Today is May Day, May 1st, 2006, the traditional day of celebration for Socialists and Communists. I remember watching the news programs on May 1st as I grew up, and seeing Soviet tanks and missiles passing by in large parades in Red Square. I’m sure the choice of May 1st as the day for America’s illegal immigrants to demonstrate is purely coincidental. It probably has nothing to do with one of the major organizers being International ANSWER, a subsidiary organization of the American Communist Workers World Party.

On this May Day, many thousands are or will be marching in cities around the U.S. in what is being called a “Day Without Immigrants.” As one local news reader put it, these people are skipping school and work to flex their financial and political clout. But as I see it, the illegal aliens in this country have no political clout because they are not citizens — and unless you are a Democrat, you don’t want non-citizens to vote. On the same top of the hour newscast, one of the marchers stated she was marching because she didn’t agree with the recent bills proposed by Congress to “criminalize illegal immigrants.” How she could state that with a straight face is beyond me. Being illegal means one has broken existing laws by entering the United States illegally. That is what is known as committing a crime. And committing a crime makes you — all together now, class — a criminal!

One of the organizations that participated in the L.A. rally in March was the Mexica Movement. I find it very interesting that the Mexica Movement decries “European racists” (i.e., everyone in the New World with insufficient native ancestry), but everything they stand for is based on their designation as the “Nican Tlaca” people of “Anahuac.” They say that “We include all Full-bloods and Mixed-bloods as Nican Tlaca.” When you hear people talking about “blood,” rest assured that they are talking about race.

What we have with the Mexica Movement are the angry, racist rantings of people who believe that somehow everything has been taken away from them, and if they could only get control of the entire American continent, they would have all the money and power and everything would be good. The trouble is, by tossing out all the people of European descent (other than those whom they like), they will have largely tossed out the brainpower that made this nation special in the first place. This is not to suggest that all people of native descent are stupid and lazy, but the foundations for what constitutes Americanism were largely put in place by people who came here from somewhere else — including the Founding Fathers. But none of that matters to the Mexica Movement. Failing to understand what America is and what makes it great, they would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs; then would come the infighting over the remnants when they discover that prosperity and productivity had died with the goose. This has happened before. Not long ago, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe decided to seize farmland from the owners and put it under the control of his cronies. What followed was mismanagement and starvation. Expect to see the same thing in the West Bank now that it has been turned over to the Palestinians.

Here is a bit of text from the Mexica Movement’s website. I have preserved the centered formatting, but removed the font and color codes.

THE HISTORY:
First, Europeans criminally invade our continent in 1492.
They occupy our continent and all of its lands for over 500 years.
Over the centuries they kill 95% of our population
(70 to 100 million total killed in the “Western Hemisphere”,
33 million killed in “North America” alone),
using the SMALLPOX weapon of mass destruction
(Smallpox is the ugly big secret of European success in killing off 95% of our people).
All of these CRIMES were very dishonorable, savage, and immoral things to do to us.

RACISM CONTINUES
Without Shame

And now RACISTS tell the 5% of us who have survived this holocaust
that none of our land is ours anymore, and
that all of our continent and all of its wealth of natural resources now belong to Europeans.
They tell us that we should “go back to Mexico”
when most of us of the Mexica Movement were born here,
and we are citizens of the government that rules our lives.
Mexico and “Central America” are also owned and controlled by European descent,
by Europeans are even more Racist White Supremacists there.

Like we said, there are a lot of good white people out there,
but there are also the loud, violent, and low I.Q. Racist White Supremacists
who would easily put us in concentration camps and ovens
if they felt they could get away with it.
Some have already written to us to tell us that they have concentration camps
and hot ovens waiting for us.

Oh, yes, and finally, these same moron Racist White Supremacists
also say that we are not “Indians” (they mean Nican Tlaca, Indigenous),
that we are Spaniards (Europeans).
They know we’re not Spaniards or white (that’s why they call us the “Brown people”)
or anything that is European or else all of this “illegals-borders” issue would not exist!
They say that all the “Indians” were killed and that we’re just Spaniards.
The ignorance and dishonesty of these Racist White Supremacists
is immoral, illogical, untruthful, and an injustice.

Over 30% (over 45 million) of Mexicans and “Central Americans”
are Full-blood Nican Tlaca (Indigenous).
The other 65% (100 to 120 million) or more
are Mixed-Blood, with 3/4 “looking” Nican Tlaca.
The Mixed-bloods are not White.
It is monstrous that they rape our population (mutilate our DNA)
and then they have the monstrous vomit to say that we are not Nican Tlaca
and that even the Full-Bloods of our people are not considered Nican Tlaca
—that we are NOTHING WORTHY OF CONSIDERING AS HUMAN
WITH EQUAL RIGHTS WITH WHITES TO A FULL HUMANITY,
with no rights to our continent or its wealth and no rights to our identity as Nican Tlaca.
How convenient for them: Heads they win, tails we lose.

The majority of African descent people in the U.S. have some European blood,
they speak English (but are not “English”), have British names (but are not “Britanic”),
but all of that rape and cultural corruption
doesn’t deny them the right to call themselves black
or to assert their African heritage.
That same logic goes for our people!
We are not Spanish or Hispanic or Latino!
We are of the Nican Tlaca race!
We are of the Anahuac nation!
We are Mexica in our collective cultural identity!

If you’re still here, congratulations. I apologize for inflicting all that on you, but I think it is necessary that you understand the true nature of some of the people who are demonstrating. These people are not calling for citizenship, as many illegals are. Rather, they demand that the land be cleansed of all Americans of European descent. (How the Mexica Movement can claim it is not racist, when it specifically wants to remove people of European descent from America — and not the multitudes of people of African, East Indian, Chinese, Southeast Asian, and various mixed descents who came from other nations to live in this country — simply defies logical explanation.)

Consider the following real-world situation in my family: one of my nieces has a father who is 100% Navajo, and thus one of the favored indigenous “Nican Tlaca” people. Her mother is visibly of European descent. This little girl visits her father no more than a few days every year, by his own preference; her mother’s family have been her exclusive guardians and caregivers. However, based on the Mexica Movement’s statements, this little girl and her largely-absent father would be able to stay here because they are of the proper race, but her mother and the rest of the family should be booted back to Europe, separating the little girl from the only family she has ever known. Even though the United States extends citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who were born on American soil, the Mexica Movement has no compunction about denying resident status to anyone who was not born “Nican Tlaca.”

Here’s the quandary for supporters of the Mexica Movement — how can you justify who stays and who goes without resorting to race? And since the defining nature of your argument is based on race, does that not make the Mexica Movement, by definition, a racist movement?

The basic Mexica Movement concept of “Yankee go home” is silly at best. If we were to force everyone back to his or her racial homeland, eventually we would all be living in Olduvai Gorge in Africa.

More wisdom from the Mexica Movement website:

QUESTION: When did the problem of illegals start on this continent?

ANSWER: October 12, 1492! Illegal Europeans have been a problem for us for 500 years!

So, what, pray tell, were the laws that Columbus and others violated when they came to the American continent? If “illegal Europeans” have been the problem, then where are the violated laws that make Europeans illegal? (And why, by the way, did you use the evil European calendar date rather than the superior Mesoamerican one?)

What’s next? Italians telling much of Europe and the Middle East that they are reclaiming the lands once controlled by the Roman Empire? What about Iran laying claim to the lands of Greece and Pakistan because of the Persian Empire? That makes about as much sense as claiming the whole of the American continent because your ancestors lived there at some point.

It’s all about race, and about the greedy hands who want what America has become, without having to work for it.

Por la raza todo; fuera de la raza nada.

Our local college held a rally in favor of illegal immigration today. Not that they would actually use the phrase “illegal immigration.” That’s far too mean for these people. Instead, they used phrases like “our friends” and “undocumented immigrants.” Michelle Malkin puts the kibosh on the use of the word “undocumented.” Many of our friends the illegal immigrants have plenty of documentation, although it’s fake. She sums up her post with, “Not that the law matters anymore, but identification document fraud is a crime.” Yep. It’s a crime all right, but since these people were willing to break the law just to get here, what makes you think they would stop once they arrived?

I would welcome an uneducated, but legal immigrant over a brilliant doctor who sneaks into this country because he believes that immigration laws shouldn’t apply to him.

The choicest nugget of stupidity I heard from the kids rallying for illegal immigration came from a mental marvel who stated, “My parents were undocumented citizens…” This kid deserves to have his tuition refunded, because he clearly hasn’t yet learned that words have meaning. Or we could take his teachers to task for failing to instruct him. This kid’s parents aren’t “undocumented citizens;” they are freakin’ illegal immigrants who broke the law to get here–and who remain in this country in defiance of the law.

Is it really so hard to grasp the concept that the law applies to everyone? Apparently so, judging by the people who march for lies, injustice, and the un-American way.

A tiny handful of students at the rally didn’t concur with the mass of ignorant idjits marching for illegal immigration. One in particular was calling from the sidelines, “Didn’t you learn from kindergarten that you don’t cut in line?” He was being booed for his trouble. If you ask me, he should have pushed his way to the front and seized the microphone away from the current protestor to say his piece. He should have demanded to participate in the discussion, since he’d been there long enough. Sure, he wasn’t part of the demonstrating group, and there were people scheduled to talk before him, but he was willing to do a job that no one else there was willing to do, so why not grant him amnesty from the heckling and let him talk?

I bet that line of argument would go over like a lead balloon.

Michelle Malkin pointed out a paper published by J. Michael Waller of the Center for Security Policy titled, “Mexico’s Glass House.” In it, Waller points out how the Mexican constitution treats foreigners within its borders. Here are two of the points he makes in his paper:

  • Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
  • Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”

It is well worth reading the whole thing, and at just barely four pages, it won’t take long. Here is a portion near the very last that is well worth pointing out:

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another’s laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.- Mexican relations:

  1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
  2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.

These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government’s current immigration demands on the United States — as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

So as promised, here are my steps for changing the illegal immigration problem. I don’t honestly believe any of these will ever be implemented. It would take more political courage than our elected representatives collectively have. But assuming that I have just become El Presidente por Siempre, then here are the things I would do pretty much in the order I would implement them as a mixture of carrots and sticks to fix the problem.

My first act would make English the official language of the United States, and the language for all legal and governmental action. Immigrants who came to this land, learned English, and blended into our society are the ones who have succeeded in achieving the American dream. People who huddle in non-English speaking enclaves are limiting their potential. Encouraging people to learn English would help unify all Americans under a common language, and that is what the U.S. is all about — E pluribus unum, out of many, one. When I have lived abroad, I did my best to pick up the language there. I didn’t not expect them to know English to make me comfortable. This is a stick because the crutch of having tax forms printed up in Hmong and other obscure languages would be gone.

Next I would start to enforce the illegal immigration laws that are on the books while working on making the borders more secure. I am uncomfortable with people feeling like they can freely enter my home, and the U.S. is my home. Consequently, a good strong fence and active patrolling would significantly cut down on the illegals who just walk over the border, and with too many millions illegally here in the States already, we need to stem the tide. Some people whose writing I enjoy, like Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog have pointed to a similarity between the Berlin Wall and our southern border. But there is a difference between the Berlin Wall and a wall along the U.S. border, just like there is a fundamental difference between the fence around a prison and the fence around your house: the first is to keep people in, while the second is to keep people out. This is another stick.

Since I have brought up Warren Meyer of Coyote Blog, here is the last of his five steps for curing the immigration problem. I agree with this plan:

  1. While I would like to eliminate much of the welfare state altogether, I won’t address that today (Don’t underestimate, though, how damaging the welfare state and the highly regulated economy can be to immigrants, and the problem that can cause, as demonstrated today in France)  For purposes of this plan I will merely state that the non-right right type government services should be divided into two pools:  Services only available to citizens and services available to those who are paying into the system.
    • The first category might include pure handouts, like Welfare, farm subsidies, and public housing.  This category can even include public policy decision like “allowing squatters or vagrancy on public lands”, since this is an effective subsidy as well in the form of public housing.
    • The second include services like public transportation or unemployment insurance — if the individual is paying the fair (for example, the employer is paying her unemployment premiums) then they should have access to the service.  Social Security is a tough beast to classify – I would put it in the “Citizen” category as currently structured, but would gladly put it in the “available to everyone” category if SS could be restructured to better match contributions with benefits, as in a private account system.

The third stick would require work to make it well and widely known, letting illegals who are present and those who are planning to come to America know that the laws and rules are changing. One rule is that anyone caught here in the U.S. illegally would be booted out and never allowed reentry. That means if caught, their chance to ever visit, get a green-card to work, or ever become a citizen is gone, permanently. I would also ask for the Constitution to be amended that would require parents to have entered the U.S. legally for their children to become citizens. This would be a large stick that should reduce those people who sneak into the U.S. so their kids would become citizens. The hope is that those who have a desire to become citizens would voluntarily deport themselves before being caught and permanently barred from ever returning. Part of this plant would be announcing that there would be changes in the legal immigration plans that would make legal immigration easier for people.

Currently, we have a quota for people who can enter the U.S. legally, and it is rather low. Once the quota from a country has been filled, then no more people can enter from that country. After 12 to 18 months of cracking down on illegals, identifying them, and deporting them, the quotas would be increased to allow more people to come in. This is the carrot that has will be held in front of people who want to enter the U.S. legally. Since the current quota is low, people are tempted to cross into the U.S. illegally. Imagine that Disneyland has only a very few tickets that they will sell each day, and once they are sold, no more people can enter the park. Now imagine that to the side is an unguarded way into the park. The difficulty of the proper entrance would make people more inclined to hazard the illegal entry. We need to both block up the illegal entryway as well as increase the number of legal entrants. The U.S. can handle large numbers of immigrants if they are willing to become part of this nation.

I would make one additional change to the quota system: I would allow people to put up a bond for another. The assumption is that the company or person is willing to post a large bond for the entrance of the person. If that person violates the law or fails to qualify for citizenship in set number of years, then the bond is forfeit. Otherwise, the bond is return when the person in question either leaves the country or successfully becomes a citizen. The interest would go to the government as the price of doing the paperwork.

I’m not talking about locking up the millions who are here illegally, but if they are willing to break into the country they have shown that they are willing to break the law in other ways. Not that people want to talk or hear about it.

More people are talking about the illegal immigration problem. I like being able to simplify things. So here’s my question:

Do you lock the door to your house, and if not, would you mind if anyone off the street just walked right in?

I feel pretty safe to guess that the vast majority of people would be very uncomfortable finding some stranger camping out in their living room. A liberal radio host was saying we need to allow those people who have been here in the U.S. so long to have a method to become legal residents. My response is pretty simple: at what point does the stranger camping in your living room become a part of the household, or is he forever going to be persona non grata?

Los Angeles saw 500,000 people march down its streets chanting “Sí, se puede,” “Mexico!,” and “USA!” What was the big draw? Here’s the first paragraph of the AP story that explains why they gathered:

Immigration rights advocates more than 500,000 strong marched in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make illegal immigration a felony and to build more walls along the border.

There’s a problem with that paragraph — it is missing a word: ILLEGAL. As in “Illegal immigration rights advocates…” I support the idea of making illegal immigration a felony, and were I the one to make the rules, I would make violators ineligible for later entry to the U.S., even if they try legally. I have written about illegal immigration multiple times, and it is one of the few subjects where I disagree with President Bush.

Let me set the scene at the southern border:

Freight trains leave each day heading north. At the border “undocumented workers” swarm over the tracks, trying to catch a free ride into the promised land, and it isn’t uncommon for a train to have hundreds of people clinging to it, hitching a ride up north. But not everyone makes it — Hector fell under the moving train and lost both of his legs. Dangerous gangs roam along the border, and violence and prostitution run amok. Immigration officials catch some of the people crossing the river, but many make it past them. The officials and police will send the migrants back, but there are mixed signals being sent here: people from other government agencies patrol the border to advise people about their human rights, often giving them food and clothes. Commissioner Felipe Preciado laments over the Sisyphean nature of the illegal immigrant problem: “It took longer for our buses to turn around at the border than it did for undocumented migrants to re-enter [the country] somewhere else.”

Just north of the border, farmers and ranchers take advantage of the “temporary migrant workers,” paying them less than the minimum wage, and most often ignoring taxes like social security. Paying them in cash means not having to report the money to the government. These workers are often worked hard for a week or two, right up to payday, and then the immigration officers are called in to deport them before the money has to be paid out.

Edwin Morales has been an exile from his native land for almost twenty years now. He fled his home after the abduction and murder of one of his wife’s relatives by security forces. He went north because of the nation’s reputation for tolerance and democracy, but after three weeks in the capital city, he was arrested and detained by security forces. He was later deported to Cuba and told not to return for 10 years. Months later, Morales met up with his family in Nicaragua, and they now live in Costa Rica.

Not everyone is equally distressed over illegal immigration. Rigoberta Menchú Tum, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, recently referred to “our wonderful neighbor country that has been so dedicated and interested, that has made such great efforts in respect to the negotiations that are being conducted to achieve peace, [and] that has received and admitted so many refugees and exile[s]…” She said she was willing with “satisfaction and gratitude” not to keep her Nobel Prize medal, but instead to place it in a museum in the “wonderful neighbor country” to the north.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I once stood on a bridge spanning the Rio Grande between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. As I stood there, feet straddling the center line of the bridge, I spotted eight people wading across the river and running past the Immigration office. But none of the stories mentioned above took place on the southern border of the United States. They all took place on the southern border of Mexico. Just as the U.S. lures Mexicans who want to work and make money here, Mexico is likewise a shining lure to people living in Guatemala and places further south.

Mexican President Vicente Fox doesn’t like American plans to shut down easy access between the U.S. and Mexico. In a meeting with President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, President Fox said, “No country that is proud of itself should build walls. It doesn’t make any sense.” He also said that the new wall going up between the U.S. and Mexico should and must be demolished. If heading north is a basic human right for Mexicans, why doesn’t Sr. Fox feel the same way about Guatemalan nationals who wish to do exactly the same thing? I have previously pointed out that as individuals we would be very distressed to have neighbors and strangers wander freely into our homes at any hour of the day or night. A sturdy fence between the U.S. and its neighbors has the same purpose and function as a fence around one’s property and locks on the doors.

I don’t have a problem with legal immigration, as I have stated before, but I have a serious complaint against illegal immigration. This is one of the few issues where I strongly disagree with President Bush and his plans. And this is why I am in favor of the Minuteman Project.

Right now, hundreds of volunteers are patrolling a stretch of the Arizona border, and they plan on maintaining this patrol throughout the month of April. They are not there to physically stop people from crossing the border. They are there to spot anyone who enters the United States illegally and call in the immigration officials. They are extra eyes for the law, and a helping hand for people who are hungry and thirsty.

But not everyone appreciates what the Minuteman Project is trying to accomplish. Some of the attitudes against the Minutemen seem very similar to sentiments voiced by the ranchers and farmers in southern Mexico, who take advantage of cheap undocumented labor coming over the border. A Reuters article from April 6th echoes this sentiment:

“I had a Salvadoran work for me for six months, and it’s not uncommon for people here to drive a migrant north in their car rather than hand them over to the U.S. Border Patrol,” said cafe owner Charles Lewis.

The fact that these people are in the U.S. illegally doesn’t seem to matter to Mr. Lewis. I wonder if he would be as sanguine if his neighbors were in the habit of escorting people into his own home. Something tells me he would be very uneasy with that idea if it were made reality. But he has no problem with “people” performing a similar act toward his nation.

The article quotes another local’s opinion of the Minuteman Project:

“I’d rather take my chances with the Mexicans than one of these U.S. military type idiots taking part in the patrols,” local truck driver John Porter told Reuters, as he took the sun on a sidewalk table outside the Daily Diner.

“Migrants pay their taxes and I don’t have a problem with them,” he added.

“Migrants pay their taxes…” Do they really? I can’t deny that illegals must pay sales taxes on the things they buy, but how much property tax do they pay? How much income tax? I’m sure Mr. Lewis filled out a W-2 form for the Salvadoran who worked for him for six months, right? And since they don’t have a Social Security number, how could illegals be paying Social Security taxes? The answers to these questions are obvious. Illegal immigrants use our infrastructure, taking advantage of programs paid for with American tax dollars, but they do not pull their own weight because, as undocumented illegals who are usually paid under the table, they are not assessed taxes the rest of us must pay.

There is a much more compelling reason to secure the U.S. border. People exist who hate us, and who want to see us dead. An open border policy does not help keep these thugs away. Just as a fence around the property and locks on the doors are common-sense ideas, so is a secure border. New passport rules are a step in the right direction, regardless of alarmist claims that they will “threaten business relations.” I only wish President Bush would be as serious about securing our own borders as he has been in the rest of the War on Terror, but the sad truth is that he’s afraid to play hardball. Hispanic voters are a growing group, and woe unto the politician who angers a large group of voters in the United States.

[The following was an email The Pirate King sent to Bill Whittle of Eject! Eject! Eject! in response to his recurring theme of Europeans despising Americans. I felt it was worthy of a wider audience, since I love my honey. Besides, there is a sublime irony in pirating stuff from The Pirate King. -- Captain Midnight]

The French–and several other European nations–like to accuse us of simplisme. It’s a nice vague term which seems to accuse us of being simple as well as making things overly simple, and its unstated obverse is that intelligent, sophisticated folk recognize and accept a life filled with nuance, neither simple nor easy.

Once upon a time, this disdainful attitude rubbed me the wrong way. I was astounded at the hubris of Germany, France and Russia when they refused to join us in waging war against a common enemy, believing that the entire effort would come to naught without their token assistance. I was annoyed by Jacques Chirac, who in a petulant fit snubbed our Commander-in-Chief by refusing to call and congratulate him on his re-election for a full week after the event. M. Chirac further grated on me by showing his historical ignorance and deep ingratitude by pointing out to Prime Minister Blair that England had “gained nothing” by its loyalty to the United States in this war. (How soon, simple Monsieur le President, we have forgotten the Ardenne Forest and the beaches of Normandy. I do hope your nuanced view of the world accepts of such concepts as “debt of gratitude.”)

But I have come to a point where I no longer rankle at Europe’s high-minded tendency to treat our nation as an ill-behaved, headstrong child. The thing that caused me to change my mind was, oddly enough, the recent death of my grandfather. At his funeral I had some time to think about the particulars of his life, and it turned out to be quite illuminating.

Grandpa was born in Sweden in 1922. He was an unwanted child, passed from relative to relative until his teen years, when he became apprenticed to a butcher and delicatessen owner. There he learned the fine art of food preparation and became a talented cook. But he did not stay in Sweden to ply his trade; the butcher warned his teenage apprentice that the National Socialists were rising to power in Germany–and that Scandinavia likely would not lift a finger to stop them. So, on the wise advice of his boss, he went to America.

It didn’t take Grandpa long after he got here to sign up for military service. As a champion skier who held several ski jumping records in his home province, he was placed with the ski troops. He came home alive, but missing a leg and riddled with cancer. Doctors gave him six months to live; miraculously, the cancer went into full remission and those six months turned into some 60 years. Rarely did he speak of the war, preferring to focus on work, family and sailing. It wasn’t until some 40 years after his service that his military files were declassified and he was free to talk about precisely what he had done in World War II. But he always recognized that his service, however horrific, was necessary to keep America and the rest of the world safe and free.

Europeans would probably have called my grandfather simplisme. They would regard him, an unwanted child from a backwater province of an unimportant country, as “the wretched refuse of [their] teeming shore.” But Grandpa had some special qualities within him, even as a teenager: intelligence, ability, a drive to succeed, and the willingness to relocate to a land that would foster his success.

A generation ago, there were still people like this in Europe. In America, we usually call them “immigrants.”

I maintain that much of Europe despises America not because of our simplisme, but because of our strength as a people. And to be honest, we have them to thank for it. Certainly in these days, more immigrants come to the U.S. from outside Europe than from within it–but in previous generations, the overwhelming majority of new Americans came from the Old World. Any European who displayed a trace of gumption, drive, or desire to succeed packed up, moved and became an American. The immigrants’ determination and zest for life enriched our national can-do spirit, and their love for their adopted country boosted our natural patriotism. Modern Europeans, on the other hand, are the direct descendants of those individuals with little or no natural drive–those who stayed behind. Their anemic bloodlines show in their indolent unwillingness to act in their own best interests, like an old purebred dog covered with bloodsucking ticks who is too lazy even to scratch at them. (By contrast, we are a mongrel nation, but a strong and healthy one.)

My grandfather always kept his love for Sweden. He had a Swedish flag, cooked Swedish food, and on occasions when he returned to visit Sweden, the tears would well up in his eyes. Sweden was, after all, the nation of his birth. But America was the nation of his choice. This was the country that harnessed his desire to fight evil in the world, supported his desire to make something of his life, and provided him with safety and peace in his old age. This unwanted child of Europe became something worthwhile in America–and his story was not at all unusual. His immigrant experience was solidly typical of the experience of millions who left their own countries to seek something better–and found it in America.

And if you don’t think the Europeans are jealous of that, then you really are simple.

Have you ever noticed that there are places where you feel free to just walk on in, and other places where you always knock first? When I visit my Grandma, I never knock; I just walk on in and give her a big hug. I also learned that I could just walk into my mom-in-law’s house with a shout of “Who’s naked?” to let people know I was there. But when I visit my parents, I always knock first, and I don’t really know why. I certainly feel perfectly accepted in my parents’ home, so it is not as if there is some barrier of unkind feelings in place. The only thing I can possibly think that would explain the difference is the newness of my parents’ place. I guess it just does not feel like home to me.

In the not-so-distant past, people used to know their neighbors more than we do today. It was no big deal to pop over to the next-door neighbor to ask for a cup of milk or some eggs. But I think those days have passed us by. Do you have that type of relationship with your neighbors, or are you like most of us–too busy to just sit down and get to know them? There is something sad about how the times have changed this way. If you are like most people, you might recognize your neighbors, but you would be hard pressed to remember their names. And like most people, you probably keep the house locked up tight while you are home and away.

Would you mind if your neighbors felt comfortable enough in your home to just walk in uninvited? Would you care if they brought their friends with them or showed complete strangers how easy it was to waltz on into your unlocked home? If you are like me and a product of our times, the idea of someone unknown having access to the house gives you the heebie-jeebies. Now imagine that some nutcase has issued death threats against you and your family, and he has already been caught once burglarizing your home. Would you ever leave the doors unlocked? No! You would buy some extra deadbolts and install a potent security system. After all, we are talking about your family!

Right now, our nation is like an unlocked house. Every day illegal aliens cross the porous borders into our national home. If everyone were kind and thoughtful, then we would not mind them dropping by to say hello. But since there are people out there whose primary goal in life is to kill us, it is foolhardy to leave the doors open and let everyone into our nation. Before you think I am anti-immigrant, let me clearly state that I am not. I am all in favor of legal immigrants, as I am a descendant of legal immigrants. If you are a foreigner and you want to become a law-abiding citizen of the United States, I welcome you with open arms. But if you start off by breaking the law as you illegally sneak into this country, I do not have much faith that you will improve your outlook on our country and our laws. And if you are someone who has illegally crossed these borders, then I do not want you to remain in this country. I do not care whether you came from Mexico or Canada, Hong Kong or England. If you did not get here legally, then you are persona non grata, and I want you gone.

Is this harsh? No harsher than calling the cops to boot out someone who has broken into your home. I do not see a difference between the protection I want surrounding my home, and that which I want surrounding my nation. But not everyone sees it this way. My mom-in-law teaches grade school, and she knows which families are here illegally, but she cannot ask the parents or the kids if they are. If she did, she would be sued and possibly fired. Apparently this question violates their civil rights, but how does anyone have the civil right to do something illegal? This must somehow make sense in the minds of the liberals who drafted these laws and the loony ACLU who fought for these “rights.”

I once stood on a bridge crossing the Rio Grande, right on the painted line marking the border between the U.S. and Mexico. In the fifteen minutes I stood there and watched, I counted eight people wading through the low-running river and passing through a fence into the United States. One lady paid a kid to push her across the river in a little raft so she would not have the tell-tale wet pants of someone who had just waded the river. Multiply this scenario by the long length of the U.S.-Mexico border, and you may begin to get an idea of just how porous our borders are.

Governor Gray Davis of California signed the Illegal Alien Drivers’ License bill on Sept. 5, 2003. At that time he said, “They deserve the right to drive.” No, Governor, they do not deserve that right. They are not here legally, so they should not enjoy the privileges that come with legal status. Gov. Davis knows that this is a terrible idea, since he vetoed the bill twice already, but now that he is desperate to keep his governorship, he is blatantly catering to the Latino vote. And since the Motor-Voter laws make it simple to register to vote if you have a driver’s license, this opens up California to massive voter fraud. For this act alone, Gov. Davis should be removed from office. Harsh? Yes. But anyone who is this willing to throw open the doors to illegal aliens has violated his oath of office to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And this law makes it ridiculously easy for foreign enemies to gain a valid driver’s license in California and spread out through our home–the United States–to do their work of evil. I think it’s high time that we called the cops to kick them out of our home.