Newsgroup: it.politica.pds
Titolo: US IMMIGRATION COST $$$ & LOSS OF FREEDOMS

E per fortuna che c'è ancora qualcuno in giro che va ciarlando che
l'immigrazione sia una risorsa.....
Costly immigration
Paul Craig Roberts
     What does immigration cost us? At a recent debate in Arlington, Va.,
Harvard Professor George Borjas says economists put the net cost of
immigration at $70 billion a year.
     He noted, however, that the cost is not evenly distributed. Some
communities are heavily impacted with swollen welfare budgets and hospitals
on the brink of bankruptcy. Immigration is estimated to cost Californians
$1,300 per household annually in additional taxes.
     A different view was expressed by Cato Institute libertarians. Steve
Moore argued that immigration is a form of reverse foreign aid that
invigorates the U.S. with "new blood." Libertarians also see open borders as
a freedom issue and value unrestricted immigration as a rare example of
minimal government.
     Both in terms of believing that the cost of immigration is economic and
in associating immigration with more freedom, the debate has shortcomings. A
strong case can be made that the price we pay for Third World immigration is
our freedom.
     Consider the case of Manistee, Mich., housewife Janice Barton, who was
convicted and jailed for using the word "spics" in a private conversation
with her mother.
     I was a teenager when I first heard the word "spic." I asked its
meaning and was told that it was slang for Italians, like "frog" for the
French, "limey" for the British, "kraut" for German and "yank" for American.
(If anyone had a right to be offended, it was Southerners known as "yanks,"
but that was a time before sensitivity training.)
     This definition of "spic," I learned recently, was incorrect. The word
is slang for Latino or Hispanic. Mrs. Barton used it when, passing a group
of Hispanics chatting in their native tongue, she expressed her wish to her
mother that these "spics would learn to speak English."
     It is possible to empathize with Mrs. Barton without being a racist.
Many Americans feel their communities, which give them identity, are being
overrun by peoples from different cultures speaking alien languages.
Manistee is a long way from warm, sunny Mexico and, yet, Mrs. Barton, out
with her mother, found multicultural diversity thrust upon her.
     Mrs. Barton expressed an annoyance, hardly a criminal action. Yet a
Hispanic off-duty deputy sheriff overheard the private remark, noted down
her car license, and Mrs. Barton was arrested and convicted for committing a
"hate crime."
     Something has badly gone wrong when native-born Americans cannot
express private thoughts to their own family without being put in jail.
     In no previous wave of immigration did immigrants have such powerful
upper hand over the native-born population, the very people who permit
immigrants to come into their country. Today it is native-born citizens who
receive hostile treatment.
     On Nov. 1, a Michigan appeals court reversed Mrs. Barton's conviction.
The reversal, however, was on the very narrow grounds that Mrs. Barton was
convicted for "conduct she could not reasonably have known was criminal."
     Note that the appeals court did not say that in America the
Constitution guarantees free speech and that no American under any
circumstances can ever be arrested, charged and convicted for expressing
their thoughts and feelings privately to another person.
     This fundamental right has vanished in Michigan and, also, in New York
(as we will presently see). A right once synonymous with America has been
trumped by the superior right of the newly, and often illegally, arrived
immigrant to find offense wherever he wishes in the manner in which the
native-born receive him.
     On Nov. 4, Linda Alberti, a supervisor of a government agency in Nassau
County, N.Y., was fired for using racial slurs in a private telephone
conversation that was secretly recorded. Not content merely to eavesdrop on
employees (a privacy violation?), Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi went
public in order to humiliate Linda Alberti, who had just won a promotion.
"This is a sad day for Nassau County," declared Mr. Suozzi, to have an
employee show such "a very ugly and sordid side of human nature." Mr. Suozzi
expressed his hopes that discharging Ms. Alberti will "send a message to
others that racism in any form will not be tolerated."
     This episode could have been copied straight out of George Orwell's
"1984," in which an all-intrusive therapeutic state monitors private
thoughts and expressions and punishes "offenders" severely in an effort to
reconstruct humans as the government would have them.
     What is the explanation for the Orwellian experiences of native-born
Americans? Is it the massive immigration of Third World peoples, every one
of whom has been declared by federal civil rights enforcers to be a
privileged "preferred minority" (an official designation) by virtue of skin
color?
     Immigration is stripping Americans of their civil rights and their
national identity. Some Americans, not yet aware of their perilous position,
still wave the patriotic flag. But neoconservatives set on conquest of the
Middle East had best reassess the fighting stamina of a people whose civil
rights and national identity are under full-scale assault at home.

Bene, ora devi convincere gli industriali veneto che le teorie di Arlington,
Va. si applicano anche da noi.