Two Different Slants On The Boycott
April 30, 2006, 01:37 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Two pieces about the marches and what they're trying to do here: One is from A Certain Slant Of Light, and is the same kind of internet journalism that we try to do here on Vdare.com, with an great many useful links:

But what the marches and economic boycott are really all about is blackmailing the United States Congress (they have long had President Bush in their hip pockets) into granting them amnesty, citizenship, “full legalization,” and, as outrageous as it may seem to we bona-fide American citizens, all of the rights and prerogatives that the U.S. Constitution affords. Indeed, this well-orchestrated, in-your-face affront to legitimate American citizens is all about an entitlement mentality run amuck and a Congress (particularly the United States Senate) obsequiously bowing to the demands of Mexican and Central American interlopers behaving as if they were red-blooded Americans. And, truth be known, it’s also about our elected representatives from both political parties engaging in a Faustian pact with lawbreakers and the business interests who knowingly hire them: to wit, a quid pro quo exchange of amnesty and citizenship for future votes and continuing cheap, taxpayer-subsidized labor. A Certain Slant Of Light » The Great Un-American Boycott Is A Rip-Off And Unadulterated Blackmail

John O'Sullivan, on the other hand, had an excellent old-media piece two weeks ago (Chicago Sun-Times and elsewhere) which says that while marchers can't be marching against the President, or against corporate interests, both of whom support amnesty, they also can't really be marching against Congress, since Congressional Democrats are already in favor of surrendering, and Republicans are firmly opposed to illegal immigration. He suggests that marches are aimed, in fact, at the American people.

So the marches are, in effect, directed against the voters since they stand behind the Republican legislators blocking the bill. If one listens carefully to the rhetoric of the marchers and their organizers, they deny the right of Congress and the voters to control immigration, to expel illegal immigrants or even to place any conditions on their remaining — the conditions that the voters insist on as the minimum for any genuine compromise.[Even if borders stay open, Congress can close debate,April 11, 2006
]

Read the whole thing, in both cases.