Fred Elbel writes:

Those who study United States history understand the principles upon which our nation was founded and the ideals for which we fought over the last two centuries. Many immigration reformists expect our elected officials to defer to our history and embrace the ideals that we see as fundamental to our nation. Yet our history is now presented in our schools through the sanitized filter of political correctness and our ideals have become nearly lost in an amalgamation of values resulting from a deliberately-constructed multicultural society.

There is a substantial flaw in reformists’ demands that “President Bush must seal the border and enforce our immigration laws.” Quite simply, President Bush and his fellow Neocons have every intention of NOT securing our borders and strengthening our national bonds. Actions speak for themselves. In 2005, Bush signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with the clearly-stated goal of eradicating our borders by 2010. We’re well on our way to planned assimilation into the North American Union. Bush to People: resistance is futile. (See Borderless Continent, at the American Resistance Foundation page.).

Mass immigration is but one way to destroy a nation. The immigration reform movement will not succeed under the assumption that elites really want to secure our borders if only they could. We are dealing with a multi-faceted problem; mass immigration is now the most clearly visible aspect. That should be a warning to those who are perceptive enough to look deeper.

Why do those in power wish to dissolve our national sovereignty? A large part of the answer is simply power and money. And then what? It remains to be seen whether the sovereign People of America will act to curtail these insurgent actions by their elected public servants.

James Bowman’s review of Quinceañera says that the film’s message is that what Mexicans in America need to do is lower their moral standards, then they’ll be just fine.

As Glatzer and Westmoreland see it, all that is needed by their picturesque and sympathetic Mexicans is a wholesome lesson in socially and sexually progressive values from Anglos like themselves. Once they have understood how old-fashioned and out-of-date their attitude towards sex are, then all their “judgmentalism” will simply dissolve in a warm bath of family feeling and togetherness.

He also points out the connections between the personal lives of the producers and their characters. (This is legitimate–Woody Allen has been making films for years about a man who likes to date teenagers, and it’s always been pretty true to life.)

And here’s a hint of what “Jobs Americans won’t do” may mean in Echo Park:

Uncle Tomas’s landlords in the mixed Los Angeles neighborhood of Echo Park are a gay Anglo couple, James (Jason L. Wood) and Gary (David W. Ross), with whom Carlos is soon involved in three-way sex.
“James and Gary, they love their Latino boys,” Carlos’s Hispanic predecessor in their bed tells him.

Here I think it is not entirely irrelevant to point out that the directors are, like James and Gary, a committed gay couple living in Echo Park and employed in the film industry (Mr Westmoreland is a former director of direct-to-video gay porn films), one of whom is considerably younger and British. They claim that the fact is merely coincidental, and it is true that James and Gary are not portrayed as being a very sympathetic pair. When one catches the other in a bi-lateral relationship with Carlos, they patch things up between them by having their lawyers send a notice of eviction to Uncle Tomas — which of course will also mean homelessness for Carlos and Magdalena. Surely Messrs Glatzer and Westmoreland would never do anything so despicable themselves. And yet they undoubtedly share the belief of the film’s gay couple– and, it appears to me, pretty much the entire gay community today–that sex is (or ought to be) merely recreational and to have nothing to do with morality except insofar as it involves personal loyalties.

Of course, as Steve Sailer has frequently pointed pointed out, this works better in Sweden than in American inner cities.

Hispanic immigrants are already assimilating to American inner city ideas about illegitimacy, but it will be a while before they assimilate to the received PC ideas about “homophobia.”

Phyllis Schafly wrote earlier this year:

It’s bad news for America’s future if the corporations learn to rely on foreigners for all their computer work. Americans, not foreigners, are the source of the technical innovations we need to stay ahead in the fast-moving computer industry. Of the 56 awards given by the Association for Computing Machinery for software and hardware innovation, only one recipient is an immigrant.

I agree with this assessment. I have been extremely unimpressed by the tendency toward technical innovation I have seen among recent immigrants using the H-1b/L-1 program. However, I have been extremely impressed by the business acumen I have seen there-particularly among recent immigrants from India.

When you look at the list of IIT graduates, you will not see rivals of folks like Kary Mullis(inventor of the most valuable patent of the 20th century)–you will see quite an impressive list of very wealthy businessmen though.

What I think Ms. Schafly was missing, the reason that the H-1b program has been so popular among corporate America, is that as pointed out in the film “Tucker a man and his Dream” much of corporate America fears innovation and will actively resist innovation unless it is forced upon them by competitors.

Programs like H-1b let fat, dumb happy corporations stay that way. Now, it may be a disaster from a social welfare perspective and a national security perspective–but that isn’t the worry of corporate leadership in the game as it is now structured.

Perhaps the US should consider controls on executive compensation of the say the Fortune 1000 that would in fact assure that the long term financial health of those individuals really was clearly tied to the long term economic health of the US as a whole. A large portion of their compensation might be required by law to be placed into a pension fund, the long term returns of which would be geared towards the long term changed in value of the companies they have managed and the long term purchasing power of the poorest Americans. That would, I expect, make the sociopathic practices we saw at companies like Enron( boosting short term share prices, heavy use of H-1b visa holders to conduct fundamentally illegal technical projects ) more difficult because the managers couldn’tjust leave someone else holding the bag so easily.