In my previous entry, "Gregory Kane or how a misguided African American could end up agreeing with the KKK", I wrongly feared that Kane’s race (in the sociological sense of the term, as the genome studies have discredited any other sense for that term) could be the reason for some disapproval. I was prepared with the examples of Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas but I was wrong. And even more bizarre approach to immigration popped out: NumbersUSA (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/), organization proud of having being defined as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Nevertheless, a question remained: sloppy research or poorly hidden prejudice?
Part I is a joke. No. Really is a joke. Part II is my answer to Scpato, whoever he/she is.

Sponsoring Glenn Beck and Scpato:
The Minuteman. Your store with the last in guns, knives, dried food, gas masks, and all you need to survive the imminent race war. Hurry up before they take our Second Amendment! Great Pre-Rapture prices!
You missed Glenn Beck crying? Watch it in http://www.comedycentral.com/... in the first ten minutes. Also presentation of Glenn’s 9 12 Project and Steven Colbert’s 10.31Project.
Lou Dobb’s new book "Leprosy and immigration. The truth only I could expose". Prologue by Scpato. Numbers Editions. 2009
Jean Marie LePen’s new book "Saving France from immigration, Satanism and immorality". Numbers Editions. 2009
William Luther Pierce’s "The Turner Diaries". Numbers Editions. 2009
Other sponsors:

My answer to Scpato:

  1. Let’s repeat my answer to your last comment to my previous entry "Gregory Kane or how a misguided African American could end up agreeing with the KKK":

"I saw your link. What precisely does it probe? That you have more population with immigration? Does it probe that persecuting immigrants leads to natural resources being more wisely used? Or that the current immigration system, based on criteria of caste, is not immoral? Or that opportunities like college will be more reachable for the native born without immigrants? Or does it justify that defenseless illegal immigrants, overwhelmingly brown, are the favorite target of hate groups like Numbers? Or do you advocate for a China style control on the number of births, which would be much more effective to control the numbers of the population? Your arguments are infantile!
Please, be brave enough to admit your own racism! The KKK is anti-immigrant but they at least don't hide behind laughable arguments."
Let’s use this opportunity to answer not only to you, Scpato, but also to NumbersUSA, hate group that try to justify the persecution of illegal immigrants, about 5% of the population, because supposedly it will save America and the planet for the other 95%; actually a very bad excuse to hide its xenophobia. Conveniently, in their cowardly attempt to seduce the American people to scapegoate immigrants, they don’t propose anything draconian for the other 95% even though it could help their alleged goal.

  1. You seem pretty alarmed about the population numbers but not about fertility. Actually, parents with better education have fewer children. To achieve such results we need more Pell Grants and better basic education and more affordable college. Restricting immigration will not make college more affordable or improve inner schools. Actually immigration reform could be a good opportunity to demand from children of immigrants an active participation of the whole family’s learning of English.
  1. We need more affordable health care. To achieve such results we need to open the market for medicines to imports if the pharmaceutical laboratories insist in selling the same medicines cheaper abroad that here (Do you remember the sloppy reasons given by Bush to oppose the imports of medicines by Montgomery Country, Maryland, in 2004), more accessible generic medicines, more preventive medicine, a role for insurance companies limited to where they can really help make health care affordable if they really can help to achieve such goal. Restricting immigration will not make health care more affordable for the other 95%.
  1. The environment requires cleaner technologies, a better equipped EPA, more efficient technologies to exploit natural resources and a carbon tax. Restricting immigration will not compensate the lack of other initiatives or the lack of action of the rest of the population not only because escapegoating a minority of immigrants sells a false sense of environmental accomplishment but also because the environmental problem is global and bullying immigrants to countries with less efficient technologies will only contribute to accelerate this problem. And all this assuming that you can tame the domestic labor market despite the lessons of the Prohibition on the contrary, despite all the resources you would need to enforce the immoral immigration system. If you take into account that the American economy is an open one and that it is more easily adjustable on quantities than on prices, forcing the labor market out of equilibrium could probe to be not impossible because we are talking of just 5% of illegal immigrants but very costly. I’d use that money for Pell Grants instead.
  1. Even though for "some pseudo-liberals, the catch phrase ‘corporate welfare’ becomes useful, this catch phrase, to be true, would require that illegal immigrants were overwhelmingly hired by big business and that big business were the main source of the labor demand [Actually, the main source of the labor demand are small businesses and, different from workers and small businesses, big businesses can always go easily to China and other countries to get cheap labor, if that is what is decisive for their product’s or service’s cost. For more on this, see my entry ‘Economic myths on immigration’]. [From yesterday’s Bill Moyers’s Journal about China, I remember the question about the 2.3 million jobs the Economic Policy Institute estimates we have lost to China over the last seven years and the hostile position of Microsoft, Nike, Ford, Dell and Wall-Mart to unions in China. Nevertheless for some deluded "liberals", nothing is good enough to take the place of ‘the Mexicans’ –immigrants, whatever your nationality of origin- as the favorite scapegoat." (Also taken from a previous entry "You have blood on your hands") Thus, the seduction of dishwasher positions at $20 per hour just in exchange of selling our souls to the xenophobia of some could be pretty illusory. Restricting immigration will not solve this problem either because not only we have an open economy but also the effect on small businesses would be more harmful than on those which can outsource abroad.
  1. Then another poor excuse pops out: "We are not selfish but we cannot have open borders [Glossary: Open borders: Any approach different for enforcement-only] because our scientific projections of the population numbers show that if we keep those Mexicans out of our country, they magically will not affect the global environment either. If we let those Mexicans [Glossary: Mexican: all non-white immigrant] get in, they will come in infinite hordes and then we will be doomed and Jesus will not come. You know how those Mexicans are! Invasion! No Amnesty! Bill O’Reilly, you were always right!" [Not a quote. Really. It’s just my interpretation of your entry]. Small problem: The labor demand is limited. Let’s suppose there is demand for 400,000 immigrants to bring the labor market to equilibrium and, that those fresh Mexicans come in hordes of 4 million. About 400,000 immigrants will get jobs to pay their bills. Who will pay the other 3.6 million Mexicans’ bills? You? That is why in deep recessions like this one the number of illegal immigrants decrease (in 1 million so far) and that is why the Great Depression reduced the whole number of immigrants as all the nativist legislation of 1920 and 1924 couldn’t. Scpato, those infinite hordes of Mexican who will destroy the American environment life only in your imagination, with the terrorists detected crossing the Southern border by the Border Klan Watch and the Russian spies crossing the Southern border detected by the Birch Society. The labor demand is limited. Really.

Are you a real liberal or a conservative?
Let me reproduce part of my entry "There is blood on your hands":
"There is a growing number of self-claimed liberals that find convenient to believe they are liberals because they are at the losing end of the present conservative status quo but does not hesitate of claiming similar exclusive conditions in a scenario where these so-called liberals are in the winning end and brown minorities are in the loosing one. For these pseudo-liberals, the catch phrase ‘corporate welfare’ becomes useful. This catch phrase, to be true, would require that illegal immigrants were overwhelmingly hired by big business and that big business were the main source of labor demand (...) A real liberal’s dream is not one in which a caste of birth (to use JFK’s terminology) is replaced by another caste of birth but one in which the accidental circumstances of having been born in a certain country, family or social class does not impede you to compete to reach your dream and achieve it if you put enough character and talent on it."
Are you a liberal or a conservative?

Does all this make you a racist?
Yes sir, it does. You take pride in persecuting people who is guilty of having been born in the wrong caste, who could not fit in the present immoral system but through the impossible way of being born again in the right family or country. Your bravery is that of the goon who knows his victim is defenseless. You do not represent the case of the honest person, liberal or conservative, who has been victim of decades of misinformation and mediocre leadership on this issue, who has not willingly grabbed excuses to not count with a sound opinion on this issue. You hide your racism behind dubious numbers and then yell and shout when your racism is exposed. At least the nativists of the 20s were more honest with respect to their xenophobic motivations.

Originally posted to Alfredo Martin Bravo de Rueda Espejo on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 09:09 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.