Thursday, June 7, 2007

Ann Coulter's "Roach Motel"

Ann Coulter's latest column presents some...let's call them interesting thoughts about the immigration bill. She gives some historical perspective of immigration policy in America as well.

Coulter also zeroes in on Ted Kennedy's role in setting the course of the country's immigration law.

Excerpts:

Republicans' defense of President Bush's immigration bill is more enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush's conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an unqualified woman's nomination to the highest court in the land. Now we're racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

I don't know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals' arguments usually are.

...In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation's demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an "Irish Need Not Apply" sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback's a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

...If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we're adopting an open borders policy for immigration, how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship — but you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom it plans to import under Bush's bill. That's not a free market — it's a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they've wrecked the country

I would say Coulter is sort of ticked off over this immigration stuff.

She's not the only one.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Once upon a time long long ago in a place far far away (Pacific Northwest) children waited in anticipation of that final school bell before summer vacation. Yes there would be family vacations and ball games but one activity always provided the time to socialize with friends, get some good exercise (no childhood obesity here), and the opportunity to get some much needed fruit in the diet all while making a little money for next years school clothes. Yes, it was strawberry picking time. Then the protectors decided that the children could be abused and made a law that none of the children could do this vile activity anymore. But it was alright for people from other places further away and have them do the work and also have their children do the work. They were so wise they knew that the children that could no longer pick strawberries had more important things to do like eating and playing games.

Mary said...

Excellent story!