Illegals from South America

Submitted by Homefront (Australia), Oct 3, 2006 at 21:26

Ed,

By broadening the debate to the problem in America with South American incursions you actually reaffirm the original argument I objected to. There are a few distinctions between the American situation and the European one. In South America the problem could clearly be stated as one of poverty and population expansion. Deceptively similar to the European and North African conundrum. The difference is ideology. Islamism remains a popular and growing ideological orientation in the Middle East and North Africa.

South Americans (to the extent that they aren't radical socialists) are Christians - they know when they kill, rape and murder it is a fundamental violation of those tennants on which their society and those of others are based. Not so with the Islamists - all of these lines (rape, murder and theft) can be crossed in so far as they aid the overall goal of spreading their cultural contagion. Criminal acts are on the low end of the concerns in the U.S. over illegal South American immigration.

The major problems confronting America from its influx of these illegals are regulatory. Large numbers of residents who live off the books undermine health codes, standards of safety in labor, pay and conditions all of the variables that the NeoMarxists who defend them pretend to be concerned about. At the same time the west acts as a collosal pressure valve for these South American nations who are probably in need of reform in terms of family planning and economic structuring. A critical mass of discontent is needed for reform to become inevitable and we absorb that malcontent stifling the momentum for much needed reform in these nations and precluding them from a future which would stabilise the borders the U.S. shares with those nations.

You say 18 million illegal South American residents are a problem as a rejoinder I would point to the 24 million American Muslims who now effectively vet every mention and perception of their religion so that even the President of the United States must choose his words carefully. Mere friction of competing nationalisms as can be seen in the Mexican influx into Texas is problematic but nothing compared to an influx of 24 million people who possess values inimicable to our own. Where the power of the American media works to assimilate the new South American migrants legal or illegal the Islamic population prefers its own media. The latter being the perfect example of animonarian immigration demonstrating the limits of the otherwise thus far successful western model of multiculturalism.

Returning to the issue of ideology Karl Popper whom I mentioned before stated ideology could not be regarded as scientific because it constantly sought out facts no matter how obscure that affirmed its conclusions rather than wrestling with the more cagey issue of dealing with the evidence to the contrary. With socialism the NeoMarxists merely expanded their search for the mythological proleteriat to developing/third world countries rather than western ones. A friend and coworker of mine reflected these sentiments when he talked glassy eyed of the revolution that would come within the next thirty or so years. This is similar to the manner in which Islamists interpret the Koran. They seek out allusions to scientific truths and ignore all the ridiculous elements such as the bizzare cosmology of the Earth being a globe on top of the horn of a really big cow. The idea of trying to argue with such people is ridiculous almost undermining the merits of this forum. Even the antiAmerican Canadian intellectual John Ralston Saul believes that these ideologies need to be identified so that they can be controlled. The problem is that the NeoMarxist monopoly on the appropriateness and form of the lexicon we use (i.e. political correctness) is designed to prevent any such identification. As Ralston Saul himself said "Ideologies like most religions always present themselves as the solution to the problems they create."

Cordially,

Homefront.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".