Buchanan's immigration prediction on Tucker: "If you grant amnesty ... I think you lose the American Southwest"
On the June 25 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, guest host David Shuster asked MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan about his description of the illegal immigration to the United States as "an invasion," and Buchanan replied: "[E]very 20 months, we add a new Mexico in the Third World. You're going to add 30 new Mexicos by 2050, and they all know the door is open." Buchanan went on to criticize the immigration bill recently considered by the U.S. Senate: "If you grant amnesty -- and there's nothing in this bill that stops the invasion -- I think you lose the American Southwest."
In his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America (Thomas Dunne Books, August 2006), Buchanan also made reference to a "new Mexico," stating on Page 245:
The crisis of the West is of a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples, as a Third World that grows by 100 million people -- the equivalent of a new Mexico -- every eighteen months mounts the greatest invasion in the history of the world. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end.
During his MSNBC appearance, Buchanan also said: "Look, we won World War II against Germany and Japan in three years, and these guys can't find a bunch of felons wandering around our cities?"
From the June 25 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
SHUSTER: Pat, you describe this in your book as an "invasion." You said yesterday on Meet the Press a couple of times that this was an "invasion." What are you talking about?
BUCHANAN: Well, the president of the United States said he stopped 6 million people on the border in his first five years. One in 12 -- 500,000 -- had a criminal record. Those 1 in 12, those 500,000, that's equal to the size of the entire United States Army. Twelve million people in the country is more than all the Irish, Jewish, and English folks who ever came. And more than that, every 20 months, we add a new Mexico in the Third World. You're going to add 30 new Mexicos by 2050, and they all know the door is open. If you grant amnesty -- and there's nothing in this bill that stops the invasion -- I think you lose the American Southwest.
SHUSTER: Pat, how do you get the money, though, to go after 600,000 illegal immigrants and essentially deport them?
BUCHANAN: Well, 600,000 -- those are absconders. Those are people who have been ordered deported. They are felons in the United States. How can you talk about national security if you don't do it?
SHUSTER: But obviously what we're doing right now isn't working.
BUCHANAN: Look, we won World War II against Germany and Japan in three years, and these guys can't find a bunch of felons wandering around our cities? What is the matter with this government?
SHUSTER: That's right they can't. And isn't, Peter, that part of the problem?
BUCHANAN: Well, then [Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff is the problem, and President Bush is the problem.
Guess I'll start off the show with this interesting fact based article. Prepare for fireworks, my friends! The trolls are about to pounce...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070625/cm_rcp/lead_weight_or_gold_mine_what;_ylt=AjR9kwylWRE1ZZSAahDool_9wxIF
but they're browning America! ..and what about the WCM power structure? Of course Brown is just dandy with me and the White Christian Males are going to have to learn to share. (smile)
And me? I like brown women, yellow women, black women, white women, heck. Any woman who will wink at me is pretty much on my list!
equal opportunity all the way huh Snoop? Have a good night!
Yup, you can call me an equal opportunity explorer, I guess! Have a good nite too Lynn!
It's like the line from a favorite movie of mine.
"What do you look for in a woman?"
"Low standards."
Yeah, it's good to be a liberal and can seek out ANY woman to have one-night-stands with. It's tough to be a conservative and actually just stick with ONE woman and attempt to make it work for a lifetime. I wonder if they ever did any studies on marraiges that last longer than 50 years...whether the couple is liberal or conservative? My money would be on conservative.
"But they are browning America".... pathetic racist statement. Always throwing out the rac card. There happen to be illegal Rusians here to. The Media is making it a "Brown" thing. Sorry to dissapoint those who think this is a war against mexico, its not. They just happen to make up a majority of the illegals.
here are a couple quotes from your article: "the heritage authors focus entirely on immigrants without a high school degree, rather than the typical immigrant. they are correct in pointing out that people with that level of education often end up costing the government more in benefits than they pay in taxes." "presently, about half of all illegal immigrants and a quarter of all legal immigrants arrive with less than a full high school education."
Your point? Other than selectively singling out some facts that support your opinion while ignoring the rest of the facts which pretty much proves you wrong?
i think your article is a little dubious. in addressing the issue of school costs for immigrant children, it says: "second generation americans are 12% more likely to obtain a college degree than other natives...". but i got this at migrationinformation. org, a sept 2002 article by richard fry of the pew hispanic center: "among 25 to 44 year adults, about 20% of the latino second generation lacks a high school diploma. [vs 7% of the comparable non-hispanic whites.]
That's fine if you don't 100% agree, and if you are bringing some facts forward to back up your questions, that's great too. I'm not gonna argue someone who tries to research the presentation and can prove the holes. I just bring the article forward as a starting point for discussion because everything I read and researched on my own implies it is an attempt to be fair and balanced. Believe it or not, that is where I really want my arguments to be resolved, not in the pits of name calling and victory by out shouting.
And be sure I am not suggesting you are doing that. My word!
the article also says that immigrants increase the size of the economy. but that is a given, because every single person added to the population does that. what it does not mention is that last year an estimated 62 billion dollars in remittances were sent to other countries by workers here. understandable why they do it, but that hardly qualfies as a benefit to our economy.
here's what i mean about adding to the size of the economy. as an example, ten workers make 10,000 per year. two workers are added, but wages fall to 9,000. the economy is now $108,000 vs 100,000. has the economy been added to. yes. are the ten original workers better off? decide for yourself.
That seems to indicate that production has gone up and since wages have decreased. profits have gone up. Is that the fault of the employer or the employee?
Again the enemy is not the one who labors, the enemy is the system that exploits the laborer.
"Again the enemy is not the one who labors, the enemy is the system that exploits the laborer."
Mexico needs a better system.
No they don't. They have the best system any nation in the world could have. They send 20 million of their residents to America and have them send $62 billion back into Mexico's economy. What could be a more perfect scenario for Mexico?? Lower population concerns/less drain on their health care and more money coming into the economy.
I wonder if Americans could do that to Canada?
Show me the fact snoopy. I find about ZERO that suport the benefits of Illegal Immigration. I bet you will be hard pressed to find any facts unless they are presnt on a liberal newssite.
Oh, but I did show the facts. It was a very balanced presentation showing what is true in general while also proving why it isn't true as a whole. And in typical right wing fashion, you dismissed it with zero factual evidence to base your assertion on because for you, dismissing anything a liberal says is more important than believing a fact. And your opening statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you base your facts on being in a crowd of like minded opinions, kinda like german nationalists of 1939.
There's an old scottish saying: don't cut off your nose to spite your face. You'd be well served taking heed of that advice.
Evidence. I know you are not blind to the negative effects illegal immigration has cost America.
Do you see me saying anything one way or the other about it? Quit trying to say I'm supporting something when I haven't said one way or the other in the first place.
Snoopy, I like the way you worked German nationalism, circa 1939, into the discussion.
Going back to immigration, it depends on how you look at the data. The 9/11 hijackers were immigrants, and their actions cost us about one trillion dollars, so where does one fit that into the debate?
And Jim Jones, Timothy McViegh, and John Wayne Gacy were born here how does that fit into YOURS? You didnt really think that made a point did you? That 20 out of several million immigrants were terrorists?
The point is that not all immigrants come here to be productive, law abiding citizens, and some of these economic consequences are not factored into the studies.
"... Jim Jones, Timothy McViegh, and John Wayne Gacy were born here how does that fit into YOURS?"
I have to put up with a certain amount of crime as it is. I would like to see more control of the borders to keep out criminals who want to immigrate here.
I agree, there are some criminal elements that want to come here. You won't find many liberals who want to let the criminals in either.
This is really an argument about how best to control immigration. I've been through the legal route via my wife, and I'm pretty sure darn near everyone believes the process is pretty messed up and full of red tape. It is my opinion that the screwed up lengthy process is the number one reason why immigrants who would otherwise come here legally go around the process and risk the borders.
Fix the process. Streamline it, put controls in place similar to what the airports do to get instant data on who is flying, anyone who fails contests it out of their own pocket. And increase monitoring of businesses and give out heavy fines for those who employ illegal laborers. Do those types of changes up front and you will find more liberals like me who will be more amenable to some form of increased border patrolling and possible fence improvements.
Not all of ANYBODY does ANYTHING. Sure lets keep the criminals out and who again disagrees with that? NOBODY. So you dont really have a point do you?
How is a prediction from Buchanan "conservative misinformation"?
Well Max, Buchanan is a Conservative, & MMFA obviously doesn't like his prediction [though I don't see where they tried to refute it as baloney]...but I guess they think it's MIS-information or his prediction is not accurate, reliable, or credible and it forwards the conservative agenda.
Of course a prediction is just basically doing a little crystal ball gazing or offering a possibility of things that could happen based on present information.
Apparently predicting something MMFA doesn't agree with can get you your very own thread.
But my guess would be that MMFA considers Buchanan saying that "losing the Southwest" to Mexicans ILLEGALLY crossing the border & getting amnesty is somehow racist. For whatever reason the word ILLEGAL is not something folks around here ever want to include in these discussions. Law? What law?
And what so few on the right want to acknowledge is humanity. Despite the occassional refrains of compassionate conservatism, the conservative choir still sings the song of 'otherness.'
So now it's inhumane to enforce immigration law! Brilliant! I feel like we've entered some sort of Bizarro world where guilt is a force of nature. Why should I feel bad about wanting to maintain the sovereignty of the United States? When millions of people are violating the law and our Congress seems happy to oblige them, I should just sit back and allow it to happen? I think not.
I understand it but I don’t see the sovereignty argument as a very sturdy argument. Until our country can respect the sovereignty of countries like Iraq, our moral standing is questionable at best.
What I was alluding to in the response to Jeter is that, in order to consider immigration more clearly, it would serve us well to remove the emotional barrier implicit in the illegal people frame.
My empathy for immigrants isn’t some mere trendy political stance. My reasoning flows from ethical, moral; even spiritual realms. We have a responsibility to the human family to alleviate suffering. Sealing our border with fences and armed guards to deny desperate people from participating in the greatest country in the world is such a ‘me’ first compassionless attitude and is antithetical to the tenets of an open, liberal democratic society.
Tell you what. If that is your stance, then sponser a family to come live with you, in your house, help them acclimate to the US, find jobs, etc. If you feel that it is you moral duty to care for the needy of the world, then by all means, start in your own home. After you start with that family, there is about a few billion more that would like to join them, so I suggest you get a membership at Costco.
Additionally, I am disturbed at your attempt to shrug off the idea of American sovereignty, within our own borders. Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not people are in this country illegally. Whatever you opinions on the war are, they have little bearing on this discussion.
Sorry you feel that way. Sorry I didn't explain myself better.
It's simple. I am not angry at people who want to live in our country and particpate in the American dream instead of starve in their home country.
You did explain yourself. You seem to be ignoring my basic point.
I never said that we shouldn't aid the needy. We differ on the approach to that aid. I would like to see more American investment in the infrastructure, health care and education systems around the world. I would like to provide the opportunity for people to make their lives better - in their own countries. I would like to increase immigration quotas to allow more qualified and desirable peoples to get into the United States. I would like to make the immigration process more efficiant so it doesn't take 10 years to get in. I would like countries such as Mexico to be concerned with more than the wealthiest 10% of their citizenry.
What i cannot stand, however, is the permissive attitude you have on illegal immigration. What other country in the world has to justify the need to control illegal immigration? It is insane.
Good on you Teach, you do look beyond the hateful framing of immigration.
However, we should also ask ourselves what about Central America’s sovereignty? Our economic and political policies, our covert wars in Central America, have destabilized the very livelihood of our neighbors to the south. What should we expect for our efforts?
So-called amnesty might be exactly what the doctor ordered.
Because his predictions may have some holes. Dispite this his opinion gets a wide circulation and response from the conservative population. In this case his prediction is that we are going to lose the south west. I didn't see any set of events mentioned, exact deffinitions of what his broad terms mean. its greatest impact as far as I can see is to raise the level of fear while speaking authoritativly. This qualifies as missinformation for me.
You got the details? If so fill them in.
Yea, that's it.
Try this next time:
"There just aren't many conservatives in the media so they kinda have to stretch anything they can into 'conservative misinformation', including predictions that won't mean a thing for years."
There are a lot more conservatives in the media than liberals. Though most of the media would fall into the third neutral or moderate category you still see a whole lot more of the Buchanons, Coulters, and the like than Zinns and Chomskys
I love to listen to Chomsky. What is the reason for so little Liberal Radio?
I believe the reason is twofold. First due to its inherent message, that is people should excercise power, participatory democracy, business finds it threatening and isnt as willing to support it as a conservative message that corporations find more in line with their agendas. Since the vast majority of advertising revenue comes from the business community it puts liberals at a disadvantage. Second most liberals I know are readers, the talk radio format often ends up in a preaching to the choir thing which doesnt really appeal to me, maybe its the same for a lot of liberals.
Business advertises in lots of liberal venues, such as TV shows and pop music. The support would be there for liberal talk radio. But, it is more than politics that makes a show work.
Sure they advertise in Lots of politically NEUTRAL venues those are NOT liberal how in the world is pop music supposed to be liberal. Please tell me you are joking. If it was an actual attempt at a point it was certainly laughable
I would say Hip Hop music comes from a liberal direction, and they are happily embraced by advertisers.
You MIGHT say the sky is red to. That doesnt mean anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex would take it seriously. Is there a cogent argument or point anywhere in your future or is this nonsense all you have?
Did you even understand what eweston was trying to explain to you or were you to busy picking at your belly button?
A prediction based on WHAT other than pushing a conservative agenda?
Frankly, that meets the very definition of conservative misinformation.
He is misinforming about what's going to happen, from a conservative racist viewpoint.
SNOOPY:
Your article seems to show that immigration can be a GOOD thing, but here in America, we are dealing with a different dynamic.
See, the message we must get from our media is one that reflects the Rightwing mindset. Everything must spring from FEAR, which opens the field to paranoia, the feeling that someone's going to take something from you, an irrational suspicion of anything new or different, and an overall VICTIM mentality.
ANY topic filtered through this rightwing media/political prism will produce the predictable result. Immigration? Destruction, lawlessness, lost jobs, lost power of the white "christian" male, our American "culture" wiped out.
What is the common factor in these fears? It is WEAKNESS. These Rightwingers are people who are so scared they don't measure up, that their culture is fragile and their jobs tenative, their skills faulty ... that they must view ANY other person as A THREAT. This is the FEAR that the Rightwing massages, to keep America's HATE level on orange alert.
Without FEAR, and plaguing people's anxieties, and feulling their darkest, most evil traits ... what does the Rightwing have to try to garner VOTES? Remember, even Reagan's sunny "morning in America" and "shining city on the hill" had the huge black backdrop of the RED SCARE, dreaded Communism that could wipe us out at any instant. Yes, Reagan knew how to use FEAR as well ... he just added a smiley face to his own demeanor. The VOTERS he courted were the pants-wetting terrified Rightwingers who are scared of their own shadows, and needed a big daddy to rescue them from the boogie man.
Bush mined enough of them to squeak into office, so now we are a nation ruled by fear and bereft of hope. It's what you get when you bank on people at their worst - and that's the rightwing credo.
Nice try, Tex, but it is you on the Left who traffic more in paranoia, vast right wing conspiracies, enlarging the nanny state to help the alleged helpless, and increasing regulation to subdue the White Christian Male, an ethnic group it is okay to bash, 'cause it fits you agenda.
Go project somewhere else.
Perhaps you should peddle your DELUSIONS somewhere else. Somewhere that agrees with your rightwing agenda of getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can, starving hungry children, destroying the environment and whatever other fallacies are as valid as the balderdash you just pulled out of your rectal database to accuse the left of.
"Rectal database"? Priceless :-)!
not original got that from another liberal here and told him immediatly I would shamelessly steal it. I agree its classic
" getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can, starving hungry children, destroying the environment..."
This is clearly a reckless disregard for the truth, but then, it is Solon, on MMFA, so carry on. It is what we have come to expect.
It was exactly the same kind of ludicrous, baseless, mischaracterization as the nonsense YOU were spewing just from the opposite viewpoint. Always gotta hold a rightwingnuts hand and walk him through the point. Higher brain function being a foriegn concept to a wingnut
This site thrives on wordsmithing and literal interpretation. I thought it would apply to everyone.
Lets do some wordsmithing. I want a judges ruling on the claim that steamer THOUGHT. I am sorry the judges have ruled that not only is there no evidence whatsoever of your parroting the rightwing ignorance in your posts of any sort of brain function whatsoever they have demanded proof you have aquired the requisite equipment to accomplish the task known as thinking since no such evidence exists within your posts.
Tex,
believe it or not, I don't see the article so much as saying immigration is a good thing as I see it as a balanced attempt to point out that here's what's being said, here's how it's true, and here's how it becomes false when applied to the whole. But I am not surprised that those that have posted in negative of my starting post are going down the dittohead response path.
This is a battle over Illegal Immigration, correct?
They won't just lose the Southwest. They will lose the Country.
Yeah, as if they had a huge army for taking over.
They do. They just came armed with the ability to take advantage of our Social System.
Can you please explain to me how an illegal alien can take advantage of our social security system?
Sorry about my bad reading comprehension today.
Why would you say that? Besides the blatant racism.
Who are "THEY"?
The people that don't understand the terrible risk of the Latin Menace overrunning fricking Maine.
using sharks with friking laser beams...
I'm guessing "they" are the same as "you",as in Buchanan's "you lose the southwest".
Meaning the original Americans - White Christians.
Besides, I live in the southwesty-est part of the Southwest, and a lot of the dirt around here is owned by people from Japan, the Middle East and other places. It just isn't that scary to the Real Americans because a lot of their places are rented to white people.
Those bad bad "White Christians"...... Glad I am just White.
Is pat playing a game of Risk (tm) in his head? And what the heck does he mean 'YOU lose the southwest...'? DOH!! Brownies just rolled two sixes, whities lose new mexico... seriosly, this *man* epitomizes armchair philosophising and paranoid delusions of persecution...
Whites against the Brownes...... Pathetic.
It seems at some point we need to limit immigration. Today, more people and a bigger economy means more fields and forests get turned into subdivisions. How long can this go on?
Correct.
In the middle third of the 1900's we didn't allow too many immigrants into the country, since so many had arrived at the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th.
We limited immigration so the new arrivals could acclimate themselves with America, learn the language, etc. This they did.
We need to do the same thing now: seal off the border, and let the people who've arrived since the 60's become part of the system as opposed to having them remain illegal while picking lettuce.
The Dems want votes; the Reps want cheap labor for businesses; Bush wants a better legacy...and the American people want this immigration bill to go away.
Only one-fifth of those polled support it. They'll get their way most likely, and this country will never be the same.
We limited immigration so the new arrivals could acclimate themselves with America, learn the language, etc. This they did.
I look forward to your proof that the new arrivals back then learned "the language" any better than new arrivals today. Or in general acclimate themselves.
As I recall, NYC was dotted with ghettos of various ethnicities, where the language of the "old country" was spoken and restaurants and businesses from those countries took hold.
Your fairy tale doesn't hold water.
We need to do the same thing now: seal off the border, and let the people who've arrived since the 60's become part of the system as opposed to having them remain illegal while picking lettuce.
You realize that's what the recent immigration reform bill proposes. Tighten border security, and provide a path toward legal status.
population growth is actually my biggest objection to immigration. last oct 17 we passed 300 million people. this morning the census bureau clock had our population at 302,194,478. we will easily add over 3 million in a year. immigration, directly and from higher birth rates of immigrants, is the biggest contributer to that growth. in 1972, the rockefeller commission on population growth said: "the commission recommends that the nation welcome and plan for a stabilized population." our population then was 205 million and immigration was a fraction of what it is now. it will cost a lot of money to build an infrastructure to support 400 million people, but we are headed that way very quickly.
Good point Mefirst.
Excellent point, and one of my reasons for immigration rules
"it will cost a lot of money to build an infrastructure to support 400 million people,"
Yes. It will. That is why it is imperative to rethink and modify the way we perceive the problem of infastructure. Solutions depend on the definiton of the problem.
We can create, rearrange and reorganize communities so that they are largely energy self-reliant and therefore vastly reduce demands on the infrastructure. Energy consumers can become local energy producers by using solar panels, windmills etc. Energy efficient homes are available.
Food production is removed from population centers and thus requires huge amounts of energy to transport. That can change. We can invest in local farmers instead of agrigiants.
Major corporations are already subsidized to supply our demands, why not instead, invest in livable communities that support a balanced and less consumption oriented existence?
The solutions are immense when we consider that the problem is the status quo.
That is a good point. It also points out how as a whole this country does a poor job of planning in advance. Planned obsolescence has proven to be more costly in the long run.
The autobahn was purposely built to be able to handle heavy military traffic, and as a result it lasted decades before any serious repairs needed to be made. If we had been as thoughtful when we created our highway infrastructure, we'd have more manpower available to widen and improve the existing infrastructure, instead of blowing it on maintaining and repairing what's already there.
So now it’s blame immigration for urban sprawl, blame immigrants for unethical land developers? It’s a failure of imagination, an addiction to the status quo, to assume that the current patterns of land development must persist.
again, you have the reality that you refuse to consider. more people are going to produce more urban sprawl. that's the way it is. just talking about rethinking how things should be does not mean that is what will happen. an increasing population puts more of a strain on our environment. that is why the late senator gaylord nelson, the father of earth day, wanted immigration reduced. you've already agreed that we have to have limits on how many people should be allowed into this country.
The world is getting smaller and we need to find solutions to accommodate us all. We can accept that the way it is, is the way it should be. That is conservatism. We can analyze the problem, from outside the box, and find the solutions that work despite the status quo. In other words, we can be progressive.
I believe that the more we think the better we will be and I believe in the power of participatory democracy. We can think about, work it out, find a balance with our environment and insist that our voices are heard. That is the American way.
Nice sentiments, Roundhouse, but we run up against some basic choices, e.g., what is the maximum population we can support, under a likely scenario, and at what standard of living?
MAX:
If you and your rightwing pals were to leave, deport, or depart, this country would never be the same.
It would be BETTER.
It would be BEST if you and your cohorts departed.
What is best for you fascists is not what is best for America
Where the hell is midle America. The division makes me sick.
At least you'll be gone.
Who me? I am not going anywhere. This is MY country as much as yours. I would never let braindead, brainwashed morons like you chase me anywhere. I do think your black fascist heart would be better appreciated in Guatemala. I mean since Nazi Germany isnt hiring anymore
I always thought Honduras might be the place for me.
I do want to keep you around. A diversity of opinion is good, and I hold out hope that someday you will come up with a good idea that will improve things. So, anytime now, come up with one.
I have done so and posted some of them on this site. However I dont DO requests so good luck in Honduras feel free NOT to write.
I just love the tollerence.
If you love something, set it free in spellcheck .
If no suggestions are given,it is yours.
If suggestions are given, it was never yours.
Want a different perspective on securing our country with deportation...google up "Operation W*tback"...a program instituted by Pres. Eisenhower.
Interesting. But Eisenhower wasn't concerned with national security as such when he instated this program, so much as he was with general fears of national, cultural, ethical and economic corruption. One wonders if calls for immigration reform in the name of national security today are not simply the same xenophobic anxieties dressed up in the more respectable clothing of anti-terrorism discourse.
But please enlighten me, Wesley: what lesson do you think we should draw from this historical example?
Today Laura Ingraham was speaking breathlessly of some teenaged kid who was arrested for Hit and Run or DWI or DUI or something, and dramatically ended her shpeal with "and it turns out.....he's an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT!"
Because no one who is a legal citizen of this country has ever been involved in a hit and run, DWI or DUI, or has ever comitted a crime of any kind. Of course.