A march for Amero-Americans

Finally a march for us Americans who refuse to become hyphenated partial-Americans.  On Thursday June 14th, come down to the state capital and let the politicians know that we support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.

In a historic event, for the first time Americans are gathering en mass across our Nation to converge upon Washington D.C. and their State capitols. An unprecedented number of groups/organizations and American citizens are marching forth in unity, to bring through united voices a message from the American public to the lawmakers that Americans need and demand the securing and protecting of their borders, legal citizens rights placed first and foremost, and an accurate accounting of illegal aliens within the United States of America before any comprehensive immigration enforcement can be set in place.

LFRA has published information on their website located at http://www.lframerica.com/march2.html March For America in regards to this historic event.

The March For America movement is open to any non-racist wishing to participate to come stand side-by-side with such groups as the Minutemen Civil Defense Corp, 9-11 Families For A Secured America, F.I.R.E. Coalition, Grassfire, NY ICE, You Don’t Speak For Me, and many others in D.C. and at various State capitols.


Comments

  1. As a FYI aside, June 14th is Flag Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Day_in_the_United_States

  2. kralmajales says

    It will be fascinating to see all of the folks with Eastern European, Irish and other heritages at this rally. Yes, they came over legally, but even with that faced the same discrimination that some of your rhetoric leads to with Hispanic Americans. You can’t tell me that you don’t look at almost every person with brown skin and that speaks Spanish in public as an illegal who doesn’t belong in America…or that they some how should carry a card that shows themselves to be a citizen, when you don’t have to.

    Legal or not, we imported MILLIONS of foreigners, Chinese and Irish, to build our railroads, Polish to build the infrastructure of our factories, etc. They came over on boats because we needed their labor.

    We need the labor of the 12 million illegals immigrants that are here now.

    So the question is, how are we going to change or immigration policy to get at this same generational work shortage reality that we faced in the late 1800s to early 1900s?

    Maybe we should let more in legally? An Ellis Island on the Southern border of the Us?

  3. kralmajales says

    Think about this for a second and I really don’t want to be offensive.

    We often talk on holidays about how lucky we are to be born in the Greatest Country on Earth.

    Well, we are lucky. For most of us Patriots, the only thing it takes to be an Amero-American is to be pushed out of your mommas womb on American soil? Its true…its that easy. Should we have a pathway to citizenship for those of us that are so lucky to be simply born?

    For that bit of luck, we get the protection of American laws, free speech, some care of our public institutions, a free education up until we leave high school, etc etc. We also, it appears, get the right to treat others who want to be here and who do much more than we do to get here, like trash.

    It sometimes seems a little sad and odd to me that so many of us take this for granted every day and how so many of us treat the people that want to be here…like most of our grandmothers and grandfathers. Most of them fled nations, like Mexico, that had poor economic circumstances, poor institutions, and poor freedom.

    I don’t know, but this immigration talk makes me want to kiss my mom and hug her that much harder for giving me my citizenship. Before that, I need to track down the grave of my immigrant grandparents who worked their tails off and endured the same type of anti-immigrant rhetoric…and they were legal.

  4. kral,

    You really hit home on a couple of those points. For those of us that were born here, when I see things like pictures of children in Darfur I cannot comprehend the complexity of that blessing. I am of mixed European and American Indian descent; my great grandmother signed away her land allotment rights to her brother when she married a white man. The attachment to something Indian was not a part of her new place in her new society. I am not sure of all the levels of discrimination and personal prejudice laid out in that but it is interesting.

    As for the current situation and that of the past; border security is the paramount issue. The migration of peoples from other countries becomes secondary in the current global community. The ability of our security to be safe and secure is the absolute priority NOT the ability of those who would choose to come here for whatever reason to achieve the American dream. What will become of the American dream if we are no longer America?

    How ironic that I write this while listening to the FBI press conference on the terrorist plot to strike JFK Airport.

  5. kralmajales says

    Thanks for your kind and thoughtful response Ann.

    I don’t believe the current policy, aimed at Mexicans and the Latinization of America, really is about catching terrorists though. That argument is used to clamp down on a border that costs billions of our taxes and is clearly not the most effective way to get at terrorism. See today’s example…which included it appears a former leader of Ghana(?) who wasn’t here illegally.

    Terrorists need weapons and the ability to plot on US soil. We do a good job at stopping this already..but we need to do more. The border argument takes time and resources from better and more effective ways at securing America. Today’s example, and that of the last at Fr. Dix (which included American citizens), is a good example of how well fight terrorism within our borders already. We need to do better.
    We need sounder security for tracking weapons, and a far better system for inspecting the containers entering the United States (the most serious of all things that could bring weapons…not people).

    Its funny…some Republicans argue container inspection is costly…and hard to do. But it can’t be harder than this and it would far more more effective than policing illegal entrants.

    Cheers Ann!

  6. What has made America strong is our assimilation of immigrants, the proverbial “melting pot”. People came to America for opportunity, adopted its culture and their children and grandchildren were accepted as Americans no differently than decendents of the Mayflower. That’s why today liberals speak of white and black people, not Italians, Jamaicans or Polish.

    The danger is multiculturalism. This liberal phenomenon has wrought disaster everywhere. Europe has created mini-cities of angry, unassimilated, and mostly Islamic populations. These groups share nothing with the European culture. And of course, even the white people in Europe don’t get along (French vs English, etc).

    In America, liberals oppose the integration of immigrants. Americans from Mexico are denied the same education — leaning english — as white kids. The result is the creation of a permanent underclass of cheap housekeepers for upper middle class white liberals in Scottsdale.

    It is the liberal politicians who want hyphenated Americans because it is easier to control their votes through a group identity. It is conservatives who judge people by their individual character.

    My grandmother was from Cuba. She was born and raised there and came to America when she was 30. She made it very clear to everyone she was 100% an American.

  7. Joe Baby says

    I have problems with the ease that Republicans (who claim to at least acknowledge economics if not understand it) use the “we need more workers” claim.

    But leaving that aside…

    If we do need more workers, why does it need also include citizenship?

    And why not find workers from countries that do not have numerous citizens who believe our land to be their own?

    I’ve proposed that many conservatives might have agreed with this bill if: (a) President Bush and other “reform” advocates had previously acknowledged the necessity of assimilation instead of seeming ashamed of the idea; OR, (b) they had a reasonable belief the enforcement measures would be fulfilled.

    So, despite paying a premium to educate the children of illegals, despite the demanding marches on communist holidays, despite the higher taxes and insurance rates…people might have accepted this legislation but for the lack of trust that anything difficult will be fulfilled. Some blogs are now saying the Bush Administration should now actually deport the criminal illegal aliens in our midst as a show of good faith, but it’s doubtful they will even do that. So be it then. Don’t ask us to sign on to something we all know is a sham.

    But even if this mess is a good idea, why do these folks get shoved to the front of the line? That’s the offensive thing. Don’t Romanians and Turks and Indonesians deserve the same consideration if we’re going to waive a wand and create citizens?

    Isn’t the truly bigoted position the one that AGREES with the legislation that gives a windfall benefit to one ethnic group?

  8. Frank Soto says

    This assimilation suggestion is proposterous. Have any of you ever been to Chicago or New York or Boston? You are telling me that you have never heard of areas called Little Italy? To suggest that when Europeans immigrated here they ‘assimilated’ into a melting pot instantly is flat out wrong. The United States did not require German immigrants to stop teaching in German at their public schools (See Meyer v. Nebraska). The only reason people want Hispanics to assimilate is Eurocentric racism.

  9. The only reason people want hispanics to learn english is so they will have the same opportunities as everyone else. Its liberals who want to them separate, away from everyone else and not part of the culture — and poor. Go to Europe to see the effects of multiculturalism.

    Throwing charges or racism around only shows how your position has no merit.

    Chad — an American of Cuban, Scottish, Irish and Indian descent.

  10. Frank Soto says

    I don’t get it Chad- you are denying that we have/had multi-culturalism in our country? You don’t believe that there are numerous areas of the country where there are such things called “China Town” “Little Italy” “Greek Town” “Lithuanian Village” etc.? Do I think that is best? No. But people seem to have this odd notion that Europeans the moment they arrived in America all merged together nice and easily, and so we should expect Hispanics to do the same.

    Everyone should absolutely learn English. At the same time, it could probably be said that everyone should learn Spanish.

    “Liberals… not part of *the* culture.” Um, please inform me of *the* culture that this ENTIRE country embraces, apparantly besides Hispanics. Is it the elitist culture of the Northeast? The more laid back culture of the southwest? Maybe the racist culture of much of the south? Maybe the gangster culture of the inner city? Native American culture?- they were here first after all.

    I think you misunderstand the racist charge. It is not that I think that you are particularly racist in the ‘hatred of other races’ way. I think that many have bought into the institutional racism that advocates for traditional caucasion eurocentric worldview as being what is ‘best for all.’ You are right, our INSTITUTIONS currently run that way, so pragmatically speaking, it is to Hispanics advantage to learn how to work within that institution. However, that does not make that ‘culture’ objectively correct, as the culture DOES change consistently. If you think that the people that wrote E Pluribus Unum have the same culture as we do today…

    What is interesting to me is that people also seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are illegals, maybe even substantial numbers of illegals, from other countries, but because they are white, no one suspects them. See e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/nyregion/30yale.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

  11. Oro Valley Dad says

    OK, Frank. I’ll stipulate that America never was one big melting pot but has always been a “salad bowl.” I have been to many east coast cities, San Francisco, etc. From these travels and from my time growing up in Phoenix essentially you are correct.

    But did the people living in their ethnic enclaves come here legally or illegally? If they are here legally I say welcome no matter what you skin color, ethnic background, or country of origin. If they came here illegally they have broken U.S. law and should return home and get in line like the rest of the law-abiding immigrants.

    Can we still advocate for the rule of law? Or is that considered racist?

  12. Frank Soto says

    Sure, you can advocate for the rule of law. I would challenge the assumption that many of the “original” immigrants, or further waves of immigration however came here legally. Surely many did. But, equal numbers, if not more than the current hispanic illegals came over illegally as well.

    To be consistent, I assume that you would want to make sure that the 100s of thousands of Irish and Eastern bloc immigrants that did not come legally should be made to leave as well, is that correct?

    The argument based on them being here illegally, and it not being fair that they get to ‘jump’ in front of others is valid. An assimilation argument is just plain wrong, that was my only point…

  13. Joe Baby says

    Assimilation has always been a choice, but we’ve now mutated to the point that our governmental bodies offer incentives not to assimilate, and politicians ignore when activists threaten to permanently violate American sovereignty.

    A German immigrant a century ago didn’t get a ballot printed in German.

    It costs Arizona taxpayers more to educate an ESL kid than our own children. If that’s not outrageous, then you’ve got no pulse.

    If assimilation were still encouraged, this issue would probably be moot. But with people effectively advocating balkanization, or that we break into our little cantons, the argument is less about immigration and more about what fundamentally is the American civic experience.

  14. Frank Soto says

    A) The German immigrant example is actually from the 1950s (again, see e.g. Meyer v. Nebraska).

    B) You’ll have to explain to me which definition of ‘balkanization’ you are using here. Are you using it to meanwe will break into hostile states? That trading would break down? That communication issues would cause us to essentially be different countries? Can you explain to me how these results are not essentially the effects of effective federalism in letting the states decide on their own how they should deal with non-english speaking students, et. Note: I said results, not philosohpy. I understand the tenents are the same, but how are the results different?

    C) Costs more money for ESL kids: Hm, this is an intersting emprical claim that is probably hard to back up. Costs more than educating african american children in central L.A.? Probably not. I would have to see the stastical method used to come up with a figures. Are we using solely imput dollars as a measurement, excluding output dollars? It might cost more to teach ESL kids upfront, but what does the ROI look like? Almost all studies ignore this aspect.

    Further, it costs more to educate your child because you have higher expectations of what your child is taught (which is of course good). Does that mean because it costs more to educate your child due to YOU that your child should actually receive less of an education?

    D) “Fundamentally is *the* American civic experience.” That’s a beautiful phrase… but what does it mean? Is it the civic experience of Thomas Jefferson, the gentleman farmer who owns many slaves to do the real work? Is it Alexander Hamilton, the immigrant (Gasp) working hard, and becoming an advocate of the city, national debt, and banking?

    E) Violate American sovereignty. I think that this is probably the only argument that is valid (which is conceptually the same as the they have broken the law argument). That is what I would like to get across, but am sure I will not, is that arguments based on Assimilation, Costs, *culture*, language, etc are fundamentally inconsistent, and only make conservatives look ignorant/ or ‘wilfully blind.’

  15. A few thoughts:

    The Chinatown, Little Italy examples speak to the maintenance of the culture of their originating heritage while assimilating into the American culture. The food, language, festivals, etc are from their past. But their future was dependant upon learning the language, the cultural mores, and the acceptance of the way of life into which they came without demands of change to their old ways by the rest of the existing, legal citizens and they accepted that reality and led their lives accordingly.

    As to education; many of the immigrant children coming from Mexico and Latin American countries are entering our schools illiterate in both languages. They are monolingual and illiterate, non-readers or writers in their native languages. Teaching them to understand the non-verbal communication of reading and writing THEN teaching them to transfer that to another language is very expensive. The Flores case that continues to plague Arizona is founded on that very thing; a study done by the state in response to a claim that the state was not properly funding bilingual (at that time, now ELL) education. The state took the position they were; their own study said they weren’t. It revealed that the cost to properly and effectively educate a non-English speaker is much more than an English speaking child of any background.

  16. OVD, I have to disagree with you. By the second or third generation, immigrants are assimilated into the US’ language and customs. Yes, there is still that subgroup identity, as mi abuelita de Cuba can attest, but that is no different from the northeast or southern subculture?

    We have been Americans first, yankees, rebs, Polish, Venezuelans second. Unfortunately, thanks to people like Frank we are balkanizing, not uniting ourselves (As Joe Baby said above).

    Frank, if the US is so racist, why does all the world want to come here? When have you heard an American crowd boo Miss Mexico or the Mexican soccer team. Look in the mirror my friend.

  17. Oro Valley Dad says

    Frank,

    Sure, not every immigrant has come here legally but if some Irishman sneaked in from Canada in 1874 there is not much we can do about it now. If some one from Ireland came here illegally in 1982 and is hiding out in Boston then the law should be applied to him the same as to someone who entered illegally from Mexico.

    A strong employment verification program would catch both. Many border security advocates that are being tagged as racist are actually advocating a level of enforcement that would also catch illegal immigrants from Europe.

    Chad,

    “By the second or third generation, immigrants are assimilated into the US’ language and custom.” Not all of them. And what is the US’ language? Is it English of Boston blue bloods? Or Spanish from Tucson that was part of Mexico until 1853? Or Spanish from Florida that was originally settled by Spain? Or Chinese from the immigrants in San Francisco? Or Navaho or Hopi for those who have been in Arizona longer than most of us?

    And what exactly is US custom? There is a loaded term.

  18. Frank Soto says

    Well, we probably aren’t going to agree (which oddly proves the point I am making).

    You are using circular logic Chad. “American” culture is what is needed, uniting means having the same culture: which is what is defined as “American.” What IS IT?! Describe it for me please. Chad, I highly recommend you come to another city for a longer stay, and you will see that MANY China Towns consist of people that are 5th and 6th generation that have not conformed to whatever it is that you think they are supposed to conform to.

    “Frank, if the US is so racist, why does all the world want to come here?”

    Two responses. 1) I think you are misunderstanding the difference between individual racism and institutional racism. There is probably much less of the former (thankfully) and just a tad bit less of the latter around today. Please try to understand that they are different.
    2) Was this country not extremely racist when people were immigrating from European countries? People hated the Irish in Chicago. People hated the Polish. For a good reading on this, read “The Pharoah” which is about Mayor Daley I of Chicago. What kind of argument even is that Chad?

    Ann- is the ESL education more expensive upfront? Probably. What about 10 years after? 20? 30?

    We need border security for national security, respecting our national sovereignty, etc. THOSE are arguments that are valid. This whole culture assimilation is self-referential Eurocentricism.

  19. ESL education is more expensive for however long it takes the child to become both fluent and literate in English, which can be years. If they are illiterate in their native language, the process can be lengthy. If they are not supported by English and a literacy rich environment, it can be even more so. Language acquisition is not the only cost associated with non-English speakers in our schools; Arizona law only gives a 3 year period to bring them to language proficiency, which can be done. But now the challenge comes to get them to grade level in the knowledge areas in the new language. The great majority of American children come to school very much aware of words, letters, and oral language. The average child has a large vocabulary of written word recognition before ever actually learning to read; so the child that enters with needs in both language and environment can be a real challenge. Reading remediation, content area reinforcement; will they be in school longer, will they become frustrated and drop out? How much the cost? Good question, Frank.

    As a side note; there are more Anglo children in poverty from illiterate environments entering American schools than that of all the minority children combined. Now there’s a can of worms!

  20. Lets cut to the chase.

    Of course there were always enclaves of ethnic groups, however, at no time in our history was therea time when one particular group was taking that enclave mentality into a planned take over of parts of America.

    This invasion is led and strongly supported by leaders like La Raza, MECHA, etc. whose goal is the tearing apart of the American culture which is a compilation of many different cultures.

    If you can’t understand the peril this presents to the very foundations of our country, you are either complicit or blind.

    Assimilation has never meant totally losing your heritage, but it has always been the goal of immigrants to become a part of America and to have complete allegiance to our system of government and all that comes with that.

    This invasion is not of that stripe and must be fought in order to preserve the very benefits that make America the magnet for immigrants from around the world.

    A little awareness of the motives of the Mexican government and a large percentage of the lawbreakers now among us would be helpful.

  21. Frank Soto says

    “Of course there were always enclaves of ethnic groups, however, at no time in our history was therea time when one particular group was taking that enclave mentality into a planned take over of parts of America.”

    You are kidding, right? The KKK? Communists? Aaron Burr? The response to these might be- exactly! We need to get rid of these counter-cultural (or anti-currently accepted cultural) groups. But what about other situations… say the civil war? Besides slavery (which we all should know was an incidental matter for the war) the difference was large central government, against loose federation (get it… confederacy?) of the states. I assume that since you are a conservative you are pro-state’s rights.

    Don’t conservatives constantly argue that the ‘elites’ have taken over the Universities? So which is it GOP PK? You can’t argue both ways on this one. Either cultures HAVE attempted to take over largue populaces of the government (sometimes we think that is good, sometimes we think that is bad (think abortion!)), how do you decide ex ante which is good?

  22. Frank Soto says

    Hey Ann,

    Honest question. What do you think about this article:

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/columns/articles/0602roberts0602.html

    It’s in regards to certain children costing more to educate than others. Thanks.

  23. Frank,
    I don’t think that you can point out a particular ethnic minority where the majority have now entered the country illegally and have established mainline organizations openly advocating the takeover of major parts of our country and turning them over to a foreign country.

    I know it is troublesome, but the original context was based on an ethnic invasion, I think. Sorry, not acceptable to change the point of the debate in the middle.

  24. Frank Soto says

    Well, I guess I could just use the stereo-typical retort right(?): The original Europeans were illeal, established mainline organizations that openly advocated the taking of the Native American’s country and turning them over.

    I don’t like the argument. I guess the rule you have to make here is to probably admit that what we did was wrong (at least I hope most people think that is the case…), but there is no way to pragmatically change it now, whereas we can prevent it from occurring again by another group.

    I wonder though if you happen to support when the U.S. still does this today… say Iraq? Ah, different situation, horrible dictator, crimes against humanity, etc.

    Oh, how about how we actually did this to baja California and Arizona, and maybe those lands actually are originally theirs, but I guess since our conquest was successful, too difficult to turn back time now. Do you support Israel?

    I guess this is a hard situation, because no matter what position we take we are led to contradiction in either historical policy, current domestic policy, or foreign policy. Oh well, I’m a pragmatist of the Dewey variety, so I can join ya. What works is right (objectively). America works the way it is, therefore it is right. Good. OK, it’s later here on another coast, I should prepare for other things!

  25. Oro Valley Dad says

    Frank,

    You know your history but let’s take it all the way.

    We give California back to Mexico who took it by force from Spain who took it by force from several Native American tribes who stole the land from all the different animals that were living there before man arrived. So we should depopulate California so that the wild animals that first occupied the area can roam free once again.

  26. Joe Baby says

    We can backpeddle this discussion all the way to “is murder wrong?”

    Yes, it is, and we enforce it. And to allow certain individuals to dodge laws, cut in line, falsify information, use an unfair share of benefits, etc., is to justify tyranny. Perhaps it can be justified via ad hominem attacks, “we need more worker” rationales, or irredentist crapola, but it’s still tyranny.

    And the scary thing isn’t that some people have no problem with two sets of rules, or with continually justifying why certain groups will no longer follow those rules…the truly scary thing is at some point, no one will.

  27. Frank Soto says

    yes! This is great, Peter Singer would be so proud! 🙂

    You are absolutely right OVD, that’s why I said (and I actually wasnt being sarcastic) that at some point you just have to be pragmatic and draw the line, i have no problem with that- just want to make sure that people realize that is what they are doing.

    Joe Baby: is murder wrong? Yes. Do we enforce it… well- it depends. Was there a mitigating factor (“heat of passion,” “diminished capacity” etc.). Was there a justification? (self-defense, defense of others, defense of habitation?). There is discretion ALL OVER the laws, especially criminal law because we can’t take the same type of arguments against it for economic efficiency like we can in Torts and just deal with administration costs, transaction costs, and Coasian economics. Same with the immigration laws is what some people are saying, we use discretion everywhere, it is intellectually dishonest to say that it CAN’T be used here.

    Don’t worry so much about the slippery slope, the Government will always enforce laws when it feels truly threatened… or make new ones! 😉

  28. Frank,

    That article is not truly about the costs of educating some children; it is about the use of vouchers for children with disabilities.

    There are many different categories of students with special needs. They have a weight that is used to determine the amount of funding based on the severity of disabling condition. One area that is highly overlooked and severely under funded is special education. The federal laws governing special education and the needs of many children force schools to subsidize the cost of educating these children, whose right to education is not in question, with the dollars from regular ed students.

    Back to the point of the orienting post; a child who is found to be in need of special ed services will receive them regardless of legal status just like all other students who wish to enter our schools.

    Remember, the requirement for a student to enter our schools without recognition of legal status is a federal law. How ironic!

  29. Joe Baby says

    What are the mitigating factors for not charging folks with violation of immigration laws and laws regarding documents, social security numbers, etc.?

    Mistake? Do people not know where the border is?

    Accident? Do folks accidentally cross the border while bird watching?

    Is there a heat of passion defense for using someone’s social security number, or do people not pay their car insurance because of diminished capacity?

    One of the central arguments by those against this legislation is that, contrary to those who say we can’t enforce the laws, enforcement has never been serious, and there’s no reason to think it will be the day after the legislation is signed.

    Respect for the law is absolutely necessary for a free country and individual liberty. After all, what’s to stop me from encroaching on a Z visa holder and using the “it’s a bad law, should be reformed” defense?

  30. Frank Soto says

    Hm, that’s actually a really interesting question Joe Baby. Typically the “bad law” defense would be something like a Due process challenge or Equal Protection Challenge. I wonder what a Due Process challenge would look like (I assume there have been cases, but I admit I am not familiar with immigration laws, I have been mostly just having fun here :)). I know some people would say that non-citizens don’t have constitutional protections at all, but there are plenty of conservative/libertarian con law scholars who would argue that Due Process is given to all “persons” within our control (i.e. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School).

    My point was not to literally analogize to murder defenses, but to point out that the law does sometimes justify and excuse law breaking behavior. Maybe a duress defense? Hm, probably specious. Just to say, there has been discretion in the system (like the fact that you have probably criminally sped before, lied on a time sheet [federal offense btw], etc.). The question is not whether it is OK to use the discretion, but SHOULD we use it? You say absolutely no, I say there might be more to be considered. Reasonable minds can differ. Or maybe most would consider me unreasonable on this site, and that’s probably fair. 🙂

Leave a Reply to Chad Cancel reply