Our Letters Editor, Joe Guzzardi, Is Bemused By Hispanic Immigrants` Sense Of Entitlement


My
job as

Letters Editor
at VDARE.COM occasionally provides me
with much needed comic relief from the depressing
subject of immigration. Of course, the writers are
rarely trying to be funny.

Nonetheless, I have to laugh when I read tirades from incensed
Hispanic readers demanding that we get out of their way so that
they can

take over
the country.

We posted
one such letter from

Gabriel Rocha
on May 2nd. He wrote to several
VDARE.COM contributors calling us “frightened” and “clowns“.
He predicted that Hispanics “are not going anywhere” and
suggested that we gringos “learn some Spanish.”

Rocha
gratuitously referred to “hard-working” Hispanics in the
U.S. as “enthusiastic” and “savvy.”


Peter Brimelow
responded to Rocha on the site.

Howard Sutherland
, also in the Rocha e-mail loop, and I
replied privately. As it happens, both Howard and I already
speak Spanish.

A more
civil exchange among us followed. What it boils down to is this:
Rocha describes himself as a hard-working, law-abiding,
tax-paying homeowner from Mexico who has raised bilingual,
well-educated children.

Pointing to
himself as an example of how wonderful immigration can be, Rocha
wants to know what is wrong with

legal immigration
and why we oppose it.

He asks:


“VDARE.COM has published
articles that oppose ALL
immigration
into the US. Could you (or someone at VDARE.COM)
tell me just exactly what is wrong or flawed about

the process,
which I have followed, diligently and lawfully,
to become a

naturalized US citizen?


“Still looking for an
intelligent rebuttal…”

Talk about
leading with your chin! Rocha has challenged me on a subject
about which I could—and perhaps one day will—write a book.

But for now
I am limited—more or less—to 1,000 words. So I`ll answer Rocha`s
question about what is wrong with legal immigration by
summarizing some its most egregious flaws.

I`ll begin
with a broad perspective. Since the

Immigration  Act
of 1965, which politicians

falsely promised
would not change America`s demographics,
legal and illegal immigration has added, give or take,

50 million people to our population.

Most are

non-English speakers
from

different cultures
. That`s fine if you embrace

multiculturalism
. But the evidence about its merits, despite
all the hoopla, remains scant.

That raw
number population increase and the children born to those
immigrants is the leading cause of

overcrowding
in our cities, on our roads and in our schools
and hospitals. In general over-immigration has led to a
diminished quality of life for many Americans.

Given the
impact that  the 1965 act  had on Americans, it is disgraceful
that it was

smuggled into law
without any

real debate.
Americans has no idea their country was about
to be transformed.

Another
fatal flaw in U.S. immigration policy—again broadly— is that we
have

no guiding principles.
If you were to ask any of the 100
Senators,

some
of whom are right now negotiating the country`s future
behind locked doors, to explain what our long-term immigration
objectives are, they would reply in gobbledygook.

Since

no one in Congress
has the slightest idea where immigration
to America should begin or end, the result is a random mix of

never-ending new arrivals
that may or may not benefit the
country.

Rocha,
although he implies differently, is not representative of every
legal immigrant. While some immigrants have

successfully assimilated,
many have been—to put it brutally—a
drag on our society
.

I`ll cite a
good example by using one of the worst features of current U.S.
immigration policy. Through “chain migration” (more
delicately referred to by the politically correct as “family
reunification
“), senior citizens or disabled individuals can
apply for

Supplement Security Income
(S.S.I.) immediately upon their
arrival.

Keep in
mind that many who

ultimately collect public funds
have neither a U.S. work
history

nor speak English.
To rational thinkers like those of us at
VDARE.COM., it is insane to immediately lead legal immigrants to
the

public trough.

Does Rocha
want to argue that this is a good thing? End chain migration
now, I say!

Another
inequity is the non-immigrant visa system and the virtually
automatic change of status that follows for anyone who asks for
it.

Non-immigrants
often become legal residents once
their temporary visas expire. Remember the old immigration
policy chestnut that

nothing is more permanent than a temporary resident.

Interested
parties can learn just how unsound and hurtful the visa system
is by reading the Center for Immigration Studies 2002 report
titled

“How Have Terrorists Entered the U.S?”

The study
analyzes through 2002 the immigration status of all 48
foreign-born, radical

Muslim terrorists
who had been charged with, convicted of or
admitted to being terrorists. One-third were on temporary visas,
mainly tourists; one third were legal immigrants; a quarter

were illegal aliens
. Three others had asylum applications
pending…another major immigration scam.

The U.S.
issues visas for a specific purpose. We fulfill our part of the
bargain by letting foreigners into the country. They must keep
their end by leaving when their time is up.

No

change of status
should be allowed.

Most who
follow immigration matters know that the U.S. has perhaps the
most generous policy in the world. We allow, without any
consideration if it benefits us or not, up to one million people
annually. Add to that the visa over-stayers and the illegal
aliens and the total approaches two million.

Yet so
rarely do we hear words of gratitude from those same immigrants.
I`m drawing now from

my own personal experiences
as an English as a Second
Language instructor. I can count on one hand the numbers of
times that students have expressed a true sense of appreciation
of the honor that it is to be in the US, to be given the
opportunity to raise and educate their children here and to
ultimately become U.S. citizens

They are
unaware that the jobs they may hold might be

taking away employment
from native-born Americans. In fact,
many have a sense of entitlement that bemuses me.

Rocha
apparently is an exception. But in one of our e-mail exchanges I
asked him

if he maintained dual citizenship.
I didn`t receive a reply;
perhaps he missed the mail. But no one who deliberately
maintains citizenship in another country can claim true
allegiance to the U. S.

For Rocha
to suggest that America becomes even more liberal in its
immigration policy because of his individual success is sheer
nonsense.

If he had
America`s

best interests at heart
as well as those of his family, he
would be on the same page as VDARE.COM in supporting a dramatic
reduction in legal immigration.

Many
Hispanic immigrants unquestionably do share Rocha`s sense of
entitlement.

But, over
the years at VDARE.COM, we have head from a gratifying number of
Hispanic immigrants who do have America`s best interests at
heart—and who can see that our current immigration policy is a
disaster.

Joe Guzzardi [e-mail
him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor.
In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has
been writing
a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive
to
VDARE.COM.