The childlike Dave Weigel

David Weigel of Reason is guest posting at Andrew Sullivan's blog and offers a discussion of Pat Buchanan's latest book that's even dumber than that that Sully would have provided.
Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?
We can come close: "Mexican drug cartels take over U.S. cities", colonias, "Task force targets cross-border violence", "Combating Southwest border violence" (and as pointed out below, Maywood CA)
Have Arizona, California, and the rest of the Southwest become less American or less loyal?
Apparently he missed all those Mexican flags when all those hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens were marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled, and all those politicians who act more like Mexican agents than elected U.S. representatives.
Restrictionists are too quick to compare America's immigration with that of Europe or of collapsed empires of the past. But it's a false comparison between, say, Muslim immigrants who settle in Rotterdam and refuse to integrate with Dutch society, and Mexican immigrants who go to Catholic mass and long to become American citizens.
What an idiotic comment. Why does he bring up issues that no one is complaining about, other than that he's either trying to religion-bait or he has no clue about this issue?

A hypothetical that is probably beyond the capabilities of Weigel, Sully, Reason Magazine, or all the rest was provided in the previous entry. It is truly pathetic that so many so-called pundits are simply not serious about such a vital issue. UPDATE: He prints a letter from a reader here:
...there is a very real undercurrent to the present political Chicano advocacy groups that believe (and are teaching their progeny) the notion that since the American southwest was stolen from Mexico, they have a right to the land including repatriating at a future date. Many of them understand the slow political process required to leverage our democracy to accomplish it. But make no mistake: repopulating the southwest and registering voters for this eventuality is the first step.

There are places in California where if you don't speak Spanish, you're SOL as far as communication goes. I have lived in SoCal for thirty years and this wasn't the case in these places 20 years ago. Take the LA suburb of Maywood, CA, (hardly a "border town"). According to the March 29, 2006 CBS Evening News, more than 50% of the city's population are illegal aliens, and the mayor has declared that the city will refuse to cooperate with any enforcement of U.S. immigration law, declaring the city a "haven for Illegals. This mayor and his city council were swept into office during last November's election. My God, they even demanded that all city proceedings be held in Spanish when they were debating this declaration last April!
Weigel is making a fool out of himself and by extension Andrew Sullivan.


"come off it guys", that city is already part of mexico! and most of the dead USA Will become just like mexico and that is why we must fight our own government for our own lives or be killed by the third worlds people.

We can certainly agree to disagree on immigration, if you like. The Dutch angle comes from Weigel's reference to anti-immigration people in the US comparing our situation to theirs. It is your camp, in other words, comparing apples to oranges.

My "xenophobe" comment was in reference to Mr. Buchanan, as this blog's proprieter's comment on my post about him started our little discussion. I have in my hands the latest Time magazine and, if you haven't seen it yet, you should. I was right about everything I said and then some. I'll post about it tomorrow (Tom Cruise took precedence tonight...).

My reference to "blind dogmatists" was cautionary, if you will. I hope you are not one. It seems entirely fitting in a discussion about whether one is a "serious" thinker about any given issue.

Finally, if you knew anything about that Mr. Blackwell, you'd know I'm no relation. He's not in danger of producing any children any time soon, if you get my drift. My vote is for Sarah Jessica Parker. Forever and always.

P.S. The U.S. is far less xenophobic than most European countries. Do all nations have xenophobic citizens? Yes. Are all countries xenophobic? Not necessarily.

The Los Angeles suburb South Gate is the perfect example of what the Mexican reconquest does to an ordinary American town. Read all about it in this piece by historian Roger McGrath: If the article's publication in The American Conservative makes it suspect, then note that the same facts appeared in a series of articles in the L. A. Times. McGrath just puts the whole story together, for convenience.

As for supposed xenophobia, the different civilizational capabilities of Hispanics and Anglos are well captured in a friend's pithy summing up: "If culture didn't matter, Mexico and Central America would be paradises."

Hey Pete, Because we (most Americans) don't care what happens in Rotterdam; the dutch have made their own bed, and now they have to lie in it. We are Americans, concerned for our own country. Perhaps allowing 30 million mexicans (and probably a few wayward dutch muslims you speak of) to invade the United States is perfectly acceptable to you, but it certainly is not acceptable to me.

You will never win an argument by comparing apples and oranges. My city, Santa Ana, California, is 92% "hispanic." The "reconquista" is a foregone conclusion in this part of the world. You cannot argue against that lack of diversity in the colonization process which is firmly rooted here. I have a mexican consulate down the street, so I don't care about how the dutch are dealing with their problems.

Moreover, utilizing comparative political theories to rationalize a demographic REALITY is what seems idiotic to me. Like trying to change a tire with a phillips head screwdriver.

Furthermore, the term "Blind dogmatism" lacks any intelligibility when it is hurled so haphhazardly, and without justification. The "xenophobe" comment is particularly telling of leftist tendencies. What culture is not xenophobic? Please cite examples when you are making your arguments.

Lastly, when are you coming out with your ten worst-dressed list, Mr. Blackwell?

The question "Have Arizona, California, and the rest of the Southwest become less American or less loyal?" is indeed extraordinarily idiotic. Millions of the residents of those areas are foreign citizens who have allegiance to other countries, primarily Mexico. And, as pointed out here many times, there are several California legislators who frequently act more like Mexican politicians than American politicians.

Of course there are differences between Muslim immigration to Europe and Mexican immigration to the U.S. However, the idea that the only effect Mexican immigration has is that more people go to mass is also idiotic. And, the idea that all of them yearn to become Americans is also idiotic.

Weigel should be taken as seriously as a Chamber of Commerce flack.

BTW, if you're going to refer to people who disagree with you as "childlike", you should really drop the high horse hysterics about people "smearing" your xenophobic heroes.

It is truly pathetic that so many so-called pundits are simply not serious about such a vital issue.

Translation: "Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong and, thus, can't possibly be serious."

Give it a rest. The comment you attempt to rip apart before is not idiotic. Remotely. In fact, how could you possibly consider yourself serious on this subject if you can't even countenance the possibility that there's a difference between immigration in different places and involving people of vastly different origin?

Blind dogmatists are never serious thinkers.