Did Affirmative Action kill Assimilation?

As another MLK day passes, I ponder all the special interest groups who have jumped on the civil rights bandwagon in the name of the black martyr.

Here we see the Occupy movement using Dr. King for their own cause:
http://biggovernment.com/rebelpundit/2012/01/20/breaking-video-occupy-the-dream-or-occupy-church-and-state-occupychicago/

And here we see a local "Prayer Breakfast" carrying the water for the liberals:
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120114/news/701149858/

Meanwhile, AG Eric Holder is guest speaker in Red-State Utah:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53296781-75/holder-rights-shurtleff-attorney.html.csp

And they use all sorts of machinations to "prove" that King would have been a Democrat...or sided with the gays...or Latinos...or the 99%.....

But it set me thinking about the divisive nature of all this grouping.

Two college professors, one in California and the other in Florida, set out to study racial/ethnic identity of children over time.  They published a book about it called, Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation.

One of the fascinating tidbits they discovered is that all this identity stuff evolves in a child's life in high school.  As Mark Krikorian explains it:

“When first surveyed, the majority of the students identified themselves as American in some form, either as simply “American” or as a “hyphenated” American (Cuban American, for instance, or Filipino American).  After several years of American high school, barely one third still identified themselves as Americans, the majority choosing an identification with no American component at all, opting for either a foreign national-origin identity (Cuban, Filipino) or a panracial  identity (Hispanic, Asian).  The antiassimilationist slant of modern American education is perhaps most visible from this fact: Of the one eighth of immigrant children in the study who identified themselves as simply “American” at the beginning of high school, only 15 percent still thought of themselves that way at the end of high school.”

(quoted from Krikorian, The New Case Against Immigration, 2008, p 32)

“The shift, therefore, has not been toward mainstream identities but toward a more militant reaffirmation of the immigrant identity for some groups (notably Mexicans and Filipinos in California and Haitians and Nicaraguans in Florida) and toward panethnic minority-group identities for others.”

(quoted from Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation, 2001, p157)

So, it all starts to gel in high school.  And who can blame them?  Who wouldn’t want to be part of a protected class?  It offers some job protection, a leg up in hiring and scholarships.

But it is a far cry from the efforts 100 years ago to Americanize immigrants.  Such talk would be bigoted to say the least today.

But the protected classes must stick together and find opportunities to show strength in numbers.  And so…MLK is co-opted and public sector workers take the day off.  Meanwhile, the rest of us go to work while the left plots the demise of the American identity.  And the candidates fall in line to glad-hand potential special interests.

Border Security

As we embark on another year of Presidential Candidate rhetoric it is important to talk about the illegal alien problem.  One can quickly dismiss candidates who call them "Undocumented," for they are more interested in skirting the issue than actually addressing it.

As I've said before, candidates who simple want to "Build the dang fence," aren't selling anything of value either.  Border security along with interior enforcement and deportation are worth a listen.

Beware the reporters and moderators who begin with the statement, "We all know you cannot deport 12 million people or secure 2,000 miles of border...."  Of course, you cannot do that, but you must do SOME of it to show that we mean to enforce our laws.

Back to the border security question.  When I think of the muddle the TSA has made in the interest of airport security, I can scarcely suggest that Homeland Security embark in a new initiative at the border.  That would be throwing good money after bad.

Any effort to build the fence needs to take into consideration the following:
1) We need to have open borders.  Millions of legitimate people have legitimate reasons to enter the United States.  Some cross daily for work.  Some are tourists.  Some are businessmen.  Some are US Citizens returning from a trip abroad. 
2) The target (illegal aliens and drug traffickers mostly) is mobile and flexible.  You build a fence, they'll cross somewhere else.  You build a longer fence, they'll find a torch or a ladder and go through it or over it.

Indeed we need fences where entry is hard to detect or hard to access.  Beyond that we need to have extra eyes and quick access.  We need to be mobile and flexible as well.  We need intelligence.  And we need tough sanctions against violators.

But the border is only a small piece of the puzzle.  We need to send the message to those who have already arrived: We will catch you and we will send you back home.  Furthermore, we will ban you from returning.

Let's not overthink this border fence.

Newspeak illustrated

I have an AT&T Internet service, which gives me a YAHOO! portal to retrieve my sbcglobal e-mails.  (My, that's a interesting road, but not today.)

At any rate, YAHOO! has some of the lamest news stories.  Like the Top 10 cities for (fill in the blank).  You click on the story and it teases you to no end before it finally allows you to look at the Top 10 one at a time.  I've learned not to click on such stories.

Well, YAHOO! has a feature called Shine.  And the latest Shine story was about how the rumor that the incandescent light bulb is going away is FALSE.  (How green of YAHOO! to post a story like that.  The Gen Xers will love it.)  The intent is to calm our fears.  The government is not changing anything, they say.  Sort of.  Like FactCheck or MediaMatters or AttackWatch, they got it wrong.

As the story unfolds I get confused.  Actually, the 100W light bulb really is going away.  They've got a 72W that costs more but seems brighter.  And they don't even say anything about the CFL that most people will buy to replace the 100W incandescent that really isn't going away according to the story because you're supposed to buy the more expensive, new and improved 72W, because the government is forcing the 100W off the market.

Link here:
http://shine.yahoo.com/green/truth-light-bulb-law-200200491.html

Now, I don't think YAHOO! got the message yet that Congress pulled the enforcement funding from the New Years Day law, so the new law is DOA for now.

But this last minute courage isn't anything but election year fluff.  Companies that sell bulbs have been making plans for this change for months.  I really doubt they'll go all out to retool for the old 100W bulb just for a few months.

Ya gotta love Congress.  ...and YAHOO! for trying to spin the liberal agenda into gold.

PS- This super-secret new technology is called...Valdemort...I mean halogen.  But if the reporter had journalistic integrity she would have owned up to the fact that the manufacture of incandescent 100W bulbs was outlawed by Congress and you will need to buy 72W halogen bulbs (some of which look like the old incandescent) in the future.  But that would make it sound like government is telling us what to do with our lives.

The White House Position - December 2011

I recently received a form letter from The White House on immigration.  This is apparently the latest authoritative position of Obama himself:

December 9, 2011

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans concerned about immigration, and I appreciate your perspective.

Americans are rightly frustrated with our Nation's broken immigration system, and I share that frustration.  We need an immigration system that meets America's 21st century economic and security needs, and that can only be achieved by putting politics aside and coming together to develop a comprehensive solution that continues to secure our borders, holds businesses responsible for who they hire, strengthens our economic competitiveness, and requires undocumented immigrants to get right with the law.  That is how we can reaffirm our heritage as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

My Administration has invested an unprecedented amount of resources, technology, and manpower to secure our borders, and our efforts are producing real results.  Today, our Southern border is more secure than ever with more law enforcement personnel working along it than at any time in American history.  Along with significant reductions in the number of people trying to cross the border illegally, crime rates along the border are down, and we have seized more illegal guns, cash, and drugs than in years past.  In addition to doing what is necessary to secure our borders, my Administration is taking action against employers who knowingly exploit people and break the law, and criminal immigrants who pose a threat to the safety of American communities. 

I remain deeply committed to working in a bipartisan way to enact immigration reform that restores accountability and responsibility to our broken immigration system.  The Federal Government has the responsibility to continue to secure our borders.  Those immigrants who are here illegally have a responsibility to pay taxes, pay a fine, learn English, and undergo background checks before they can be considered for legalization.  At the same time, we need to provide businesses a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status.  Stopping illegal immigration also depends upon reforming our outdated system of legal immigration.  We should make it easier for the best and brightest immigrants to stay here and help create jobs in America.  The law should also stop punishing young people who were brought to this country illegally as children by giving them a chance to stay and earn a legal status if they pursue higher education or serve in our military. 

By creating a 21st century immigration system that is true to our principles, our Nation will remain a land of opportunity, prosperity, and freedom for all.  To learn more about my Administration's efforts regarding immigration, or to read our Blueprint for Immigration Reform, please visit:  www.WhiteHouse.gov/issues/immigration.

For additional information and resources on current immigration and enforcement efforts, I encourage you to visit www.dhs.gov or call 1-800-375-5283.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Why we like Gingrich and Cain

It is fascinating to watch the GOP presidential candidates.  The flavor-of-the-month theory sure is playing out.  Perry has a couple of weeks of fame, then Cain, followed by Gingrich.  All the while Romney keeps coming back as the choice for those of us willing to "settle" for a ho-hum candidate.

With all the TV exposure (I'm suffering from debate fatigue myself) and all the media hyping, we are being played like a yo-yo.  But that's a topic for another day.

I think we like Gingrich and Cain because they are plain-spoken.  They are willing to say the things that need to be said; things we'd like to say about the direction of our country.

No one does that better than Newt and Herman.  Romney plays the moderate and talks like a politician is supposed to talk.  He's got the lingo down...things like, "Mistakes were made," and "My esteemed colleague from Illinois,"  blah blah blah.

We are looking for some candor; some truth-telling; a little vicarious venting.  We want a candidate to tell us that Obama is clueless about what drives the economy.  We want a leader who is willing to call out this administration and congress for spending too much and leading us too far to the left.

Most of all, we want plain talk so we can figure out where they stand and what they'd do if elected.

I think that if they are this rehearsed in the primary season, they will be no good to us at all once they start wooing the moderates.

Newt's Folly

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has endorsed a form of amnesty for illegal aliens that apparently has the following features:
1) The illegal must have longevity.  Newt mentioned an example of 25 years in the United States.
2) He must have family roots here.
3) He must already have a job.
4) He must not have a criminal record.
5) He will not be offered citizenship.

From what I can see, he's not offering much.  In 2001, the Bush administration was comfortable with the figure of 3 million illegal aliens, far less than the 12 million here now.  So, what's he offering?  Maybe 500,000 green cards?

As for taking citizenship off the table, that means nothing to the illegal aliens.  Here's a chart showing the percentage of the 1986 amnesty group who later became citizens.

This illustrates the falsehood of declaring that illegal aliens want the American Dream.  They don't.  They want to work here and take advantage of our standard of living, but they really don't buy into our Constitutional Laws and our free market economy.

They are perfectly willing to live three of four families to a home and send $300 a month back home.  Our main source of all immigrants is Mexico, and their naturalization rates are pathetically low.  Only about 25% of eligible Mexicans bother to naturalize, despite campaigns like fee discounts, free classes and even programs to get them on the voter rolls, such as  the Al Gore "Citizenship USA" program in 1995.

It appears that Gingrich is offering a plum to attract brown voters without really doing much.  Such a move is smart, but oh so dumb.  Any form of amnesty is just plain wrong for America and sends the wrong message.  To reward bad behavior is never a good idea.  And any amnesty really fails to address the litany of local problems caused by black market immigration.

If we don't control entry, we lose everything afterwards.  Who are they?  Why are they coming?  Will they become a public charge?  Are they capable of self-insurance?  Will they need subsidies for food and housing?  Do we have the capacity to educate them?Are they healthy?  Do they have criminal intentions?  Are they terrorists?

They have bypassed the very reasons we have immigration laws in the first place.

And Newt is spitting in the face of our own unemployed as well as those who are waiting to come here legally.

Perhaps most important is the push back required to hold the line against the 165 million people in the third world who have an eye on the United States as their new home.

What do you do with the 12 million?  You enforce the law and they will self-deport.  Mandatory E-Verify and a review of the existing workforce will put pressure on those who have false documents and, more importantly, leave unscrupulous employers without excuse.  Prosecute the business owners and you will see a vast improvement in compliance.

Deporting people who are here illegally (rather than apologize for them) will send a message that it is no longer safe to live here without papers.  They WILL go home once they know we are serious about enforcing our laws.

Gingrich is dead wrong on this one.

Source link on chart: http://cis.org/irca-amnesty

Free Baba Suwe!

How embarrassing!  After 25 days, they've got nothing for the evidence room.
"Leading Nigerian comic actor Babatunde Omidina, known by the stage name as Baba Suwe, raises his hands after being freed on bail for peddling on hard drugs by the Lagos High Court. Omidina was arrested last month at Lagos international airport on suspicion of ingesting drugs to smuggling to Europe but after 25 closely monitored bowel movements produced nothing suspicious" 


Follow the link for a photo (of Baba, not the bowel movement):
http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=iafpCNG.a42eb30e1d738ea517deb3f5d4cb67e4.a1p0&show_article=1&article_id=CNG.a42eb30e1d738ea517deb3f5d4cb67e4.a1