There are at least two good reasons why I should get away with such a politically-incorrect title for this article.
First, in order to drive a very relevant point about the nature of the current illegal immigration crisis and debate, it’s appropriate that I bring up the actual name (from the true American history most people were never taught) of a long-forgotten, successful U.S. government program, which involved the rounding-up and deporting of well over a million illegal aliens captured near the U.S.-Mexico border during the 1950s and ’60s.
Second, in the modern context of the ongoing hype and falsely, politically-invented controversy over the name of a certain NFL team–a team which happens to represent the headquarters of our federal government today–I believe it’s helpful to draw a contrast between a politically-incorrect name based on skin color (which people just happen to be born with) and a politically-incorrect name based on a specific behavior (over which people have 100% control and free choice).
The Washington Redskins football team was originally named so as to honor and denote the warrior spirit of the storied “red-skinned” tribesmen, believed by most to be aboriginal to this continent.
The original Operation Wetback was named in 1954 so as to denote the fact that so many who breached the border into the U.S. from Mexico did it by swimming across the Rio Grande–highlighting the idea that, their being so freshly arrived upon encountering them, one could figuratively say that the river water had not yet completely dried from their backs.
The former were born, innocently, as “redskins.” The latter made a conscious, willing decision to violate U.S. law and become “wetbacks.”
The original Operation Wetback, begun during the Eisenhower administration and continued beyond, interestingly (and ironically, in light of today’s situation) came about largely because the Mexican government complained to the American government that so many Mexican citizens were crossing into the United States to seek a living, thereby depriving the developing economy of Mexico of a significant segment of a vital resource–human capital and labor.
My, how all-around attitudes have changed.
The world is upside-down now. Now, the Mexican government complains to the American government if we dare to even think about enforcing our already very mild (compared to those of Mexico) immigration laws; if we don’t enable the drain of millions of who they once valued as their human capital.
A few short years ago, Mexico’s president was welcomed into our federal government’s Capitol building, onto the floor of Congress, to stand at the microphone and lecture and berate our representatives and our entire country for not allowing ourselves to be even more rapidly overrun by the unidentified, the uninvited, and the dregs from his abysmally dangerous and impoverished land. His indignant and brazen screed was greeted with wild applause and deranged approval from many among our own politically-correct, corrupted, and culturally suicidal politicians.
Now, Central American countries are so dysfunctionally failed and besieged by organized criminals that they are jettisoning an endless, unaccompanied swarm of their young, Northward up through Mexico and (with the eager assistance of our own government) into the U.S. interior, many of them carrying dangerous and deadly diseases–some diseases which in recent times had otherwise been completely eradicated from within our borders. We are expected to accommodate, feed, and take care of them, regardless of the consequences. Anyone who objects is vilified as a heartless racist.
From a political standpoint, it is plain that those in power have intentionally encouraged and helped to bring this all about. There is documented evidence that they even planned for and orchestrated it, as a way to cynically flood certain areas of the country with countless new welfare cases and create ever more government-dependent constituencies, in order to hasten the collapse of capitalism (and of the personal responsibility ethos), so that outright collectivism can be brought about.
Especially for places like Texas, this strategy is seen as a sure-fire way to erase residual Republican voting majorities by overloading the entitlement and voting rolls with socialism-minded, freshly arrived Democrats, ushering in an era wherein our lost nation will forever forget what it was ever like to have a Republican president, or Republican principles in government. Democrats will lock down a permanent, one-party, nationwide majority not by prevailing in the arena of public policy debates in order to win elections, but by actually just importing and breeding a dependent-minded replacement electorate, largely by augmenting and paying the already exploding legions of unmarried women to have illegitimate children, and winning their allegiance at the voting booth by falsely blaming capitalism for not supplying enough promised and accustomed benefits when the public coffers run dry from all the massively pandering handout programs. [For a more detailed discussion of this, see “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis” as explained at www.discoverthenetworks.org]
Apart from the humanitarian question, do we Americans (and yes, when I say Americans, I mean citizens of the United States) have any right, any moral justification, to even contemplate having national borders, let alone protecting them and enforcing immigration laws in our interior? After all, as the argument goes, didn’t the historical majority of Americans, essentially white Europeans, really just “steal” this continent from the noble indigenous redskins to begin with? Don’t we creepy-ass crackers actually deserve to be overrun and displaced, killed off and dispossessed, by the swarming, breeding hordes of diversity darkies currently outpacing and picking us off in the biology/street crime sweepstakes? Seeing as it’s our karma and all, you know, because we genocided virtually all of the Indian tribes out of our way, stole the Southwest too, and so on….right?
To this line of thinking, I challenge anyone to convince me that any given tribe or nation of “indigenous” people did not also first conquer some previously existing so-called aboriginal people and thereby “steal” land. For that matter, there is evidence (the Solutrean artifacts/hypothesis) that Europeans populated this continent before the “Indians” did, and were subsequently wiped out by invading tribes of the latter, long before rediscovering the New World in 1492.
The fact is, no anthropologists or archaeologists can definitively prove that–Biblical accounts and allegories aside–any ethnic nation anywhere on the planet in the limitless timeline of history just somehow occurred/existed in a specific area (as in, sprouted up out of the dirt or dropped down out of the sky), and did not also migrate from some other land, to conquer and win territory in battle and otherwise. No one actually knows where any race of people originated, nor can anyone prove that any land undisputably belongs to any. Even the “out of Africa” theory has been blown out of the water in recent years.
Thus, laws concerning territorial boundaries, and people’s occupation/citizenship of countries, immigration laws, are only as good as the willingness of a nation’s government to enforce them. This is why we are losing “our” country. Our representatives simply refuse to do their jobs.
I’m sure that among the now-vanquished native American tribes of yesteryear, there were certain leaders and followers who bleated the “diversity is our strength” mantra.
It boils down to defending turf, then. Somebody has to keep adolescent MS-13 assassins-in-training and other sundry undesirables off our lawns. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and their ilk all have paid henchmen to protect theirs, while they declare ours to be common property, open to foreign invaders and squatters.
The very least we can do is be unafraid to characterize river-crossers according to their actual behavior.
