Leading neoconservative Elliot Abrams, reveals his essential liberalism and indifference to America as an historical entity by calling for massive Haitian immigration as a response to the Haitian earthquake. As we all know, there’s plenty of jobs to go around in America these days, and the Haitians that on Monday are swarming US Navy helicopters and practicing voodoo, would make fine citizens the minute they cross our frontiers.
This goes beyond mere liberal stupidity. Abrams is a self-serving hypocrite. He openly and without apology promotes one set for rules for his ethno-religious group–Jews–for whom he publicly frets about “alarming demographic data” in the form of intermarriage, while promoting quite another set of rules for the historically European country he calls home. For neoconservatives, America’s demographics deserve no respect and are only noticed as a remind for their own group’s status as a minority, a problem reminiscent of their once very vulnerable status in Europe, that must be rectified today through purposeful relegation of native-born European-Americans to minority status. This is not good policy, and it will likely backfire some day on those whom it aims to protect and render invisible.
Subscribe To This Feed
Sadly, Abrams proves White Supremacists right. Again. It is always 2 sets of rules…You’d think he’s suggest Israel would take them!
White supremicists are right the way a stopped clock is right. They lack any ability to distinguish rational, self-preservation, ordinary and forgivable group interest seeking, and the especially corrosive influence of neocons on conservatives.
It’s one thing if Jews remained confined to their traditional American home on the left, where they are and were one very loud voice in a chorus of tribal interest-seekers, and their concerns could be judged accordingly. But on the right, their typically leftist interest group politics are dressed up as “universal right,” “America’s traditions,” and “the good of the economy,” and other obvious falsehoods that masquerade as objective interests of the majority.
I don’t wish them or any other of my fellow Americans harm, but I especially don’t wish my country harm, nor do I want to see its fundamentals changed. Just as we should be wary of Haitians or Greeks or Cubans calling for more immigration so as to allow more of their countrymen in, here we should recognize that a broader agenda is afoot that has nothing to do with what’s good for America or Haitians, and it’s so obvious that it’s pitiful.
Letting in a million or so Haitian immigrants would not have any real influence on America’s majority-European demographics. It would decrease the European-American slice of the demographic pie by less than one percent.
Abrams may in fact be a hypocrite on immigration – I have no idea what he thinks about mass immigration in general – but I don’t see any hypocrisy in his article on Haitian immigration and his opposition to Jewish intermarriage. Abrams’ “broader agenda” that’s so pitifully obvious here to Mr. Roach isn’t obvious to me at all. (Yeah, yeah, I can guess the reason why I can’t see it.) Abrams’ Haitian idea sounds like good old Protestant humanitarianism to me.
The 1965 immigration reform, which privileged third world, non-white immigration over all other forms of immigration, was almost exclusively lobbied for and supported by Catholics and Jews, both of which groups seethed with resentment over how great grandma was treated fifty years earlier in the 1924 closing of the borders. The history of this legislation and the recent amnesty movement reveals why what I’m saying is obvious, even if this particular article and incident standing by themselves would not. I do agree that this kind of liberal, sentimental, and anti-American stupidity is not the monopoly of any one group and may have come about on its own under the influence of WASP guilt, as it seems to have in Europe.
Since so many of these immigrants would be concentrated in Florida–population about 15mm I think–the impact here would be enormous.
You singled out one particular person, Eliott Abrams, to smear as a “self-serving hypocrite” based on two columns which were not hypocritical at all. Since you seem to agree that “this particular article and incident standing by themselves would not” support your charge of double standards, it might have been inaccurate to call Eliott Abrams himself a “self-serving hypocrite” based on his article.
It’s hypocritical or dishonest or evil or nakedly self-interested and insulting or whatever you want to call it to (a) defend the right of one’s own people to preserve itself demographically while (b) undermining the nation’s right to preserve itself demographically, whiel purporting to promote its interest. It’s obvious he recognizes demographics is destiny and self-preservation are defensible and valuable things, but he simply believes his group and minority groups in general have this right while the rest of us have to accept a policy-engineered Third World displacement.
Taking 1 million Haitians is not a good idea. First, which ones do you choose? Do you take the ones that speak English and have the most job skills? Or do you haphazardly select anyone without regards to skills?
If you choose the former, you take from Haiti the best and brightest who are needed to rebuild. If you take the latter, you saddle the US taxpayer with instant welfare cases
Even if you select Haitians that might have a chance at success in the US, the benefits to Haiti are slim. Let’s say a Haitian manages in 5 years to have a $50K job. He’ll probably pay 20% or more in taxes. Since the cost of living in the US is so high, how much will he have left to send to relatives in Haiti?
It makes more sense to send aid money to Haiti. One dollar in Haiti supports more Haitians than one dollar of welfare in the US.
If anything Haiti needs immigration, not emigration. Consider the benefit to Haiti if 100,000 Jews, Chinese or Indians were to immigrate. They would assist in building up the economy, exploiting the natural resources and providing a climate of commerce and education that does not exist. And of course, they would help make Haiti more multicultural.
Sure, 1 million Haitians isn’t that many given the U.S. population, but Abrams’ could never sell a plan for 10 or 20 million. The idea is to boil the frog slowly.
Anyways, once the 1 million are here, there is no way they’re ever going back, and the Haitians’ siblings, parents, uncles, aunts, in-laws, etc. will be coming to join them via our asinine chain migration rules over the next decade, and it won’t be long before that 1 million becomes 2 million.