Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Prize of Illegal Immigration

The largest segment of the American population who wants to thwart any real illegal immigration reform, is naturally the predator overclass that benefits from it the most. Some conservatives obsessed with undocumented workers in the United States overlook the fact that without NAFTA, without thousands of jobs offered at poverty level and below wages and without the Corporate union -busting lobby that buys our public officials - there perhaps wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem.

La Raza, Hispanic interest groups, the ACLU and other cultural Marxists are not the ones who are 'softest' on illegal immigration, it is the upper income 20 percent within the United States. And it is particularly this class who should be footing the bill for whatever public services that illegal immigrants accumulate and not burden the middle and working class. Illegal immigration is a major tool in the Overclass's economic warfare and it will only abate when the wealthy are directly charged for it via specialized 'Undocumented Worker Tax' on the upper brackets of affluence, the tiny elite who owns most of the wealth of the United States. Fences and mass deportation will not solve the situation:you have to follow the money and hit it at its source. These 'Minutemen' are conducting vigils in the wrong places.

It is academic that the notion that illegals "do work that American Blacks wouldn't do"(Vincente Fox) is a big myth. Americans will work at meatpacking plants, construction, the agricultural realm etc. for a decent wage and rights - not the poverty Permanent Peasant Wage that is paid to undocumented workers. And the wealthy do not have an interest in amnesty or even the Wall Street Journal's "open borders" dogma: take the illegal out of immigrants and they would be of no use to this upper class. Mandating that all immigrants learn English will rob the wealthy of a cowed and ignorant feudal peasantry. Hell, they might even form(gasp) Unions.

If you're against illegal immigration and want true reform, you should therefore champion a Tax - a big one - on the Predator Class in the USA. Fences, a army of Border Patrol and targeting the illegals themselves is not the answer. If Corporate America pays the burden of illegal immigration as they should, watch them beat down the doors of their politicians wanting to do genuinely something about the situation. It is time, high time, to end this conservative Nanny State and attack socialism - Affluensa Socialism - that is.


Howard J. Harrison said...

This is a fine, patriotic blog, Mitch. It deserves a wide U.S. audience.

Accept my thanks for your kind words over at The Economic Nationalist. I had thought that I had the blog software set automatically to approve comments from previous posters, but the software seems to have failed to recognize you. A large quantity of foul spam plagues that blog's comment in-box; one must sift through the spam piece by piece to find and approve legitimate replies like yours. In any case, I have approved your replies today, and have done them one better: I have added a direct link to your fine blog from The Economic Nationalist's front page.

Regarding your suggestion that I should become a Democrat, I think that your reasons are good ones. I share them. My problem however is that I am a married, white, Christian social conservative with children and grandchildren---the sort who thinks that Darwinism is nonsense and accepts without undue skepticism the notion that Noah rode the flood in an ark. Today's Democratic party is no longer the great old Democratic party of William Jennings Bryan and Al Smith. It seems to make little room for people like me and my family, beyond the labor and trade issues.

It is perfectly true that today's Republican party marginalizes good folks like Pat Buchanan and Duncan Hunter. Your observation here is spot on. However, if you agree that our nation needs two good democratic (small-d), republican (small-r), federalist national parties, not just one, then how can I help to make the Republican party a better party, if, already being a Republican, if I refuse to help from within to reform it? As a Republican, is not my task to help to make the Republican party a better party, rather than to jump ship? Ought one to abandon the party to the free traders, unopposed? The U.S. is not so rich in major, national political parties that the cause of economic nationalism can afford to lose one of the two to the wrong side on trade! This is why I remain a Republican.

Besides this, there are personal reasons. My parents, siblings, chidren and in-laws are all Republicans, every one of them. It would take some pretty weighty reasons to make me the first to split the family politically. For better or for worse, I remain a Republican. So, let me extend the hand of party amity the other way: what would it take to win you over to our party from the Democratic? The Republican establishment does not want you, perhaps, but this is exactly why the Republican party needs you. You would be most welcome.

I wish that I had the energy to produce as much fine material as you have produced in your blog. Keep up the good work. Please keep in touch.

Howard J. Harrison

Redoubt10 said...


Thanks much for your regards and comment here. I know how much this can be a *power word*, but it is great that economic-nationalists from both sides of the spectrum can have this 'dialogue'. Conservatives and liberals who love the Republic and want to protect her economic infrastructure should have more conversations.

Frankly, I am not a registered Democrat myself, but an independent. Like Kevin Phillips, I used to be a Republican as my parents and grandparents were good ol' Kansas Republicans. As the Dems are no longer the party of WJ Bryan, the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Ike Eisenhower. Even Barry Goldwater and Bob Taft, if alive today, would not be made to feel welcome in the GOP.

What it would take for me to be a Prodigal Son, you ask? Well, it would be mandatory with me that Republicans return to their tradition of the American System of Economics: tariff trade protection, non-aligned and non-agressive foreign policy( a Republic, not an Empire) responsible financing, internal improvements(a private-public harmony). Though I'm a secular-agnostic(Paul Tillich's theology is my 'Christian best') I wouldn't care much how religious they collectively remain, and I would look the other way on their pet social issues as long as the GOP would hit and work for the BIG ones that all economic-nationalists share. Same applies to the Democrats. Right now some of them are focusing the core issues more than the GOP is,imo. Ergo, this time around I'll work for the Dems.

I can understand why you want to remain loyal to the GOP. But I feel that they have betrayed their crown jewel(protectionism) as the Dems have betrayed the Blue Collar New Dealers, but some are coming around. Pat Buchanan says the same but he returned to the GOP though they remain the party of everything he finds anathema to his political being(except for the Culture thing): Free Traitors and NeoCons still dominate the consensus within. I see no hope for a turn-around anytime soon.

Whichever Party that gets back - if- to the said American System first will have my loyalty. I'm an American citizen chiefly, a political party partisan secondly. I'm an American, right or wrong, but when a party is wrong for America - it is dreadfully wrong. The GOP has become the Great Spokesman for the cosmopolitan predator class - a tiny group who could care less if the Republic tanks tomorrow as long as they get their money out of it.

Well, pardon my long-winded reply to your comment. This is my postion as it is now. A part of me hopes that I am wrong about forecast for the Republican Party because I like 'tradition' too(some traditions). I would hope in a best of possible political worlds that the GOP can become protectionist conservative and the Dems protectionist-liberal and fight out the details amoung ourselves within the infrastructure. Instead we have had laissez-faire and laissez-faire Lite over the past decades with the the Two. We have to change the infrastructure from both sides.

Again, thanks for the comment. When I write here about "good- guy conservatives", let it be known that is a personal reference to you, Howard.:-)