House of Cards II

READ PART I



Well, Mitt, what if we change the law so that Mexicans who are desperate to feed their families and improve their lives can come into our country legally?

Do you really think that if our doors stood open, providing a legal path to entry, any of these Mexicans would prefer to enter the U.S. illegally?

Translation: the solution to illegal immigration is telling people who broke the law that they didn't really break the law. See? We repealed the law, so it's all better now. Or we just ignored the law. There's not a peso's difference between what Card promotes, and what George Bush endorses. You'd call politicians and commentators morons if they suggested handling other crimes in this fashion. And rightly so.

Can you imagine this scenario?: The way that we resolve the problem of pedophilia is by redefining adult sexual desire for a small child as normal sexual activity. Reprehensible and intellectually vacant doesn't even begin to cover it.

So if you grant amnesty and make legal entry possible, you will not be encouraging illegal immigration in any way.

More semantic deceit. Notice the recurring theme of illegal immigration being the only legitimate path for Mexican entry into the U.S. This is outright lying. I also wonder what Card thinks about Mexico's immigration policies, which are far more stringent and unyielding than America's.

Please notice that the very same people who are most vehemently anti-amnesty -- the Pat Buchanan-style nativists -- are also most vehemently against opening the door to more legal immigration. It's not amnesty they hate, and not law-breaking ... it's Mexicans.

Another lie. I have nothing personally against Mexicans who want to immigrate to the U.S. legally and assimilate and become American citizens. I've read Buchanan's books, wherein he expounds upon his immigration views. Card's characterization of him is simpletonian and childlike. As for hatred of Mexicans--as opposed to hatred of criminality-- I've seen no evidence of this in Buchanan's works. Instead, I understand that Buchanan is 100% correct, when he says that America cannot take in the whole world. And if we are to welcome people to our shores, shouldn't we embrace those who come closest to sharing our language and culture? Or should we embrace all, and have no talk of national origins or beliefs? Card wants no restrictions of any kind, and he studiously ignores the links between race and culture, whereas Buchanan faces them head-on. No, it's not politically correct, but it is true.

So where should we cap legal immigration, Mr. Card? Ten million a year? Fifteen million? At what point does America lose its ability to sustain the world's influxion of people? We have six billion to think about, here. Would you have them all rubbing shoulders in the United States, as our standards of living slosh right down the septic tank?

I know hundreds of Mexican and Latin-American people, and person for person, I think they all make better Americans than any of the bigots who want to bar them from this country.

Anecdotal evidence preceding accusations of bigotry against those with whom one disagrees is always compelling.

America is America because our dream is open to the world. Those who would close that door, especially on the basis of race or language, are anti-Americans, as far as I'm concerned. They're certainly against the America that welcomed my despised, law-defying Puritan and, later, Mormon ancestors.

And here we see the crux of Mr. Card's confusion; he doesn't even know what America is, or what it was meant to be. Rather, Mr. Card's America is a free-for-all--a racial, linguistic, and cultural ghetto. His loyalty is not to America, but to "diversity," in the most globalistic, left-leaning sense of the word. America is not America "because our dream is open to the world." That's poppycock. America is a place, a language, an idea, and a people with a history and a heritage. It is a land whose people are rooted and blood-bonded. It's not merely a propositional entity. Card doesn't even support language as a unifier. Apparently, basic communication skills between "Americans" lies at the bottom of his priority list. His comment about the Puritans is incoherent, as Puritans made up some of the first people who came to this land. They were our progenitors, part of the stock who colonized this "stolen" continent. He acts as if there's no discernible difference between Mexicans on the one hand, and Puritans and Mormons on the other. As I said, Card has a lively imagination, having concocted his own fantasy world, whose borders he never crosses into the real world--legally, or otherwise.

Hispanics aren't blind or deaf. They know who hates them, and they aren't going to vote for that party, ever.

If they're illegal aliens, they shouldn't be voting, period. So his point, such that it is, is pointless.

Legal Hispanic-Americans are now about as big a voting bloc as African-Americans.

The funny part is that many of these "legal" Hispanics were amnestied in the 1986 Immigration Reform Act (there's a misnomer for you). A significant segment of these "legals" are anchor babies, as well. So if we had a coherent, nation-preserving immigration approach, rather than the notion that "anyone who can sneak in is a citizen," a large percentage of these "legals" wouldn't have voting rights, and we wouldn't be talking about this, right now.

Do you Republicans understand the demographics here? The Republican Party owns the White male vote right now -- if White males were the only voters, there would have been no Clinton years and Bush would have won in a landslide in both 2000 and 2004.

But White males are just another minority group.

Hilarious. Look at the circular reasoning: Card supports open borders. Open borders made whites a minority group (which isn't even accurate, but we'll assume it is, for the sake of argument), so we should embrace Hispanic voters, because the GOP can't win on the white-vote only; and it's imperative that the GOP win the 2008 election. Makes perfect sense, no?

So when Republicans permanently alienate Hispanic voters the way they have alienated Black voters, they are getting relatively little in return.

Translation: Down with the rule of law; it hurts my little brown brothers' and sisters' feelings.

Here's a question for you, Mr. Card: If the majority of legal and illegal immigrants are Mexicans, how does one broach the subject and address it forthrightly without bringing this fact into the open, at some point? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

This election will not be won by appealing to the hard-core anti-illegal-immigration voters. They will vote Republican no matter what.

What a card you are. The joker, to be exact. Most Americans are anti-illegal immigration, irrespective of party affiliation, so I don't know what this means. There's a vast chasm on this issue between the intern-chasing politicians in D.C., and the average American citizen. Why would hardcore anti-illegal immigrant voters choose Republicans, when most GOP candidates on the ballots are lax or lean left on this issue?

This election will be won by whoever appeals most to the swing voters -- moderate Republicans, pro-defense Democrats, and independents who are generally disgusted with both parties -- groups that are far, far larger than either party's leadership seems to realize.

Card doesn't compute that many of those independent voters upon whom the election will turn are former Republicans who left the party because of its leftward tilt, including its pathetic stance on immigration. People like me, for instance. Mr. Card, you advocate the very policies which disgusted and turned me away, in the first place. I hope the next Republican president doesn't hire you as his chief advisor. God help him.

I believe that amnesty proceeded by huge numbers of Hispanics voting in our elections is all part of the Leftist plan of destabilization and further socialization of our country. And I believe that you, Mr. Card, are a willing lackey for the Left's agenda.

Harping on illegal immigrants didn't help Tancredo become a viable candidate.

Harping on illegal immigrants had nothing to do with his nonviability; it was his biggest draw--and still is. His nonviability was due to his lacking oratory skills, and a general cluelessness as to who he was exhibited by the average debate viewer. Most people simply have never heard of Mr. Tancredo, or if they are familiar with his name, know nothing more about him.

And with the Republicans firmly identified as the party of bigotry and cruelty, and with Blacks and Hispanics fully owned by the Democratic Party, Republicans will have as much chance in the next few elections as the Democrats did when they kept nominating William Jennings Bryan back around the turn of the last century.

Since both parties are driving us willy-nilly toward socialism--a strategy you support, by the way--why is it important that the GOP win?

Oh, that's right.

WE'RE AT WAR!! And the war is the most important thing in the world. Forget context. Forget history. Forget that these Islamic fundamentalists have no chance of defeating or destroying us--except demographically, through unrestricted migration, which, again, you endorse.

Think about how to solve the illegal immigrant problem rationally -- not by expelling them from the country, not by depriving them of hope, but by combining immigration law reform with a reasonable amnesty program that does not force millions of people into refugee camps just across the border in Mexico.

Ok, the illegal invaders aren't at fault; Mexico's deplorable, corrupt government isn't to blame.

Such a scenario would be the fault of the United States. Blame America First, anyone?

President Bush and many in Congress already offered America an excellent compromise, a fair law, which would have solved most of the problems.

Yes, by declaring that the problems don't truly exist. It's like sweeping a pile of dirt under a rug and saying: "See? The dirt's all gone!"


(TO BE CONCLUDED)