Redstate

are truly going south. The only two reasons we are tolerating their nonsense is Oil and President Bushes Texas ties/taint.

Area and country  Daily Average Production Barrels

Canada            1,603,000

Mexico            3,110,000

United States     5,789,025

(note: that's what they made not what comes here; year 2000)

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazine_link.asp?ART_LINK=01-08_world-sta
ff_T2.htm

This has nearly the same Catch-22 as Saudi Arabia. Need your Oil... hate everything else about you. Only major difference is side benefit of Tequila.

As soon as we don't have a politician hailing from a border state... I could see relations cooling quite a lot. As soon as we get off importing a major % of oil... OVER!

are the three national interests that will continue to define our governments stance toward Mexico.

The big difference between Mexico and Saudi Arabia is PROXIMITY. If we could manage to replace the Saudi share of our oil supply, and if relations would really turn sour at some point, we could kiss them off and be none the less for it. They are a wide ocean away.

On the other hand, if diplomatic relations with Mexico go south, Mexico is sitting right next to us with an open border. It's an elephant in the room that no one wants to think about.

Since the Mexican government is and has been activly engaged in violating the soveriegn territory of the United States,and Whereas the Mexican government is "dangerously incompetant" and it's economy is in shambles due to "a culture of corruption" at the highest levels of government, thereby forcing Millions of it's people to flee economic oppression by illegally entering the United States, I ask the Congress to declare that a State of War does and has exsisted with the Country of Mexico.

After said declaration,The Joint Chiefs are hereby directed to secure the border with Mexico and halt the flow of undocumented aliens into this country.

Should US forces come under attack by the Mexican Military while protecting the soveriegn territory of the United States,

The Joint Chiefs are to implement WAR PLAN: SOUTHERN FREEDOM.

After all objectives of  WP/SF have been accomplished,The Dept of State will be directed to appoint interim governors to each of the Provinces in the country formerly known as "Mexico" to determine if the People of the former country of "Mexico" would prefer to be absorbed into the "United States of America" with all the rights and protections that the constitution  provides,Or to draft a new Mexican Constitution and elect new heads of state that will better provide for the people of "Mexico" so that they will no longer have to leave the country they love for economic reasons.

Like that guy on SNL used to say;

 "Hey! It could happen!!"    NOT!

What we're doing isn't working so ...

as a way to get unelected. The left and the media would have a __ (explative of your choice) about how the Fascists are controlling the government, Colonialism and how the USA is Evil™.

Sadly any party that brings gas in at 40¢/gal would own a 75% majority. (that is what gas is at in Iraq btw!)

as to what NAFTA might have to do with these changing southern attitudes, and has it increased the median income of the average Mexican household? Is this a case of familiarity (and a corresponding envy)breeding contempt?

Mexican median HH income has boomed since NAFTA passed.

Since the economic crisis of 1994-1995 the country has made an impressive economic recovery. According to the director for Colombia and Mexico of the World Bank, the population below the poverty level has decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas from 2000-2004....

Mexico has entered a new era of macroeconomic stability. Following a 4.1% growth in 2004, real GDP grew 3% in 2005. According to the Bank of Mexico recent economic developments include a record-low inflation of 3.3% in 2005, low interest rates, a lower External debt to GDP ratio (8.9%) and a strong peso. Trade with the United States and Canada has tripled since NAFTA was implemented in 1994.

I don't know where those numbers came from.  And I do not doubt the good intentions of the NAFTA treaty.

Ten years after its signing though, many experts of various persuasions (though, to be fair, many on the left) now consider NAFTA a CAUSE! of illegal immigration.

Removing trade barriers was supposed to create jobs in Mexico.  Instead, the elimination of tariffs on U.S. agricultural products has pushed Mexican Farmers off their land.  The Maquilladoras, the border factories which were supposed to employ so many by cheaply producing American goods, are now closing down as their jobs are being outsourced to China where labor is even cheaper.

One cannot help but notice the correlation between the creation of so many displaced farmers and disaffected factory workers and the surge in illegal immigration.

I am not one of those on the far left and far right (odd isn't it, that they agree on something) who feel we should scrap the treaty tomorrow.  It has had a positive impact that you are quick to note. But the state things are in seems to raise questions that do not have easy answers.  Clearly immigration reform must be on both the supply side and the demand side, which would involve using monetary and (some) fiscal policy to stimulate the Mexican economy.

a war for oil AND cheap labor.

I would opine that we should declare war and instead of a reconstruction plan, let's take reparations.  We'll pump their (now OUR) oil and the Hollywood set gets free gardener's, baby sitters, and house help.

concerning the border states in Mexico. But the problem still lies with Mexico. They had a tremendous boon throughout the mid 1990's to early 2000's, yet failed to increase spending on education and infrastructure. The market called for increased job skills, but Mexico failed to provide the level of education necessary to fill the need. Meanwhile, the mid-level skills went to China, as you say.

The farm loss experienced by the agrarian sector was also a failure of Mexico to invest in its own market and improve infrastructure to lower costs and increase production. And once again, the failure to increase education in the rural areas held the farm market back into the last century in the face of an increasingly high tech farm industry.

At the same time, their failure to provide improved infrastructure into the rural areas prevented the assembly labor market to reach into the rural areas.

Meanwhile, Mexicans are pro-creating like rabbits, 3 to 4 times the rate of the world median. To assimilate their workers into the labor market, they will have to see a minimum 5% growth rate every year for the next 10 years to create enough jobs. That just isn't going to happen, especially with oil production expected to sharply decrease over the next decade before they are ready to harvest the new oil field they've discovered in the gulf.

Meanwhile, Mexican economists spin this to cast us as the puppeteer pulling all of the strings. I know why they can't see their own corrupt government as part of the problem. The government, the University economists, the Mexican press, and International organizations are pounding it into the heads of their people every day that its all America's fault. No wonder they hate us.

You're right. All of those new laborers that they have failed to educate are going to come pouring across our border for the next decade at least. And here we sit on our thumbs.

"consider NAFTA a CAUSE! of illegal immigration."

I didn't suggest it didn't.  I did say NAFTA raised living standards remarkably in Mexico.  Mexico's GDP is now over $1 trillion.  This is about the same as Canada since Mexico has 3 times as many people who are 1/3rd as rich.  Poverty has declined quickly.

Nevertheless, emigration to the US has remained at or above 1 million people a year.  Some would argue that this is a natural consequence of merging two economies while trying to keep the people separate.  In fact, I have written on RS that

However, in the political discussion of free trade conservatives often focus on trade and finance forgetting about the third pillar of economics, labor. Specifically looking at Mexico, The Economist noted this January that

    "The North American Free Trade Agreement.... vastly increased the flow of goods and services between Mexico and its neighbours.... Only labour is left out."

As we engage a globalizing world through international trade and finance, we cannot ignore the underlying pressure on labor to globalize as well. In addition to being the humane and benevolent action, accepting more legal immigrants into America each year is economically the policy most in line with conservative values. The President's immigration proposal is a step in the right direction; we should embrace the mantle of pro-immigration and increase the level of legal immigration to reflect the real pressure of the global era.

I still believe we can best deal with illegal immigration by combining more border security with a new ceiling of legal immigration of 1% of current population (3 million a year).  This is not popular among the anti-immigrant right and will not likely see the light of day as long as pro-immigrant forces make bad political decisions such as marching illegal aliens in the streets and waving Mexican flags.

at 1%? Is it tied to the perceived labor market here, or is another benchmark used?

And what do you feel our chances for assimilating 3 million people a year into our culture would be?

"Meanwhile, Mexicans are pro-creating like rabbits, 3 to 4 times the rate of the world median."

Overall population growth in Mexico was 1.17% in 2005 compared to .92% in the United States.  Here is a map of countries by population growth.  Mexico and the US are in the middle of the pack.

The Total Fertility Rate is 2.45 children per woman in Mexico and 2.08 in the United States.  The TFR is the expected number of children a woman will have over her lifetime.  2.1 is the replacement rate for a country.  

Countries such as Pakistan have a TFR above 4.  Much of the developing world had TFRs above 7 until the past few decades.  The world TFR is 2.7 which means Mexico is actually below the average.  

This seems to be a pretty good backgrounder on population statistics and general trends.

ethnic group is in the US?  And, if those stats are available, are undocumented Mexicans included in the Hispanic grouping?

Originally, I was proposing an increase from 1 million legal immigrants to 3 million.  But I realized it would be easier to index it so that we don't have to have this debate every decade or two.  As for the reason I started with the 3 million number, it would cover the level of legal immigration and illegal immigration we now have coming into the country (about 2-2.5 million a year) with a little bit of slack.  This would allow the labor market to be closer to (or in) equilibrium.  Then we could focus our border efforts on finding criminals, drug peddlers, terrorists, and other threats to national security.

As for assimilation, we have had immigration as high as 1% of our population in the past.  I can't get the exact numbers immediately, but in the 1880-1910 era 13.3-13.6% of the population was foreign born.  Right now we are around 11%.

As for assimilation, I believe that is the big question.  I do believe it is possible to assimilate that many foreigners into American culture.  But it would take Republicans and conservatives reaching out and working with immigrant and Hispanic groups.  Many of the La Raza type groups fight against assimilation.  But in places such as TX and FL and even in my home town in OK, most Hispanic immigrants are assimilate similar to past generations of immigrants despite the close border (rather than a mighty ocean).  If you have anyway to get past the Economist subscription requirement, this survey is highly worth your time.  Here are a couple parts that are relevent:

America seems in no danger of becoming a society divided by language. In 2002, a survey by the Pew Hispanic Centre and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that over 90% of second-generation Hispanics were either bilingual or mainly English-speaking, split equally between the two. In the third generation, more than three-quarters were mainly English-speaking. In the same year, a market-research company, Cultural Access, found that young Latinos watched twice as much English-language as Spanish-language television.

Like their predecessors, Hispanics are busy bettering themselves. First-generation Mexican immmigrant men in their late 40s have had six fewer years of full-time education than their white American-born peers. Their sons are only one year short. That is still regrettable. A mere 10% of Hispanics have university degrees, and the high-school drop-out rate among Hispanic immigrants is worryingly high. Over 40% of 16- to 24-year-old immigrants lack a high-school diploma. But among the children of Hispanic immigrants, the drop-out rate is much lower.

Politically, Hispanics are moving into the mainstream at about the same rate as the Italians or Irish did in the 20th century. This year, Antonio Villaraigosa became mayor of Los Angeles, America's second-largest city, the first Hispanic to hold that job. In 2004, two Hispanics became senators, Mel Martinez in Florida and Ken Salazar in Colorado; 25 congressmen have Hispanic backgrounds. This might be a problem if Hispanic politicians had separatist agendas, such as demanding obligatory Spanish-language teaching in schools. But they do not. Naturally there are specific Hispanic concerns, as there are for all ethnic groups in America (for example, how to deal with illegal immigrants). But Hispanic politics is diverse, and its spectrum is similar to that of the country as a whole. It ranges from the Texan conservatism of the attorney-general, Alberto Gonzales, to the Californian liberalism of Mr Villaraigosa.

Lastly, there is evidence that new immigrants, Hispanics especially, are joining the rest of the American people in the most direct possible way: by marrying them. Almost a third of all marriages involving a Hispanic or Asian partner cross racial lines (counting Hispanics as a race for this purpose). By most standards, American rates of mixed-race marriage have been low: one in 23 marriages in 1990, up to one in 15 in 2000. Latinos seem to be leading the way in breaking down that barrier. Nearly half of all the 3.7m inter-racial marriages in the country have one Hispanic partner. In states with a lot of Hispanic immigration, the rate is surprisingly high: 14% in California and Nevada, around 11% in Washington state, Colorado and Arizona. At this rate, intermarriage will soon stop being exotic and become mainstream. It is another way of stirring the melting pot.

See here, page 49

 But to summarize, 2.78 for Hispanics and 1.89 for non-Hispanics...

and I do not know if it includes illegal aliens or not.  I believe census data includes all residents, but I could be wrong.

I went back to my sources and checked the figures, and I was mistaken. I was using two charts with different variables, and got them switched. Please excuse the bad info. I wanted to get this corrected as soon as I could.

The source I switched to is here, and corresponded with my first source;

http://www.usc.es/~economet/aeeadepdf/aeeade68.pdf

The labor force entering the market or having recently entered, which would affect the immigration totals to the U.S. within the next ten years, would have been approximately born between 1980 (mid twenty's now) to 1998(eighteen in 2016). According to this source:

"Fortunately the growth rate of population has lowered and that favors the possibilities of increased GDP per inhabitant, although at the end of the 20th century with an average value of over 1.81% per year during the period 1990 through 1999, it was higher than the corresponding world average of 1.48%, and much higher than the average rate of the U.S.A., which was .99% during that period."

According to these figures, the population growth rate in Mexico was 183% of that in the U.S. between 1990 and 1999.

From the same source, you will also see that the Mexican growth rate between 1980 and 1990 was at 35% for the decade, compared to 20% average worldwide population growth. Between 1970 and 1980, it neared 40% for the decade. These were huge growth years and helps explain to some extent the large increase in illegal aliens within the last 10 years.

Nevertheless, even with my revised figures the point still stands that with the lack of increased educational spending within the NAFTA economic spike, there will be a large flow of unskilled labor coming across the border for the next ten years.

Thanks for the heads up, Adam.

Leave out the state-of-war cover story ("we don' need no steenkin' bodges, mon"). But you've both acknowledged the real problem in Mexico (their corrupt and oligarchic government), and pointed the way to the solution: wipe away their government and make the Mexicans Americans. They don't need to come to our territory to join our nation. Let's extend our southern border a lot farther south!

Not only does this make an endless amount of economic sense, it's also slowly happening. Let's acknowledge it, and make it happen the way we want, by enforcing cultural assimilation. As far as getting called imperialist fascists by the Left, how is that worse than what they call us now?

Hispanics into the population and culture and comparing it as a percentage ratio to those assimilated between 1880 and 1910 assumes the dynamics of the immigrating populations were the same. I believe we need to be careful in making those assumptions. Cultures and thought are different between different peoples, and variables need to be taken into account in determining how many we can effectively  assimilate in a timely manner as new immigrants are continually added.

Hi there friend - long time, no talk.

We were on the verge of having a meaningful discussion about the dynamics of assimilation last time we traded posts - so I'll pick up where we left off, and ask, for the following groups:

1.  Are they assimilated?
   
2.  If so, why?  If not, should they be?  Does it matter?

a.  Native Americans living on reservations

b.  Inner city African-Americans

c.  Mormons in most of Utah

d.  Mormons in SW Utah/NE Arizona

e.  Gullah speakers off our SE coast

f.  Cubans in Miami

g.  Pennsylvania Dutch

h.  Native Hawaiians

I look forward to your response.

Gas is at 40 cents a gallon in Iraq? You've got to be kidding! With all the pipelines that've been blown up there?

Transporting fuel across and a large Ocean where the Federal & State govs then tax the heck out of it and then yet again profits are taken by 'Big-Oil' tend to drive up the price of Gasoline.

I also heard the Saudi rulers are going to restrict prices on gasoline... seems the price there was 70-90 cents and the consuming citizen was feeling the crunch of this oil run up.

The mexican birth rate has sharply declined in the past decade/decades.

Also heard that NAFTA had hurt Mexico's economy (for whatever reason).

Not many perhaps None of these groups are in prison in high % numbers (I'll exempt Cubans since I don't know) of the prison population.

Nor are any of these groups protesting in the streets today.

Not many of these groups are abdicating that they are going to make certain states part of their old country (I'll have to partially exempt Hawaiians and Native American Indians).

 Good to hear from you.

I appreciate the question, and it is an interesting one. Nevertheless, the question at hand deals with current incoming immigrants in vast numbers, currently over 2 ½ million per year, nearly 1/3 illegally.  THAT IS PER YEAR. Within a relatively short period of time, that would dwarf any of the groups you are referring to. And there is no end in site to the flow. At the very least, this behooves us to carefully consider all aspects of how this affects us and what our Nation can handle before setting policy.

Concerning the groups you mention, I have a decade of interaction with the Crow and Cheyenne Indian tribes in the north (and again this last fall of 2005) and a slight experience with the Navajo in Arizona. I have found them to be, in most cases, a very warm and interesting people, and I hold many there as friends. Disparate cultures from each other, to be sure, but in varying ways, all indicative of mistakes our Country made in originally assimilating them into a still developing American society.

Their societies had a completely different worldview incompatible with Natural Law and Western Culture, and had great difficulty in understanding concepts such as private property and Natural Rights.  It would take an entire blog to discuss the different aspects of difficulty in originally assimilating these people.  Our real failure was in not transitioning their children over time from separate reservational nations into the mainstream American culture. To be sure, many have and are very successful citizens.

Nevertheless, it is painfully apparent that, as a people, those who are still fully tied to the reservational system have ultimately suffered because of it. I have unequivocally seen and experienced it, and it is empirically substantiated by looking at their poverty levels, alcoholism, crime rates, unemployment rates, teen pregnancies, welfare rates, etc. Understand this also, that I love and respect these people, and it has broken my heart to realize how much more they could be as a people if they were fully integrated into our culture. We could learn much from them, as I have.

Nonetheless, they are still assimilated to the degree that they speak our language, understand and work under our laws (which in most cases trumps reservational law) many work in law enforcement, hold jobs in our society, are educated in our history and civic structure, etc. In a word, they are citizens of our Country. Despite the mistakes we have made with them in the past, in time of need they are loyal to no other nation besides America.

The other group in your list I have much experience with are the Amish. I know some from Lancaster County, but many more from Yoder, Kansas, another sizable Amish community very similar to the one in Pennsylvania. I went to school with a dozen of them for years (I'll spare you the details as to why and how) and spent many hours in their homes. Besides separating themselves from aspects of modern life, they have assumed a position in which they still fit into the American culture well. They submit to the law of the land, speak English, interact with others outside their community in good faith, are very industrious and involved in free trade, and once again, within the parameters of their faith, are loyal to America and no other.

As to the other groups you mention, I only know of the Miami Cubans from what I have read, which is very limited (perhaps John Steele could address how they have assimilated there, since he lives in Miami). I do know that many of them are very pro-American and anti-Castro, which is why they or their parents came here. Once again, people like that do not have divided loyalties.

Mormons, although a society within a society, are still engaged Americans, are very civic minded, and fully integrated into the American culture. They are schooled in our system, and have a long history within the last century of state and national law enforcement, the Judiciary, and Government. Their allegiance is to America and no other.

Inner-city kids are already Americans, and involved in a societal problem that stems FROM our culture. They are not immigrants. Yes, there are severe problems there. No, not every American is truly assimilated to the American ideal. There are those who are disaffected and hold themselves apart. That is our problem to deal with, and an issue I believe is far removed from the subject at hand. At any rate, we certainly do not want to compound the problem.

I know nothing of the situation in Hawaii, except for the powerful anti-white racism in the schools. Neither do I know anything of the Gullah speakers.

For the sake of understanding what we are discussing, we need to define ASSIMILATION.

First, it has only to do with immigrants. If there are American citizens who have for any reason failed to assimilate in the sense of the word used here, we can do little about that. On the other hand, no alien has the right to DEMAND to be here on their own terms. As aliens, they have no rights until we let them in, and on our conditions. That is not uncompassionate; that is prudent. It is the act of protecting our own culture and citizens. If those immigrants come here legally and become assimilated, productive citizens, and earn their citizenship, then we fully embrace them and they too become the protected.

Secondly, Assimilation has nothing to do with what clothes a person wears, how they form their community, their background, creed, religion, race, or any other such thing. Those things are what have given much of America its rich tapestry and color. Assimilation has everything to do with total loyalty to America, forsaking the loyalties from which a person emigrated. It has to do with honoring our Flag and our Republic. It has to do with learning our language, and in doing so, learning our law, our history, and our philosophy of freedom. It involves internalizing those things in such a way that a person becomes a patriot. It has to do with raising one's children in the hope of them becoming loyal, productive, successful American citizens.

This I do know, and it is the subject of this article; there is a strong current of anti-Americanism coming from all aspects of Mexico, and many of those here now, especially the illegals, displayed much of that in the recent demonstrations, just as they did at the soccer games in '02. Considering that it is difficult enough to assimilate large numbers of people who want to become Americans and who forsake their previous loyalties,  how much more difficult when accompanied by hateful, anti-American sentiment that proclaims it's loyalty to it's former country while demanding respect in their new land.

This does not reflect universally on all Mexican immigrants, but a very large contingent of it cannot be denied. Let us consider heavily and tread carefully in what we ask and how we proceed.

in the above response regarding the assimilation of Cuban immigrants in Miami.

I have plenty of exposure to the Amish in C.Ill. and Ind.

To the degree that they want to be assimilated, they certianly are.  In fact, they are highly respected, and are part of the fabic of those small towns.  In business, and practically every other way of life.

The most telling way to notice is that the children all get along.  At least, until it is time for the young adults "join".(Amish)

about Amish "joining". Maybe in another forum...:)

anything and everything UNTIL that time

I thoroughly enjoyed it.

You make very good observations as to the ways certain subsets of people in this country are and are not like the larger set - which does, in my book, have something to do with assimilation.  For the purposes of this post, though, you are correct - we are talking about whether they have loyalty to other nations - and whether, if so, that's harmful.

I'm going to get in hot water on this site for this, but I will also contend that it is not in and of itself a bad thing for people to think that way.  If it were, I imagine any one of the following would be taken as a major affront:

1.  St. Patrick's Day
   
   
2.  Cinco de Mayo
   
   
3.  The Nation of Islam - wait, bad example.  They're an affront - but not because they are unpatriotic, rather because they are morons.
   
   
4.  Americans with dual citizenship
   
   
5.  Americans who play for other nations in major sporting competitions (e.g. the Greek baseball team or the Italian hockey team).
   
   
6.  The remaining polygamist Mormons and Posse Comitasse (sp?) or survivalist types in the rural west.
   
   
7.  Anyone participating in the highland games.  Man oh man - another post for another day.

Anyhow, as you can see, I don't entirely buy the idea that everyone who has split loyalty of any kind necessarily presents a danger to the United States.  The other issue that comes up in this context is whether people in places we might annex in the future - and I, for one, believe that it will happen sometime in my lifetime - are required to be similarly "assimilated."  Sounds fine and dandy - until you consider a disastrous situation like Tibet.  

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending MeCHA or Aztlan or anything of that nature.  I'm just saying that there are boatloads of people - most of them productive citizens of this country who work hard and participate and are grateful to be here, no matter how long ago their ancestors came - who may or may not be loyal first and foremost to the US.  And that's OK - I, for one, don't feel considerably more "at home" in Detroit than I do in Windsor Ontario, and I promise you, I pose no threat to either place.  

I will even take it a step further, and say that the danger lies in people who value their particular geographic unit of the US more than the union as a whole - I need not compare the damage such people did to this nation to the damage done by foreigners, because it's not even close.  That means you, blue-state wannabe Canadians - and you, red-state wannabe confederates.

Mexico wants to tweak us?  That's their prerogative.  I will close with one last, totally unsupported educated guess (except by personal experience).  The people who come here from Mexico, by and large, WANT to be here with us, more than Mexico as a whole wants anything to do with us.  Just a stab in the dark.

I anxiously await your response.          

But you started it...:P

the only one that truly represents a danger to the culture of American loyalty is dual citizenship. Let me say right now that I believe it is wrong, and runs counter to the interests of our Nation. I have never been in favor of it.

In regard to those with divided loyalties "not wanting to do harm" to either Country, that is setting the bar very low indeed to ask only this of the loyalties of our new immigrants. The concept of benign occupation does not perpetuate our understanding of the true uniqueness of American history, principles, or law. We are the epitome, the peak of free civilization. The accumulation and development of knowledge concerning Natural Law, government, and society rests in America; we are its highest form. Without believing that, and with the promotion of divided loyalty, that knowledge and purpose will be lost to subsequent generations. And without us, it will be lost to the world.

When we have annual immigration levels as we have now and will have for some time, this becomes a very dangerous thing indeed. It is in the face of this challenge that we must set the bar high in assimilating our new immigrants, asking for undivided loyalty and devotion to one's new home. In doing so, we will prevent the watering down of the understanding of and belief in our heritage. We must avoid the risk of becoming "just another democracy".

Concerning annexing territory, we've never done it, and doubt we ever will. We have purchased, we have allowed inclusion, we have allowed votes on Statehood (Puerto Rico is a good example) but never against a people's will. That has, by-in-large, set us apart from many of the Western European nations.

As far as the attitudes of the illegals in this nation, the militant demonstrations by the hundreds of thousands for the last three weeks speaks for itself. Many, many cases of blatant anti-Americanism, which is an extension of what has been displayed in Mexico for several years, and is growing.

For 70 to 90 cents per gallon of gasoline I'd wear a Burkah!