Reply
Wed 23 May, 2007 05:56 pm
Importing a Slave Class
by Ann Coulter
Posted 05/23/2007 ET
Updated 05/23/2007 ET
Apparently, my position on immigration is that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, inasmuch as this is billed as the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens -- and fast!
I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100%.
We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" -- we'll ask them to pay a small fine.
If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy -- he must know where they are!
How do we even know there are 12 million of them? Why not 3 million, or 40 million? Maybe we should put the guy who counted them in charge of deporting them.
If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?
I believe that the shortage of unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans we experienced in the '60s has been remedied by now.
Since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year. Only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why on earth would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants?
Say, don't Ph.D.s and other skilled workers have more influence on government policy than unskilled workers? Aren't they more likely to bend a president's ear? Yes, I believe they are! Noticeably, the biggest proponents of the government's policy of importing a huge underclass of unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled workers.
The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn't going to hardworking Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms -- and who are having trouble getting jobs, now that they're forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don't pay taxes.
The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.
Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)
The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants -- unlike you lazy Americans -- are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.
These great lovers of the downtrodden -- the downtrodden trimming their hedges -- pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but (1) they don't believe that; and (2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.
Not to worry, Marie Antoinettes! According to "Alien Nation" author Peter Brimelow, "There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10% of Mexicans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican-Americans." So you'll always have the maid. As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: "You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?"
We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate for servants that now they're importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery.
What do they care if their servants are made citizens eligible to vote and collect government benefits? Aren't the fabulously rich happy in Venezuela? Oops, wrong example. Brazil? No, no, let me try again. Mexico! ... Well, no matter. What could go wrong?
Human Events
and standing out from the rest of the article... her real point
We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate for servants that now they're importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery
this c*nt makes me want to puke...
doesn't hurt me... I do smell c*nt though...
McGentrix wrote:Yeah, Truth hurts, huh?
the truth is; the confederacy ceceded over taxes and states rights much the same way that the original 13 told the other king george to piss off.
at the time of the onset of the war between the u.s.a and the c.s.a., slavery was still practiced in the north.
Quote:Before the American Civil War and even in the war's early stages Lincoln said that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery where it already existed. Yet he and his Republican Party maintained that in the long run the country could not exist "half slave and half free". His position and the position of the Republican Party in 1860 was that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories,* and thus all future states admitted to the Union would be free states...
*meaning that it would continue on in established states and territories
Quote:while a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation sat on Lincoln's desk, he says, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. " In actual practice he freed all the slaves in confederate territories.
as usual, coulter is yapping through the little bars on her muzzle. and getting it wrong.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:at the time of the onset of the war between the u.s.a and the c.s.a., slavery was still practiced in the north.
Are you serious? Where was slavery still practiced in the north?
it was practiced in all states in 1860.
there were of course abolitionists, but slavery was still goin' on. the emancipation only freed slaves in the confederate states.
c'mon guys, the c.s.a. was "the club for growth" in grey.
anyway, the point is, "the good republicans didn't fight the bad democrats to end slavery" as coulter, the asserts. it's just more of her nonsense.
DTOM, for Good's sake man, retract that and do some reading.
Not the part about Coulter being dead wrong, mind you. What's up with all that guessing about where the numbers are coming from? Maybe I got lucky, but brief internet search rewarded me with a site that demonstrates the IRS was collecting Taxes on 5.5 million ITIN's (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)(apparently, a stealthy way for non-citizens designed and implemented with the Illegals in mind) and an additional 7 million names that don't match the numbers totaling 12.5 million people the IRS doesn't recognize, but none the less accepted taxes from... and this was in 2002. Surely human error accounts for some of those names not matching, but how many really? And how much have these numbers increased by 2007?
Check
this out.
Point being, for Ann's plan to have the man who knows where they are deport them; she need look no further than the IRS. Hmmm. Why haven't they then? Well, quite simply we really do need them. With a 4.4%unemployment rate; we likely have more illegals than we do unemployed (and let's not go kidding ourselves into pretending a healthy chunk of 4.4% aren't unemployed on purpose.) Attacking the employers in earnest would surely result in massive crime spikes as the illegally employed become increasingly unemployable and turn to crime. Which party do you suppose wants to take responsibility for that? (Hint: neither) People are fooling themselves if they think the choice is anything but accept them here legally or accept them here illegally. There is no third option.
The only thing she was right about is the smart people. Friedman suggested today that every foreigner's Doctorate should come with a Green Card stapled to it. I concur. We have plenty of room for them too.
She blames the cheap labor, and the unskilled workers etc on the democrats, but MANY republicans are very much in favor of a guest worker program, which does nothing to stop the flow of illegals, it just makes them register first.
Good God. Coulter is still being published?
OCCOM BILL wrote:DTOM, for Good's sake man, retract that and do some reading.
Not the part about Coulter being dead wrong, mind you. What's up with all that guessing about where the numbers are coming from?
bill, dude..
come down off the roof, babe.
i didn't get involved in any numbers with you at all. not even on another thread, i don't believe...
now who's losing their mind ?
DontTreadOnMe wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:DTOM, for Good's sake man, retract that and do some reading.
Not the part about Coulter being dead wrong, mind you. What's up with all that guessing about where the numbers are coming from?
bill, dude..
come down off the roof, babe.
i didn't get involved in any numbers with you at all. not even on another thread, i don't believe...
now who's losing their mind ?
The paragraph break is where I changed back to the topic. Your statements about the mid 1800s are what's shockingly wrong...
in what way?
Quote:When the Northern states gave up the last remnants of legal slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of piety, morality, and ethics;.....An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860.
Quote:
State Mass. N.H. N.Y. Conn. R.I. Pa. N.J. Vt.
Official end of slavery 1783 1783 1799 1784 1784 1780 1804 1777
Actual end of slavery 1783 c.1845? 1827 1848 1842 c.1845? 1865 1777?
slavery in the north
Quote:While some northern states prohibited slavery from the start, most had a history of tolerating or encouraging slaveholding. The revolution had a strong impact on how slavery was perceived, and most northern states began to debate abolition during or soon after the war. However, in states that passed gradual abolition legislation, slavery lingered in the form of term slavery for decades. For many states, the only official end to slavery came in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Chronologically, slavery ended in:
Vermont, 1777 (slavery prohibited by the state constitution)
Pennsylvania, 1780 (Gradual Abolition legislation)
Massachusetts, 1783 (Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling)
New Hampshire, 1783 or 1789 (accounts vary--no judicial records verify abolition)
Rhode Island, 1784 (Gradual Abolition legislation)
Connecticut, 1784 and 1797 (Gradual Abolition legislation)
New York, 1799 and 1817 (Gradual Abolition legislation)
Ohio, 1802 (slavery prohibited by the state constitution)
New Jersey, 1804 (Gradual Abolition legislation)
Indiana, 1816 (slavery prohibited by the state constitution)
Illinois, 1818 (slavery prohibited by the state constitution)
Quote:Slavery was not a "Southern" problem alone. Many northern states phased out slavery as late as the 1830s, and states such as Delaware and New Jersey still had slave-owning residents as late as 1860. On a local level, residents of Illinois owned slaves (under long-term indenture agreements of 40 years or longer) during the period of the Dred Scott trials, and a special provision in the Illinois constitution allowed slaves to work in the salt mines across the Mississippi from St. Louis as long as they were not held there for over one year at a stretch. Many people in southern Illinois supported slavery. No slaves in the St. Louis area picked cotton however, and few worked in farm fields. Most worked as stevedores and draymen on the riverfront, on riverboats, in the lead and salt mines, as handymen, janitors and porters (like Dred Scott), and as maids, nannies, and laundresses (like Harriet Scott).
slavery in missouri
i never said anything close to "slavery was as huge in the north as in the south". only that it existed into the mid 1800s.
which shows coulter's comment to be WROOOONNNGGGGGGGGG.
OCCOM BILL wrote:joefromchicago wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:it was practiced in all states in 1860.
You're wrong.
owwww! ya got me!!
any problems with the rest of it ?
Yes.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:McGentrix wrote:Yeah, Truth hurts, huh?
the truth is; the confederacy ceceded over taxes and states rights much the same way that the original 13 told the other king george to piss off.
at the time of the onset of the war between the u.s.a and the c.s.a., slavery was still practiced in the north.
You seem to be denying the confederacy ceded over slavery, in favor of blaming taxes. That is blatantly dishonest and a revision of history. The power struggle was so intertwined with the slavery issue, you would be hard pressed to come up with any significant war rationale that wasn't. There can be no doubt that the Northern States largely opposed Slavery while the Confederate States largely didn't. Attempts to blur this distinction are at best naive, and at worst; racist.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Yes.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:McGentrix wrote:Yeah, Truth hurts, huh?
the truth is; the confederacy ceceded over taxes and states rights much the same way that the original 13 told the other king george to piss off.
at the time of the onset of the war between the u.s.a and the c.s.a., slavery was still practiced in the north.
You seem to be denying the confederacy ceded over slavery, in favor of blaming taxes. That is blatantly dishonest and a revision of history. The power struggle was so intertwined with the slavery issue, you would be hard pressed to come up with any significant war rationale that wasn't. There can be no doubt that the Northern States largely opposed Slavery while the Confederate States largely didn't. Attempts to blur this distinction are at best naive, and at worst; racist.
i've already shown proof that "slavery was practiced in the north at the onset of the war". refer to the stuff i posted earlier. the only thing i screwed up on was saying "all states". and i fessed up on that one.
and...hhhhhhhhhhh.... bill, the southern states considered slavery a "states rights" issue.
and enough with the racist accusation bullshit, okay. it's getting really frickin' tedious.
i in no way have expressed support for slavery, slave ownership or any of that. any more than i expressed a dislike for illegal immigration because of south americans.
the very simple point that i started with and stick by is that coulter is absolutely wrong in stating that the republicans saved slaves from democrats.
in case, it escapes someone else's "revisionist history", then as now, there were members of both parties in any one of the states. north or south.
--
now, what i'd like for you to do for me is to give evidence that there was not a single slave in any one of the northern states in 1860.
if ya can't do that, let's move on.
DontTreadOnMe wrote: the very simple point that i started with and stick by is that coulter is absolutely wrong in stating that the republicans saved slaves from democrats.
You couldn't be more wrong. The Republican Party was founded by former Whigs and Northern Democrats to oppose the expansion of Slavery. The second Republican nominee and First Republican President was Abraham Lincoln for crying out sideways. How can you possibly suggest otherwise?
Coulter has a point about the parallels of today's use of illegal migrant workers with slavery back in the day. Both are examples of the free market without regard for humanity. Where she's wrong is in blaming the Democrats for wanting a so called "permanent slave class". Permanence, meaning allowing migrants to stay, allows the next generation to do better. The Republicans want a permanent slave class. And they want the added benefit of not having to pay for the care of the slaves -- they want them to go back to Mexico (or wherever) and raise the next generation of slave laborers, ensuring a continued flow of people willing to work for nothing so they can keep their profit margins fat.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace