The Impending Menace

A new frightening horizon approaches as Americans look outward to dangers from afar while ignoring those dangers which multiply here at home, which no one seems to be aware. All seem to be focused on the people of brown hue, whether Mexican or Muslim, as the threat we must guard against to avoid extinction. The danger however, is here, and has been living among us for centuries. They live alongside us, and due to their humble and white exterior we typically ignore them. But their power and influence are growing. I am speaking, of course, about the Amish.

These people have lived in this nation as citizens since the 18^th century, and have continually refused to assimilate into our culture. In fact, not only have they not assimilated but have continually moved to differentiate their culture. As time went by and technology advanced they have, for the most part, kept with the technology and traditions of the 16^th century, eschewing all the wonders and comforts of modern technology.

The Amish population is growing at a tremendous rate and threatens to eventually unseat our great American culture. The average Amish family has seven children, and ten is quite common. In the past century, while other societies have been assimilated, the Amish have refused and added to their numbers. Average population growth for the Amish community from 1890 to 1990 is between 39% and 42.3% while the average for the total population has been between 12.1% and 14.06%. In those one hundred years the Amish population grew from an estimated 3,700 to 128,000. In 1890, only 1 in 16,924 American citizens was Amish. Today, according to some estimates, it is now 1 in 2,000. In another one hundred years, if population trends continue, 1 in 268 American citizens will be Amish. If this rate continues, and it will likely be worse, we are looking at the eventual possibility of Amish domination of these United States of America.

They are also a menace due to their anti-war positions. All Amish refuse to serve as members of the military and have refused to answer the call when their country needed them most. How will our country survive from outside threats when our national policy is dominated by Amish peaceniks?

The Amish also refuse to participate in our consumer society. For the most part they buy only what they need, and their community, if not each individual, produces all that they ever need. What would this do to our great consumer driven economy? What about entertainment, not to mention impulse buying which, as Americans, is our God given right?!

Not only would there be a loss of mass production of consumer goods, but what about the loss of technology, which the Amish would ban once they took control? Can any of you see yourselves giving up their right to a car and being forced to trade it in for a two horse-power buggy? They would take away our comforts brought on by the technology they have rejected, and this we cannot allow!

And what of their religious beliefs? Everyone reading this knows that one receives personal salvation only by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. But the Amish believe that it is in how one lives their life that salvation is achieved, and that it is not guaranteed. Such proves that the Amish are no better than the Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu heathens!

The final threat is in their communal way of life. They do not believe in individual merit or enterprise. Instead they put the community first and helping others as central to life. These Amish would destroy our great Republic, under God!, and supplant it with godless communism!

So I ask, all of you who read this, help stop the Amish menace! We cannot allow them to outbreed us and take control of this nation! As Americans, it is our duty to breed like rabbits and make sure their percentages are allowed to rise no longer. Such would not only be a disaster for each individual citizen, but the end of the nation as a whole because once they supplant our values and our way of life, they will open us to be overrun by the Mexican and Muslim hordes waiting on our borders!

Note on sources: All Amish population data and references to Amish culture are from Hostetler. Percentages and ratios of population are my own calculations from available census data.

John A. Hostetler, Amish Society

‘US Population from 1900’, < http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm >

‘United States Census, 1890’, < http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-census-1890 >

Immigration and Assimilation

I’ve had a good bit of time thinking about this topic and have come to the conclusion that the assimilation argument is a crock of crap. Let me explain:

First off, the whole idea of assimilating into a single homogeneous culture is a constructed illusion. Until the advent of mass media, mass culture there was no homogeneous ‘American’ culture. Culture varied by region, by city, by locality. One cannot also forget that Mexicans, the target of the assimilation argument, are also American even if that our not citizens of this country.

Second, the assimilation argument is only being used against Mexicans. This is because they are now the target of racist, xenophobic sentiments in this country. Sure, Muslims also get a bad rap, but they are still for the most part a distant threat while the Mexican menace is only a hop, skip and a jump over the border. If assimilation is so important then it would apply to all those within the boundaries of the United States. Are we going to force Puerto Rico to become more American and abandon their heritage? How about the Amish, they certainly have not assimilated into our society and base their community on resisting such assimilation. And lets not forget the Native American tribes which we have now allowed to act as separate nations within ours living under their own laws.

Once this ideal is applied equally to all immigrant groups, then I will accept the merits of the argument. Now however the argument that Mexicans refuse to assimilate is only a cover for a truly racist and xenophobic mentality.

One final note, assimilation is not the only false argument given against Mexicans. There are many who argue that they bring wages down, when in fact its businesses who force the wages down. There are also unfounded claims of laziness and dirtiness without any backing and is without truth. These are only myths perpetuated to deny the current of bigotry and xenophobia that runs rampant in this nation.

Recommended Reading (not necessarily directly related to the topic):
Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1940 by David E. Kyvig
The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction by Linda Gordon
Making a New Deal by Lizabeth Cohen

Why the Anti-Immigration Folks are Idiots

All the reasons they give are completely ludicrous. They are only excuses to hold back the inevitable, the result of globalization and free trade. Our government policies and the stance of those like Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo border on racist. Immigration policies have always focused on those our society found racial inferior, poor and unclean. It is how we reacted to the Irish, the Italians, the Russians, Ukrainians and Poles. It is how we reacted to the Chinese and the Japanese. It is now the way we are reacting towards Mexicans.

If it was not racist, those who support the wall along the border with Mexico to stop the flow of illegal immigration and drug trafficking would also support a wall with Canada. Terrorists can just as easily cross into the US through Canada as they can through Mexico. Heck, they could fly in on an international flight from an airport with lax community and commit similar attacks as on 9/ll. You are not going to stop terrorists by stopping Mexicans.

Also, if you want to stop the flow of illegal immigration, why accept Cuban immigrants who do not come to this country legally? Oh, they come over to escape a communist regime that is oppressing them, so as long as they make it to land they are OK? Refugees then, well then why until recently have we only let 500 Iraqi refugees into our country? Sure we the limit to over 2,000 but that is not going to help at all when over 1,500 are leaving their homes every day.

With that example there is no doubt that the immigration and asylum policies of this country are racist, except when it is meant as a political attack on an ‘enemy’ that has consistently defeated us despite our power. If Cuba were free, and Cubans were still attempting to come over in their barely seaworthy craft, the anti-immigration people would be just as shrill in their protests against them as their protests against Mexicans. They do not want more brown people in this country, whether Latino or Muslim. To them Latino’s are poor, dirty and criminal prone while Muslims hate us and want to blow us up. All these excuses are used to cover up their bigotry.

They claim that illegal immigrants are a burden to our welfare and social security system. This would be true if they did not contribute to that system, but they do like any other tax payer in this country! As for a comparison, I do not remember any outcry when it was revealed that two uncles of Elian Gonzalez living in Florida had been on the welfare system for years without even lifting a finger to look for a job. Where was the outrage over that? Oh right, Castro excuses them for that.

If you want to know who the real culprits are for destroying our social security look at the Republicans. They have been trying to undermine the system for years. Not to mention dipping into the money that should be set aside only for that purpose. And Democrats do not get a free ride on this either, since they initiated the ‘borrowing’ from that money.

There are complaints that our population is getting to old, that we are not reproducing enough to support a social security system that will soon become overburdened. Well, if you want more young people in this country let more people immigrate here. Typically the majority of people coming to our country are younger folk rather than entire extended families. They will pay into the system and relieve the age problem of our population.

And don’t give me that crap that Mexicans are taking our jobs. Indians, Chinese, Pakistani, you name it, are taking our jobs and they are not even coming to our country. Our corporations are outsourcing those jobs because they care about low costs and profits first and the people of this country second. If you are afraid Mexican laborers are lowering wages, then that is what a minimum wage law is for, which Republicans are always attacking claiming it hurts business which is a total crock of crap.

The stance that President Bush has taken on immigration is one of the few, if only, positions I agree with him on, though if for different reasons. Creating a regulated but unlimited guest worker program is the only way to deal with the problem. It will allow immigrants to enter this country legally, work in jobs Americans will not typically take, and lower the costs of policing. Also, it will end instances of slave like conditions since employers often take advantage of these immigrants and work them for little pay because, being illegal, the immigrant is not likely to complain to authorities.

One must also realize that with globalization and free trade, we are in the middle of constructing a unified global economy. Technically, this is not what companies want because it would mean eventually the stabilization and equalization of the economy around the world cutting out their chances for paying low wages. Immigrants are also going to follow where the money is, especially if they cannot get much from where they are currently living. We are part of that global economy now, which not only means free trade for goods but also requires the free movement of people. Immigration is a flood that no dam can hold back, so either waste your time trying to stop the inevitable flood, or devise and set into place a system that can effectively deal with it.

Spoiled Brat Foreign Policy

Lou Dobbs can be quite a confusing character. I agree with a lot of his positions, but he goes crazy when it comes to the illegal immigration issue. Just last week, I decided to watch his show for a bit and it was segment after segment about illegal immigration and how it is destroying our country. Then in between all these segments he had one about Cuban immigrants, and just after going on and on about how amnesty was bad for Mexican illegals, he suggested that all Cuban illegals who made it onto our shores should be rewarded with citizenship because of their ingenuity! WTF?

Anyway, it is clear that he sees the plight of Cubans different from that of Mexicans. So, this creates two subjects that I will address: 1) Our foreign policy towards ‘enemy’ nations and 2) illegal immigration. Today I will address the former since I can get a lengthy post from both subjects.

So, why do I make reference to ‘spoiled brat foreign policy’? This is not in reference to all foreign policy of this country, but only a few instances in which our stance has no rational reason. Specifically, and most notably, this concerns our stances towards Cuba, Iran, and Vietnam.

For Cuba what happened was Castro refused, upon his rise to power, to play by the rules set by the United States government. It also happens that the US government was not so happy about him overthrowing the government of the friendly, but thoroughly corrupt, Batista. Batista was friendly to the US, US economic interests, and US corporate interests. Because of this, our government overlooked the poor treatment the Cuban people received from Batista. Castro came to power on the promise that he would help the people of Cuba and not serve the interests of the corporations. This he did, but at the expense of corporate interests, which of course lost all their assets to the communist Cuban government. Since Castro didn’t play by the American rules, our government refuses to do business with his country.

For Cuba there may also be the fact that our government and our people were upset over this seeming betrayal. Since the Spanish American war our country has viewed Cuba as our little brother in their fight for freedom and independence. It seems that our country was unable to accept the fact that Cuba had grown up and had every right to go on its own.

In Iran there was the similar situation of a US friendly dictator in power who was overthrown by a popular uprising. As any situation, this may not have been a problem if the new government had not socialized the oil industry. Again, Iran didn’t play by our rules, so they are being penalized for it. The standoff we are experiencing today with Iran is part of our governments temper tantrum over not getting its way.

Vietnam is a different case, especially since we now have diplomatic and economic relations with the country. This does not mean that they didn’t get treated poorly by our government though. After Vietnam came under the NV government our country supported the government in Cambodia despite the fact that it was communist. In retaliation for an attack by Cambodia, Vietnam invaded in overthrew Pol Pot who murdered millions of his own people. Of course, the fact that Pol Pot had committed genocide was no problem for our government as long as he was allied with our government. Support of Pol Pot in opposition to Vietnam had no actual strategic purpose except as retaliation for Vietnam’s unwillingness to cave to US pressure and revenge for victory over our military.

Looking at these examples it seems the factor of economic system and the ability of corporations to do business in these countries shapes US foreign policy. Iran and Cuba refuse to be dominated by foreign companies and instead government controls their major industries. Vietnam has been forgiven because they have allowed a loosening of their economy and are leaning towards capitalism.

So, our country is unable to engage in meaningful dialogue with these countries because they won’t play by our rules. No country, especially ours, should engage in foreign policy that resembles the attitude of a spoiled brat who has been refused their dessert. We consistently flog our country’s embrace of diversity, but that embrace only exists when diverse economic systems are the same as ours. If we don't engage these countries with diplomacy, and just attack them for not following our rules, then at best nothing will happen but, more likely, peace will deteriorate.

Addendum 3/17/2007:

Our stance towards Cuba has also been rather infantile. Almost from the day we decided we couldn't deal with Castro, our relations with Cuba have been dependent on his death. For the past fifty years our country has justified its sanctions on the country and its refusal to deal with the country on the premise that Castro will be dead tomorrow and then everything will be fine. For the past fifty years Castro has defied the United States government and continued to live. For some reason we forget the fact that he is a survivor, and our obsession with his always impending death was shown when he stepped aside from power to enter the hospital. He has been there for months now, and who knows, he may be on his way out, but I wouldn't put it past him to get healthy and step back into power. Also, just because he dies does not mean communism will be abandoned. It is just as likely that rulers will continue his legacy, and if that is so, what then?