Illegal Immigrant Entitlement Culture
By Benjamin Hackett Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The story of this nation has been collectively written by the immigrant pen. Titled "The American Dream," this wildly successful and popular tale is about to gain a new author. Yet instead of simply writing the next verse, this wave of immigrant authors seems intent on starting a new book. There is no longer satisfaction with building for the future; an entitlement culture has grown. This contemporary tale is to be authored by illegal immigrants, but the pen, paper, and publishing are paid for by the American taxpayer.Not offended yet? Soon. When reading this piece, remember that the term "Latin" is not code for "Anglos hate Mexicans." That said, having to drop my upside-down Mexican flag in order to write this piece was, in fact, quite the bother.
The original history of this country is British and Protestant (i.e., white). These great minds put forth the doctrines and institutions that form today's ultimate hegemony, the United States of America.
Later, when other European immigrants arrived and were processed, there was a sense of connection with their purpose. That purpose: Make their lives better and prepare for their children's futures. There was no Social Security. There was no welfare. There was no Medicare or Medicaid. There was only the individual and the fruits of his or her labor. Personally providing for one's family was essential to daily life. If you failed to provide, and your neighbors proved less than charitable, you paid the consequences.
At this point in history, the American entitlement teat was still fully ensconced within the brassiere of hard work.
At times many generations worked, piggybacking on previous generations' efforts in order to produce offspring with a secure future. With an upbringing devoid of safety nets, is it any wonder that the values instilled among these first American immigrants produced many of today's Fortune 500 CEOs?
Today's illegal immigrant culture is far less ecstatic about hard work: It is put together around a sense of entitlement. They ask for -- and often receive -- free medical care, free food, and even work from those employers immoral enough to be content with aiding the erosion of American sovereignty.
Everyone saw the recent pictures of the protesters. These "hardworking" illegals and their gleeful idiot sympathizers took to the streets demanding their catchphrases be listened to and trying to extend their half-day of class vacation into a full one.
Illegal immigrants are not undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are those waiting in line at the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, formerly Immigration and Naturalization Services) building who are yet to receive their green cards.
Some argue that there is a fundamental difference, one that goes beyond skin tone, in the Latin American immigrant versus the European immigrant. Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington argues, "The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves ... rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril."
Huntington's contiguity argument outlining an essential difference beween Latin and European immigrants proves compelling. "This situation is unique for the United States and the world. No other First World country has such an extensive land frontier with a Third World country...."
Stanford University historian David Kennedy has pointed out that "the income gap between the United States and Mexico is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world." Huntington adds that this "contiguity enables Mexican immigrants to remain in intimate contact with their families, friends, and home localities in Mexico as no other immigrants have been able to do."
Without the long journey over a sea, these immigrants have their native country a stone's throw away. It is no wonder that assimilating these immigrants has proven increasingly difficult. After all, what is the incentive to assimilate when services are provided regardless of process or effort?
Conservatives, big libs, and the like are all pro-legal immigration. However, many believe in process and effort. Accomplishing something (legal) garners a proper sense of entitlement. Scuttling across the border packed into a white Ford Econoline van is not effort; it is illegal.
Poll after poll shows the American public's overwhelming support for enforcing current laws and for deportation. This is a democracy. Yet, when it comes to getting tough on immigration, the GOP is split and the Democrats are against it as a matter of party unity.
Entitlement mentalities, and equally accommodating policies, are driving the surge of illegal immigration in this country. As the tragic specter of an illegal immigrant amnesty program looms, it is up to every taxpayer to convey the message of the vast majority of American people: <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">"We had to work for it, and so should you."</span></span>
<span style="font-weight:bold;">Someone, please, tell Washington.</span>
Today's illegal immigrant culture is far less ecstatic about hard work: It is put together around a sense of entitlement.
Is this purely an opinion, or do you have some facts to back that up?
...didn't start to vote majority-GOP until Reagan. It would have happened earlier, if not for anti-Catholic rhetoric that alienated the constituancy for years. Now we will face the same problem with the Hispanic voting bloc if the "Bush/Florida" approach is not followed. This Diary advocates the disaterous "Wilson/California" approach.
I fail to see any real connection between the illegal immigration issue and how many Catholics vote Republican.
- Illegal immigrants just happen to be mostly Catholic because they mostly come from Mexico. As a Catholic, I am not more sympathetic to their plight than the average Protestant, nor are the majority of American Catholics.
- Why Republicans didn't get the majority of the Catholic vote in the past is a very complex subject. It has little to do with immigration or religious beliefs.
- Many Catholics became more highly educated, upwardly mobile, and affluent, after Protestants. They have also dispersed from traditionally Democratic urban areas, where ethnicity was as important as religion. Many are now socially and fiscally conservative.
- Trying to connect the Catholics to the illegal immigration issue is very hazardous. In a few states, the local Catholic Church has a significant number of Hispanics. It is in their economic interest to promote Hispanic immigration, but I think that there are separate Hispanic and Catholic voting blocs.
- The real Democratic advantaqe of uncontrolled immigration,
has little to do with actual voting. It has to do with Congressional Districts and the Electoral College being based upon population within states, not number of citizens in that state. Many "red states" could lose seats to " blue or purple" states and some "red" districts might become "blue" with an influx of Hispanics.
Hispanics are becoming increasingly Republican because of upward mobility. They already have pro-life under the belt. It is shown that this combo plus Hispanic-friendly Republicans, such as George and Jeb Bush, will neutralize and even TURN TO OUR ADVANTAGE this demographic change. A McCain-Jeb ticket would win over 50% of the hispanic vote in '08. A Jeb-Swann ticket in '12 would win over 55%.
...cheerleading for La Raza and obfuscating the facts. Over the years I've witnessed other messengers that your words bring to mind, as they promoted the same agenda. It was fairly openly discussed over long, lazy lunches I attended at el Centro Vasco. The insights I gleaned from their hardly oblique references, I see mirrored in your words. You're propagandizing the same false goods that they were 10 and 20 years ago.
Let me ask you, are you also constantly 15 minutes late for everything too? (Folks, that's an inside joke ElCapitan should understand.)
- The "Bush/Florida approach" has been a colossal failure for the Americans who actually built South Florida. The Miamians I knew growing up had that county well on its way to being a world-class city long before Castro sent the first wave scurrying in. And they did not affix all of those "will the last American leaving Miami please bring the flag" bumper stickers to their cars because they were happy to be leaving their homes, and the communities they built. I know I wasn't happy when I finally caved in two years ago, but I will not raise my daughter in a place I no longer consider to be a part of America. The undercurrent in Miami, and increasingly throughout south Florida, is that of a seething tinderbox of cross-subcultural hate just waiting for the next spark rendered by verdict of the next Lozano-esque trial.
- The "Wilson/California approach" did not cause the rise of the Democrats in California, the Mexifornication of the state did. It was just another case of political expediency placing the demands of interlopers ahead of American citizens.
One telling trait observed in third-world immigrant diasporas in California is the failure of them to advance up the educational ladder. For instance, in California's Mexican diaspora there is even a noted backsliding in the third generation. The imported subculture you trumpet as a Republican opportunity just isn't going to be the "incubator for success" that would tend to make this potential voting bloc a Republican one.
Face it, we're importing serfs who would be Democrats, and who will be Democrats if we give them the franchise via Amnesty.
The election results of 2004 reflect my hypothesis that Bush's methods have made inroads and should be continued. Such Republican stalwarts such as Larry Kudlow, Fred Barnes, and Michael Medved also agree with my position on this issue. People are anointed into politics on the abortion issue (i was pro-life first, and because I trusted those pro-life politicians I also learned about supply side economics, American exceptionalism, federalism, and judicial origionalism, etc., etc.,) and as long as we continue to be strong on pro-life issues and not sound like white supremacists (please lock Michael Savage in a closet with Jack Bauer), we'll go from 44% to 48% to over 50% when Jeb triumphantly takes the White House in '12 or '16...The majority of hispanics are hard working abortion hating religious conservatives (this is why the Bushes love them) who are way too proud to ask for a darned welfare check. I know too many to see it any differently...Lets welcome them into the party before the libs try to turn them into atheist welfare junkies. (It's not what they'll do to America, it's what LIBERAL Americans will do to them.)
~(Always late ;) --appreciate the joke, I understand --EC )
I DO NOT SENSE IT IN YOUR POST but in some others in general I sense a whiff of old school WASP anti-catholisism in all this hoopla...
Does it not matter to you the harm done to Americans in the process of, and as a result of, what you're promoting? I note that you remain mute on the concerns many of us have about the continued displacement of Americans by alien diasporas that show little inclination to fully assimilate, even into the third generation; this is unprecedented in our history. What good is it for the GOP to gain an additional five to ten percent of the Latino vote if 20% or 30% of America's core ethnicity is either driven to a third party or decides to no longer participate in the post-American political process to which the President and the Senate would have us capitulate?
Folks like me, Sons of the American Revolution, and others whose cherish our heritage and the cultural artifacts it has given us, will begin to work against a full-bore-multiculturalism-promoting GOP, both from within and from without. I know I will, as will most of my extended family - primarily long-time GOP stalwarts. If you don't think that "white flight" can happen on a macro-political scale, you don't understand the primal nature of ethnicity that drives people to act in a group self-interested manner when they feel threatened. And, ironically, you don't see that you are an advocate for a self-interested ethnic bloc that will behave in a very predictable manner. No ethnicity will assimilate if it has the numbers to resist. That's why Canada has Quebec.
As far as Catholicism is concerned, I can almost hear Italian bishops salivating at the prospect of having a hand in the demise of the hegemony of American Protestantism, and its outrageous (to them) belief that America's rise was an act of Providence.
That's not "anti-Catholicism." The Catholic Church is what it is, and has done much good in the world. But it did not make this nation. This nation has at its Puritan spiritual core a statement of antithesis to the Vatican's wishes; and, American Catholicism, in order to remain, has had to Americanize - to assimilate - itself within a Protestant-created framework. There is more than a small note of "payback" by Vatican in all this, which loathes the notion that American Catholicism has been made by America into something "different" from what it would like.
It is lunacy not to take into consideration what will result if America's vital, historical Protestant core is made to share an uneasy plurality with those who have allegiance to the Pope. This is just another facet of the balkanizing poison being foisted upon us.
What good is it lose our nation just to placate and perhaps gain a sliver of an encroaching demographic?
The kind of garbage, below, in a political discussion, is self-destructive:
"This nation has at its Puritan spiritual core a statement of antithesis to the Vatican's wishes; and, American Catholicism, in order to remain, has had to Americanize - to assimilate - itself within a Protestant-created framework. There is more than a small note of "payback" by Vatican in all this, which loathes the notion that American Catholicism has been made by America into something "different" from what it would like."
- Firstly, this has not been a Puritan or Protestant country for 100 years. It is only Christian by philosophy, not religion.
- The Catholic Church has not been assimilated into any Protestant framework. It is an American or Western European social, economic, and political framework, which includes among other things, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and non-discrimination. Let's throw in upward mobility, democratic law and capitalism.
- You need a better knowledge of history and grasp of current affairs before you think you know what the Vatican thinks about American Catholicism. I think that the Vatican knows that the American Church is probably stronger, more traditional, and a greater ally, than most countries of the World.
- Among Christian denominations, Catholics probably vote the
least on the basis of religion, particularly when compared with Fundamentalists and Pentacostals, who think that they have cornered the market on Christianity, and left unfettered, would drive the Republicans off a cliff.
Last time I checked, adherents to protestant denominations were still a strong majority here. And it only makes sense, since Protestantism is the primary reason this nation came to be. The chafing point is that the Catholic Church has always considered itself to be an independent sovereign. In early America, that little issue had to be set aside in order for Catholicism to not be banned, or worse. Later, Americanism within the church caused tremendous problems for the Vatican, not only in the States, but also with a closely watching French Catholic population. Pope Leo XIII went so far as to condemn Americanism in 1899.
Firstly, this has not been a Puritan or Protestant country for 100 years.
I don't agree at all. The ethos that gave rise to our society was enforced by Puritan's starched demeanor and the engine that fomented the revolution was soberly Protestant in values. The first Americans believed that the defeat of the greatest military power on earth was an act of Protestant-gifted Providence. This feeling still permates our attitudes, our civic rituals and the way in which we view ourselves in the world as Americans. It even works within you. And such lingering artifacts of this faith in American exceptionalism still bothers the Vatican.
But let me put all that aside and ask: how does the passage of a mere 100 years make the long-memoried Vatican any less likely to desire payback for the manner in which Catholicism has been morphed by Americanism? The Vatican is an entity that has its own ideas about sovereignty and it's deep desire is to reach more deeply into the Catholic diaspora, no matter where it is located on this earth. It still tastes its empire, and for as long as that is so, it will work to extend its power wherever its parishoners may be.
The Catholic Church has not been assimilated into any Protestant framework.
Most surely it was, or it would not still be here in any great sense. Perhaps the most silly fallacy I come across in all this debate, whether it is illegal immigration, religion in America, or a host of other issues is the mistaken notion that this nation has been populated and led by people who had a great deal of "tolerance." History renders this notion laughable; similarly, your denial that Americanization changed the Catholic Church in America is humorous. Why is it that of all European emigrant groups that came during the last great wave, the Italians were by far the most likely to repatriate?
Among Christian denominations, Catholics probably vote the least on the basis of religion, particularly when compared with Fundamentalists and Pentacostals, who think that they have cornered the market on Christianity, and left unfettered, would drive the Republicans off a cliff.
Thanks for playing "I'll debate you until I make your point for you." Nope, there's not one whit of disdain in your words for Catholics having been made, historically, to feel "different" here.
Oh, sorry, I mean the opposite of that. Your slip is showing...and telling. And unless you're a Pope sock-puppet, you're just an average Joe on his high horse. How does that make you different from the Fundamentalists and Pentacostals you deride?
"Protestantism is the primary reason this nation came to be. "
All Christian denominations came to the this country because of freedom of religion, and separation of church and state.
"The chafing point is that the Catholic Church has always considered itself to be an independent sovereign."
Don't you know what sovereignty means?
Catholics have a religious allegiance to the Pope in Rome. This has nothing to do with patriotism. If you think so, you are a dinosaur.
"In early America, that little issue had to be set aside in order for Catholicism to not be banned, or worse."
It was set aside because we never had a "theocracy." Early colonial Protestants couldn't even agree with each other. They had diverse views from Deists to Baptists.
" Later, Americanism within the church caused tremendous problems for the Vatican, not only in the States, but also with a closely watching French Catholic population. Pope Leo XIII went so far as to condemn Americanism in 1899."
Your prejudice is overwhelming. The modern Vatican has adapted to nationalism, capitalism and democracy very well.
Firstly, this has not been a Puritan or Protestant country for 100 years.
"I don't agree at all. The ethos that gave rise to our society was enforced by Puritan's starched demeanor and the engine that fomented the revolution was soberly Protestant in values. "
Religious affiliation had little to do with the American Revolution. Americans happened to be mostly Protestants (not mostly Puritans) fighting Protestants . The small number of American Catholics were just as patriotic (Carroll, Pulaski, Kosciosko, etc.) What about the help of Catholic DeGrasse and the French Fleet which changed the war? Didn't Catholics contribute to our victory too? Today, we have a society antithetical to early America (including the Puritans) which learned from the Age of Enlightenment, Rule of Law, Industrial Revolution, etc.
"The first Americans believed that the defeat of the greatest military power on earth was an act of Protestant-gifted Providence."
What about the British Protestant-gifted Providence? It was Divine Providence.
"This feeling still permates our attitudes, our civic rituals and the way in which we view ourselves in the world as Americans."
A prerequisite is that you must believe in a Protestantism to be truly American? Non-Protestants havee contributed much to these attitudes and rituals as well. I am just as much of a partriotic American as anybody.
"It even works within you. And such lingering artifacts of this faith in American exceptionalism still bothers the Vatican."
I deny that any American, or any nationality, sees any conflict between his loyalty to the Vatican and his loyalty to this country. Other Catholics also have loyalties to their own nationalities, which might not agree with everything American.
"But let me put all that aside and ask: how does the passage of a mere 100 years make the long-memoried Vatican any less likely to desire payback for the manner in which Catholicism has been morphed by Americanism?"
The Vatican is not anti-American. It reflects its international . makeup. There is no "payback." Anti-Catholic discrimination and prejudice are over. Catholicism has been morphed by every society and culture, not just America. The same goes with Protestants.
"The Vatican is an entity that has its own ideas about sovereignty and it's deep desire is to reach more deeply into the Catholic diaspora, no matter where it is located on this earth. It still tastes its empire, and for as long as that is so, it will work to extend its power wherever its parishoners may be."
When you talk about the Catholic Church in terms of "sovereignty and empire," you reveal a deep personal bigotry.
There is no such thing as a Catholic diaspora, anymore than there is a Protestant diaspora. Do we refer to Protestant immigration as a diaspora? We are talking about a Hispanic diaspora, mostly from Mexico, which just happens to be mostly Catholic.
"Most surely it was, or it would not still be here in any great sense. Perhaps the most silly fallacy I come across in all this debate, whether it is illegal immigration, religion in America, or a host of other issues is the mistaken notion that this nation has been populated and led by people who had a great deal of "tolerance."
Maybe, not in your case. But, "tolerance" for freedom of conscience, is one the greatest of principles of this country. As far as I know, even Conservative Republicans, believe that.
"History renders this notion laughable; similarly, your denial that Americanization changed the Catholic Church in America is humorous."
I notice that you use Americanization and Protestantism interchangeably. I don't deny that Americanization changes
everybody, Catholic or not. This is not Protestantism, which was your original contention.
" Why is it that of all European emigrant groups that came during the last great wave, the Italians were by far the most likely to repatriate?"
So, you don't like Italians, either. Most of them stayed, and made the U.S. a better country.
"Thanks for playing "I'll debate you until I make your point for you." Nope, there's not one whit of disdain in your words for Catholics having been made, historically, to feel "different" here.
I have no disdain and no feeling of difference. . I don't live in the past. But, I did have relatives in Oklahoma in the Thirties when the Protestant religious fanatics persecuted Catholics because they worried that the Pope was going to take over America. You sound like a throw back with your xenophobia and religious intolerance.
"...unless you're a Pope sock-puppet, you're just an average Joe on his high horse. How does that make you different from the Fundamentalists and Pentacostals you deride?
There is requirement that you like papists. But, this one sees a big difference. I don't believe that religion and politics should be mixed. I don't think that I can impose a theocracy on the country. I would like our country to reflect the Christian philosophy, but not any specific version of it. I don't like religious political parties because they always lose.
I believe that Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians have the
same rights as me, but not more than me. I agree with them on some moral issues, and disagree with them on others. This nonsense about this being a Protestant country just aggravates and insults most of electorate. Please don't make yourself a spokesperson.
Current opposition of the ostensible "American" hierarchy to U.S. laws providing for the deportation and future exclusion of certain foreigners from this nation has a history. Just as that hierarchy now opposes enforcement of existing immigration laws, it was long suspected of similar disloyalty to the nation as early as the 18th Century. That suspicion provoked the establishment of anti-Catholic movements and even political parties. My introduction to that anti-Catholicism being put on the book publishers's anti-Catholic mailing list after I ordered from it a copy of Conservative, Peter Viereck's "The Shame and Glory of the Intellectuals" in 1953. That helped explain why there were few Catholic Conservatives and Republicans prior to 1973's Roe v. Wade. To date, Catholiic clergy have not emulated Black Protestant clergy in using the pulpit to promote secular political issues. "Render to Caesar....."