Homocon

Correct me if I'm wrong HC, but isn't "Me-so" the brain-trust that published a whole book about how the internment of millions of Japanese-Americans in gov't concentration camps during WW2 was a brilliant idea?
___________________
Homocon sez:

"Me-so" . . . ? I hope you're not referring to Michelle Malkin in that fashion.

I bought her book, but haven't yet had a chance to read it. From what I understand, she brought up a number of troubling and relevant issues regarding problems in Hawaii, the fairly new status of Japanese immigrants at the time, whether their loyalty was to their new home culture or their culture of origin, plus the relatively low-level state of technological surveillance capabilities at the time.

It's easy to dismiss wartimes behaviors as "radical" and "extreme" (such as our present immigration debate, and perhaps I'm guilty myself of being too dismissive of immigration concerns), but quite another thing to actually be there in the midst of a threat while figuring out how to best protect the population from further danger. The accepted wisdom now is that the Japanese internment was wrong wrong wrong, but the accepted wisdom of today also wishes us to believe that McCarthy was a witch-hunter and that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was a war crime, so who's to say?

I believe that Ms. Malkin's intent in writing her book is to explore why internment happened, and to examine the social and political situations that led to a Western, freedom-loving culture engaging in such controversial tactics against portions of its own citizenry.

I don't have anything against Michelle Malkin, though I think her arguments against amnesty for illegal aliens are too simplistic. But like I said, I haven't had a chance to read her book yet, so I don't know the points that she may or may not have elaborated. I'm looking forward to reading it and then writing about it, as I think that Malkin's most impassioned arguments center around issues of family, culture and immigration.

Plenty of ethnic Germans and Italians got thrown into American prison camps during WWII; they just don't cry like little whiny girls about it 60 years after the fact.

I also would like to point out the fact that there were no infrastructure-destroying bomb attacks perpetrated by German/Italian/Japanese ethnics in the USA during WWII. Partly because of the prison camps.
_______________
Homocon sez:

I didn't know that ethnic Germans and Italians were imprisoned in American camps during WW2. It makes sense that that would have happened, given the fact of Japanese internment camps, and that we were at war with all three nations.

I have to bone up on my research.

How's Vegas, by the way?

Actually, deportation would have been preferable to the "internment" camps, atleast for the non-citizens, as should also be instigated with the non-citizen Muslims here now - assuming of course we really mean business and this is an actual WAR on terrorism, not a police-action.
As to the Mexicans, if they want to work and earn a better life, by all means some sort of fast-track citizenship is not a bad idea - After we get rid of "multiculturalism" and the welfare state that attract the wrong kind of immigrant!

There are a lot of Germans in Texas that get a little freaked out when you mention Seagoville or Crystal City. Californians are so frickin' whiny about cr--

Hey, something's different around here but I can't put my finger on it... Did you get a haircut?
________________
Homocon sez:

Aw, shucks -- you noticed?

Millions and millions of unskilled people from a neighboring country with a history of hostility toward us set up camp within our borders...able to live here and still identify there. We have already become a functionally bilingual country in many respects. The White House even has a Spanish webpage. What's the liklihood of these folks' children, who are not movin' on up, becoming an agitated cultural political block with dubious loyalty to the US? Economy or not, this is a damned bad idea.
_________________
Homocon sez:

I'm fine with extra border security, but not so fine with attempting to kick every illegal out as they await processing of their papers. The cost would be stratospheric, and while we've had hostilities with Mexico back in the 1800's, immigrants from Mexico are not #1) hostile as a group towards the United States, and #2) do not "set up camp" within our borders, but rather, come to live in our cities.

The White House's Spanish page is a recognition of population realities, rather than a surrender flag. The encouragement of immigrant assimilation into U.S. culture should be a top priority, especially after what we've seen happen in France -- this starts with bilingual web-pages, but it's a mistake to let it end there.

As much energy and focus as we're placing on border security should also be placed on rectifying the poor skill sets of a good portion of our illegal immigrant population; otherwise, we'll have a permanent cultural problem rather than a welcome labor solution.

Malkin is a bit strident - but I applaud her for that. Because we need someone being that strident, vocally, in order not to end up, well, where we are right now, where the Border Patrol isn't able to do it's job, and the overrun of the country by people here illegally is so insidious that most police departments refuse to deal with it.

I don't think Malkin really expects her way to be the implementation, but the stronger that voice is, the more "radicial" the "solution" it advocates, then the better the inevitable "compromise" will broker.

Ted: you might want to give her book a read. You know, with all the declassified intellegence that lets you know what the decision makers were looking at.
__________________
Homocon sez:

Right, I appreciate that she has an iron in the fire.

I think the main reason that the focus has been placed on securing the border, and hardly any attention lavished on so-called "amnesty programs" is twofold. First, we know for a fact that our government has failed colossally at enforcing the law and protecting our sovereignty (an estimate of 11,000,000 illegal aliens stands testament to that fact). Second, at least a few of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally. Personally, I think that we should enforce the laws that restrict all entry and egress from this country to the ports of entry, and that anyone caught trying to cross in between those points should just be turned around at the border. After we secure our border, we can then debate the "amnesty programs" until we're blue (or red) in the face. Until then, we're sitting ducks, and I'm pleasantly surprised that an attacker hasn't penetrated our porous borders (yet).

Now I believe that rewarding illegal behavior (like granting amnesty to the aforementioned 11 million illegal aliens) has a detrimental effect on a law-abiding society because when a law is violated without penalty, it is functionally equivalent to no law at all. With that understanding, when the government throws up its hands and says "just kidding" to any law (without a legislative act to change or withdraw it), how are any of us supposed to take the law seriously? What other laws that we don't like can we just ignore? More importantly, how are illegal aliens, who are probably only as familiar with our culture as the TV shows, movies, or news stories we export, supposed to know which laws apply and which don't?

If business (and by extension the economy) would be adversely affected by the deportation of 11 million people who shouldn't be here to begin with, I have yet to see comprehensive evidence of such. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility that it would be true, but for the moment I don't buy it. For one, the laziness of some American citizens (who are often cited as refusing to do the jobs the illegals do) is no excuse for allowing the chaos on our border to continue. For another, it is entirely possible that business has not allowed the free market to actually work (i.e., they ran to illegals and underpaid them instead of offering a higher salary or better benefits to attract potential employees), and have made a bad situation worse by encouraging illegal behavior. Besides, businesses have a tendency to stretch the truth to protect profit margins. What incentive do they have to higher citizens or legal aliens when they can hire illegals without penalty on the cheap?

I can see your point about the immigration law passed way back in 1965, and I'm sure when all the smoke clears the law will at least be amended. I think a good solution would be to start enforcing the existing immigration laws now, and take a 1 or 2 year break to see what effect it has. If we find that the economy starts to stagnate and businesses can't find employees, then we know that drastic changes need to be made to the law. If instead we find out that the effects are negligible, then we may only need to tweak the law to make it more equitable. Either way, it is important to start securing the border now so that we have at least a little breathing room to make level-headed decisions about immigration.

For the record, I can understand the plight of the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free", but that is no excuse for breaking the law. It does make me sad that there are people living in the world under brutal or abusive governments, that are starving to death, that are miserable, and that are suffering, but we can't solve those problems by importing them to the United States. Putting our collective safety, both fiscally and physically, doesn't solve those problems, either. Just my humble opinion, though...