Tag: immigration

Diversity is the death of the republic

This isn’t a thought that is new to me; HongKongCharlie reminds us that the Founding Fathers knew it very well:

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common
national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the
exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that
love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely
connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in the
Notes on Virginia [by Thomas Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will
generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have
left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular
customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government
congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be
led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that
they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential
to real republicanism?”
-Alexander Hamilton, From the New York Evening Post: an Examination of the President’s Message, Continued, No. VIII, 1802″

Those
who advocate diversity and immigration are not merely foolish, or
ignorant, they are as actively and effectively anti-American as the most
antipathetic individuals who are consciously attempting to destroy what
is left of traditional, constitutional, civilized, European America.

So,
do keep this in mind:  The rabbits and pinkshirts loudly proclaim that
my opinion is outrageous, offensive, and intrinsically unworthy of
debate… despite that opinion being, in the words of Alexander
Hamilton, “undoubtedly correct”.

Mailvox: illegal immigration isn’t the problem

It’s not the illegals, as this younger restrictionist has good cause to recognize.  It is the legal immigrants, and the fact that there have been far too many of them from too different cultures:

Most people are stunned when I say I’m for lower legal immigration. I know with most it would paint me as a bigot and I don’t give a damn. It’s not that I fear what I don’t know. It’s that I speak several foreign languages, have been extensively south of the border in different countries, and see what is going to happen to us.

Just as actual proximity to diversity and vibrancy tends to reduce positive social contact, actual familiarity with other societies tends to reduce enthusiasm for immigration from them.  In general, the more enthusiastic about diversity and immigration a white American is these days, the more parochial they are.  If they so much as mention food with regards to the issue, you can be certain that their experience of other cultures is essentially limited to restaurants.

It’s not the culinary spices that are the issue here.  I speak three languages and have a basic smattering of two others.  I’m not recognizably American anymore; on our recent trip to Rome, I discovered that “American” isn’t even the second guess of people I meet these days.  And it is my experience of transitioning from one society to another, and of witnessing others do so and fail to do so, that informs my opinion.  It is that experience that makes me certain that the large scale immigration of the last fifty years from the Third World is going to have dreadful consequences in Europe and America alike.

Rubio fails to follow the logic train

The Republican Senator doesn’t think through the logical implications of the accusations he is directing against the Obama administration:

“So in the span of four days, [there were] three major revelations about the use of government power to intimidate those who are doing things that the government doesn’t like. These are the tactics of the third world. These are the tactics of places that don’t have the freedoms and the independence that we have here in this country.”

They are the tactics of the third world.  They are, unsurprisingly enough, the tactics of a president who is himself an immigrant and a third worlder.  They are the tactics of a place that no longer has the freedom and independence and population that it once had. And yet, even as he laments this, Rubio is actively campaigning to legalize millions of third worlders who illegally settled in the country and add tens of millions more to their ranks.

Welcome to Third World America.  This is merely the smallest taste of what it is going to look like.

GOP contemplates electoral suicide

Any Republican supporting the proposed immigration amnesty must be considered a RINO by definition:

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

Beneath the philosophical debates about amnesty and border security, there are brass-tacks partisan calculations driving the thinking of lawmakers in both parties over comprehensive immigration reform, which in its current form offers a pathway to citizenship — and full voting rights — for a group of undocumented residents that roughly equals the population of Ohio, the nation’s seventh-largest state.

It’s telling, is it not, how if the majority responding to a poll favor the legality of homosexuals playing marriage, this is indicative of an urgent moral imperative, but when there is an even stronger shift against LEGAL immigration, it is simply ignored.  Such is the power of the media narrative.

“A just-released Fox News poll finds 55 percent of voters think fewer
legal immigrants should be accepted into the U.S.  That’s up from 43
percent in 2010.
Majorities of Republicans (67 percent) and independents (53 percent)
as well as a plurality of Democrats (47 percent) want to decrease legal
immigration.“

But the latest push for amnesty demonstrates the intrinsic bankruptcy of the longtime conservative and Republican position that the immigration problem was rooted in its illegality.  The legality or illegality has never been the issue.  The issue has always been what it has been since the Israelites first immigrated to Canaan; the quantity.  Mass immigration transforms the invaded nation in keeping with the culture of the newcomers and leads to the dissolution of the old structures and their replacement with new and different ones.

Both liberals and conservatives can say goodbye to American ideals, traditions, and even modes of thought.  There is no picking and choosing about what will be saved and what will be thrown out.  This is not a controlled process. For those progressives who supported immigration because they hated their traditional society, this was the equivalent of trying to hold up a liquor store by setting off an atomic bomb.

There are certain things upon which no society can compromise and hope to survive. One of them is the quantity of permitted immigration. Since Americans foolishly abandoned their pre-1965 laws against immigration, they have assured themselves one of two outcomes: partition or mass ethnic cleansing.  Or, as history suggests is more likely the case, some combination of both.

And don’t blame the separatists and ruthless nationalists for their inevitable actions. They are the consequence, they are the symptoms. The responsible parties are all of those individuals, on both the political left and right, who bought into the myth of Ellis Island and welcomed tens of millions of alien invaders into the USA.

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps this time it will be different and unlike every other reasonable historical analog I can recall. If you live there, you had certainly better hope so. What happened in Boston last week isn’t even the smallest taste of what is likely on the way.

UPDATE: It took her long enough, but Ann Coulter has finally figured out that the problem isn’t ILLEGAL immigration, but excessive legal IMMIGRATION.

Don’t be afraid of killer immigrants

Relax, most immigrants aren’t going to kill you.  They’re only going to lower wage rates, pollute the environment, live off your social benefits, transform your culture and your legal system, and make the USA considerably more like the third world hellholes from which they have escaped. The real problem, according to the Washington Post, isn’t a few murderous immigrants, but lawmakers stoking fear in the native populace:

CYNICS IN CONGRESS, eager to derail landmark legislation to overhaul the nation’s broken immigration system, have seized on last week’s events in Boston as a pretext to slow momentumon the issue. In the process, they may unwittingly provide a push for the very bill they hope to derail.

With scant regard for the actual immigration status of the bombing suspects, who came to this country legally as minors, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) nonetheless framed the attacks in Boston in the context of the debate over immigration. With a suspect still at large Friday, he asked, “How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

His fellow Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, then sent a letter
to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), arguing that the Senate “should not proceed [with immigration reform] until we understand the specific failures in our immigration system.”

Just
what flaws in the immigration system are the senators talking about?
The failure to divine the future and predict that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who
was a teenager when his family immigrated, and his surviving brother,
Dzhokhar, who was 9, might become radicalized years after arriving?

Well, yes.  After all, we have been repeatedly ensured that the younger they are, the better immigrants will integrate and become Real White Americans who evere the Constitution, value American liberties, and vote in exactly equal numbers for Republicans and Democrats.

I know the Washington Post likes to blame everything on Republicans in Congress, but honestly, I would think that even the most propaganda-oriented progressive would admit that immigrants planting bombs and killing Americans is a perfectly rational reason to be less than wildly enthusiastic about immigration.

More minorities, more unemployment

It has always seemed more than a little strange to me that so many Americans blithely assume that browns, blacks, and yellows who relocate to the United States are going to take on all the characteristics of white Americans by the sole virtue of their geographic relocation:

Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson said Tuesday
that the nation would “never tolerate white unemployment at 14 or 15
percent” and yet unemployment for the black community has been double
that of white Americans for over 50 years….

Johnson said the challenge was to figure out why the unemployment
rate for blacks has been so high, “and if that doesn’t change,
somebody’s going to have to pay— 34 million African-Americans are not
going to leave this country, millions of African-Americans who don’t
have jobs.”

“Somebody’s going to have to pay for them. Somebody’s going to have
to take care of them, and if somebody’s going to have to take care of
them, that money’s got to come from somebody. And whoever’s paying for
it is going to be upset about it, and they’re going to start looking for
somebody to blame,” Johnson said.

It has been understood for decades that the lesser cultural differences between white Protestants and white Catholics have been sufficient to create very different outcomes in various European countries. Hence the phrase “Protestant work ethic”.

In light of this, is it not worth considering the possibility that the “new normal” of higher unemployment rates and lower labor force participation rates is at least in part the inevitable result of the 1965 and 1986 immigration acts, which have resulted in the massive influx of people with different cultures, and observably different work ethics, than white Protestant Americans?

In 1991, the Employment-Population Ratio in the USA was four points higher than in Mexico, 61-57.  It was 53 in Nigeria, 50 in France, and 45 in Italy.  This is usually blamed on lack of economic development and capital, but it seems to me that since economic development and capital are consequences of human action, not causes, it is more likely that one reason for the previously advantaged state of the US economy was the result of the unique composition of its predominantly Protestant European labor force.

Now, there are obviously a wide variety of other factors involved, but all things being equal, does it really make sense to imagine that importing workers from countries that are less productive and less inclined to work is going to increase productivity and decrease unemployment in the long run?  We already know that women are less inclined to work, and work fewer hours when they do, than men.  So, ogic suggests that the more the labor force moves away from being male, white, and Protestant, the more unemployment there will be and the lower the employment-population ratio is likely to fall.

The “New Normal” of eight percent unemployment and sub-60 percent EPR isn’t necessarily the result of the financial shenanigans or even free trade, it is also partly the result of immigration from countries where the population is less inclined to work hard. Johnson’s comments also lead to the obvious conundrum: if there are fewer people working less hard, how are they going to be able to pay for the increasing number of people not working at all?

Immigrants are good for the economy

So much for that tremendously sophisticated theory:

In Stockton, Calif., which has just entered into Chapter 9 bankruptcy,
41 percent of the people do not speak English at home and 21 percent
cannot speak it very well, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The problem facing immigration advocates is that once they admit that the quality and quantity of the immigrant population has an effect on the economy, their entire rational for replacing the native population goes out the window.  They were able to successfully deceive the public in 1965 and 1986, but not any longer.  The effects of the foreign pigeons invading to roost and crap all over the US economy can no longer be denied.

How many more cities have to go bankrupt before it becomes obvious to everyone that immigration is not an intrinsic element of economic growth.  It is more than a little ironic that in the name of free trade, Americans have somehow managed to accept a system that involves the free movement of labor as well as restrictions on the movement of capital.

Immigration as ideological weapon

Peter Hitchens admits what was always obvious: the reason the Left has favored mass immigration is because they believed, correctly, that they could use it to politically transform the nation:

The greatest mass migration in our history has taken place…. Our leaders only had to go to Boston, any time in the past five years, and they would have known.

But all our leading politicians were afraid of knowing the truth.

If they knew, they would at least have to pretend to act.

And the truth was, they liked things as they were.

And it was at least partly my own fault.

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London).

We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.

But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients – not as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as ‘racists’.

What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as ‘racist’.

And now the pro-immigrant Left belatedly discovers they have a tiger by the tail that doesn’t give a damn about their careful distinctions between what is useful to them and what is not.  This is par for the course for the Left; the Mensheviks always end up being cast aside by the Bolsheviks. The Richard Dawkins of the world are always happy to foolishly embrace Islam as an attack on Christian culture, if they weren’t too short-sighted to grasp that Islam would prove every bit as implacable a foe as Christianity, they wouldn’t be Leftists in the first place.

Many, if not most, white progressives, libertarians, and conservatives who bought into the Myth of Ellis Island are going to come over to the nationalist side in the next ten years, frightened by the realization that what they celebrated and advocated has come to pass in a very different way than they expected.  But those of us who have always valued nationalist culture and traditions need to always keep in mind that they are, at best, modestly useful allies of demonstrably inferior judgment on such matters.

The Right has a long and sordid history of elevating those who have “seen the light” to be its opinion leaders.  National Review and Pajamas Media is chock full of former progressives, ex-Democrats, and reformed socialists, which is why their positions are so reliably meek, ineffective, and apologetic.  They still want to curry favor with the Leftist institutions they once revered; they simply do not regard the Left with the contempt such organizations and people merit.  Look, for example, at Hitchens’s attack on Enoch Powell in the very article in which he belatedly comes around to accept the essence of Powell’s
position on immigration.

That is why this rush of newly reformed transnationalists cannot ever be trusted or taken very seriously.  They are still the same traitors to their cultures and traditions they have always been, all that has changed is that they are now frightened of what their own actions have wrought and alarmed at the extent to which the transformations they sought are destroying even the aspects of their society they expected to retain.

Even now, the transnationalist right is still trying to finesse an irrelevant difference between illegal immigration (bad) and legal immigration (good).  This is a fool’s game. The fact is that ALL immigration beyond a small and readily absorbed amount is invariably destructive and will always transform the invaded nation into something different than it was before.  Whether the transformation is desirable or not is a separate and debatable matter, the point is that the transformation is definitely going to take place.

GOP pursues strategic suicide

Any party that is dumb enough to bank on that elusive conservative Hispanic vote deserves what it will get:

Republican opposition to legalizing the status of millions of illegal immigrants is crumbling in the nation’s capital as leading lawmakers in the party scramble to halt eroding support among Hispanic voters — a shift that is providing strong momentum for an overhaul of immigration laws.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Tea Party Republican, on Tuesday became the latest to embrace a more welcoming approach, declaring to the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants that if they want to work in America, “then we will find a place for you.”

While he never uttered the word “citizenship” and said a secure border must come first, Mr. Paul strongly implied that citizenship would eventually be available to them.

It’s disappointing, but hardly surprising, that Mr. Paul’s conventional, (and in this case, erroneous), libertarian instincts would get the better of his economic and nationalist sensibilities.  America doesn’t need 11 million illegal immigrants working.  It doesn’t need 30 million legal immigrants working, for that matter.  Those who think they do clearly don’t understand supply, demand, and the consequences of increasing supply with regards to price.

One would think that Republicans would learn to rethink their actions any time the New York Times lines up behind them, but apparently one of the key aspects of being a Republican is never remembering what happened last time.

“His new message follows the publication
on Monday of a blistering report from the Republican National Committee
that urged the party’s members to champion an immigration overhaul that
Hispanics can embrace or risk seeing the party shrinking “to its core
constituencies only.””

Ronald Reagan once noted that he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him.  The Republican Party is now in the process of abandoning its core constituencies in favor of an imaginary and alien one.

Because you invaded their country

An Indian man wonders why no British people were willing to intervene when he was being beaten up on a train:

‘Why would nobody help me?’ Father punched in the face 18 times by racist thugs in front of 200 witnesses on a packed tram… and not one person intervened. Prakash Patel, 56, attacked while on a tram in Manchester with his daughter

Can you imagine this happening in the England in which Mr. Patel first settled 30 years ago?  No more than you can probably imagine a German complaining that French civilians didn’t come to his assistance when the French Resistance attacked him.  Meanwhile, Mr. Patel’s daughter is very fortunate that they were Indians being attacked in England and not Swiss being attacked in India.

The bien-pensant can cluck like chickens about how terrible it is that humanity does not suffer invasion of its territories and subjugation of its peoples with all the gentle good humor of lambs being led to the slaughter if they like; they will do so to no avail.  Recall that most still regard Winston Churchill, Davy Crockett, and the men of the USS Arizona heroes for their resistance of failed conquests far less credible than those attempted by Mr. Patel and his third world cohorts. The “racist thugs” of today will be the heroes of tomorrow, just as the multicuturalists thought so well of by the progressives and well-behaved conservatives of today will eventually be considered insane monsters of history in the vein of the Nazis and Communists.

Multiculturalism is worse than murder.  It is even worse than mass murder, being more akin to genocide. It is attempted sociocide.  As for the self-hating fifth columnists who piously mouth PC sacraments like “racists have no place in our society”, I suggest they go and try settling in India or Jamaica or Nigeria so they can discover how the people they are so eagerly welcoming to settle in their country truly feel about racial differences.

It doesn’t matter in the slightest how one feels personally about these matters.  It doesn’t matter how pure-in-heart and anti-racist you believe yourself to be. It doesn’t matter that people of various sub-species and races have lived in relative harmony for ten, twenty, or even one hundred years. Cultural friction, like gravity, always wins in the end. History shows, history makes it abundantly clear, that eventually the cultural differences will trigger sufficient violence to restore the violated borders once more.  It is as completely futile to blame “racism” for the inevitable violence as it is to wage war on “terror”.  Doing so is a fundamental category error.

Immigration is when a small number of foreigners are permitted to settle within a country by the native people.  Invasion is when tens of thousands or more foreigners settle in a country against the wishes of the native people, regardless of whether they happen to be armed or not. Both Europe and the USA have suffered quiet and undeclared large-scale invasions; only now are the natives beginning to wake up and become restless.

And the reason they will become considerably more violent is explained by Mr. Patel himself: “He said he would consider leaving Britain in the wake of the attack were it not for the fact that his family is so well established here.”  In other words, the invaders will not leave until they are forced to do so, as we have seen in India, in Zimbabwe, as we are presently seeing in South Africa, and as we will eventually see in England and the USA.

Now, there is certainly a case to be made that there is no need to harbor any sympathy for the British, considering how they themselves invaded more than half the countries around the world.  But it is blatantly dishonest to pretend the British people are not being invaded against their will, as dishonest as it would be to deny the invasions of the British imperial era.

The honest monohumanist, assuming one can be found, will be inclined to ask “why are you racist?”  To which one can only respond: “on what basis do you assume that this time, for the first time in over six thousand years of recorded history, it will be different?”