Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, May 25, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments |

Document Importing a slave class

by Ann Coulter, anncoulter.com

Thanks to Max Clixby for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Apparently, my position on immigration is that we must deport all 12 million illegal aliens immediately, inasmuch as this is billed as the only alternative to immediate amnesty. The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens — and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" — we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens, and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy — he must know where they are!

How do we even know there are 12 million of them? Why not 3 million, or 40 million? Maybe we should put the guy who counted them in charge of deporting them.

If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

I believe that the shortage of unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans we experienced in the '60s has been remedied by now.

Since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, more than half of all legal immigrants have been unskilled, non-English-speaking Mexicans. America takes in roughly 1 million legal immigrants each year. Only about 30,000 of them have Ph.D.s. Why on earth would any rational immigration policy discriminate against immigrants with Ph.D.s in favor of unskilled, non-English-speaking immigrants?

Say, don't Ph.D.s and other skilled workers have more influence on government policy than unskilled workers? Aren't they more likely to bend a president's ear? Yes, I believe they are! Noticeably, the biggest proponents of the government's policy of importing a huge underclass of unskilled workers are not themselves unskilled workers.

The great bounty of cheap labor by unskilled immigrants isn't going to hardworking Americans who hang drywall or clean hotel rooms — and who are having trouble getting jobs, now that they're forced to compete with the vast influx of unskilled workers who don't pay taxes.

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants — unlike you lazy Americans — are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden — the downtrodden trimming their hedges — pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but (1) they don't believe that; and (2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

Not to worry, Marie Antoinettes! According to "Alien Nation" author Peter Brimelow, "There is recent evidence that, even after four generations, fewer than 10 percent of Mexicans have post-high school degrees, as opposed to nearly half of non-Mexican-Americans." So you'll always have the maid. As New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said, our golf fairways would suffer without illegal immigrants: "You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways on your golf course?"

We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago. They've become so desperate for servants that now they're importing an underclass to wash their clothes and pick their vegetables. This vast class of unskilled immigrants is the left's new form of slavery.

What do they care if their servants are made citizens eligible to vote and collect government benefits? Aren't the fabulously rich happy in Venezuela? Oops, wrong example. Brazil? No, no, let me try again. Mexico! ... Well, no matter. What could go wrong?

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #44621 by MIND_REBEL on May 25, 2007 at 5:42 am

 avatarShe has a point. I'm Mexican-American, and many Mexicans are forced to work in slave like conditions for little or no pay with beyond shady bosses. It's like the old days before the labor movement. Big money doesn't like dealing with things like "rights" with it's employees.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

2. Comment #44625 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

Just don't know where to begin with this stuff, I really don't...

Other Comments by Mat

3. Comment #44638 by JohnF on May 25, 2007 at 6:05 am

 avatarWhat is the relevance of this article to atheism/religion?

Other Comments by JohnF

4. Comment #44641 by waxwings on May 25, 2007 at 6:07 am

 avatarNo one here is forcing Mexicans to cross the border illegally and take jobs, which, however poor paying, are better than they can get in Mexico. They're crossing all by themselves.

This is not to say I support anyone's right to exploit human beings because they're not legal citizens, mind you. The point is that the situation, as usual, is a bit more complicated than Ann Coulter's brutish, idiotic comparison of poor people who want to improve their lot in life by moving, to murderers and rapists.

Odd how horseface seems to think that only Democrats employ illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor, btw.

Other Comments by waxwings

5. Comment #44665 by USA_Limey on May 25, 2007 at 6:52 am

 avatarComment #44638 by JohnF wrote:

"What is the relevance of this article to atheism/religion?"

... Probably got posted because it's Coulter, who wrote in one of her books she would laugh at the idea of Richard Dawkins burning in hell.

And lots of stuff make it on this site that are not necessarily about religion or atheism. I like that the site has a broader focus myself.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

6. Comment #44671 by logical on May 25, 2007 at 6:58 am

 avatarWell, girlie,
We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows!


your beloved churches just do that: they hide a big number, some of them in the Vatican. (a place that should be Italy, and is considered a state of its own declining to work together with other countries´ law enforcement)
And inside your holy families - the life form YOU try to compel everyone to live in - begin guessing at 30% of families where domestic violence occurs! And they
will take jobs other Americans won't.

Unnecessary. Your friends, the Religious Right, have enforced the existence of more than enough Englishspeaking uneducated slaves who must work for so little money, because of welfare cuts (ever heard the word "workfare"?) and "school vouchers" will make sure that they cannot escape poverty.
Of course you are not willing even to admit to the overpopulation problem your not-to-be-criticized religions and their lobbies created!

Other Comments by logical

7. Comment #44698 by CJ22 on May 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

 avatar"We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago."

wtf??

Other Comments by CJ22

8. Comment #44729 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 25, 2007 at 8:30 am

 avatar7. Comment #44698 by CJ22 on May 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

"We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago."

wtf??


Actually ... technically correct. Lincoln was a republican, and Jefferson Davis was a Democrat.

That said, a lot has changed in the intervening 150 years and it's classic coulter. Technically true, but bullshit in principle. What a disingenous opportunist that woman is.

*shudder*

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

9. Comment #44792 by Robert on May 25, 2007 at 9:43 am

 avatarWhat she fails to mention is that the Republicans were originally the party of the left and the Democrats the party of the right. Conservatives who support wage slavery today by opposing unions and welfare are the descendents of those who defended chattel slavery a hundred and fifty years back. Then as now vulnerable Americans are seen as either white trash or lazy blacks.

After LBJ's party renounced racism and passed the Civil Rights Act the race bigots saw the light and became good Republicans.

Other Comments by Robert

10. Comment #44847 by mintcheerios on May 25, 2007 at 11:54 am

Robert nailed it on the head. The disengenuity of saying the "Democrats" held onto slavery is astounding. She knows many people don't know that the democrats of the time were right-wingers, and she is exploiting this to the max by banking on the ignorance of her readers.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

11. Comment #44852 by DavidJGrossman on May 25, 2007 at 11:57 am

 avatarAren't her 15 minutes up yet?!?!

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

12. Comment #44914 by Harlon57 on May 25, 2007 at 2:55 pm

 avatarRobert.

That is completely revisionist history. The Republicans were the conservative party even back in the time of Lincoln.

Even the Democrat leaders of today don't try to argue that point. They just say that the tides have turned and that they are now the supporters of the downtrodden.

Other Comments by Harlon57

13. Comment #45011 by Dreamer's Dilemma on May 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

I love Ann Coulter. She has bigger cojones (felt compelled to throw a little Spanglish in there since it was a border crossing article) than 90% of the Al Gore butt-kissing crowd that frequents this site. That said, what does it have to do with atheism? That is perhaps one of the few points with which I would choose to disagree with Ann. She is rabidly Christian and an unapologetic defender of the likes of the recently deceased Mr. Falwell. Oh well, nobody is perfect.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

14. Comment #45069 by BT Murtagh on May 26, 2007 at 5:08 am

 avatar'The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.'

From what I've seen it's mostly 'conservatives' who make this argument, and who hire the illegal immigrants - excuse me, 'undocumented workers' - at slave wages. 'Liberals' tend to argue for a livable minimum wage (which would make those jobs into ones Americans would want) and for harsher penalties on those who exploit the green-cardless.

It's kind of the flip side of supply side / demand side economics.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

15. Comment #45084 by Mikado on May 26, 2007 at 9:56 am

Immigrants is the greatest gift any country can have. The argument that immigrants steal jobs has no economic foundation, they have all the basic needs and generate additional demands and more jobs for the rest on the population. The anti immigrant arguments Ann Coulter is promoting is usually coming from the other side. In Norway it was the Labour party that made immigration illegal in 1976 (or close) after being pressured by the unions. (We do allow quotas of refugees and the EU rules) Have Ann become a socialist?

Other Comments by Mikado

16. Comment #45164 by Fishpeddler on May 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm

 avatarComment #45011 by Dreamer's Dilemma
"I love Ann Coulter."

Wow.

I really can't think of anything more to say. Just 'wow'. I think I may be having one of those 'spiritual' moments that some atheists talk about, when they stand in awe of the marvels of the universe.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

17. Comment #45673 by OkiMike on May 28, 2007 at 10:35 pm

As an atheist, I can't believe that I'm about to agree with Ann Coulter, but I actually can't believe my ears when I hear people stand up and defend ILLEGAL immigration. Hello?!?

We're not talking about legal immigration, we're talking about it's opposite: people who come here by breaking the rules we have established for them to properly enter.

They need to have their hands lopped off or something. I'm all for America being land of the free and home of the brave; It's a part of our history. But we must have certain controls. And when those few, controls are breached by people without the decency to follow a few simple rules that would keep them on the legal side of things, I must withhold my blessings.

Did I really just agree with Ann Coulter? Ugh...*shudder*

Other Comments by OkiMike

18. Comment #45690 by sanjiv on May 29, 2007 at 1:37 am

Aren't all those who call themselves American illegal immigrants too? Ask the Native Americans! Just wondering....

Other Comments by sanjiv

19. Comment #45695 by pewkatchoo on May 29, 2007 at 2:03 am

 avatarMikado, Coulter is talking about 'illegal' immigration. Strictly controlled immigration and asylum are good things. Unfettered immigration just leads to social breakdown and undue pressures on the indigenous population. Sorry but there is a lot of evidence to show that is the case.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

20. Comment #243555 by 1chistery on September 6, 2008 at 7:22 am

she is really something else. her tedious agenda seems to be preserving the tired notion that there are only two diametrically opposed world views. cute how she limits their contributions to golf courses and manicured hedges of rich liberals, while the foundation of california's economy is agriculture, not hollywood. deportation sweeps recently led to untold crop acreage spoiling in CO, while convicts harvested the rest. also many changing crop types grown as some too labor-intensive to harvest. must be liberals in CA central valley employing those life-wrecking buggers. and most americans do seem to be committed to low food costs. just watch daily news.
love comments about when illegal immigration really began, and how some people cry like stuck pigs whenever there is discussion of minimum wages that bear some relation to the actual cost of living.

Other Comments by 1chistery

21. Comment #243556 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 7:37 am

 avatar"Unfettered immigration just leads to social breakdown and undue pressures on the indigenous population."

News to me. In the European Union we have unfettered immigration between nearly all member states. Nobody has noticed that any of them have experienced social breakdown as a result. Nor do I see the slightest evidence of "undue" pressures on the indigenous population(s). The internal migration has contributed immensely to economic wealth and welfare.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

22. Comment #243557 by Laurie Fraser on September 6, 2008 at 7:41 am

 avatarAnn Coulter is, if I may use an irateism, the thinking person's complete fucktard.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

23. Comment #243567 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on September 6, 2008 at 8:27 am

 avatar
Nor do I see the slightest evidence of "undue" pressures on the indigenous population(s). The internal migration has contributed immensely to economic wealth and welfare.

There are definite pressures on manual labour, with immigration stifling wages. Millions of people suffer from this fact.
The uneducated are usually xenophobic. The uneducated make up the majority of manual labourers. The greatest pressure from immigration is on the manual work force. A vicious circle that leads to the high tensions, evidenced by the most poor areas displaying these tensions, burnley, bradford, stoke the list goes on, look at the success of the BNP in an area and look at the biggest industries in the area and see the correlation. To say immigration does not cause problems is so, for lack of a better term, middle-class.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

24. Comment #243634 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on September 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm

 avatartest

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

25. Comment #243637 by Roger Stanyard on September 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

 avatar"There are definite pressures on manual labour, with immigration stifling wages. Millions of people suffer from this fact.
The uneducated are usually xenophobic. The uneducated make up the majority of manual labourers. The greatest pressure from immigration is on the manual work force. A vicious circle that leads to the high tensions, evidenced by the most poor areas displaying these tensions, burnley, bradford, stoke the list goes on, look at the success of the BNP in an area and look at the biggest industries in the area and see the correlation. To say immigration does not cause problems is so, for lack of a better term, middle-class."

Nothing to do with Middle Class attitudes. What you are presenting is just serious incompetenet economics. You view is called the fixed pool of labour fallacy.

Fallacy it is, big time. It is tired and stupid.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

26. Comment #243645 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on September 6, 2008 at 3:33 pm

 avatarI think you'll find its more commonly called Lump of Labour fallacy.

Even if I accept your point, which I don't, the influx of workers is affecting peoples lifes, by forcing changes of careers etc, when it would otherwise not be the case.

Now I happen to have nothing against migration, we live in a cosmopolitan world, I just wanted to point out that your assertion that there are no pressures was flat incorrect. Your criticism supports my view. Immigration is forcing change, keeping wages down.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

27. Comment #357531 by evolvedape on March 30, 2009 at 12:34 am

"We fought a civil war to force Democrats to give up on slavery 150 years ago....".

The joke here is that the Bible sanctions slavery:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)".

So those Americans who imported slaves were obeying the word of God! This is a prime example of the Religious Right showing their ignorance of the scriptures.

Other Comments by evolvedape

28. Comment #357538 by AllanW on March 30, 2009 at 1:06 am

 avatarIt just struck me that Coulter must be the model that our own, dear Robertson wishes to emulate. The same style of wilfull mendacity, warped and cynical 'lying for Jeebus' and chin-jutting arrogance in the face of overwhelming censure.

She knows exactly how far she is mangling truth and reality in the service of;

1) Her own career in the public eye as the rent-a-quote hate-monger who's acceptable on the tv when Fred Phelps isn't

2) Her warped and vile religious delusion.

She isn't ignorant and that is why her output is so much more disgusting than illiterate or stupid fundamentalists; she knows what the truth is and deliberately chooses to distort and lie.

Obnoxious.

Other Comments by AllanW

29. Comment #357784 by hawt4dawk on March 30, 2009 at 12:13 pm

 avatar28. Comment #357538 by AllanW

Brilliant! You encapsulated her. I says this as someone who has actually read one of her books in my post-U.S. election attempt to "understand the right." I suspended all judgment of anything I'd heard about her and opened my mind. In the beginning of the book, she even made me laugh a couple of times, but soon her words were a torrent of mind-boggling mendacity and hate. She even went so far as to say that biologists are not real scientists.

Other Comments by hawt4dawk
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: