Surviving the mob

Peter Grant, formerly a soldier in South Africa, knows whereof he speaks. I suggest it would behoove most Americans to heed his advice these days.

There are some important lessons to be learned.  Firstly, a vehicle isn’t going to help when the streets are clogged.  You can’t drive over dozens of protestors.  If nothing else, their bodies will immobilize your vehicle, just as surely as if it became high-centered over a bump.  What’s more, as soon as you’re forced to slow down or stop, you’re going to get dragged from your vehicle by angry rioters.  That may not be survivable.  Much rather use your vehicle to avoid getting into that mess in the first place . . . but you may not have a choice.  You may turn a corner in a city center to find the mob coming to meet you, with no time or space to avoid them.  If you’re on an interstate highway, the on- and off-ramps may be blocked by rioters and/or vehicles with nowhere to go, leaving you stranded with a mob coming towards you, looting every vehicle they pass.  This is what I-85 looked like in Charlotte on Tuesday evening.

Rioters looted stalled trucks of their cargoes, taking what they wanted and torching the rest.  Hundreds of vehicles backed up behind the scene of the crime.  If yours was among them, what would you do?  Many of those present abandoned their vehicles and fled on foot.  That’s all well and good, if they had the space and time to do so . . . but what if they didn’t?  What if the rioters swarmed their vehicle before they could get out?  What if they, or a member of their party, had limited mobility and couldn’t escape and evade fast enough?

In such a situation, resistance may be your only option.  Make sure you have a firearm handy, plus enough ammunition to defend yourself and your loved ones.  That may be difficult.  It’s an unpalatable, raw, brutal fact that you may not be able to offer enough resistance to save yourself in such a situation.  If there are a couple of dozen rioters within feet of you, you probably can’t shoot fast enough to get them all.  Distance is your friend.  Even if you use a firearm successfully to defend yourself, whilst that may solve Problem One (immediate survival), it’s likely to land you neck-deep in Problem Two.  The aftermath of such a riot is likely to see political and social leaders screaming for a scapegoat.  If you shoot a few rioters, guess what?  You’re probably it.

You’re just about certain to be arrested and charged with all sorts of crimes, even if all you were doing is trying to save your life and the lives of your loved ones.  You may find it very difficult to defeat the charges in court, particularly if witnesses are scarce (or intimidated), and video footage of your activities (from nearby security cameras, hovering helicopters, etc.) is deliberately edited to portray your actions in the worst possible light.  Think that won’t happen?  You’re naive.

You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control.  Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they’ll be magnets for looters).  Don’t wait until it’s too late.  Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn’t materialize, rather than wait until you’re sure there’s trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.

That’s likely to be difficult once riots become established.  A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading.  Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control.  That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties) . . . but it won’t help you if you’re trapped inside that perimeter.  The rioters will be all around you, and you won’t be able to avoid them.  That’s not a good place to be.  Get to the perimeter if at all possible, and seek police protection.  If you can’t, you’ll have no alternative but to hunker down in place and ride out the storm.

If you suspect you may find yourself in that situation, your location should be prepared in advance to resist that sort of problem.  Make sure rioters can’t easily break in and get at you.  Use obstructions (plants, flower boxes, whatever) to make it difficult to approach windows;  put stout burglar bars on windows and security gates on doors, and fortify them if possible with whatever’s available;  have weapons handy, and make sure that all adults and older children know how to use them.  Keep rioters outside, if possible at a distance, so they can’t get their hands on you or your weapons.  If they do, your resistance is over, right there – and I don’t have to tell you what your loved ones are likely to go through under such circumstances.

That’s why the best possible solution is to get clear of the trouble and stay away from it until it’s died down.

Or to put it more briefly, John Derbyshire was right.

Peter is right about how easy it is to be taken by surprise, though. We were in Rome walking through the streets in a nearly empty quarter one day when we heard a dull roar. It was hard to tell what it was, or exactly from what direction it was coming. I was curious, since it could have been anything from immigrants to ultras, so my friend and I had the women and children stay back while we went to see what was going on. It kept getting louder, but there was nothing to see until we turned a corner to encounter a large mass of several hundred dark-skinned people who looked like Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. They were loudly demonstrating against deportations or the lack of work permits or something,, and while it wasn’t even remotely dangerous, I won’t forget the shock of suddenly encountering such a loud and overpowering mass of humanity without much in the way of warning besides that dull roar.

And I can attest that having a handgun wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. Frankly, a belt-fed .50 caliber might not have been enough without a minefield. If I heard that sound these days, I’d do my best to figure out where it was coming from, then move quickly the opposite way. And if I couldn’t tell, I’d start backtracking. Fast.

Regardless, the key to successfully surviving everything from a one-on-one fight to a mob scene is lateral movement. You not only don’t want to be where they are, you don’t want to be where they are going.

Buyer’s remorse

I have to admit, I’m vastly amused at the thought of what must have gone through Patrick Nielsen Hayden’s mind when he read this little bloviation from his star author. Or better yet, the mind of the executive at Macmillan who has to defend Tor’s underperformance in 2016 to the Germans.

This year I’ll publish/have published a novella, stories in three anthologies, a short story collection and a video game. Not a bad year.

No, not bad. But of course, that’s really not what Tor Books pays him for. What appears to be missing there is the very small matter of a novel. Or two. That being said, I had better not cast too many stones, lest I find myself again addressed as “Vox RR Day” come January. Hey, I’m working on it!

Regardless, it’s a simple fact that the mainstream publishers are now in decline.

Financial reports for the first half of 2016 from five major publishers showed that none of the companies had a sales increase in the first half of the year; HarperCollins had the best top-line performance, with only a minor sales decline compared to the first six months of 2015. Earnings fell at three publishers in the period and rose at two. Though sales of print books have stabilized, all five reporting publishers said sales of e-books fell in the first six months of 2016 compared to the January–June 2015 period.

Sales at Penguin Random House were down nearly 11 percent, at -10.7 percent. HarperCollins did well to remain essentially flat for the first two quarters. And it’s only going to get worse, as independent publishers, self-publishers, and Kindle Unlimited continue to take an increasing share of the market.

Remember, publishing is not a zero-sum game, it is a NEGATIVE-SUM game. Because the market is shrinking, every sale Castalia makes represents more than one previous-year sale lost to the gatekeepers. And if you think they’re acting crazy now, just wait until Barnes & Noble goes down and takes one or more of the big publishers with them.

Twitter suspends Instapundit

If you go to the @instapundit account, this is what you see:

Account suspended
This account has been suspended. Learn more about why Twitter suspends accounts, or return to your timeline.

This is getting crazy. Twitter is blocking access to my blog, banning Milo, suspending Instapundit… it appears the thought police at Twitter are openly declaring war on the social media Right.

UPDATE: This was Twitter’s excuse:

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds responds:

Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we’ve had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.

Was just on Hugh Hewitt talking about this. Since Twitter won’t let me respond to — or even see — my critics, let me expand here.

I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years.

But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.

“Run them down” perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.

Meanwhile, regarding Twitter: I don’t even know that this is why I was suspended, as I’ve heard nothing from Twitter at all. They tell users and investors that they don’t censor, but they seem awfully quick to suspend people on one side of the debate and, as people over at Twitchy note, awfully tolerant of outright threats on the other.

Twitter can do without me, as I can certainly do without Twitter.

UPDATE: Apparently Twitter has reconsidered and unsuspended Glenn. For now.

Meanwhile, GabTechNews warns that YouTube has gone the Reddit route, almost precisely as spelled out by QuQu of GGRevolt.

Grave news: Youtube has gone the Reddit moderation path.
Volunteer-staffed mass flagging, comment removal, all that.
The internet is becoming a very coddled place.
They call it YouTube Heroes.



I think, at this point, we are going to have to assume that it is only a matter of time before Blogger is similarly converged and prepare accordingly. I’ve always had several backups running, of course, so I doubt much of an interruption will be necessary, but if Blogger goes the way of Goodreads, Wikipedia, Facebook, and now Twitter and YouTube, check in at either Gab or Castalia House to find the new location.

ALIEN GAME by Rod Walker

I am very pleased to be able to announce that Rod Walker has published his second science fiction novel with Castalia House. If you liked MUTINY IN SPACE, there is very little chance you will not also enjoy ALIEN GAME.

With nothing to do but work or lose himself in the dubious digital pleasures of the Netrix, Sam Hammond finds himself bored beyond belief on the oppressive planet of New Princeton. And when he gets himself in trouble for a stupid act of vandalism, he has the choice of spending a year in prison or working off his time as an indentured servant for anyone who buys his contract. 

He might have chosen prison if he’d known that he’d find himself working security for a safari colony on a jungle world where the herbivores are the size of a stadium, the apex predators are vicious lizards that can turn themselves almost invisible, and the skies are filled with huge, acid-breathing fliers. But when New Princeton’s Minister of Ecology arrives for a visit with a spaceship full of wealthy and powerful guests, Sam discovers that it is Man who is the most dangerous animal on the planet. 

Rod Walker is the New New Heinlein, and ALIEN GAME marks another step in the return of science fiction to its classical form and historical heights. Written in the style and tradition of Robert Heinlein’s 12 classic juvenile novels published by Scribner, ALIEN GAME is an exciting tale of space, technology, courage, independence, and the indomitable spirit of Man.

ALIEN GAME is Rod Walker’s second book in his Old School SF series. It is not a sequel to MUTINY IN SPACE, but is set in the same universe of the Thousand Worlds. While the books are intentionally written to be reminiscent of the twelve so-called juveniles of Robert Heinlein, they are not slavish imitations or color-by-numbers copies; it would probably be more accurate to describe them as being two parts Heinlein, one part Correia.

Let’s just say Mr. Walker and I are considerably more comfortable with guns, and rocket launchers, and orbital artillery, than Alice Dalgliesh, Heinlein’s editor at Scribner, ever was. Written by Rod Walker and edited by three-time Hugo-nominated editor Vox Day, ALIEN GAME is 160 pages, DRM-free, and $4.99. Available only on Amazon.

How SJWs neutralize rival institutions

This is a vital description of the way SJWs attack social media institutions outside their control, from a blog to an entire social media organization:

Containment, however, is not a winning strategy on its own. Even if you contain a conversation, even if you contain a user base, it can still grow in theory. As degenerate as people are today, quality is easily detected by others, whether it is great art, entertaining jokes or damning evidence. This is why, once a “space” (I’ll drop the quotes now, but please note that I don’t intend to justify the existing use of this terminology, I intend to dismantle it) is contained, the next move is to ensure its destruction. There are two ways to do this, we will now discuss the first of them:

Strategy 2: Dilution and poisoning

Just because a space is contained by no means implies that they intend to leave it alone. Containment keeps people inside the space from going out, like a gated city under siege by a numerically and tactically superior enemy. Dilution and pollution are the artillery and siege weapons deployed to make ensure everyone in the city starves or gets poisoned. Their aim is to destroys the target containment space and ensure those inside surrender and assimilate into the outer safe space.

What keeps a space alive? Two key ingredients: new users and new content (also known as OC). A new participants/lurkers, after becoming familiar with a space, create new content. The OC doesn’t make itself after all, and every individual has a finite amount of time and finite will to continue. If they feel they are alone, lacking the will to continue, they will give up. New content, attracts new people and if it directs them to the space that created it, they can participate and grow it. Thus the two parameters are tightly coupled. Lose one and you lose the other.

By diluting the content that exists in a space with bad quality content, it will repel new users. Subtle sliding and shitposts are the main weapon of choice. Burying OC, burying quality posts and ensuring only the rubbish rises to the top. This has an additional benefit, the shitposting will force some users to demand a higher level of moderation. This will go back to the phase of containment, where infiltrating parties will be able to contain the containment through various rules as we saw on gghq and as we are seeing on KiA. The reaction is expected as is part of the strategy.

The other, much more dangerous weapon is poisoning, inserting bad ideas, rotten OC into the target. Making their OC less special/less distinct than that which can be obtained outside in the “safe space”. Forcing those inside to play by the rules of the outside, changing their language. Calling them “edgelords” for being different, to shame them from creating certain content. We saw this on KiA where moderators will ban anyone who will call Brian Flynt a man. We also saw this on GGHQ where “dangerous ideas” were censored and the users banned for posting it. The justification is always perception by the outside.

Furthermore, promotion of mixing the enemy narrative and compromising also disinterests new users. An extreme position attracts a lot more people than a dilute position. At this point in time, you can see on twitter how closely the so-called #GamerGate activists resemble the SJWs themselves, from their language, smarm, mannerism and even their beliefs. This is because they are acting as the poison, while simultaneously diluting the discussion with their own low quality content.

Keep this in mind as you begin to use Gab, Big Fork, and other Alt-SocialMedia. The SJWs will be throwing everything they have at these alternatives in an attempt to neutralize them.

We’re already seeing that today with Twitter’s attempt to block access from Twitter to this blog. Remember, if you post links here, use one of the many country suffixes, so instead of .com, use .it, .fr, or .de. They’ll likely get around to blocking all those too, but remember the rule: make the rubble bounce. We can’t stop them from doing it, but we can make it an ongoing pain in their posterior.

And keep in mind one reason this blog still has lively and informative discourse in the comments is because the moderators and I ruthlessly weed out every SJW, troll, and hasbari who attempts to derail it.

White Democrats move to Trump

Identity always trumps ideology, if you’ll excuse an obvious pun:

On Como Street in Struthers, where CBS News spent a recent weekend knocking on every door on the block, Skook was in the minority. All around her, the community was ditching their Democratic roots and flocking to Trump.

Paul Sracic, who has lived in the area for years and is chair of the department of politics and international relations at Youngstown University, described Trump’s “blue-collar billionaire” identity as the perfect cocktail to attract onetime Democrats here.

“They know he’s not really a Republican, and that Mitt Romney hates him, so that helps,” Psaric said of the voters in his community. “So instead it’s like, ‘I’m not becoming a country club Republican, I’m a part of Trump’s party.’”

The story of these defections goes back to March when over 6,171 registered Democrats voted in the GOP primary that was a showdown between Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Even the Democratic mayor of Struthers was caught with a Trump For President sign in his front yard.

But the Democrats here have not come back home. Instead, many of them are still looking to Trump.

I note that Donald Trump has gained 11 points in the battleground state of North Carolina, going from -9 to +2 and taking the lead in the RCP state average. It’s too soon to confirm it, but all the indicators of the coming Trumpslide are sliding into place.

I doubt the Charlotte “riots” are hurting Trump any either.

Mailvox: Charlotte unrest is not “riots”

From one of the Ilk in North Carolina:

I, like some of the Ilk, live in North Carolina and riots have recently occurred in Charlotte.

For more information – the area they rioted at is by the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and has such dangerous neighborhood dwellings as Ikea and World Market. Home Depot is the shabbiest part of the area where they rioted. They lit bonfires on the highway so trucks would have to stop, and they were subsequently looted.

Insight into CMPD is that they are kind of like the Detroit PD, as they take care of business when necessary, but are often pretty diligent in avoiding “Ferguson” type scenarios.

Looking at all this, this was not a “burst of spontaneous vibrant anger,” but something planned. Often there is discussion of this kind of thing on your site in the comments, but I this is a pretty clear example of what we talk about and are wary of with regards to civil unrest in the US.

It’s reasonably apparent that the Soros money is now being utilized to stir up racial conflict, although it’s hard to imagine precisely what the man’s desired end game is. Sufficient unrest to justify military intervention? What would that change?

Of Alt-West and Alt-White

The question is not whether there are at least two distinct branches of the Alt-Right already or not, but whether the Alt-White branch can get its swastika panties sufficiently unbunched to cooperate with the Alt-West and the Alt-Lite in the pursuit of its stated objectives, or if it is more interested in competitive navel-gazing and purity-spiraling.

After a few run-ins with true-believing Stormfronters who have been Alt-Right since the distant dawn of primordial identity politics in 2010, both here and on Twitter, it has become abundantly clear that the combination of a legitimate fear of entryism and an understandable case of spotlight envy, the Alt-White is having some serious trouble dealing with the inevitable problems of success and popularity.

It’s rather like a company that has sales that are rapidly growing. The increase in demand for your products is great, but it is still a real problem. How are you going to get the additional products made? How are you going to pay for them? Are these new customers going to stick around or will they disappear before you can even expand your manufacturing capacity? These are good problems to have, but they are definitely problems that will need to be addressed.

First, is a distinction really necessary? Yes, without question. This should be obvious, since Alt-White, Alt-West, and Alt-Light are all different strains of identity-based thought that are all also observably distinct from mainstream conservatism or libertarianism. In this sense, all three are ALTernatives to the traditional RIGHT. Hence the Spencer-coined term.

Second, should all three be considered Alt-Right? Here I would argue no, that while it is reasonable to describe both Alt-White and Alt-West as Alt-Right, the Alt-Lite should not be. The reason is that while both Alt-White and Alt-West sign on to the greater part of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right I’ve laid out, and which most Alt-Rightists have generally endorsed, the various people who make up the Alt-Lite are all over the place with regards to most of them.

The Alt-Lite, in other words, is the larval form of the Alt-Right, which means that they are not, practically speaking, Alt-Right in any meaningful or functional sense. They are merely those still undergoing the intellectual transition that most Alt-Rightists have made, at one point or another. Alt-Lite is a transitional stage, not an end point.

By contrast, the Alt-White and Alt-West are both destinations. Once one gravitates towards one branch or the other, or as may be the case, is directed there by virtue of one’s identity, one is simply not going to eventually move towards the other one. This leads us to the third question, what are the key differences between the Alt-White and the Alt-West. The following are my observations; I am quite willing to be corrected by someone who can speak more credibly for the Alt-White.

  1. Alt-White is for whites only. Alt-West is pan-racial and pan-national, which should not be confused with being multicultural or equalitarian or pro-diversity in the egalitarian sense.
  2. Alt-White is primarily concerned with white nationalism, and secondarily concerned with European nationalisms. Within the Alt-White, there is already a discussion concerning what the difference between a generic white nationalism and the specific European nationalisms are; I suspect there will eventually be a further distinction between American and European branches of the Alt-White. While the Alt-West supports white nationalism, that is not its sole concern, as it supports all nationalism, European or otherwise.
  3. Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Christianity. Alt-West is strongly pro-Christian, as it believes Christianity to be one of the three pillars of Western Civilization aka the historical Christendom. Pro-Christian includes, but does not require, actually being a Christian.
  4. Alt-White is neutral to hostile on Israel. Alt-West is pro-Israel, as it supports all nationalist homelands.
  5. Alt-White is hostile to very hostile to all Jews everywhere. Alt-West is friendly to Israeli Jews while hostile to globalist Jews and anti-nationalist Jews.
  6. Alt-White has a romantic view of National Socialism. Alt-West regards it as a suicidally stupid but semiotically useful form of German nationalism.
  7. Alt-White is neutral to pro-white imperialism. Alt-West is anti-imperialism, as it regards imperalism as being societally enervating and self-destructive.

As you can see, within the context of both the 16 Points and the grand political spectrum, Alt-White and Alt-West are largely in accord. They generally share a philosophy and a direction, but their priorities and perspectives are different. More importantly, with the possible exception of Christianity in the long term, there is very little reason for conflict between Alt-White and Alt-West, indeed, the distinction between the two eliminates the Alt-White’s primary objection to the Alt-West, which is the possibility of  being sidelined by the media and by the larger potential appeal of the Alt-West.

Some have accused me, and Milo, and several others, of wanting to assume the mantle of leading the Alt-Right. That is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, one personal benefit of articulating the distinction between the two primary branches of the Alt-Right is that it makes it clear that a) there can be no unitary leader, and b) even if there could be, that unitary leader could not possibly be me due to my identity as an American Indian and member of La Raza.

The more significant benefit is to quell the fears of the Alt-White that they will be sidelined by their more numerous allies. But the Alt-West needs nothing from the Alt-White, and by establishing a separate identity, a much broader spectrum of members are made possible while respecting the rigid borders of the Alt-White. Regardless, the simple fact of the matter is that the Alt-White is not the only alternative to mainstream conservatism.

There are much bigger battles ahead than settling the question of whether Christianity is a necessary component of Western Civilization or not. Because we know the white race is absolutely a necessary component of it, and that is why, whether one is inclined towards the Alt-White or the Alt-West, every member of the Alt-Right who values both whites and the West has immediate and mid-range objectives remain exactly the same.

As before, this is not intended to be a definitive delineation of the differences between the two branches of the Alt-Right, but the starting point for an intelligent discussion. Keep it civil and substantive as those more interested in posturing will be spammed. As for those who will claim that Alt-West, Alt-White, and Alt-Lite are not genuine “things”, keep in mind that as a political taxonomist, I am creating nothing. I am merely describing what observably already exists.

Whatever, Twitter

I’ve never been a big fan of the medium, I don’t need to use it, and while I probably will get around to accessing my account eventually, their inept technical support simply doesn’t inspire me to make it a priority.

Unfortunately, we’re unable to verify you as the account holder and cannot assist you in accessing the account.

If you know which email address is associated with the account and you no longer have access to that email, please contact your email provider for assistance. More information can be found here: https://support.twitter.com/articles/107907.

For privacy reasons, we are not able to provide any additional information about this account’s email address. Even if you mistyped your email address on signup, we require that you write to us from the exact address tied to the account. There are no security questions you can answer nor additional information you can provide as proof of ownership.

While we understand it can be disappointing when you lose access to an account, these account verification requirements are in place to protect accounts and private user data.

So, they lock the account for “security” reasons at the same time they block links to this blog, but can’t unlock it because I’m not verified. Right. I’m not disappointed at all. It’s not a big deal, all I need to do is restore access to my old email address, but right now, I’m just too busy to bother.

The point is, don’t be concerned if you don’t see me on Twitter for a while. I don’t care about Twitter any more than they do about their users.

But I will observe that this sort of casual indifference to customer relations, especially concerning problems they themselves caused, is the hallmark of a company that is doomed, sooner or later.

Especially when I’ve been on Twitter for years and have only 23,000 followers. I’ve been on Gab for all of about 4 hours and already have 500. Stefan Molyneux has nearly 2,000. If we can reach nearly as many people and without having to put up with all the SJW harassment, that’s a complete no-brainer.

UPDATE: Or maybe I won’t go bother going back at all. Now Twitter is locking the accounts of users who simply retweet a link to this blog. Which means that the “suspicious activity” that got my account locked in the first place was almost certainly posting a link here.

UPDATE: I’ve already changed the @voxday link here from Twitter to Gab. Apparently the waiting list has increased 18k, to 62k, in just the last few hours, so get in line now.

The true Christian teaching on immigration

Contra the current churchian and papal perspectives, the traditional Christian teaching on immigration is that the common good of the nation must be considered first, not whatever happens to most benefit the potential immigrant. This analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’s work makes clear what was repeatedly demonstrated in Cuckservative, which is that what churchians are doing with regards to immigration is not Christian at all, but are the works of a false faith that is intrinsically anti-Christian.

Immigration is a modern problem and so some might think that the medieval Saint Thomas would have no opinion about the problem. And yet, he does. One has only to look in his masterpiece, the Summa Theologica, in the second part of the first part, question 105, article 3 (I-II, Q. 105, Art. 3). There one finds his analysis based on biblical insights that can add to the national debate. They are entirely applicable to the present.

Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”

Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.

The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.

Saint Thomas: “For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exodus 22:21): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]’; and again (Exodus 22:9): ’Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino].’”

Commentary: Here Saint Thomas acknowledges the fact that others will want to come to visit or even stay in the land for some time. Such foreigners deserved to be treated with charity, respect and courtesy, which is due to any human of good will. In these cases, the law can and should protect foreigners from being badly treated or molested.

Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”

Commentary: Saint Thomas recognizes that there will be those who will want to stay and become citizens of the lands they visit. However, he sets as the first condition for acceptance a desire to integrate fully into what would today be considered the culture and life of the nation.

A second condition is that the granting of citizenship would not be immediate. The integration process takes time. People need to adapt themselves to the nation. He quotes the philosopher Aristotle as saying this process was once deemed to take two or three generations. Saint Thomas himself does not give a timeframe for this integration, but he does admit that it can take a long time.

Saint Thomas: “The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.”

Commentary: The common sense of Saint Thomas is certainly not politically correct but it is logical. The theologian notes that living in a nation is a complex thing. It takes time to know the issues affecting the nation. Those familiar with the long history of their nation are in the best position to make the long-term decisions about its future. It is harmful and unjust to put the future of a place in the hands of those recently arrived, who, although through no fault of their own, have little idea of what is happening or has happened in the nation. Such a policy could lead to the destruction of the nation.

As an illustration of this point, Saint Thomas later notes that the Jewish people did not treat all nations equally since those nations closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close. Some hostile peoples were not to be admitted at all into full fellowship due to their enmity toward the Jewish people.

These are some of the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the matter of immigration based on biblical principles. It is clear that immigration must have two things in mind: the first is the nation’s unity; and the second is the common good.

Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.

Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.

This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.