Sorry, I am just using the tactics that are used by those that support illegals. Never mind the facts. How does it feel?

Don’t you find it funny that two of the most outspoken critics of illegal immigrants in this area are, Jeff Frederick, a legal immigrant, and Chairman Stewart, who is married to a legal immigrant. Yet, if we are to believe the MJM and the COMPOST and the SLC, they are just Navitists. Why won’t the COMPOST have a more balanced view on this issue? Has the MJM or the COMPOST carried stores on groups such as You do not speak for me? Why not? Maybe because they want to frame this issue as a racial issue and to show anyone but whites being opposed to illegal immigration would not fit into their agenda.

So you are lumping me in the same group as the President and other contributors of The Frontline just because I choose to post on this blog? Where does that put you in regards to the company you keep statement?

Have you seen the YouTube videos of the protests the ILLEGAL aliens do in CA? This action is what has me worried about the “American culture”. When people do not wish to try to assimilate and keep PART of their culture then there are problems. Many people see this as an aggressive bunch of lawless people trying to take from them the “American dream”. I have often said that if the ILLEGAL aliens had assimilated and kept amassing in the country and didn’t protest and raise awareness, they would have not woke up the big dog on the porch. Unfortunately, they have kicked the big dog on the porch and he is now ready to bite and will not stop until he is finished.

The sense of entitlement that most ILLEGAL aliens have is another problem I have. They are here ILLEGALLY and they are not entitled to anything. They have certain rights afforded to them under the constitution, but NOTHING more.

Maybe the fact that those who can not support themselves should be sent back is not a bad idea in my mind. We need to boost the tax paying force more instead of add to the public dole. We need more people to get off of their lazy a$$es and get to work.
_______________________________________________

Turn PW Blue said on 14 Mar 2008 at 5:10 pm:

“You won’t see me support illegal immigration or defend them.”

Then why do you bring up the pamphlet from 1854 and agree with the paper when it calls those of us who wish to have the rule of law enforced, nativist?

When you say “We can simply say you and others who support illegals or at the very least defend them,” you make it clear you haven’t read what I wrote. You won’t see me support illegal immigration or defend them. I am all for proper enforcement of our laws. Period. So, no, it would not be fair to lump me in the MSF and every group they are associated with. Also note, that I do not promote or link to MSF or any such groups within my comments or on my Web page.

But you are correct that the MJM and WashPost should be looking into some of the more spurious connections of groups like Mexicans Without Borders. For what it’s worth, I don’t support them or their tactics either.

And not everyone who comes here illegally are doing it just to do jobs Americans do not want to do. And, not everyone who support illegals are doing it just to support the illegals, they have other motives besides the support of criminals.

The fact is that on any issues, there are going to be a wide range of opinions from any number of people.

As I see it, the problem stems mainly from the likes of the MJM and the Washington COMPOST. Those two papers absolutely refuse to acknowledge the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration oppose it because they oppose the illegal aspect of it. They have openly championed the cause of the illegals, have pleaded with us to change rather then the illegals, and generally have turned a blind eye to the extremists who support illegals.

We can simply say you and others who support illegals or at the very least defend them, hold the same views as Mexicans without borders and tie you into every group they are associated with. Would it be fair to paint you with the same broad brush as you have above?

I think, though, that what you don’t get or don’t want to see is that not all those trying to curtail illegal immigration are doing it based on an ideal of what is right and wrong vis a vis the Law. There are other, more insidious motivations at play (and those come out from time to time in the posts here). Sure, many will pay lip service to the idea that we’re all for legal immigrants. But why, then, is so much of the conversation about things like “culture” and “American values” and “common language.” If these people were all legal, those issues could and would still exist. The existed when the Irish and Germans flocked to America’s shores in the 1850s and they exist with the newest wave of legal immigration (Mexicans make up the largest portion of *legal* immigrants according to the DHS’s Office of Immigration Statistics). Look at the latest issue of the Frontline and the column by HSM’s VP on “Cultural Chaos.” Look at Greg’s “President’s Pen” from the December issue. The questions and issues raised in those columns are not issues of legal versus illegal, right versus wrong. They are issues of native culture versus foreign culture. There is the constant refraining of “America under attack,” “our culture is threatened.” These are the very same nativist issues the Know Nothings of the 1850s were raising about Irish Catholics, Germans, and Chinese. Then, as now, those issues were couched under the blanket of “saving” America.

As for the relationships with FAIR and NumbersUSA, the company you keep says a lot about who you are.

Oh, and your line about not needing to allow LEGAL immigrants into the country who cannot support themselves? The 12th plank of the American Party Platform in 1854 was “The sending back of all Foreign Paupers landed on our shores.” Yup, things certainly have change in the last 154 years.

You really do not get it do you? We are talking about 2008, not 1854. Things are no where near the same. We have immigration laws now, which are not being obeyed!! I have to ask, what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand?

American Heritage Dictionary
il·le·gal (ĭ-lē’gəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.

OBVIOUSLY the first definition fits the sue of this word. We are not in 1854 where gun toting individuals set out to their lawless ways. We are now a nation of laws and rules. Things are not the same as they were then. The old cliche, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”, does not apply here. These people have entered the US unlawfully. You and your apologetic ilk will turn this entire country over to the ILLEGAL aliens when they come up and say, We are here now and there are more of us than there are of you, so we are in charge now. I will not allow this to happen on my watch. I will do everything I can legally to prevent it from happening.

I am for LEGAL immigration, but I will say we need to make sure those we allow in can support themselves. We do not need to allow LEGAL immigrants into the country that can not support themselves.

We have enough free loaders on the public dole as it is. I am tired of paying for them as well. As a 60% service connected disabled veteran, I get out of bed everyday and go to work. I could qualify for public assistance and a welfare check, but I choose NOT to do it.

I think you need to read those sites again and read them with an open mind. You see, it appears you have not had the chance to live in another country. Once you have lived in a third world country for 18+ months, come back to me and tell me the things you are spouting off.

You are reaching for straws by putting the numbersusa.com and FAIR organizations together with HSM. Yes they are for ILLEGAL alien removal and possibly setting up a quota for the number of LEGAL immigrants we accept. We can not accept all of the worlds poor and uneducated. We have to acept those that will help us be a better nation. Since we have a population now, what is wrong with picking and choosing who can come into our country?

When a government imposes policies that only benefit the illegal immigrant and the employer or big corporation, the common CITIZEN (read american) becomes disarmed and any revolt is met with cries of subversion or in our case of racism, which are in their intent and effect equivalent.

If people are willing to contemplate or suffer such injury in silence, then the same people will be defenseless because it is a false argument. To the issue of nativism or racism one should respond by negating such accusation and proclaiming and reclaiming the rights that have been neglected by the government.

—–

Mando–You need to pay better attention then. While you don’t have an issue with legal immigration, others here have made such statements and/or are affiliated with or sympathetic to organizations that are seeking to fight not only illegal immigration but also stop or severely curtail legal immigration. Both NumbersUSA and FAIR have taken a strong anti-immigration angle advocating a revision not only of illegal alien laws but a drastic reduction in the number *legal* immigrants allowed into the United States (not surprising since both groups have a common ancestry and founder). Those organizations DO have a problem with legal immigration. Several on this list have expressed support for FAIR and have relied on NumbersUSA for data and information. NumbersUSA also provided legal assistance and advocacy within PWC for the “Rule of Law” resolution and is allied with Save the Old Dominion (which has links to both NumbersUSA and FAIR on its main page and which Greg, in a previous blog entry, welcomed into the fight against illegal immigration in Virginia). As an organizational member of Save the Old Dominion, HSM is also, then, tied to both FAIR and NumbersUSA.

Nativists (like the author of your pamphlet) have a problem with LEGAL immagration. I don’t nor does anyone else on this blog that I know of.

More LEGAL immagration is a good thing as long as legitimate jobs are filled.

When the hordes of other lands are permitted to come here, as is the case daily; when ignorance, poverty, crime is allowed to land upon our shores and be transformed, hardly without ceremony, and with no time to learn the nature of our institutions, into what is called the ‘American’ citizens—when these things are done, it is time that good men lifted their arms and sounded their voices against the abomination.

No man has a right to perform an act of injustice to a nation. We care not whether the offense is defined in a written law, or not. There is a right and a wrong in this as in other matters. Every man of intelligence must understand it. Making citizens of such stuff as too often seeks our land is an injustice, the grossness of which can hardly be described. It should no longer be tolerated. The laws which permit the crime should at once be abolished.

Because it is every day weakening the strength, and destroying the character of the country. America can only be America by keeping it American. Its halls of legislation must reflect American sentiment, uttered by American tongues. There is no avoiding this position. Americans must fill our offices, great and small. To do this we must cut off all chance of foreigners getting such. How? By saying to foreigners, ‘Gentlemen, you are welcome to live in our country if you conduct yourself in a worthy manner, but you must have no offices. This is our land. We own it. We mean to take care of it. If you don’t like things as you find them, you can leave. We only demand in this country what we should expect in yours.’

Are these from a recent speech by a proponent of the rule of law? Nope, they’re taken from the pages of a nativist pamphlet published in 1854. The sentiments expressed don’t sound very different from what I’ve seen written here by others.

It has to be a full moon!!!
_________________________________

Turn,

This term is being used today, not in the early 19th century. Things have changed since then. I was looking at the definition from the LEGAL immigrant’s point of view, not ILLEGAL aliens. They are not immigrants. So again, the definition does not fit. I have no quarrel with LEGAL immigrants coming into my neighborhood and keeping their culture as long as it isn’t shoved down my throat and I am called a racist if I do not accept it.

That is really my main problem, they do not assimilate and think we should be accepting of their culture, which I do accept it, but not as the MAIN culture. It is a sub-culture of the AMERICAN culture. This is to include all Americans, not hyphenated ones. The hyphenation of Americans is what started a bunch of crap anyway. We are Americans, not whatever-Americans. Once we get away from the politically correctness, the sooner we can join together as one. By hyphenating the American, you automatically set yourself up as a separate group.

To address some of your questions:

1) Why the diatribes about making English the official language?

Because this is the language of America. It is the basic way to function within the society. If they do not want to learn it, then they are not assimilating.

2) Why the complaints about Hispanics urinating on the dumpster beside 7-11?

Because this is America, not a third world country. We have decency laws and should respect other peoples property. By urinating in public, they disregard the law and show disrespect to the property they urinate on.

3) Why the complaints about hearing salsa music at every stop light?

I have not seen any of these complaints. If you have them, please post the archive showing them. I personally have issues with ANY music loud enough that I can hear it with my car windows up. As a former Paramedic/Fire Fighter that had to drive through traffic to get to a fire or rescue call, I have come across people with their car stereo’s so loud they could not hear an air horn. This is dangerous for them and others on the road.

4) Why the assumption that every Hispanic man arrested for a crime is illegal?

I do not assume he is an ILLEGAL alien. Odds are good that he is, but it is not an assumption of mine. I do not look at Hispanic people as ILLEGAL aliens. I see them as folks that are trying to make a living, however, if they are not here LEGALLY, then they need to be punished for breaking the law and deported no questions asked. It is a good chance that those urinating on the dumpsters at the 7-11 are ILLEGAL aliens.

5) Why the outrage over ESOL spending (when 50% or more the the current PWCS ESOL population was born in the US)?

The only reason they were born in the US is because of a poor interpretation of the 14th amendment. I like the idea of updating the 14th so at least one of the parents is a LEGAL US citizen. Then citizenship can be granted. If you look at the debates for the 14th amendment, they did not intend for it to be interpreted the way it has been. If the people using the ESOL service are LEGAL immigrants, then I have no quarrel with it. I do have a quarrel with educating the ILLEGAL aliens. Why should my tax dollars go to fund educating a child that should not be here in the first place. No the child didn’t have a choice to come along for the ride across the border, but their parents did. Why should the law breaking behavior be rewarded with a free AMERICAN education or any other services they can get?

You can not equate the immigration movement of the earlier years to what it is today. Those immigrants assimilated where the ones coming in today only talk of taking back what they THINK is rightfully theirs, which does not exist. The land they say is theirs was negotiated over and concessions made by both sides for it. It belongs to America rightfully and legally!!

Remember the stage and movie, WEST SIDE STORY?

While the MJM editorial is unfair in ascribing so much of this to Greg personally, there are some in HSM and (as James points out) some on this list that do hold nativists views (whether they want to admit it or not). As the head of HSM and the man in charge at BVBL, then, Greg is going to be painted as at least sympathetic to those views (whether that is his intent or not). It’s the price you pay for being the guy in charge.

To those who are bristling at the idea of being called a nativist, I think you need to refresh your history lessons and look at where and how the term originated. Contrary to your assertion, Medic, that none of the definitions fit, the first definition you posted is spot on for some of the “regulars” here who help set the tone for the blog (and do so with Greg’s blessing). Here are just some of the positions of 19th and early 20th century American nativists (keep in mind that the concept of illegal versus legal immigration is a relatively new focus of attention):

- Immigrants don’t assimilate (but should).
- English should be the first and only language. Immigrants should learn English.
- Immigrants are corrupting our culture and trying to install their own in its place.
- Immigrants are a drain on government resources.
- Immigrants are taking away our jobs.
- Immigrants are damaging our communities and destroying property.
- Immigrants have no respect for personal property.
- Immigrants are a drain on social and medical services.
- Immigrants are the root of increases in crime.

Any of these sound familiar? Seen any such senitments posted on this very blog? I seem to recall sentiments such as these posted from time to time. Sure, you couch it all in “We don’t care about *legal* immigrants–it’s the illegal ones we’re talking about.” But if that’s the case, then why the diatribes about making English the official language? Why the complaints about Hispanics urinating on the dumpster beside 7-11? Why the complaints about hearing salsa music at every stop light? Why the complaints (complete with pictures) of neglected properties and trash along the roadside? Why the assumption that every Hispanic man arrested for a crime is illegal? Why the outrage over ESOL spending (when 50% or more the the current PWCS ESOL population was born in the US)?

Nativism didn’t end in the 19th century. It is ironic, though, that today’s nativists are probably descendants of the very people the 19th century nativists were talking about. Any of you Irish? Chinese? German? Catholic? All of these immigrant groups were targeted by earlier nativist movements.

Sorry, folks. For some of you the nativist term is apt. For Greg, so long as you associate with such comments (and in some ways encourage them) and don’t denounce them (and I mean a true renunciation, not a statement made with a wink), you will considered sympathetic to those views.

The irony here is too rich. A day after posting that Jim Gilmore is a cry baby because his campaign issues a press release criticizing an attack on Gilmore by Bob Marshall, Greg writes this interminable, whiney junior high rant because the MJM is now giving him the notoriety he’s been clamoring for.

Comparing himself to the patriots of the American Revolution?! Great personal sacrifice?! What’s been your great personal sacrifice Greg? Please, you whip this out every now and then when you’re being criticized, enlighten those of us who don’t live in your echo chamber so we can feel your pain.

You’re a real hero. Let’s see, you focused the bulk of your efforts during this campaign on the weakest and most vulnerable link in the chain, the powerless workers and their families who have no vote and little access to any sort of stable safety net, some of whom fled violence and terror in their home countries. Whenever possible you used hate-tinged rhetoric and took no steps to denounce or repudiate those who did, adding to the life of fear so many of these folks already experience–and then boasting about how your tactics have “scared” these people into leaving.

I’m sure these folks are grateful for the great personal sacrifice you made by devoting so much of your time to stopping sex trafficing. And I’m sure that the people who left the county out of fear were the hardened criminal element. After all, they’re real wusses.

Get real Greg and all those who Greg wannabes. You’re not heros or great Americans. Heros and great Americans don’t attack and exploit the weakest and the most vulnerable. They work to solve problems, not blame someone for them who cannot defend themselves. Face it, the problem here Greg is that you wanted to be well known for this effort, but now that an ever brighter light is being shown on you, you’re coming to realize that the bigotry you’ve been providing cover for is something likely to define any legacy you leave. If known a decade from now, and I hope you are, it will be as a representative of that unfortunate cyclical strain of prejudice that emerges every few decades in America to attack society’s weakest. Your descendents will be so proud.

But to be fair, I Haven’t reached enlistment age and I own a Few Firearms, So they must be talking about me. Oh Wait, I’m not a member of HSM.

Huh Must be someone else.

Keep kicking their ass, Greg.