representative from Texas had this to say about immigration.
"We have concluded that illegal immigrants come primarily for employment. The Commission believes that we need to enhance our enforcement of both employer sanctions and labor standards. But, to make employer sanctions work, we must improve the means by which employers verify the work authorization of new employees."
After Barbara Jordan's death in 1996, President Clinton did nothing to implement the recommendation of her commission, and immigration took a new tack with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, ranking minority member on the House Immigration Subcommittee
"There is a clear difference between illegal immigrants in low-paying jobs and legal immigrants who pay more in taxes than do citizens. Let us join together to prevent this wedge from forming between African-Americans and Hispanic Americans."
From this point on, the issue of political power for African-Americans took precedence over the negative impact mass Hispanic legal and illegal immigration was having on working class African-Americans. Jesse Jackson formed his Rainbow Coalition, which was to be an African-American and Hispanic Alliance. In reality, this was based more on hatred for Whites than the best interests of African-Americans.
Note that no prominent Hispanics, if any, ever publicly supported Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Hispanics were ethnocentric, ambitious and did not want to listen to any grievances of African-Americans. They wanted the jobs. In Los Angeles and Miami industries like the hotel service industry, unionized African-Americans were soon replaced by illegal Mexicans.
When three African-Americans were murdered by illegal Hispanics in Newark, New Jersey, the African-American mayor said that his police force was not in the business of immigration control. Neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton showed up with legions of demonstrators to protest these execution-style murders.
Unfortunately, the remarks of presidential candidate Barak Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, reflect the virulent anti-White attitudes of many African-Americans. As Shelby Steel says in the Wall Street Journal, "The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother."
Despite this, some hope remains for African-Americans on immigration. There are immigration activists such Terry Anderson in Los Angeles, Ted Hayes of Los Angeles, Jesse Lee Patterson, and T. Willard Fair, President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami. Says Mr. Fair, "The interests of black Americans are clear: No amnesty, no guest workers, enforce the immigration law."
Nevertheless, the votes of African-Americans in Congress are the opposite: amnesty, guestworkers and non-enforcement of immigration law. This is a case of an ethnic group, African-Americans, purposely destroying themselves because of their animosity toward another group, Whites. Co-operation in the self-interests of both groups would seem mutually beneficial, but Black leaders would rather play the race card against Whites, than protect members of their race from economic exploitation criminal attacks and demographic displacement by Hispanics.
Anti-Semitic persecutions have been a history of the modern world from the Russian programs of the 1800's, to the Nazi Germany, to the post WWII of expulsion of Jews from the Soviet Union and Poland. The fact that Jews sought refuge in other countries has caused American Jewry to advocate an open-borders policy for the United States, regardless of the consequences to the economic and social stability of the country.
It should be noted that American Jews do not advocate an open borders policy for Israel, which has strong immigration laws favoring Jews. The hypocrisy should not go unnoticed. Israel, in Jewish eyes, has the right to protect itself against unwanted immigration, but the United States does not.
Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has been an open borders advocate. He has voted against immigration restrictions or controls even when they would seem to be in the best interests of all Americans, and especially Jews. Lieberman was a co-sponsor of the Kennedy-McCain Amnesty which would have given amnesty to the some twenty million illegals in the country, increased the number of legals coming into the country, and then, of all things, given Mexico aid against illegal immigration across its southern border.
The voting records of Jews in the Senate and Congress indicate that Jews vote as an ethnic group on matters of immigration. The votes are not different by party, state or area of the country. It is a axiomatic that to be Jewish is to vote for open borders and massive immigration into the United States.
This ideological voting pattern transcends the real world condition of the United States and the impact of immigration. Do these Jewish members of Congress believe that Americans, or Jews in America will be safer if 25% of the population is singing the La Raza's (the Race) motto of "For the Race Everything, for Everyone Else, Nothing?" Since when have Hispanic countries been open to Jewish immigration, or welcomed Jews within their borders?
The ideological position of Jews on immigration has been challenged by Dr. Stephen Steinlight, in a
paper, "High Noon to Midnight, Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry."
"Survey research, plus mountains of anecdotal evidence, reveals a profound change in attitude among American Jews. Opinion polls in the three years following the attacks of September 11, 2001 show a plurality favoring lowered immigration, 70 percent the introduction of a secure national identity card, and 55 percent believing Muslims are the most anti-Semitic group in the United States."
Dr. Steinlight says, "Thus, behind closed doors, Jewish leaders speak a different language. This is not entirely new with immigration, but the gulf is now a chasm. Privately they express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe."
He further states, "Segments of the leadership remain true believers in the dying faith of open immigration, and will not give up without a fight. But that change is inevitable is clear enough. The question, ultimately, is whether it will come too late to make a difference to the future of America and its Jewish community."
Unfortunately, one of those segments is the Jewish leadership in Congress. As Steinlight points out, they have not adopted to the effects of mass immigration on the United States, and hence on their ethnic group.
"Jews stand to lose far more than any other group of Americans from a policy that brings in millions of immigrants from cultures that range from antipathetic to antithetic to Jews and Israel. Muslim immigrants feel enormous hostility toward Jews and are intent on nullifying Jewish political power in the United States as a step towards destroying Israel."
Dr. Steinlight has been slandered as "racist" by fellow Jews for his outspoken demands for change in Jewish thinking on immigration. Whether the Jews in the U.S. Congress are open to his arguments is problematic.Catholics
Catholics have more members in Congress than any of the previously named ethnic groups. However, as seen in the chart, their voting patterns are far from unanimous on the issue of immigration.
The Republicans are the most strongly opposed to amnesty and open borders. Twenty-four receive A's and B's while only three receive F's. In contrast, only eight Democrats receive A's and B's and twenty-one receive F's.
The bishops of the Catholic Church have openly advocated amnesty for illegal immigrants and otherwise promoted open borders. As reflected in the votes of Catholic Congressmen, Catholics are not the following the Church's leaders. The Catholic immigration vote is not unified as is the vote by Jews. Rather party identification is the key with Catholics with more Democrats for amnesty and fewer Republican Catholics. The Catholics, thus, do not constitute a religious ethnic group in terms of immigration.
Neither Catholics nor Protestants (Euro-Americans) are ethnic groups as are Hispanics, Blacks and Jews. Ethnic group behavior is defined as doing what is best for the ethnic group and defending ethnic group members without any regard to any universal or legal standard. The Catholics and Protestants regard their morality and the political process as having laws; the ethnic groups do not. What is best for the ethnic group is what is right. This is why "white guilt" is such a potent weapon in the immigration debate. If you can make a White feel guilty, he or she will not take actions to defend themselves, or even consider that they have a group interest in the events.
For example, lawyer Johnnie Cochran gave long apologias and defenses for O.J. Simpson. He was willing to use the "race card" to convince the jury that all the evidence assembled by the Los Angeles was planted. Recently, when Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace after alleged misconduct, Alan Dershowitz appeared on television to defend Spitzer's actions claiming that they were relatively minor. He said there were great Presidents who had extra-marital affairs (Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy).
No one within a strong ethnic group will say about an ethnic group member. "He is guilty and should go to jail."
In contrast, when Republican (Christian) politicians violate the law, few Republicans are willing to defend them. Richard Nixon comes to mind, as does Gov. John Rowland of Connecticut.
These three ethnic groups are always ready to deflect criticism of their actions by resorting to slander of the motives of their critics and ignore the facts. Hispanics accuse critics of open borders and amnesty as racists, or sometimes use the more polite "xenophobes." African-Americans are quick to use racism against any critics. Any criticism of Jews is met by a barrage of anti-Semitism charges.
Non-ethnic, Euro-Americans are at a distinct disadvantage with their universalistic, Republican, Democratic, individualistic values against ethnic groups that do what is best for their ethnic group. Affirmative action programs which actively, blatantly and openly discriminate against Euro-Americans are the most egregious example of this disadvantage.
Also, it has been unthinkable to propose that groups such as Muslims simply be banned from entering, and those here deported, because as a group they pose security risks. Rather, in individualistic fashion, a case must be proven that someone has committed a terrorist act in a long and lengthy trial. The ethnic group, Muslims, acts as a cohesive entity, while the majority Euro-Americans are paralyzed by their individualistic legal system.
Obviously, the immigration issue is split along the lines of political parties. Almost all Democrats are uniformly voting for amnesty and open borders. Only in blue-collar districts do elected Democrats vote against amnesty and open borders. The Republicans are split between their leadership and wealthy Republicans versus their blue-collar, mid-American, middle-class voters.
Approximately 80% of American voters are White Americans, of that 60% regularly vote Republican. This yields 48% of the vote going to Republican candidates. When that percent voting Republican goes too 65% of the vote, Republicans win elections with 52% of the vote.
The first ethnic question is, "Will traditionally blue-collar Democrats vote Republican because of the issue of immigration?" A large part of this group is primarily Irish and Italians descendents who have formed the backbone of the Democratic Party.
The second question is, "Will the Republican Party more clearly define itself as the political party against immigration, open borders and massive immigration to attract more blue-collar Democrats?" This will be in spite of the Presidential and Senate leadership for amnesty and open borders.
Some signs point to that. Immigration was a main topic of concern among the candidates in the Republican primary. Unfortunately, immigration control candidates were not strong enough to win the Republican nomination, its candidate John McCain has received an earful about immigration. He is now no longer touting amnesty, but now he insists that the borders must be secured first. This is one giant step backward from his former position, but nevertheless, few immigration control advocates trust him on this issue.
At the state level, Arizona and Oklahoma have passed stringent laws against the employment of illegal aliens that has resulted in them leaving the state. Further, laws are likely and they will be backed by Republicans. In the state of Connecticut, with the House of Representatives and Senate controlled by Democrats, the Connecticut Republican Party has launched a petition to defeat in-state tuition for illegal aliens. This indicates the CT Republicans recognize that immigration is an issue that is good politics and good for the citizens of Connecticut.
At the grass roots level, the Minutemen on the Arizona border in 2005, the numerous city and local immigration activists groups and dramatic increase in membership for FAIR (Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform), NumbersUSA, Americans for Better Immigration shows that Euro-Americans have been mobilized to action by the issue of immigration. Generally, when the elites of the Democratic and Republican Party want something that is against the interests of the majority of U.S. citizens, they get it. (NAFTA, which started the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs, would be an example.) Amnesty for twenty million illegals, posing as Comprehensive Immigration Reform, produced such a barrage of letters, faxes, emails and phone calls that the Congress backed down rather face voters at home.
In 1924, the Immigration Acts limited immigration to approximately 165,000 per year. The quotas were set to reflect the existing population. From 1925 to 1965, the United States enjoyed a very low immigration rate. Ethnic tensions eased and Americans began to recall immigration through the misty eyes of the Statue of Liberty, not through the bitter battles over immigration, quotas and ethnic strife.
Will African-Americans and Jews see that amnesty, open-borders is not in their ethnic group interest? Will the United States again have immigration tranquility? Or, will amnesty and open borders prevail and ethnic strife increase and intensify?
* Ratings from Americans for Better Immigration
Director, CT Citizens for Immigration Control
Mr. Streitz is a co-director of CT Citizens for Immigration Control. He was an infantry platoon leader with the 82nd Airborne, Vietnam and a Minuteman on the Arizona border. He ran for the CT Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004 and 2006. He is the author of America First: Why Americans Must End Free Trade, Stop Outsourcing and Close Our Open Borders, The Great American College Tuition Rip-Off and Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I
© Copyright 2002-2013 by Magic City Morning Star