The Same Sane Thoughts On Immigration

[NOTE: This was originally posted in 2018 in English Swill.]  

ENGLISH SWILL 

... Wordsmithery at the Bottom of the Barrel by Roy Santonil

"DREAMING OF THE LAST AMNESTY"

Tuesday, January 23, 2018 

You may call me lazy.

You would be wrong, and you wouldn't be alone. I know too many people who mistake my efficiency for laziness.  Nowadays, I don't care what you think, as long as you didn't SNEAK into my country against the law. 

This is not xenophobia.

 

This is self-defense in the face of your lawless aggression, you jerks.

From American Greatness, I've condensed a written piece by Victor Davis Hanson entitled "Mythologies of Illegal Immigration." 

 

Professor Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was Professor of Classics at Fresno State University, and is currently the Martin and Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University Hoover Institution. He has been a Visiting Professor at Hillsdale College since 2004 and in 2007, Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President George W. Bush. 

 

Hanson is also a farmer, growing raisin grapes on a family farm in Selma, California, and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author most recently of The Second World Wars – How the First Global Conflict was Fought and Won (Basic Books). 

This topic of immigration hits hard because my family and I are DOCUMENTED. If you know me from my Obama-era blog, there is nothing to see here.  Move on, unless you are prepared to learn why the "Dream Act" amnesty is just plain wrong.  I thought we killed in in 2010, but the damn thing keeps re-spawning like a hydra.

The last big immigration law was the Simpson-Mazolli Bill of 1986.  Since then, we've gone from under 3 million to nearly 20 million illegal entries into our country. 

 

YOU REALLY ARE DREAMING if you think that past efforts to give amnesty to illegals in the 1980's has solved any problems, especially when you look at the illegal invasion that is going on now, and has gone on since.  Hopefully, 1986 was THE LAST Amnesty.

 What is my immigration dream?  

 

NEVER AGAIN.  

 

It's 2018, and I'm free to tell the world (who cares?) what I think.  As a free citizen, you are free to not have to give a shit about shithole countries.  As a spiritual believer, my duty is God, family, and country.  Take care of my real brothers, not faceless thugs or pathetic protesters.  Defend yourself.  So simple.  No guilt trip about poor unfortunate souls being manipulated for swamp creatures and Masonic lodges.

Retweet if you agree. That was a joke. Lighten up.

Keep dreaming, you jerks -- not about your liberal virtue signalling for the lawless hordes, but keep dreaming about a REAL "land of the free" and a REAL "home of the brave." 

 

FOR NOW . . . HAVE SOME MIND-BENDING EXCERPTS ~~ 

HAVE SOME ENGLISH SWILL:

 

THE MYTHOLOGIES OF  ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

["... It’s a tiresome ploy by the Democrats, abetted by their allies in the media, using deceptive language to paint a false picture that blurs the distinction between legal and illegal, citizen and foreigner, justice and injustice...."]

["... Enough obfuscation. Here are some of the most pernicious myths of illegal immigration, debunked.... "]

MYTH #1 - The System is “Broken”

["Broken for whom exactly? Not for Mexico and Latin America. Together they garner $50 billion in annual remittances...."]

[... The immigration system is also clearly not broken for the Democratic Party. It has turned California blue. It soon will do the same to Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and someday may flip Arizona and Texas....]

[Open borders have ensured the hiring of industrious workers at cheap wages while passing on the accruing health, educational, legal, and criminal justice costs to the taxpayer. The present system is “working” well enough for this crowd; its possible replacement instead would be defined as “broken.”...."]

[... In sum, the system is working for everyone. It is broken only for the naïfs who worry over the long-term consequences of rendering the law null and void, and of ceding our culture to arriving populations for the most part not yet accustomed to the habits that sustain personal and political freedom..."

MYTH #2 - But the “Dreamers”!

 ["There are 700,000-800,000 DACA recipients, though no one knows the exact numbers. Nor is there a clear definition of who constitutes the population of the “Dreamers,” other than arriving into the United States illegally as a minor. It is an ossified concept, one frozen in amber, given that the average age of a so-called “Dreamer” around 25. When a Dreamer reaches 40, is he still defined as a Dreamer? Or have his “dreams” already come true?

College graduation and military service are often referenced as DACA talking points. In truth, some studies suggest that just one in 20 dreamers graduated from college. One in a 1,000 has served in the military. So far, about eight times more Dreamers have not graduated from high school than have graduated from college.

Dreamers represent less than 10 percent of all illegal aliens residing in the United States. They are also a fraction of the ignored millions of foreign students from all over the world who seek, often in vain, to study in the United States or are skilled applicants for green cards. Such depressing statistics about DACA might not matter—if supporters of open borders did not always cite incomplete or misleading data."]

MYTH #3 - Weaponizing the Language

[Most of the vocabulary surrounding illegal immigration is both politicized and weaponized—as we have seen with “Dreamers.”]

[Illegal immigration is conflated with legal immigration in order to smear critics with charges of biases against the “other” rather than of simply expressing concerns over legality and sovereignty."...]

[“Sanctuary cities” are not “sanctuaries” in the manner we think of a cathedral in a Victor Hugo novel. They are nullification centers [bold added] where foreign nationals who have broken laws are not subject to full enforcement of immigration laws, due entirely to political considerations."]

[...“Undocumented immigrant” suggests that the problem is a matter of forgetting to bring legal documents, rather than a decision to ignore the need for legal authorization....]

[...“Diversity” is often associated with illegal immigration. In fact, the majority of illegal immigrants come from Latin American and Mexico. They are hardly diverse. Real diversity would be re-calibrating immigration to be legal, meritocratic, and aimed at roughly equal representation from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe—and thus politically unpredictable.]

MYTH #4 - Political Epithets: Racism and Xenophobia

[The cargo of illiberal accusations is likewise constructed, given the United States is the most pro-Latino country in the world, Mexico included. Half of all immigrants, both legal and illegal, come either from Mexico or Latin America—a sort of inverse racism that assumes illegal Spanish-speaking immigrants are intrinsically more deserving of U.S. residence than legal immigration applicants from Uganda, South Korea, or Ukraine....] 

[What is also not diverse is Mexico and Latin America....] 

[... Strange, too, are the outward theatrics and themes of illegal alien activism—the frequent waving of Mexican flags, the often loud criticism of a generous host country, the usual demands made upon a foreign nation—mysteriously coupled with the overwhelming desire of millions to enter or remain in the supposedly demonic United States. Waving a flag of a country that one does not wish to return to while shunning the flag of a country in which one very much wishes to reside is incoherent....] 

MYTH #5 - Is America Great or Not?

[The entire image of the United States has been smeared in most discussions of illegal immigration....] 
 
[... But who are the arbiters of American ethics? Vicente Fox? MS-13 gang-bangers? Those whose first act [emphasis added] in entering America was to break its laws?]

[... Millions are fleeing paradigms that they apparently judged as wanting, either politically, economically, or socially, or all that and more. Why, then, would foreign nationals have ceased romanticizing their new generous hosts upon their arrival and begun idealizing, instead, their rejected birthplace? And if these are their true feelings on the matter, why did they leave?...]

[... [T]here rarely is expressed any formal analysis of why one wishes to enter the United States and leave one’s home country.]

The question is not just mindless American boosterism. In the past, immigrants accepted that they had left Ireland, Italy, or Poland because habits, customs, and government in their home countries were deemed wanting and unworkable, and therefore it was necessary to embrace their antitheses in the United States. It would have made no sense to flee from Italy and expect to live life in America on the premises that an Italian lived in Italy. Immigration, again brutally or not, is a complex two-step hard bargain that succeeds only when one accepts his chosen country—and de facto rejects the collective protocols of his birthplace.

[Why do these mythologies abound? Largely because Americans, the hosts, either cannot anymore even define their own civilization to would-be immigrants, or are so intimidated that they are terrified to even try.]

2025 Update: We're trying now.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Right On Cue - A Retrospective

 OR . . . as the red-hatted hordes CHEERING for NASCAR driver bRANDON BROWN would say . . .

"Right on, Q!"

Start here. 

Welcome back boomers (and kids) to another edition ... uh, addition, ... or is it merely a rendition? 

OK, enough bull about Durham . . .

So, a great French comedian once said, "Zee timing, she eez evereething."  

I Think, Therefore I Drink

Based on that, I think once a week should be the proper dosage of this comic relief, plus or minus a paragraph or two. If you could just help me calibrate it . . . if you don't mind . . . that would be great.

We are hunkered down in the Carolina Piedmont, stocked up with white bread, toilet paper, and almond milk. We got hit by a full inch of snow and sleet, just before MLK Day. Then we got hit again just this weekend. 

And the NFL isn't rigged. Hmph.

I can hear my Yankee friends laughing scornfully at the Southern facade, the genteel, neurotic, Prince of Tides machismo, panicked at the prospect of driving in icy conditions. It's hard.

Speaking of scornful mockery, I will do my best to never mention or use the disrespectful term "President Brandon." Never again. So how's that working out?

And as for you little vegan fairies, stop drinking so much damn soy milk and grow a pair! Tits or balls, I don't care. Wait 'til this summer -- when I'm 64. 

There is a reason for stereotypes, regardless of the hundreds of millions of counter-arguments put forth by We the Feeble, We the Sincere, We the Pitiful Bloggers trying to set the record straight. Pay no heed to the boomer behind the curtain. Most of us are probably a lot like this guy anyway --- insofar as having a penchant for quixotic rants. 

Speaking for most older bloggers, I don't want to set the world on fire. People just need to have their say, and . . .

Oops. Strike that. 

As a matter of fact, during the Summer of 2020, a small group of younger and extremely energetic "bloggers" actually did try to set the world on fire!

From THE LEFTIST HANDBOOK: "Think like us. Or else."

NOW WHAT?

It's been -- one year since we looked at the "inauguration,"

Five years since they laughed at us for saying "fake news,"

Three years since the living room TV showed a "flu" in China,

But it will still be two years 'til they say "I'm sorry, Boomers."

Did you catch the pop reference?  If so, you may not be a true baby boomer. You do, however, have the ability to think in non-linear fashion, bless your heart.

And THAT, in a nutshell, is what the "Q" phenomenon was about ... the ability to think in non-linear fashion.  The phenomenon was more than a reductivist oversimplification: "something, something, something ... politics stand ... something, something ... I love Trump." God, no. 

Many others mistakenly believed it was a quasi-religious cult with dastardly racist(!) intent. On closer examination, the Q "thing" was far above and well-beyond that mean stereotype. Nor was it some "right-wing conspiracy," as it was so gleefully, so erroneously, and so fearfully, characterized.

"Luke, trust your instincts."

And for fuck's sake, don't tell me you are so gullible that you are giving any serious credence to Wikipedia, one of the internet's leading fonts of misinformation.

OK, bye. Come back soon. This topic, any discussion of that letter that rhymes with "cue" the 17th letter, creates weird somatic responses in readers, a neuromuscular, gastrointestinal reflux making pink, purple, lime-green, and blue-haired readers, even ones in pinstripe suits, abort rational thought or wear red baseball caps. Or both. I reckon if a reader is triggered by my rapier wit, I am already BLOCKED, i.e., filtered, censored, ignored, ghosted, and generally will never be heard from again by you. Bye Bye Bye. (Uh, is this a bad time to ask you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe? 😉)

Science ≠ Morality

That's alright. Think of this essay as a less-explosive version of the classic millennial TV series, "Mythbusters," and in today's episode we examine the impact of asynchronous mass communication on various digital platforms manifests in the neuropsychology of users, the failure of ethics in journalism, and the national security implications of those effects, particularly those unique to American culture.

Use Ockham's Razor, apply the scientific method, stay smart and skeptical, and I promise you will overcome the initial barrage of auto-reflex impulses subconsciously telling you to reject what boomers (or your elders) say, just because a particularly effective content creator from somewhere on Sullivan Street has captured and cornered our cultural narrative utilizing this ... this ... accursed symbol from the Latin alphabet --- 

"Brought to you by the letter Q."

So, back to school. Classical scientific method originated from Cartesian Philosophy, within the discipline called Skepticism. Descartes was a younger contemporary of Galileo, the person generally accepted as the central figure of the Scientific Revolution. And you may already know the word "science" derives from the Latin word meaning "knowledge."  I'm not sure why, but I just noticed that I over-italicize things. Anyway, the first step in using the classic method of applied science is to ask a question. Yes, you too, can be a conscious, critical thinker like me.  That was condescending. Sorry about that. Or am I?

Oh, Ram Eye

But seriously even without Adam, Jamie, Grant, Kari, and Tory's help, we should be able to agree that proper science seeks to discover or create Knowledge, not to establish moral constructs. 

Think of Science as the Yin. The Yang, the necessary opposing principle of scientific inquiry is Humanism, which seeks to define and prescribe the moral conduct of human beings. Thus, I contend that amorality, the absence of moral proscription, is a definitional, fundamental element of pursuing and having "faith" in the scientific method. Science alone is a grossly imbalanced non-humanistic enterprise.

Think of Sheldon Cooper. He's a really (really) smart character. Great theoretical physicist. To be honest, though, he is a horrible person. Great scientist. Total asshole. And we're talking legendary asshole.

Anyway ... Insofar as that absence of morality's imperatives predicates applied science . .  I think . . 

er . . .uh . . .  wait . . . oh my . . .  I'm trying not to digress  . . .  

really . . .  trying . . .  not . .  not . . .  oh, no . . .

... ARGGH ... shiiitt ...  

the memes beckon ... the memes . . . the damn memes . . . 

Ah, screw it . . .

"Entschuldigung Sie bitte."

What were we talking about? ... oh yeah, Science.  Or was it the letter cue?

Shit. I'm already approaching my word limit, which means attention spans wane at this point of the essay.  Let us boil it down to the FACTS, and then we can move on to the cure for cancer . . .  I mean, the Corona virus, er . . .  uh, excuse me . . . I meant, the common cold.  Someone stop me.

Definition #1: "Q" was a user handle of a person(s) who posted messages on the internet from October 2017 to December  2020. That user has not been conclusively identified.

Definition #2: An "ANON" is simply an individual human citizen of no particular nationality, ethnicity, or social standing, who "gets," that is, has read, understands, and acknowledges the intrinsic content of the MESSAGE, i.e., the medium, which is -- the Internet. 

Definition #3: Distinguishing from the first two definitions, "QANON" is a resultant vector. It is a descriptive noun, invented to capture and communicate to non-readers something they have not personally experienced, but is occurring in the offline world. "QANON" is a MSM entity, borne through manipulation of language, primarily by corporate network gatekeepers, a noun adjunct modifying a manifestation that has had tangible and significant psychological, spiritual, cultural, political, and global impact. The manifestation, the phenomenon, is more simple --- real Anons are people who have read Q posts, and have "heard" the content (well, technically, they "read the message") and have encouraged others, readers and non-readers alike, to think for themselves and make up their own minds regarding the messages. The term "QANON" was put into popular vernacular to be intentionally pejorative and misleading.

That's all, folks. We're talking about asynchronous multi-vector content messaging 

. . . and bullies. (Hat Tip: Nikola Tesla and H.G. Wells)

Like Mercutio, I dislike binary political constructs, formal organizations (save the Bar), and their 501(c)3, 501(c)4 quislings. A lot of boomers have been online before AOL and BBS. We had dial-up the internet on x286 processors. We can spot a shill from ten hyperlinks away.

I'm a lot like you.

Not many boomers hang out on the so-called "dark web," although I concede that shit on 4chan and 8chan can get pretty dark. But we're way past cat videos. 

Here's the point. To discredit certain informational content, because you don't like the source is simply killing the messenger. It's bad form.

Processing information nowadays, with the massive reach of modern telecommunications technology, demands that users be their own psychological filters. The sources might be lying. Everyone seems to be lying. Online messages are not useful until properly and accurately received. We are programmed to receive. After one receives (sees, reads, or hears) the message, only then can one decide whether the content resonates - True.  

We are programmed to receive.

Here's a useful analogy, the movable-type printing press. It really was the Internet of the 15th Century. Gutenberg published the Latin Vulgate. That was, in fact, the actual content, the message in the medium. The Reformation was a cultural phenomenon that came about because of technology, because content became self-filtered. Individuals had to learn to read content that for centuries had been spoon-fed by Father Pete or Friar Tuck or Sister Mary Elephant. Likewise, from 2017-19, we have experienced the Q "thing" with differing degrees of tolerance, humor, fear, and yes, Love.

Your digital device = Gutenberg's press, right?

Now what?

Heck, movable-type printing explains how 600 years later, a Catholic Filipino raised in an American military family identifies as "born-again Protestant polytheist" despite years of institutionalized learning from anally-retentive sadistic nuns, and enduring false accusations of chemically-induced mental illness, overcoming shame of being cast as an inferior heretic who should instead be making proper tribute by confession, by eating wafers and drinking wine with celibate, globalist, perverts in robes reeking of incenst. Spell-check is so wrong.

Dark web, indeed. How's your "compliance" now, Agent Smith?

Mainstream sources (friend, you are now far far away from the mainstream), those entrenched, anti-American forces, apparatchiks protecting their bureaucratic Swamp turf, for whom free spirits and independent thinking pose an existential threat, respond to Q messaging with ad hominem fallacy, followed by implementation of the Saul Alinsky playbook, maliciously characterizing thought-provoking and intelligent content as something "spooky," something to be immediately dismissed as nonsensical and pointless. 

Yes, it is valid to point out the cryptic nature of the Q posts, the messages, their inchoate character. And it is correct to say reading the posts are almost or exactly like reading your horoscope. That is a moot point. As with everything internet, there will be encryption. Them's the rules. (sic)

"Would you like to play a game?'

For the sake of Science, or more specifically, Social Science, ask this:

How did non-linear, cryptic posts on some innocuous internet message platform used primarily by masturbating teenagers evolve into a consciousness-raising, race and gender inclusive, global movement that allegely threatens the existence (and operations) of the "Deep State?" 

Why would powerful internet platforms and corporate network broadcasters censor the content of some dude or dudette's rambling internet posts? Jesus, have you been on the internet lately? Admittedly, the corporate gate-keeping could be done better, and by better I mean worse.

What is more puzzling is this -- the extent to which Anons (not  QAnons!) are vilified as unintelligent, and violence-prone, when 99.9% of civic violence since 2017 has been carried out by their opposition. 

"But what about January 6th?" you say. 

And to that I say, "What-About-ism is intellectually dishonest."

And reasonable minds can agree. Special Counsel Durham's work is not done yet. The midterms lurk.

Put it another way. What IDEAS pose the biggest threat to the world's most powerful elite, not just in America but throughout humanity? Science has been completely divorced from Morality, yet people with little or no knowledge of Virology or Immunology talk and act as if they truly believe they are morally superior to people who are just uncomfortable in face diapers, or who don't want to participate in a genetics experiment, or simply don't like needles. 

Even if the abyss between Morality and Science is philosophically irreconcilable, what makes the reconsideration of moral precepts so frightening to certain factions in the War of Ideas? 

Well, I'm hungry. It's time to end this.

Mark 8:36

"We understand you don't like our censorship policy. But it's for people's safety."

"Fuck off, Liars."

It's not too late, America. Step up. We didn't start the fire.

Places everyone. Lights, camera . . . and . . .

Right on cue.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

© 2022 Roy B. Santonil