112 Thoughts to “Behind The Veil: America’s Anti-Immigration Network”

  1. Michael

    Elena 0:22

    It’s not about poverty Elena as a justification for breaking the law. I personally did not live in poverty, but I lived in a small town where many of the kids I went to school with lived in poverty. They were “poor” “majority” kids, from the rural mountains. They lived in shacks, they had one good meal a day at school, and they lived off of “logging”, farming and subsistance labor. Poverty has never justified breaking the law.

    Why is it that people only think that poverty exists in “minorities”. It does not. A whole society exists by a variety of names of impoverish members of the “majority”. Who is looking out for their “social, financial, 8A, and educational” special interests as an ethnic, gender, religious or ethnic group aligned along those political lines of power? No-one, they are not allowed to form groups in this way, because they were told that they would be a “hate group”if they did. So they don’t join and form “The Celtic Peoples”, the National Council of Caucasian Citizend, or the “National Association for the Advancement of Non-Colored People. There is no-one making a web site telling them how to get a better job, because that web site would be labled “racist”. And yet they are still poor, as poor as anyone in this country.

    My kids, because I could not afford to send them to an expensive college could not get racial, gender, religious or ethnic group government 8A funding as a “minority”. They had to wait until they left home to ask for “low-income” school loans and still can’t compete with “protected classes” for the same school funds, even though their grades are higher. What political group is looking out for them?

    My perspective comes from being aware of the “illegal” activities that surrounded my “illegal” alien wife before we got marred. I saw it all, the black market, the fear that people lived in (She was raped by another foreigner, who threatened her life and threatened to call ICE to deport her), I saw the illegal bank accounts, the crowded single family homes, the owners who were making a killing off of other peoples misery, the illegal applications for loans from racially biased loan officers who looked the other way mad to people who could not afford those homes, I saw the business owner’s who got lawyers to file illegal business documents for “illegal” employees, used stolen SSNs, present and create false ID cards, and drivers licenses and with those false identities use them to “vote” because the local “leaders” of these ethnic group political arms told everyone if they did this they could get “green cards” quicker.

    I don’t need any more proof than what I saw with my own eyes.

    I did not feel sorry for my wife before I married her, I realized she had made a terrible decision to come here illegally to the US in the first palce because everyone was doing it, no-one ever got caught, and business owners who were the “insiders” offered them jobs at “pitifully low wages”, below the poverty level and minimum wage (modern business slavery). Once she was here, she was stuck her and under the influence of a local crime ring “who drove taxis cabs as the criminal front for money laundering.

    Her and my personal life was threatened. So I went to the police with it all. That crime ring got shut down.

    So here Elena is the moral issue. I fight for “illegal” immigrant deportation to prevent people from living like my wife did. If I give her and her friends amnesty, more and more of them will come here and live like that in complete poverty and never get out of it unless they marry a US Citizen. My marriage is a legitimate one, I fell in love with her, but I am very opposed to her and her friends sense of “illegal” entitlement. When I saw how bad that life was, I went politically active for the first time in my life to make sure the law was upheld, and that everyone here was “legal”. I will not support amnesty, simply because I know from my personal experiences it will just encourage “millions” more to come here illegally and those same problems my wife experienced will just continue. Upholding the law and refusing amnesty is the only viable solution to stop this “underworld poverty” and “underground crime”.

    When I went political 2 years ago (I never did before), I made a difference in this personnally. All of my wife’s friends now have green cards (legally). Since the 287g laws were passed, those business owner’s who hired my wife and her friends are now afraid of the law and are not hiring anyone “illegal”. All of her friends have applied for legal green cards, using the legal process available to them, and are no longer subject to criminal influence and threat. They even pay taxes now, although they complain, but it beats having a tax auditer come after them some day and fine thier businesses or put them in jail. I can’t tell you how happy that makes me, because now I can get back to the business of increased racial advocacy I see emerging in this country as the root cause of all of this “illegal” activity and condoning of “illegal” behavior as a result of lower “ethnic group ethics” and believe me I have seen the lower ethics of the majority of these illegal groups, who thought and continue to think that breaking the law is no big deal if you never get caught or it is never enforced by the police.

  2. Michael

    Censored byBVBL 6:32

    I’m not asking anyone to take a “white male” perspective. I’m saying it is wrong for white males to take a white male’s only perspective today (and ALL of you will AGREE WITH THAT!), except in the case where white males are being abused by others and it is the “individual” who defines what a hate word is and what abuse is to them. When they agree in large numbers that becomes a definiton of “hate word and abuse”.

    What none of you get is that it was a white male perspective that created the civil rights legal differences in the 50s. It is as wrong now as it was then. BUT it is equally wrong to take a white females perspective, a black males perspective, a black females perspective, a hispanic males perspective, a hispanic females perspective, an asian’s perspective, a christians perspective, a muslims perspective, etc., and politically advocate those views “exclusive ” of others in a political group electing leaders and trying to chage laws in their favor to the “exclusion” of others. That “exclusion” makes these political groups no better and just as much a “hate group” as any male hate group in the 50s advocating for special laws and privileges just for them, and excluding all other groups from these benefits.

  3. Michael

    Great post emma 11:35 Stick it to the people that just don’t get it! Hate words and abuse are not right no matter who the target is or what gender, race, ethnic or religious group the victim is. We just need more “italians” to sue the TV companies and more “offended” males to sue the media in general.

  4. Michael

    I agree with you moon-howler 12:40, well said!

  5. Michael

    Moon-howler 12:34 This is not about white male pity. It is about the destructive nature of the same political process and political group advocacy that “white males” in the 50s followed, to supporess other cultures, that black, female, hispanic, asian, christian, muslim, etc political groups are follwing today to claim privilege, gain political power over other groups, oppress the political voices of other groups, changes the ethis of the nation and pass laws that are designed to create advantage and special social, financial, and educational self interests of these groups JUST LIKE WHITE MALES DID in the 50s. All of you are saying it was BAD then and it’s GOOD now, because you have seen the political and social advantage if gives you “exclusively” of all other racial, gender, religious and ethnic groups.

    I’m telling you as one of those “white males” who sees this bigotry and double standard, you should stop and re-think what you are doing, and I recommend you all go back to common and fair law for all, integrate rather than seperate, be inclusive rather than exclusive and promote integraion instead of “diversity”. If you cannot do this, those “white males” will see you have all lied like a wolf in sheeps clothing and will start to politically advocate to return to “white male only” laws just to protect themselves from your new political “inequality” concepts as a political wind of change sweeps the nation just like it is in this current election. Ultimately ethnic, gender, religious and racial “exclusion” will create conflict and possible civil war if it goes too far in terms of ethnic “exclusion” to oppress or advantage all others, and “unfair, un-equally applied law.

  6. Elena, even if Michael were to employ brevity, even if he were to employ wit, and even if he were to somehow incorporate the two simultaneously (!), I would still refuse to suffer the pathetic drivel he splatters all over this blog… at least not all of it.

    I’m sorry, Michael, to criticize you so. I wouldn’t, certainly, if your true identity were known (unless you were in a position to damage my community a la Gospel Greg or Corey Stewart).

    But I just don’t have much patience for the White Male Victimization Complex, due in great part to the fact that I am white, I am male, and yet… I have never felt particularly sorry for myself, nor disadvantaged because of my skin color or my gender, nor threatened by the advancement of fellow Americans who might have a different skin color or a different gender.

    I find the White Male Victimization Complex particularly distasteful when it comes from a standpoint of armchair-quarterback, political belly-aching, with no actual economic or social disadvantages to produce the anxieties and insecurities that usually bring this on.

    Below is a summary of a lauded academic study that Michael’s unrelenting verbosity couldn’t help but call to mind:

    Examining the interconnection of race, class and gender in the representation of white female domestic violence complainants on the popular television series Cops, this analysis illustrates how roles in the performance of the criminal justice system can be used to address the crisis in white masculinity. Central to this examination is the felt social, cultural and political marginalization of white men brought about by radical social and cultural changes since the civil rights movement. Drawing on Bahktin’s discussion of the carnivalesque, I examine Cops as a carnival experience where individuals manage and exorcise their anxieties and fears in relation to this crisis in identity. Utilizing twenty-two domestic violence vignettes from the series and a number of secondary texts, including the Cops website chat room and blogs, I argue that white female complainants are represented as white trash in order to sustain the sense of white male victimization as pure and real.

  7. Firedancer

    Michael, you said something to me somewhere up there. Look, I have no problem with any ethnic group forming an association to advocate for themselves. Groups like LaRaza and the others mentioned have long histories and the idea that they somehow threaten national security is ludicrous. I’m one of those who wasn’t even that bothered by Rev. Wright.

    In any event, I’ll let WHWN speak for me, since he does it so eloquently and I agree with almost everything he writes. I’m just going to start saying “ditto the above”, as in 22:36.

  8. ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
    Edmund Burke
    Whether you are pro-immigration or anti-immigration is not a problem – we all have the freedom to have our own opinion.
    I have a real problem with the anti-immigration people when they use language that dehumanises immigrants – ie illegal alien.
    Dehumanisation is the first step down the road trodden by the Nazi’s in the 1930’s… and that is something all good people must fight against.
    Hate groups should have no place in a civilised democracy.

  9. hello

    Hi uk visa, I prefer illegal immigrant but how is the term “illegal alien” dehumanising illegal immigrants? When you said “I have a real problem with the anti-immigration people when they use language that dehumanises immigrants – ie illegal alien” it seems as if your lumping anti-immigration folks in with anti-illegal immigration people. The term “illegal alien” describes their status in this country. I’ve heard dehumanising statements about immigrants in general and I don’t like it one bit but I don’t consider “illegal alien” to be dehumanising.

  10. michael

    It’s sad when we have to use police shows and theatrical references to prove a debate point. Apparently no-one is willing to listen to “injustice and unlawful behavior” arguments, as long as it is not directed at their own minority group perceived sense of justice and “entitlement”. The poverty of this is “silent and deadly”. Wait and see, you will likely not see the error in your logic until it is too late to reverse the damage it has and will cause in the future.

  11. Alanna

    We have a broken immigration system, and it’s not just in the enforcement arena.

  12. Michael

    I disagree Alanna, What’s broken was the will and guidance to enforce the existing law, primarily a failure of executive branch DHS and ICE policy and funding for support by congress. The existing law itself is fair and just. The issue is whether it is fair and just to the rest of the 360 million Americans to pass a NEW law that forgives and benefits only a small subset of the total population (12-20 million “illegals”) lwith legal forgiveness from lawlessness and provides a form of amnesty for those who broke the law. That is not a broken immigration system, or broken immigration law, that is broken law enforcement. I side with those who want the law enforcement “fixed”. I do not agree with any more amnesty as the first time demonstrated what a disaster that became in 1986. I do not think the “majority” of the American public agrees with any form of amnesty either, only selected congressmen and congresswomen and minority interest advocates, who do not represent the “majority” will and need to protect themselves from continuing unlawful behavior.

    This is where I disagree with those trying to “fix” the system with “amnesty” for lawbreaking.

Comments are closed.