Erik's Rant
 

May 1, 2006

The Boycott

We supported the boycott as much as we could (I did not have time yesterday to refuel the car when I had planned, and I forgot to buy coffee beans, which are as essential around here as gas in the car), and noticed a lot of shops closed, many with signs explicitly noting why they were closed.

I really don't understand Catholics who fail to see that the anti-immigration movement (and the legal/illegal distinction is baloney, modernist crap: the result of earlier waves of anti-immigration blather that was aimed at keeping Ities and other Papists out of the country) is nothing more than yet another manifestation of Anti-Catholic Know-Nothingness.

Of course diehard anti-immigrants like Ms. REttle are yahooing around like they are personally defending the Blessed Frontier, but that is to be expected (she doesn't mention it in this bit of (silly and completely erroneously titled) chest beating (OK, Peggy, we'll "bring it on!" Whoo-hoo. What are you going to eat? Aren't you one of those ones who complains that organic food is too expensive? When we have shipped our farmworkers back, do you have any idea what your food will cost?), but her husband's little timid act of posting a sign just off his property (she mentioned it on a comment on another blog) is split-your-sides-laughing material). Wretched Rettle is one of those folks who bellyaches about any manifestation of non-Anglo culture (she even took on the Blessed Mother of Guadalupe), but other, should be more sensible Catholics, those who realize that our is the church of the immigrant, whose citizenship issues have much more to do with the City of God than anything else, have been surprising me.

When I think of fences and walls and armed fortifications at borders, or, as one MinuteMan type seriously suggested: two walls with guardposts and frequently swept sand between them, I think of different sorts of regimes. I seem to remember a wall like what this fellow suggested. The world cheered when it came down.

It is time to have a completely open border with Mexico. Tight frontiers do nothing. We cannot keep drugs out of maximum security prisons, our economy is totally dependent on the twelve million "illegal" immigrants, the terrorists in this country have come in legally, and, besides, questions of "legal/illegal" will beg the question of how Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and California ended up as part of the United States anyway. We have increased free trade with Mexico (which is a good thing, and offers some exciting potentials to the American table) as well as the potential for interesting joint-manufacturing ventures.

In terms of Homeland Security, the concern about the legality of an immigrant is nothing but a red herring. We need to be just as vigilant about the home-grown terrorist as with the imported variety. And the last I checked, none of the imported variety were flooding in from Mexico.

Erik's Rants and Recipes calls for a completely open border with Mexico, and encourages resistance to any "immigration" reform that calls for more money and energy to be wasted on Communist Style Frontier Defense.

Posted by erik at May 1, 2006 10:02 PM
Comments

I was enjoying listening to Pat Buchanan rave tonight on EWTN's news show. He is totally wrong - very entertaining but totally wrong!

Posted by: alicia at May 5, 2006 6:44 PM

I prefer an open border with Canada as well, simply because once we have annexed it we will need open lines for our troop transports, as well as the logging trucks, prison transports, oil pipelines, etc.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at May 3, 2006 4:40 PM

Sir:

Your idea has much merit. But might one inquire whether your proposal would also embrace the border with Canada?

-PS

Posted by: Percival Smidge-Williams at May 2, 2006 6:21 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?