Death of the West

Part 6. New Reconquista

The American Southwest seems to be slowly and without firing a shot returned to the jurisdiction of Mexico. Central Mexican newspaper "Excelsior"

Mexico … historically opposed to the United States, Mexicans, to put it mildly, not like its northern neighbor. They believe that we are deprived of their legitimate half of the country territory. Therefore, there is a significant difference in relation to the United States in the "old immigrants" — the Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans — and today's immigrants from Mexico. Today, the U.S. citizens of Mexican descent make up at least one fifth of the total population of the country, plus at least one million is added to their number every year, this implies that we must understand and take into account the difference between the old and new immigrants, between yesterday and today America.

1. From Mexico comes to us most of all immigrants. During the 1990s, the number of U.S. citizens with Mexican origin, has doubled — up to twenty-one million (this does not include six million "Latinos", carefully avoided meeting the scribes of the population). Most of the "Mexican Americans' lives in the South-West, against the wishes of the founding fathers who offered to distribute evenly immigrants throughout the country, in order to facilitate assimilation.

2. Mexicans not only a culture — for the most part they belong to a different race, and the history and everyday experience suggest that people of different races more difficult to assimilate than "kin by race." Sixty million U.S. citizens applying for German origin, assimirovalis we totally can not be said about the millions of immigrants from Asia and Africa, and still do not have equal rights with whites.

3. Millions of Mexicans are on our territory illegally. To get into the U.S., they went to break the law — and continue to violate its day-to-day. Each year in the country, according to expert estimates, sneaks up to 1.6 million illegal immigrants — most of them just by "bleeding" the southern border.

4. Unlike the immigrants of the past, forever to say goodbye to homeland before to board the ship, the Mexicans did not break off ties with their homeland. Millions of them have no desire to learn English or take American citizenship — their home is Mexico, not America, and they pride themselves on the fact that remain Mexicans. To us they came for work. Instead of gradually assimilate, they create in American cities "little Tijuana" — as well as all Cubans with their "Little Havana" in Miami. The difference between Mexicans and Cubans only in the fact that America's first twenty times more than the latter. They have their own radio and television broadcasting, their own newspapers, movies, magazines, and now Mexican-Americans in the United States create a Spanish-speaking culture very different from the U.S.. That is actually becoming a nation within a nation.

5. Mexican immigration wave rolled the now no longer on the America which hosted the Europeans. Our minority belief originated in the theses of racial justice and ethnic equality. These theses support and cultural elite, which rejected the idea of America as a "melting pot" and called for the charms multkulturalizma. Today, ethnic minorities "strongly recommended" to adhere to national identity — of course, because of this we are seeing a surge of nationalism. "Internationalism 1960s, has died — writes Glenn Garvin in the magazine" Reason ". — Sign liberalism of the 1990s — segregation disguised as a policy of compliance with identities. " Say Calvin Coolidge today his famous phrase: "America must remain American", it would be accused of "hate crime."

Samuel P. Huntington, author of the book "The Clash of Civilizations", calls immigration "major scourge of our time." Immigrants, he divides into "treatment", arrived in order to assimilate into our society, and the "favorites" who came under contract for several years. "New immigrants from the south — says Huntington — not addressed and not temporary. They run between Carolina and Mexico, supporting dual identity and engaging in the process of their families. " Backed by a figure of 1.6 million people who were arrested each year for attempting to thwart the Rio Grande, Huntington warns

"If more than a million Mexican soldiers will pass our border, the U.S. will perceive it as a threat to national interests and react accordingly. However, the peaceful invasion of millions of Mexicans, as if sanctioned by President Vicente Fox, is no less a threat to America, and it is also the United States must respond adequately. Mexican immigration is unique in its essence, it is a direct threat to our identity and cultural integrity, and, perhaps, our national security. "

But U.S. leaders are not in a hurry to respond "adequately", despite the fact that the next public opinion poll showed 72 percent of the population in favor of reducing immigration, the data of another survey conducted in July 2000, according to 89 percent of U.S. citizens support the demand for recognition English the only official language of the United States. People want action from the authorities, but the elite does not take anything. We boast that we are a "last superpower", but we lack the determination to defend our borders and require compulsory assimilation of immigrants into society.

Perhaps the shared love of the dollar will help overcome the cultural gap, and in the future we will live happily together — as citizens, "the first universal nation," in the words of one author. But Uncle Sam is very, very risk taking on its territory diaspora of tens of millions of people belonging to other than white Americans, race. If we admit the mistake, correct it will not be possible — and our children will be felt by all questionable "charm" Balkanization, error would mean the destruction of the America we know. "If assimilation does not happen — says Huntington — United States turned to the country on a fault line, potentially ready for civil war." So is it worth the risk? For what we are going to take that risk?

Western states are already passing through the decay of culture on ethnic grounds. The separatist movement tore apart the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, now they are trying to divide France, Spain and Italy. In 2001, Germany began the celebrations in honor of the ancient Prussia. In the UK, "Union Jack" on the doors of the taxi and the logo of the World Cup have replaced a medieval cross of St. George. People are becoming less and less identify with the nation-state — and more and more to the family and family. In the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have the Independence Party, while 14 percent of the population of British Columbia in favor of secession from Canada.

The President Fox has put forward the idea of creating the North American Union on the basis of Canada, Mexico and the United States, refers to the complete opening of the border for goods and people. "Wall Street Journal" highly praised the proposal.

However, Mexico's GDP is five thousand dollars per capita is only a fraction of the U.S. GDP, and the difference in income between U.S. citizens and Mexicans — the most significant on the planet are located next door to each other big countries.

With the termination in 1993 of NAFTA, real incomes in Mexico fell by 15 percent. Half of Mexico's population lives in poverty, eighty million people marooned, having a day less than two dollars, while the minimum wage in the U.S. is close to fifty dollars a day. One has only to open the border, and millions of Mexicans will flood into the United States in search of a better life. Does the world there is nothing more important to the economy?

Our prior view of Mexicans as a friendly, conservative people who hold traditionalist Catholicism and belief, today is no longer the case. Of course, in the U.S. there are millions of Mexican-Americans, who for the first call of the Government and the President of the United States with weapons in their hands will protect our interests. Of course, the real American can be anyone from any country, on any continent — that we have repeatedly urged the story.

However, demographic changes in the American South, particularly in California, where a quarter of the state's population belongs to non-Native Americans, and a third are "Latinos", gave rise to a new ethnic chauvinism. A few years ago, our football team played at the stadium "Coliseum" in Los Angeles with the Mexican team in the performance of the U.S. national anthem audience whistled and cheered, the U.S. flag was lowered from the flagpole, and the command and few fans threw water bombs, beer bottles and garbage.

Two years ago the town of El-Cenis in south Texas declared its "urban" in Spanish, the mayor ordered that from now on all the paperwork was conducted in Spanish, and that the language used in any urban business. Any assistance the United States in addition to the immigration authorities were forbidden under pain of dismissal and exile. El-Cenis is actually separated from the United States.

In the state of New Mexico in 2001 discussed the issue of renaming the state of Nuevo Mexico, that is, the return of the name, the area wore to his inclusion in the American Union. Bill to rename fails, the initiator of the bill, Rep. Miguel Garcia, said in an interview that the reason for this — a "secret racism" in the same, which stood for giving the state its present name.

The spirit of separatism, nationalism and fragmentation is growing in areas of large cities, villages Hispanics. Organization of Latin American Students MEShA Mexico demands the return of the Southwestern territories. Charles Trujillo, professor at the University of New Mexico and the researcher "Chicano problems," argues that the formation of the new Aztlan with its capital in Los Angeles inevitable, and that the Mexicans need to achieve this in all possible ways.

"We have to re-colonize America because we are afraid. Now is time to take what is rightfully ours, "- says Ricky Sierra of Chicano National Guard. One of the leaders of the demonstration in Westwood exclaims: "We have … to show white Protestants Los Angeles: We have more! .. We demand the return of our land! They always belong to us … If someone is deported and hence, it is not us, but you! "

Jose Angel Gutierrez, a political science professor at the University of Texas (Arlington), director of the Center for American Studies-Mexican cooperation, said at the rally: "White America is aging. They have no more children are born. They are dying. Our strength is in our numbers. They tremble with fear — and I like it! "

Of course, all these statements are similar to conversations over a beer in the cantina, but sounded similar notes and official statements, which happily echo the Latin Quarter. In 1998, the Consul General of Mexico, Jose Pescador Osuna, said: "I was joking to a certain extent, but in every joke there is a grain of truth. So, in my opinion, we are experiencing Reconquista in California. " A California legislator Art Torres called the amendment 187, depriving illegal immigrants of social protection, "the last convulsions of white America."

"California will be the Mexican state. We take all the authorities. If someone does not like it, let the leaves "- pronounced Mario icing, president of the League of Latin American unity, winner of the Medal of Freedom, handed to him by President Clinton. And the president of Mexico, Ernesto Cedillo appealed to Americans of Mexican descent in Dallas with these words: "You — Mexicans, Mexicans who live north of the border."

Why Mexican Immigrants should experience at least a semblance of loyalty to the country, where they had moved only in search of work? And why nationalist and patriotic Mexicans do not dream of their own Reconquista?

Take, for example, a student organization MEShA, which the Department of the University of California Los Angeles, led a few years ago, a certain Antonio Villaraigosa, who in 1991 did not have forty thousand votes to become the mayor of Los Angeles. MEShA abbreviation stands for Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, ie the Chicano student movement of Aztlan. What it seeks? If you use them in your own words, the members of MEShA demanding the return of the "land of the fathers" stolen "during the invasion of the evil gringos on our territory." MEShA manifesto reads:

"The heart in his hands, his hands in his native land! We declare the independence of our country metisnye. We — bronze people with a bronze cannons! Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are talking about — we are the people, we are a country of true pueblo, we — atstlane. "

Plan (E1 R1an) MEShA states: "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, planting and watering harvests, not outsiders-Europeans. We do not recognize the unstable frontier on the bronze continent. " MEShA slogan: "Ror la Raza todo. Fuera de la Raza nada »; that is," All of our race and anything — for them. "

MEShA demands the U.S. restitution, damages brought by an "economic slavery, political exploitation, ethnic, cultural, and psychological oppression and deprivation of civil and human rights." The manifesto MEShA says:

"Political emancipation is possible only through our own, independent activities, as a two-party system is a monster with two heads, feeding from a single feeder. Where we are in the majority, we will control; wherever we are a minority, we will become a source of tension, in terms of nationality, we — one party, la Famillia de Raza ».

In addition, MEShA said her character must be an eagle with outstretched wings, clutching in one paw macahuittle, in the other — marijuana cigarette, and in its beak holding a lighted wick. "

MEShA theory, in fact, is a theory of the superiority of the Aryan race over the other — in the form of Chicano, yet this organization, there are four thousand units in the Southwest, up to Cornell and Ann Arbor. All their rhetoric — "metisnye race", "bronze people", "bronze culture", "bronze continent", "race above all" — is openly racist and anti-American. The fact that Villaraigosa took part in the election of the mayor of the second largest city in America, and while he did not have anybody to explain his relationship to MEShA, once again confirms that the major media in the U.S. "moral subject" to any minority, be it ethnic, sexual or any more, unless it proves that the acts of the victim or other harassment.

And nowhere ethnic minority do not achieve such success in Texas. MEShA efforts in the state has declined substantially solemnity, if not pathos with which the United States decided to celebrate Independence Day. In 2000, the University of Texas' arranged a private event to raise money for a holiday, and it did not report his conduct virtually anyone … "

Meanwhile, the invasion continues. Once a sleepy Mexican-American border length two thousand miles now become an arena of daily hassles. Ranch in Arizona are used by thousands of strangers bivouacs that break down fences, poison livestock and reserve along the road to the north of the long trail of garbage. Even the Mexican army treat us with contempt: according to the State Department for five years, there has fifty five incidents involving military units, and in 2000, something happened at all unimaginable in its audacity — Mexican soldiers in trucks have broken through the barriers of barbed wire, fired patrol, and then for some time pursued the two patrol officers. Border Patrol agents believe that the individual officers Mexican army cooperating with drug cartels.

America has become a haven for the excess population that Mexico itself is not able to feed. Mexico's population grows at a rate of ten million people in ten years, so it is easy to assume that after a certain time, the American Southwest completely "ispaniziruetsya." Mexican Senator Adolfo Zinser believes that "Mexico's economic policy is based on the continuous emigration to the United States." Anti-American, a former communist Jorge Kastenyada, gave up six years ago an interview with "Atlantic Monthly" and warned that any attempt by the U.S. to prevent the immigration "will lead to a social explosion in Mexico … U.S. did not approve of immigration, but can not do anything about it." Given that today Senator Zinser — Advisor to President Fox's national security, and Jorge Kastenyada — Minister of Foreign Affairs, we had better listen to them.

At Fox, Zinser and Kastenyade Mexican politics is expressed in direct support of illegal immigration to the United States. There was even founded an organization "Mexicans Abroad", the organization is helping illegal immigrants avoid meetings with U.S. border guards in the deserts of Arizona and California, provides refugees "first aid kit" — water, dried meat, medicines, bandages, condoms, and these kits are distributed free of charge to Mexican cities and villages, and at the same time tells you where to go to California to no questions asked and documents to get public assistance. In short, today led invasion of Mexico in the United States, and we do not respond then that "adequate" — a fearful silence and shyly avert our eyes.

Most of all, it attracts Mexicans California, meanwhile sociologist William Gray said reverse migration of African Americans and Anglo-Saxons from the Golden State to the places on the map of the country that are similar to cities and towns, where he spent his childhood and youth of these people. Other Californians are moving to closed condominiums. Yes, the state is not able to control their own borders, no longer a state in the true sense of the word — this is another Ronald Reagan warned twenty years ago.

Concerns about radical changes in the ethnic composition of the U.S. population to be called "unpatriotic." However, let us remember the patriot Benjamin Franklin, who once asked: "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the British, to become a colony of aliens, who will soon flood the germaniziruyut and an all around? '. Franklin did not get to see how his fears were justified: the German immigration was interrupted by the Seven Years' War.

President Theodore Roosevelt warned: "The only absolutely reliable way to lead this country to ruin, to deprive it of any opportunity to prevail as the State's permission is nationalistic speeches."

Immigration — an acute problem that needs immediate attention, because the question is, and who we Americans are, in fact, are they? Like the Mississippi, leisurely, long and life-giving, immigration has enriched America in many ways, what will not forget our history. But when the Mississippi overflows its banks, the devastation is monstrous … In general, because of the triumph of political correctness today to discuss immigration and condemn not accepted. It is believed that only the "nationalists" or "xenophobes" may be dissatisfied with the policy that attracts a lot of people in the United States of different colors, different upbringing and different faiths. Meanwhile, the water in the river, if you remember the comparison with the Mississippi rises higher. What will happen to our country if this water will spill its banks?

At the end of 1999, the author of these lines has left Tucson and headed south-east to Douglas, Arizona border town with a population of eighteen thousand people. Douglas has long become a major outpost of illegal immigration from Mexico. Only in March 1999, the Border Patrol was expecting the penetration into the United States twenty-seven thousand Mexicans, that is, illegally crossed the border last month and a half of the population of Douglas!

Located in Douglas, I paid a visit Therese Murray, vosmidesyatidvuhletney widow who lives in Arizona with his birth. Her ranch surrounded by an iron fence height of seven feet, which stretches over barbed wire, on every door and every window, iron shutters and highly sensitive alarm system. Mrs. Murray is sleeping with thirty-two-caliber pistol on the nightstand because illegals walking in on her in the house at least three dozen times. Previously, she relied on their dogs, but those were hassled — someone threw over the fence meat, literally stuffed with broken glass. In other words, Therese Murray survives life in the high-security prison — and it is in their own home in their own country! And all because the U.S. government does not have enough determination to do as required by law, and to ensure adequate protection of the borders of the United States.

If America is concerned about something and this "something" — freedom. But Therese Murray confessed to me: "I lost my freedom. I can not even leave the house without asking someone to keep an eye on everything while I'm away. We used to cross the border, when we want to. We've learned that Mexicans work for us. And living here has always been fun and enjoyable. And now here living hell. That's right, a living hell. "

Therese Murray, and many other Americans, having lost the freedom to live as hell, and American soldiers defending the border between Korea, Kuwait and the autonomous region of Kosovo. But is it possible to compare the risk to which they are, being half a world away from home, so the risks faced by U.S. citizens who live on the border with Mexico? At the very edge of that night cross army of thousands, moving north to the great cities of the Great America. Between the enemy raids and immigration is only one difference: the enemies will come and go, and immigrants will remain …

Whosoever shall lose the Reagan coalition?

Quarter of a century, from 1968 to 1992, the Republican party had the "right of first night" for the U.S. presidency. "The new majority", created by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan revived, gave Republicans five wins in six presidential elections. Victory brought attraction to the traditional Republican base of two democratic block — Catholics from the northern states and the southern white Protestants. Mr. Nixon lure of electoral promises, and what is called "political ritual incantations" to the glory of patriotism, populism and social konservatorstva. The success cemented the Republicans in the industrial states and "primordial South", which was considered the pillar of democracy since Appomattox. Over the years, a "coalition of the Nixon-Reagan" began to look almost invulnerable. McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis gained 90 percent of the vote to blacks, but the Republicans have always had 60 percent of the votes of white, which was more than 90 per cent of the total number of electors, so the victory was always the Republican Party.

This was the "southern strategy." Press called her immoral Democrats cooperated with the segregationist, especially Adlai Stevenson. Outside of Missouri — the state border with a thrust to the South — Stevenson in 1956 obeyed only "diksikratovskie states» (Dixiecrat States — from jargon «dixiecrat», «Democrat from the southern states." — Approx. Trans.), Who joined later, and to George Wallace.

Neither Nixon nor Reagan did not support segregatsionizm. As vice president, Nixon campaigned for civil rights much more active than the Senators John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. His role in the victorious passage through the Senate of the Civil Rights Act (1957) was noted in a congratulatory letter from Martin Luther King, who praised the "tireless work" Vice President Nixon and his "fearlessness of purpose."

A quarter-century Democrats were not able to compete with the Republicans for the presidency because they could not take away from the Republicans at least part of the white vote of the U.S. population. With the exception of jingoistic support of Lyndon Johnson in 1964, none of the Democrats after Harry Truman (1948) failed to win electoral votes in white. However, with the adoption in 1965 of the Immigration Act Republican monopoly on the presidency has been broken.

During the anti-Soviet uprising in East Berlin in 1953, the German Communist playwright Bertolt Brecht asks the question: "Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and change to another? '. In the last thirty years, America has to import new voters — and themselves Republicans overwhelmingly support an immigration policy that provides a flow of votes from the "third world" in the democratic camp, and at the same time weakens "the Republican grip" demonstrated by the Nixon-Reagan coalition.

In 1996, the Republicans got what they wanted. Six of the seven states with the largest number of immigrants — California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas — voted for Clinton. In 2000, five of the seven states voted for Gore, and Florida earned a draw. Of the fifteen states with the largest number of non-indigenous Bush lost ten. However, of the ten states with the lowest number of strangers — Montana, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia, South Dakota, North Dakota, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas — Bush won all ten.

Among the states with the largest number of immigrants was considered the only Texas prorespublikanski minded, but today he is on the way California. In the 1990s, Texas has 3.2 million new residents, and the proportion of the Hispanic population of the state increased from 25 to 33 percent. Latinos now make up the ethnic majority in four major Texas cities — Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso. "White Anglo-Saxons soon become an ethnic minority in Texas" — a headline appeared recently in the newspaper "New York Times". The share of the Anglo-Saxon state's population declined from 60 percent in 1990 to 53 percent in 2000, and that's really the day when the Anglo-Saxons again become an ethnic minority, as it was before the Alamo. "Calculations show — stated in the newspaper" Dallas Morning News "- that by 2005, less than half of Texas residents are white."

And America as a whole is moving behind California and Texas. "In 1960, the population of the United States was 88.6 percent white, in 1990 the proportion of whites was already 75.6 percent, that is, over thirty years we have seen a reduction of 13 percent … By 2020, the proportion of whites fall to 61 percent." So writes Peter Braymlou, the expert "Forbes" magazine. By 2050, the Euro-Amerikans, the largest and most reliable Republican voters, will be an ethnic minority in the U.S. — thanks to the very immigration policy that protects the Republican Party. John Stuart Mill is not so wrong, calling the Tories' party of fools. "

Latinos — the fastest growth by acquiring ethnic fragment American society. In 1980, there were 8.4 per cent in 1990 to 9 percent in 2000 — more than 12 percent. "The birth rate among this group is significantly higher than that of whites or blacks. On fertility, they are at the level of the baby boom of the 1950s, "- said Jeffrey Passel, a statistician from the Institute for urban studies. Today, Latinos in the United States 35.4 million, which is about the number of African-Americans, and this ethnic group generally supports Democrats. Mr. Bush lost the vote on the African-American electors in the ratio of eleven to one, and its electoral defeat at Latinos made up of two to one.

In 1996, Clinton has secured the votes of Latinos at the rate of seventy to twenty-one, and for those who voted for the first time, the ratio was ninety-one to six. Realizing that immigrants can send a monopoly on the White House is now the Democrats, the Clinton team actively took up the naturalization of immigrants. In the year to 30 September 1996., Immigration and Naturalization Service has recorded as a new U.S. citizen 1,045,000 immigrants, and only later discovered that 80,000 of them had criminal records, and 6,300 people were wanted by the police. That's the number of new U.S. citizens in the last five years:

1996 1 045 000

1997 598 000

1998 463 000

1999 872 000

2000 898 315.

One-third of new citizens take California. In 1990 its population was reduced to one hundred thousand white, but increased by a million Latinos. Today, 16 percent of California voters are just Latinos, and during the last presidential election, they actually gave California Mountain. "Members of both parties appeared on the register of electors ceremony — recalled Democratic consultant William Garrick. — Here desk Democrats, Republicans table there. At our table are hard at work. At their desk is ambulatory. " With fifty-five votes in California, the home state of Nixon and Reagan, was the tomb of the Republicans.

Vote in the referendums in California is also based on "ethnic preferences." In 1994, Latinos under Mexican flags were against the amendment 187, which deprive illegal immigrants of social protection. In 1996, they voted for the priority of nationalities in the referendum on civil rights. In 1998, their voices are allowed to maintain a system of bilingual education — despite the fact that the overwhelming majority voted against the Anglo-Saxons.

Ron Oz, the initiator of the referendum "English for Children" that would do away with bilingual education system, says that the uprising of 1992 in Los Angeles can be a Rubicon on the road to Balkanization of America:

"Puffs of smoke above the burning buildings, dispassionate television filming, fixing the damage, virtually destroyed the sense of social security of the middle class of Southern California. Happy California, where "there is room for everything and everyone," suddenly turned into a harsh, brutal dystopia … a huge number of Latinos arrested (and later deported) for robbery, forced the white cautious eye on gardeners and nannies, who until a few weeks ago they seemed quite harmless. If the "multicultural" Los Angeles overnight turned into chaos, what security can expect the white minority in a rapidly romanized California? '.

Aside from the political refugees from countries such as Hungary or Cuba, immigrants tend to support the ruling party. The reason is simple: they receive from the government more — free education for children, subsidies for the purchase of housing, medical care — than pay taxes. Arriving almost beggars, they will not soon take on such income taxes which would account for a significant share of federal taxes. So why immigrant support Republicans, lowering taxes, which he still does not pay? He certainly support the Democrats, developing social programs to improve the lives of immigrants.

After Ellis Island, most immigrants sent to the headquarters of the Democratic Party. Only with the transition to non-indigenous middle class Americans are beginning to "seek the Republican faith." This transformation of the stretch is predicted to two generations. Naturalize and filing of half a million to a million immigrants per year, the Democrats actually secured the victory in the presidential elections for years to come. If Republicans do not take any action, mass immigration would lead to the elimination of the Republican Party from the political arena — to turn it into a political minority, which represents the interests of the new ethnic minorities — Euro-Amerikans.

Along with the ethnic proportions in the country, and U.S. policy changes. Increasing immigration, of course, is on the left hand and leads them to the authorities. The rapidly expanding Latino electorate and blacks have forced the Republican Party to withdraw the proposal to reduce social spending. In 1996, the Republicans were going to eliminate the Department of Education. Today, they call for the enlargement of the Ministry. The higher the level of the "Latin" of immigration, the more important the Latino vote in the "key" states, the more important they become for America. In 2000, the AFL-CIO, which opposed the mass immigration, suddenly came to her senses and offered an amnesty to illegal immigrants — in hopes to get their ranks of millions of new members, regularly paying membership fees. And the Bush administration in its policy decisions and appointments listens carefully to the wishes of Latinos often — at the expense of the Conservatives.


Harvard economist George Borjas, who has studied the economic nature of mass immigration, found no positive economic impact in encouraging migration to the United States. Additional costs for training, social security and even prisons (which gets a certain number of immigrants), plus an additional burden on land, water and energy resources — all this in no way is not covered by the proceeds of taxation immigrants. National Bureau of Economic Research in 1995 estimated the cost of immigration to 80.4 billion dollars. Economist Donald Huddle of Rice University has estimated that by 2006, the average annual flow of immigration will be $ 108 billion. What can justify such costs, and what are the benefits of immigration, since we almost deliberately go to the Balkanization of America?

The 2000 census confirmed the assumptions of many. For the first time since the founding of the State of California were white ethnic minority. Began "white flight". In the 1990s, California's population increased by three million people, but the Anglo-Saxon population of the State "has decreased by almost half a million … that surprised many statisticians." Los Angeles County lost 480,000 whites, and the Republican stronghold of Orange County — 6 percent of its white population. "We can no longer claim to be a state dominated by white middle-class people," — said William Fulton, a researcher at the Research Center of Southern California. A state librarian Kevin Starr examines the "ispanizatsiyu" California as a natural and inevitable process:

"The Anglo-Saxon hegemony was an intermediate phase for California, where the population is cost consciousness like arch — from the first appearance of the Spaniards to this return to basics. California Spanish culture has always existed, just between 1860-E and 1960s, it was under wraps. Today there is a revival of native California, which is actually a part of the global Californian-Mexican continuum. "

The future is quite predictable. With that, each year hundreds of thousands of California leaves the Anglo-Saxons, though the state of the Asian population in the ten years has increased by 42 percent, despite the fact that 43 percent of all current Californians younger than eighteen years of Hispanic by birth, the largest U.S. state is transformed into a state of " Third World. "

Nobody yet knows what all this will go, but California may well be another Quebec and to demand recognition of its unique "Spanish" culture, including secession — or the new Ulster. Sinn Fein has made significant concessions from Dublin, and Mexican-Americans may require the U.S. government's special status, California, dual citizenship and the right to vote by the Mexican laws. Mexico's President Fox shares and endorses this idea because California provides 20 percent of the U.S. Electoral College votes and since the outcome of the vote in California Latinos determine which presidential candidate dares to ignore these requirements?

"I am happy to announce that the Mexican people has spread beyond the borders of the state, and that a very significant role in this was played by immigration," — said President Zedillo. His successors have expressed similar thoughts. Mexico's presidential candidates hold election campaigns in the United States among the Mexican diaspora. The Governor Gray Davis is thinking over the ad for the fifth of May — the day in 1862, Juarez defeated the French army at Puebla — an official state holiday. "In the near future, — says Davis — people will perceive California and Mexico as a single solar territory." And to be called, we will continue, it will Atstlanom.

The current America is not the "dvuhrasovoe" state of the 1960s, which sought to erase ethnic differences in a society where the predominance of the white population was 90 percent. Today we are dealing with a "multiracial", a multicultural and multiethnic country. Vice President Gore caught this transformation; indeed NVG his famous speech translated national motto "E Pluribus Unum» as "From one — many."

In the United States today, 28.4 million live non-native Americans. Half of them — immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, a quarter — from Asia, the rest — immigrants from Afoiki, the Middle East and Europe. One out of every five people in New York or Florida — non-native American, as well as one in four Californians. With 8.4 million non-native population and that 31 in the state over the past ten years have not built any new power plants, it is not surprising that California is regularly experiencing problems with electricity. Given the endless immigration America requires infinite energy capacity (resources — hydropower, fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) and nuclear power. Only alternative — a temporary blackout of entire cities and regions, strict economy, the queues at gas stations …

In the 1990s, immigrants and their children provided 100 per cent of population growth in the states of California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Massachusetts. Well as more than fifty percent of the population growth in the states of Florida, Texas, Michigan and Maryland. Since the United States issued emigration permit most immediate family members of immigrants, the Europeans get to us is difficult, but in our territory are increasingly finding themselves, for example, the entire village of El Salvador.

The result of rise in immigration from countries of the "third world" can provide statistics. Euro-Amerikans average age — 36 years old, the average age of Latinos — 26 years. The average age of all non-native Americans — 33 years, which is much lower than other ethnic groups in America, for example, Anglo-Saxons, the figure is 40 years and for the Irish and the Scots — '43. This begs the question: deporting every year on the strength of 1 percent of the eleven million illegal immigrants does not violate the U.S. government of its constitutional duty to protect the rights of Americans? Judge for yourself:

  • one-third of legal immigrants entering the United States, do not have a complete secondary education. About 22 percent do not even have a lower secondary education — compared to 5 percent of Native Americans;
  • more than 36 percent of the total number of immigrants and 57 percent of immigrants from Central America do not earn twenty thousand dollars a year. Among immigrants who arrived in the U.S. after 1980, 60 percent still do not earn this amount;
  • 29 percent of immigrant families are below the poverty line, more than double the number of such families among Native Americans;
  • Immigrants are free distribution of products for the social security program and the school feeding program in 100 cases out of a hundred, while Native Americans — a maximum of one hundred and fifty cases;
  • According to the Ministry of Labour fifty percent loss in real wages of American citizens with low income among immigrants;
  • Statistics 1991 non-indigenous Americans carried out 24 percent of all crime in Los Angeles and 36 percent of all crimes in Miami;
  • in 1980, in federal and state prisons were nine thousand criminals from among non-indigenous Americans. By 1995, this figure had risen to fifty-nine thousand, and this does not include offenders who had become a U.S. citizen and the criminal elements that are sent Castro of Cuba;
  • Between 1989 and 1994, the number of illegal immigrants in California prisons has tripled — from five thousand five hundred and eighteen thousand people.

It is easy to see that in the above statistical reports do not mention immigrants from Europe and that a number of indicators, such as low educational level, does not apply to Asians.

However, large-scale immigration from the countries of the "third world" continues as "bring value to the business," especially this, where a large number of workers for little pay. In the spring of 2001 Political Action Committee in Business (V1RAS) extended the "mobilization agenda for ordinary people." According to the "Wall Street Journal", 400 high-tech companies and 150 trade associations, "calling for the normalization of relations and trade with China … and a weakening of immigration law to ensure the needs of working hands." But what is good for corporate America, is not necessarily good for the American heartland. When it comes to the opening of borders, corporate and national interests are not something that are not the same — come into sharp conflict with each other. If the U.S. economy falls into a deep recession, we find out whether our country is still "melting pot of peoples."

However, large-scale immigration poses a far more serious issues than the jobs or wages. Solved, no more nor less than the fate of America as a nation.

What is a nation?

Most people who leave their homeland and moved to America, whether they are from Mexico or from Mauritania, are peoples, decent, not criminals. They come to us in search of the same "better life" they were looking for our European ancestors. They come to work, they are subject to our laws, they enjoy the freedom and opportunities that are open to them, and most loves America, many people want to get American families. Such people can be found everywhere. However, the growing number of immigrants from countries whose culture has little in common with the U.S., raises the question — what is a nation?

Some define the nation as a people united by common descent, language, literature, history, heroes, traditions, customs, precepts and faith, as a people, who lived from time immemorial in a particular area. This is the "pochvennicheskoe" representation of the nation. Among those who supported this view, was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, who established the following rules for immigrants: "They should lose their European skins and more of them do not wear it. They need to look forward and think about the descendants, not ancestors. " Theodore Roosevelt, who spoke against the "rah-Americanism" seems to share the views of Adams. Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1915 in Philadelphia in front of naturalized immigrants, seconded by Theodore Roosevelt: "persons, ranking in America to a particular ethnic group, have yet to become an American." The idea of Americans as a distinct people was first expressed by John Jay in the "Federalist 2":

"Providence deign to bestow this wonderful land of one people — descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same faith, committed to the same principles of management, similar to the manners and customs, ready to join forces and with arms to fight in the fierce and bloody war in the name of the noble goals of freedom and independence. "

However, Americans who today call "one people"?

We come from different ancestors. We no longer speak the same language. We are not committed to one faith. We're not just Catholics, Protestants and Jews, as characterized American society sociologist Will Herberg in his "Study of American religiosity" (1955). We now — Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Tao, fans of Santeria, "new age", voodoo, agnostics, atheists, humanists, Rastafarians and Satanists. Even the mention of the name of Christ during the inaugural ceremony, gave occasion to criticize Mr. Bush for "contempt of religious feelings" and "neglect of other faiths." The magazine "New Republic" ridiculed "the clerics who preach po'mosta from the presidency."

We can find no agreement at all — there is a God or not, when life began, what is ethical and what is unethical … We are no longer united "in manners and customs." We do not fight side by side in a "fierce and bloody war." Golden Generation has long disappeared from the scene. For the rest, this is the Vietnam War, and in relation to him about the unity of the society was not the question.

Yes, we are still "committed to the same principles of government." However, it is not enough to keep the unity of the nation. South adheres to the same principles of governance, and that the North, but that did not stop the Southerners four years fighting for independence from the North.

In his inaugural speech, President Bush has actually denied the words of John Jay, "America has never known unity by blood or soil. We are united by the ideals, forcing all strive for new achievements. They teach us what it means to be an American citizen. " In his book, "Dissociation of America," Arthur Schlesinger supports the president's idea of a nation united by faith in the "American dream", as is evident from our history and the greatest U.S. documents — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address. Schlesinger writes:

"The American people are a nation made up of people who have voluntarily made this choice, it is not based on ethnic communities. Our values — is not a fad, and not the result of chance. We gave them the story. They are gained by us, they are fixed in our life experience and our greatest documents in our traditions and customs. Our values work for us, and so we live with them and are willing to die for them. "

But today, the Americans have left the common values, common history and common heroes. The fact that half of America is the heroic past, the other half is shameful memories. Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Lee — all the characters and all of America today are under attack. Familiar words "freedom" and "equality", it seems, is now used in a completely different meanings. As for the "greatest documents", the Supreme Court found that the Constitution can be interpreted in every one, his decision not to unite and divide Americans, disconnect everything and everywhere — from the morning prayers to attitudes to abortion and pornography.

A belief in democratic principles and not enough to save the nation. Half the population of the country did not participate in the 2000 presidential election, three out of every five people do not vote at all. Millions unable to recall the names of their congressmen, senators or judges of the Supreme Court. They do not even try to remember the names.

Be that as it may, and even must be considered as a single factor, namely, the fact that no modern nation, in every sense of the word, does not look like herself the 1940s, the 1950s and 1960s. We live in the same country, we are governed the same leaders, but as a nation we have become completely different.

It's hard to believe, is not less difficult to accept the fact that every year there comes to us a million immigrants from all countries, a third of them enters illegally, it is unlikely that the influx is able to re-unite the nation. John Stuart Mill warned that "the establishment of freedom almost impossible in a country with different nationalities. Among people with no sense of intimacy, especially if they read and speak different languages, can not be an agreed public opinion necessary for the operations of government. "

Looks like we're on their own experience we see today in the rightness of Mill

To be continued

Part 1. Endangered species

Part 2. Where are the children?

Part 3. The Revolutionary Catechism

Part 4. They have revolutionized

Part 5. New Great Migration

Like this post? Please share to your friends: