Immigration, Reconsidered

By Selwyn Duke

While the Obama administration has chosen the southern side in the Mexican-Arizonan border war, most Americans stand with their countrymen.  They are troubled by the strain illegals place on services, the drugs and thugs moving north and blue-collar job prospects moving south.  Then there is another factor: the political and cultural one.

It’s well known that, should amnesty be granted to the 12 to 30 million illegals living among us, Barack Obama and his fellow travelers would capture virtually all their votes.  Moreover, given the illegals’ allegiance to their homelands and today’s multiculturalist message, it’s clear that, even if they do learn English, “assimilation” won’t be high on their vocabulary list.  Thus, amnesty not only would radically transform the political landscape, it would constitute a cultural tsunami.  Even pundit Bill O’Reilly recognizes this, saying a couple of years ago (I’m paraphrasing), “If all the illegal aliens are granted amnesty, America will change culturally almost overnight.”  But is the focus on illegal migration excessive?

What do I mean?  Well, how about this proposal: What if instead of granting amnesty in one fell swoop, we did so incrementally, say, to 20 percent of illegals a year for the next 5 years?  That would still have the same ill effects, you say?  OK, how about one million illegals a year until the job is done?  I can hear it now: “Whoa, Duke, all you’re proposing is to trade a knife through the heart for a death by a thousand cuts.  A bad idea implemented more slowly is still a bad idea.  And illegal means illegal.”  But, wait, if Congress passed an amnesty plan, it wouldn’t be illegal.

And neither would the individuals thus made citizens.

Now I can hear some thunder, “Are you nuts?!  This simply makes it a death by a thousand legal cuts!  A bad idea implemented legally is still a bad idea!”  Well, guess what.

I agree with you.

You see, a death by a thousand legal cuts is not actually my position.  Rather, if you’re the average conservative American, it’s yours.  And what I put forth wasn’t actually a proposal.  Rather, it was a reality.  It’s called legal immigration. 

Something often accompanying the disclaimer, “Look, I support legal immigration, but . . .” is “I realize most of the folks coming here are good, hard-working people . . . .”  Now, while I’d point out that it only takes 51 percent to qualify as “most,” this statement is correct in the following sense: Most of those arriving legally are, using moderns’ typical yardstick, good, hard-working people.  And illegals are much the same as those arriving legally.  Another way of saying this is that those arriving legally are much the same as illegals.  And that is the point.  They usually come for economic advancement, not to become American.  They often expect to have their cultural peculiarities accommodated, as opposed to doing what the Romans do.  Their allegiance often lies elsewhere.  And the vast majority vote for leftists.

Let’s look at the facts.  For most of American history, we admitted an average of approximately 250,000 immigrants a year.  After the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy’s baby), however, this figure rose fourfold, to approximately one million a year.  The result: The rate of immigration started to exceed the rate of assimilation.

But it wasn’t just the numbers that changed; it was also the nature.  Eighty-five percent of our legal immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia, from non-Western cultures.  And many immigrants, such as Islamists, cling to and advance beliefs that are incompatible with — and destructive to — our culture. 

The problem with this is that it isn’t geography that makes a nation, but people.  Replace Americans with Mexicans or Muslims and you no longer have America — you have Mexico North or Iran West.  Thus, if you believe Western culture is an evil force and aim to destroy it, our current immigration scheme perfectly suits your agenda. 

And the proof is in the pudding.  Approximately 80 percent of new legal immigrants, once naturalized, vote as our culture-rending leftists do (for leftist Democrats).  For a specific example, consider that first-time Hispanic voters cast ballots for Bill Clinton by a ratio of 15 to 1.

Of course, some say this will change when the new arrivals become Americanized, but this is an ostrich pipe dream.  For one thing, they aren’t being Americanized, America is being balkanized.  Second, what does it mean to be Americanized?  There are millions of leftists who deliver a message many new immigrants are very sympathetic to: Socialism — or “statism,” if you prefer — is as American as apple pie.

Also remember that a person’s ideology is much like his religion: It involves deep-seated beliefs that the individual lives and breathes.  Ideology often gives people’s lives meaning; they advocate for it, they sometimes die for it, and, even more frequently, they kill for it.

And our culture is dying because of it.  “People get the government they deserve,” as Thomas Jefferson said, because, one way or another, government tends to reflect the people.  This brings us to an important question: Do you want the kind of socialism — or statism, if you prefer — that generally prevails from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn?  Well, understand that immigrants will vote for the same kind of candidates they supported in their native lands, and this won’t magically change because they set foot on American terra firma.  Of course, you could try the following appeal: “Ignore the folks offering you handouts and ethnic studies!  Embrace our heroes and history, our love of small government and personal responsibility.”  Good luck with that, amigos. 

Then there is another factor, one I treated in May of this year, writing:

In a relatively recent phenomenon, approximately 50 percent of legal immigrants have been coming from Mexico. And about 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation; this amounts to, including illegals, a population of approximately 20 to 30 million — about 20 percent of Mexico's population. What are the consequences of such an unbalanced immigration policy? University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney explains them very well in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution, writing:

In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group's challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.

In other words, we are allowing the transplantation of a foreign nation into the body of our nation.  Thus, if, like the Mexican government, La Raza and MEChA, you wish to conquer the American southwest in the name of Mexico, our current immigration scheme perfectly suits your agenda.

If our agenda is the preservation of the republic, however, we need to honestly consider the immigration question.  This means realizing that it includes two seldom-addressed aspects: One is whether we should continue to allow immigration.  The second is, what kind of immigration would be beneficial? 

As to the latter, remember that a nation has a “cultural ecosystem,” which enjoys a state of equilibrium.  It is much as with our actual ecosystem: Some non-native elements, such as horses and soybeans, blend in seamlessly.  Others, such as Asian carp, zebra mussels, and nutria can cause severe problems.  This is not because they’re bad by nature, but because they’re incompatible with the system.  Of course, a new equilibrium can eventually be established — you just have to wait for certain native species to be killed off.    

All of the aforementioned brings us to an important point: Illegal migration isn’t the problem.

It’s an exacerbation of the problem. 

And if we’re going to support our current legal-immigration scheme, why get so worked up over illegal migration?  We are already supporting a legal cultural death by a thousand cuts; we are already supporting the importation of nearly a million socialist-leaning voters every year.  All amnesty does is expedite the process.

The norm in man’s history has been to keep unassimilable foreign elements out of one’s land, not invite them in.  Of course, another norm of man has been the will to survive.  I’m not sure that’s an instinct we still possess.

Comments

[kim]

It is dead wrong. People who say we are all immigrants. that is right.LEGAL ONES..who have either been born here or have come in ILLEGALLY. it has to STOP and the freaks in DC do not want to listen to WE THE PEOPLE who ARE the Government ! we need to act like it, stand on our precious Constitution, Declaration of Independance and our G-d given Bill of Rights. Take a good look around. Rape, drugs, human trafficing, murder, home invasions, stollen car's , robbery, our ecconomy is shot, our hard earned money goes in their pockets, charge cards, pensions, we have all the disease back we rid ourselves of. Big Pharam is killing many. It is always follow the money. We have rats the size of cats, beg bugs, and avery lawless thing I can think of. DEBT is what this bunch wants. all the middle class is dying, and only the real rich off our tax money will make it. most of the stupid politicians who bow to them for money will also join the rest of the slaves..that is what we are more each day. the schools are full of hell and drugged children, by gov of course and G-d is OUT and EVIL is good..G-d warned of that, woe to them that call evil good and good evil. the church has traded the truth of G-d's word for apostasy, unity, with those who will show them they will never unite, full of hate, destruction and lawlessness and will destroy all of us. and if that doesn't work, I am sure Wash has a good plan to stop the fight, maybe the grid. maybe a terrorist attack or maybe eveyone will just roll up in a fetal position with the rest of the nuts. especially those who call justice love..what a mess. G-d told us to hire G-dly men and women and HOLD them accountable and to follow the laws of the land, our forefathers warned us as did REAGAN. we are a REPUBLIC and not a Democracay, IF YOU CAN HOLD ONTO IT> ONE warned we are to have guns to protect ourselves and our families and in case Gov got out of control, like Hitler..NOT one place in the scripture does G-d day it is ok for the enemy to steal, kill or destroy. but instead warned us that is what Satan does..not one war did G-d let the enemy win. why..becaue they trusted Him and believed HIM. WE are to give from the heart, not have it taken by deceit and force. UNTIL America gets up and fights the good fight, before it is too late. we are done ! pray, yes, sit and sleep and enjoy the lawlessness and let our children suffer and die. NOT MY G-d. Love your neighbor as thyself, YES, let HIm destroy you NO..we give more than all the countries put together to the human cause that is in this world..WE are also to vote on where our tax money goes..did you vote. an top that with our taxes pay for weapons that will destroy us thanks to Wash DC and that has been happening for yrs. You had best wake up..civil war is coming and you best be prepared. Hebrews tells us a wise man see's clamity coming and prepares..are you? If you love America and freedom you might remember how many died and gave their all so you can roll over and go back to sleep..Laws were made to follow UNDER G-D...Keep beliving the lies about Israel about the people in GAZA who are in good shape, not hungry and come into Israel for medical. the only thing the pLO has done is make stud missles. our money at work. Genesis 12:3 is for read from a G-d who doesn't change..HE is the same today and forever. and HE Is coming soon to destroy not to make peace..It will be a terrible day when hell really breaks loose in this precious country..I say put our troops on the border and send our ARMY into WASH DC and hancuff the lot of them, and in the states. LET us take our country back while we still can..G-d bless America and let us bring G-d back. everyone has always had freedom of religon but those who want to kill us an take our country and try to force us to worship their way,,NOT IN THIS WORLD...

[Taylor Moore]

America may be able to survive everything EXCEPT this immigration problem. The influx of scores of millions of people from South has irreversibly changed America. As most Mexicans are of a strong left-wing bent, by shear numbers America will become and will remain a socialist (perhaps even transforming into a communist) system.

[EdB]

"Thus, amnesty not only would radically transform the political landscape, it would constitute a cultural tsunami."

No! It HAS become ANOTHER, compounding cultural tsunami. From my experience over 80 years, there has been a dramatic cultural change. Religion, mores, patriotism, sovereignty, personal responsibility, appreciation of and application of simple “logic” in political argument, multicultural diversity, living Constitution ... you are better at this than I. Our political system, inherently, results in a focus of impact upon me and my group first, impact upon the whole, second. We are succumbing at an increasing rate. The immigration issue is NOT new, is not changing attitudes of the "groups," and is merely another furthering phenomenon ... which continues to further divide us.

[jbailey]

The will to survive....the key phrase in all of this. The will to survive depends greatly on the strength and solidness of true love for the ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Without that deep and unconditional love, we have no will.
We don't have to be mensa members to know exactly where Obama and his crowd are leading us. I really have no problems with Mexicans, Canadians, or anyone else coming here in a legal status, following protocol that is etched in concrete for everyone to follow. The problem with Obama is that he will do anything...literally anything...for a vote to continue and perpetually re-elect, re-instate and foster himself and his political Marxist line. My opinion is that there are certain things that cannot be assimilated or integrated into our society...particularly from a cultural standpoint. We cannot integrate massive numbers of Muslims into the culture of our country. It doesn't mean we hate Muslims. The price of admitting massive numbers of Muslims to our country would require each citizen to adopt measures to counter-balance the extreme views...from our perspective...that these individuals harbor and often, in the name of Allah, will perpetrate. We are not accustomed to seeing our citizens go around with a hooded face...it is extemely foreign to us. We are not accustomed to beheadings, stoning of women, mutilating their genitals, and treating them worse than second class citizens. It is not a part of us, and never will be...unless we submit to the tenants of Obama, who by his nature, seems bent on giving Muslims...whether Black Panthers, New Panthers, or any other like minded group...free reign. Can you imagine giving away our NASA research of years intensive work, providing approval for a ten story mosque a few hundred feet from where 9/11 occured, untagging terrorist as to who they really are, etc. etc., which are only minor considerations compared to the one great consideration....would you cherish taking an AK-47 to bed with you each night? That is often done in the State of Israel. The Mexican question is a completely different one. Mexicans are completely integrateable and assembled in our society...that is if they are admitted in reasonable not massive numbers. With massive numbers the question of drugs, criminal activity, and failure to follow the norms of being admitted in legal progression of balance and control. The social norms of Mexicans allows complete integration without violent consequences. The social norms of Muslims do not allow a free flow of socialization. Case in point...honor killings, sharia law, expression of radical or far out Islamic doctrine expression. These cannot be integrated into our cultural background. It doesn't mean we hate Muslims. Their cultural norms are well expressed in their countries of origin, and as long as it is expressed there and not here, I personally have no problem with it, except I have plenty of "empathy" for anyone living under the threat of being stoned for any reason, the least of which for wearing a thin dress or committing the act of adultery. Obama, out of his complete lack of understanding for the preservation of our culture and society, is willing to sacrifice it all...perhaps for his Muslim/socialist/communist background. Do we have the will, fortitude, stamina, and utter love for our wonderful nation to say...Hell no you can't, and over my dead body you won't. The coming elections will spell triumph or continued disaster for this country...which will it be?

[Philip France]

I have three points in support of Selwyn's outstanding article:

1. E pluribus unum. This means "out of many, one". This is the backbone of the United States of America. Think about it: No other nation can claim that, for instance, "I am a Haitian-Frenchman". You are either French or you're not. If you come here, learn our language and adopt our Judeo/Christian culture and heritage. You will then be accepted and subsequently prosper.

2. Selwyn (rightly) mentions Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and the Immigration Act of 1964 (if memory serves, he was a Congressman at the time). Sen. Kennedy was arguably the worst liar in the history of American politics (Bill & Hillary certainly gave him a good run for his money and Barack Hussein Obama, II is rapidly closing in). One can, without any additional thought, research or calculation, condlude that anything that Ted Kennedy was in favor of is detrimental to the United States and our founding documents and God-given liberties.

3. Dr. Michael Savage, Ph D is correct: Borders, Language, Culture. That defines a nation.

E Pluribus Unum.

[jbailey]

Thanks Philip. You are right on target in many aspects of your statement. If we were giving out a liar award, Teddyboy would remain high on the list. At one time the State of Mass called him their number one juvenile delinquent LOL. At this time in our history, it seems that lying is the rule, not the exception. Have you ever noticed that when one of these politicians are pressed to "explain their lying", they always present a "smiling face". Take any of them...Rangel, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Waxman, you name it....they, any of them, will come across with a wonderful smiling face. When you have a president elected by his ability to lie, preaching far out delusional promises of a dream like utopian nature....developed out of and through a family of athiest, socialist, and communist leanings..which also extended into a fanatical Muslim world, no matter how much it was denied and lied about....you know we are in very bad shape. Unless there is a miraculous turn around...a brick wall to stop the progression of the progressives...we will continue to go the way that Soros, the media, Hollywood, the ACLU, and other far out left wing propagandist and organizations are pushing us.

[Bob C.]

I'm sad whenever a Hannity or Beck (love them both) feel that they must qualify their opposition to ILLEGAL aliens with a mention of their steadfast support of LEGAL immigrants. Well, LEGALS have flipped Bob Dornan's district from a 60-40 easy victory into a stolen seat initially, and now into a seat that Communist Loretta Sanchez couldn't lose if she were caught molesting a child. All this has happened within a few election cycles. The district represents a microcosm of ALL America within 20 years, I'm afraid. Sometimes I think that many Americans possess a death wish. Bob

[VNVet52]

Bob C. ...Sanchez had help from a healthy dose of illegals also, I lived through it.