It's puzzled me for years how that Texans have allowed their state to be overrun by illegal immigration. Whereas in California at least you've had a lot of controversy, and the famous Proposition 187 back in 1994, in Texas there's been very little organized opposition to the continuing invasion by illegal aliens.
Why? Probably a combination of factors. It's been pointed out that Texans like cheap labor. But that's true in California as well.
Maybe it's because land is cheaper in Texas, which makes it easier for the dwindling Anglo majority to just keep moving into the suburbs as Texas cities are Mexicanized. Maybe the Blight of Bush kept Texas Republicans from protesting—while, paradoxically, their political position isn't immediately threatened because Texas Anglos stick together and vote for the GOP anyway.
Whatever the reasons, it's encouraging to see that there finally is some political opposition.
But Texans had better hurry.
The Texas State Senate has just passed Senate Bill 9, which will be voted on by the Texas House this week and then must be signed by Governor (and possible Presidential candidate)[Rick Perry. Texas set to OK anti-sanctuary city law, June 21, 2011]
What exactly is in this law?
According to KXII.COM,
"The bill gives local law enforcement the power to question people they detain about their immigration status, a process that county officers already follow."[Texas Senate Passes Immigration Bill, June 15, 2011]
How do county officers do it? Sergeant Rickey Wheeler of Grayson County explains:
"We go by if they have a valid Texas ID, a valid drivers license or social security number we can verify that. If not, we go through the fingerprint process. If we can't make a verification there, then we'll ICE up and have them come and do a thorough investigation for us. You have a valid, legal reason to stop a vehicle or detain a person to speak with them about their violation or what you believe to have occurred."
In other words, you have to be stopped for something else first.
This is not as tough as Arizona's SB 1070. Texas Senator Estes puts it this way: "The Arizona law requires that officers ask for immigration status. But Senate Bill nine, the Texas law, just gives enforcement officials the option."
But despite the fact that SB 9 doesn't go as far as Arizona's law, it is a step in the right direction. So needless to say, the Treason Lobby crowd is hysterical—because anything that might potentially make illegal aliens uncomfortable must not be countenanced.
In a hearing for SB 9, something else happened, reported in an earlier VDARE.COM blog by James Fulford.
Anti-enforcement activist Antolin Aguirre [Email him] was delivering testimony in Spanish, which was then presented in English by an interpreter.
After hearing that Aguirre had moved to the U.S. in 1988, Senator Chris Harris (Arlington) interjected: "Did I understand him correctly that he has been here since 1988? Why aren't you speaking in English then?"
It was great, and I recommend if you've not already, you watch the video.
The activist was temporarily flabbergasted, I guess such an objection happens so rarely. After a lame excuse was presented, the heroic Senator Harris didn't back down. He asserted: "It is insulting to us. It is very insulting. And if he knows English, he needs to be speaking in English."
Way to go, Senator Harris. (I speak here as a teacher of Spanish, with a Mexican wife and bilingual children).
Texas is making progress—in the past, a pandering legislature actually conducted a session in Spanish.
Of course, Harris had his critics. But he spoke up boldly and stood his ground. That's what we need.
Nevertheless, the demographic clock is ticking for Texas. Several months ago, this was dealt with in a Houston Chronicle article entitled Texas demographer: 'It's basically over for Anglos'.
Just consider the disdain with which our nation's founding ethnic group is treated here—"It's basically over for Anglos"—Over? Just imagine this language being used of any other ethnic group! (See Peter Brimelow's analysis here).
One Texas activist wasn't afraid of taking up the demographic issue and how it impacts Texas legislation: Rebecca Forest, co-founder of the Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas. Here's what she said, in a Tea party rally in Austin on June 13th:
"If you want to know why we can't pass legislation in Texas it's because we have 36 Hispanics in the Legislature. All of the states that have passed legislation have a handful and I mean literally, some of them have NO Hispanic legislators, well, maybe 3 or 5 or something. So that's part of our problem and we need to change those numbers. We need to do something about that in fact, during the debate on 'sanctuary cities', several Hispanic legislators testified that their grandparents and their parents were migrant workers who came over here to work and that THEY even worked in the fields. And some of them even admitted that they had been here illegally and that they came illegally. So the problem is these Hispanic legislators … is that it's too close to them and they … simply cannot vote their conscience correctly. So that's about all I have to say to you, please come to the hearing, and help us spread this message. Thank you."
[ Watch: Leader Of Texas Anti-Immigrant Movement Says There Are Too Many Hispanics In The Legislature, on the website of the Alianza De Texas Por Una Reforma Migratoria, which doesn't approve.]
Of course, these comments were greeted with horror by Texas RINOs. Joe Straus, Speaker of the House, said they were "divisive and intolerant" and "have no place in our [Republican] party or in the Texas House of Representatives, where our Hispanic members bring a diverse and valuable perspective to the legislative process, just as our Hispanic citizens do in our state."
Oh yeah?
SB 9 was passed by the Texas Senate with 19 Yeas and 12 Nays. I checked it out here PDF and guess what? Of the 19 Yeas, none were Hispanic legislators. Of the 12 Nays, six—half—were Hispanic legislators.
Coincidence?
Read Rebecca Forest's comments again, and tell me how she is wrong. If Hispanic legislators want to prove her wrong, they should do so by voting for patriotic immigration reform. But whenever such legislation is introduced, Hispanic politicians and activists are on the front lines opposing it.[See Whose Side Are U.S. "Latino Officials" On?, November 4, 2003 or see the website of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials,[Email them] on the subject of immigration policy.]
Certainly, many patriotic Americans of Hispanic ancestry oppose illegal immigration. For example, exit polls showed that 47% of Hispanics in Arizona who voted in 2004, voted for Arizona Prop 200, which would have denied public benefits to illegals, and required proof of citizenship to vote. [Proposition 200, Tancredo Re-election Not What Immigration Enthusiasts Want To Hear, By Sam Francis, November 18, 2004]
But let's be frank—these Hispanics don't count politically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all active, organized Hispanic groups that identify as "Hispanic" support amnesty and oppose cracking down on illegal immigration? (Here's one possible exception, the "You Don't Speak For Me" group—but I can't see what they've done since 2007).
The rule in our society: you can talk about Hispanic demographic power if, and only if, you celebrate it.
But what if you don't want the U.S. to become a Latino nation? What if you don't want our country to become an appendage of Latin America? What if you don't want the U.S. to become Mexico North?
In that case, you don't have a "Politically Correct" opinion. Expect to be marginalized and called bad names.
That's what Americans are up against in Texas—and sooner or later, in the whole U.S.A.
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.
