Miami blogger Robert comments on a thoughtful Miami Herald column by Fred Grimm:
Grimm suggests the reason may be because many immigrants here are content with their special status, particularly Cubans and Central Americans. He has a point, although I wouldn’t say all Cubans are content with the wet foot/dry foot policy. Haitians certainly aren’t happy with their status, but you still didn’t see them protest en masse.
It’s certainly not because there are a lack of illegals here.
I suspect the main reason is something Grimm didn’t address: lack of resentment for the United States of America.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds says, “PHOTOS LIKE THESE aren’t likely to stir sympathy for illegal immigrants.”
That’s putting it mildly. How do the Mexican irredentist wannabes think Jacksonian America is going to respond to their political argument?
Texas has a similar dynamic. There is far less hostility to even illegal immigrants in Texas than in California.
Explanation please for us on the other side of the pond. How does the continent belong to them if they speak Spanish? And are clearly as mixed racially as most Americans?
In New Mexico, the real animosity is between the real Native Americans and the Hispanic communities. The native long remember their treatment at the hands of their various Hispanic overlords.
“In January 1998, some one sawed off the right foot of a 12-foot bronze statue of Don Juan de Oñate at the Center in Alcalde, New Mexico, to protest the celebration of the Spanish conqueror’s arrival in New Mexico.
A note sent to the Albuquerque Journal indicated that the foot had been removed on behalf of the people of Acoma Pueblo who had suffered greatly at the hand of the Spanish almost 400 years ago. In a battle against the Acoma Indians on January 22, 1599, the Spaniards lost 12 men while killing more than 800 Indians. To further subdue the insurgents, Oñate ordered a foot cut off every male 25 years and over in the pueblo. Males between the ages of 12 and 25 were sentenced to 20 years of hard labor.”
http://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/monicaw/borderlands/17_pueblo_revolt.htm
Just google Onate publeo revolt for more information. Every promotion of celebrating the arrival of the Spanish is match by protest both by individual groups of natives and by petition of the tribes. And long similar lines, I doubt that the indigenous Apache have much respect for the protestors claims as well. They hardly recognized authority from Madrid or Mexico City back in the ‘good old days’.
Tangentially related, Claremont has an essay by Flannery re: multiculturism and the failure to educate our youth as to the civic virtues. I linked through Powerline. Sorry, I can’t imbed links myself.
Here is the Flannery piece Veryretired referred to.
Thank you, Lex.
I think part of the answer to the “Why not Fla.” question has to do with the prevailing intellectual and cultural atmosphere in Calif. as opposed to either Texas or Florida.
It can’t be accidental, or surprizing, that the dominant liberal, multi-cultural social and political climate in Cal. leads to stridently demanding group identity and group victimology on the part of Hispanic immigrants.
By any objective standard, Mexico is a corrupt, dysfunctional catastrophe of a society, and has been for a long, long time. (Of course, multi-culti doctrine denies objective standards, but I’m not, and don’t) The leagacy of the Spanish imperial period is similar to the French—some wonderful cultural aspects but horrendus political and intellectual bankruptcy.
In many ways, the belligerence of the attitudes of so many illegals makes the problem simpler politically. The average American, when shown the extent of the animosity for this country on their part, loses quite a bit of his natural sympathy, and is more amenable to a broad based policy that begins with improved border security.
People who shoot themselves in the foot so repeatedly should stay home. We have enough idiots here already.
How will Jacksonian america respond?
Judging by the people I was with the other day, I believe the comment was, viewing the riot/protest: ” Sweet artillery target in those streets. ” and “Polite of them to concentrate themselves for easy deportation.”
There was some sober discussion about offering a 24hr amnesty to those who wished to leave.
Hispanic politics have a long-standing(since 1948) elite-based (“patron”) rhythm in the Southwest:
(1) Elites (now called “activists”) mobilize the community based on identity (previously “Spanish” or “Hispano” in New Mexico, or, lately, “Chicano” or “Latino”)
(2) They then deliver the votes of the community to a political party in exchange for support in maintaining the status and power of the patron/activist class
(3) The patrons then do little to nothing to solve the problems they mobilized the community with, ensuring their continuing control (see the recent work done on the UFW)
In fact, it is better for current “Mexican activists” that the US turn on illegal immigrants; better for their businesses and statuses, both of which feed on illegals.
Interesting article by Dick Morris on the subject:
Most observers see feel the race will be between Lopez Obrador and Calderon. While the PAN candidate would be no puppet of the United States, he is fully committed to free market economics and wants a close relationship with our country. Lopez Obrador would be part of the Latin America’s new, anti-U.S. left in.
That Latin Left includes Venezuela’s President Evo Morales, who won as an overtly pro-cocoa-cultivation candidate. And in Peru, Ollanta Humala, a Chavez ally, is likely to finish first in this month’s election and probably will win the runoff.
But Mexico, with its vast oil resources and its long border and free-trade agreement with the United States, would be the crown jewel for America’s enemies. We have only to hope that Congress won’t pass legislation that alienates the Mexican electorate and delivers the country into AMLO’s hands.