The Senate Amnesty Bill; Why Must the West Uniquely Open the Floodgates?

Gang-of-8

What’s so funny, Gang of Eight? Just the decline and fall of Western Civilization, that’s all.

Patulcius

The United States government seems bent on foisting an amnesty for the country’s supposedly 11 million illegal aliens on the American people whether they want it or not.[1]  The ‘Gang of Eight’ Senate bill, called the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), would allow illegal immigrants who arrived before 31 December 2011 to become legal residents if they meet various conditions, such as paying back-taxes and having a clean criminal record,[2] and the bill gives them a pathway to US citizenship.

The smug, aptly-named ‘Gang of Eight’ assures Americans that this bill will establish border security before these migrants can become citizens, but we heard this sort of nonsense back in 1986 to promote the passage of the previous amnesty.  The new bill grants more H1-B worker visas each year (from a current 85,000 to 205,000), and it allows more agricultural workers inside the country.  The bill allows Congress to change the amounts of future immigrants based on ‘economic conditions’, but this would likely mean, in practice, that limits on the numbers of issued green cards would effectively disappear.

Earnest-faced conservatives, terrified that they might feel racist, are always saying that they don’t mind legal immigrants, but they strongly oppose the illegal variety.  But how does an invasion that the government sanctions bring different results than an invasion that happens illegally?  Our country is still transformed, our local cultures drowned out.

And why must the West uniquely absorb the excess populations of other nations?  In doing so, Western nations seem to say that they possess no national or cultural heritage that is worth maintaining.  Our globalist leaders would suggest that our economies, our laws, and government benefits matter the most in a country.

But our nations at one time understood that we were a collection of people who shared a common history, language, ethnicity, and culture.  Minorities were tolerated to various degrees, but they were not allowed to disrupt the nation that surrounded them.  People once considered nationhood as something to cherish and uphold, and, if necessary, to defend.  Virtually no one questioned such an obvious commitment.

What changed?

Since the 1950’s and especially the 60’s, Western nations, ashamed of their recent legacies of colonial exploitation and white supremacy, embraced a suicidal policy of immigration from other countries, particularly from non-European countries.  It wasn’t ‘nice’ to deny the benefits of one’s country to others, especially when one’s country had shamelessly exploited the people who clamored to move in.  Whites forced themselves to believe that anyone from anywhere could assimilate into their countries, that Turks could become good, orderly Germans, that Moroccans would transform themselves into fine, upstanding French snobs.  Mexicans, we are assured, want to become law-abiding, English-speaking US citizens.  Somehow the reality has failed to meet these utopian ideals.

Rather than assimilate, the non-European migrants have created large pockets of restless, unemployed, resentful populations that are reproducing faster than the secularized, egalitarianized natives.

riot-cp-3953861-392

Europeans are starting to figure out that mass immigration isn’t working.

In Europe, mostly Muslim immigrants possess little respect for the societal nihilism that surrounds them, and they wish to impose their own unyielding society on the natives.

In the United States, immigrants more simply want to work and send money home, or take advantage of the welfare system.  Few of them have any real loyalty to the United States, even fewer value our traditions of individual liberty and Christian morality.  (And why should they when so few Americans do?)

Given enough time and enough continued migration, the immigrants will transform their host nations into the types of countries from which they departed—poor, heterogeneous, corrupt, and unstable.

It is interesting that people from non-Western countries have come to understand that it is okay to maintain their cultures and ethnicities as nation-states in their own lands (although these countries often do force their own local minorities to assimilate), but white countries become dangerous and racist when they assert dominance within their own countries.  This dichotomy ironically stems from the worldwide ascendancy of Western culture, a culture that despises its own traditions and history of ethnic dominance.  People in non-Western countries ultimately face, as the West now faces, self-destruction of their own culture, sovereignty, and ethnicity pushed by their own Westernized international elites.

Each nation of people on this earth, however great or small, should be able to maintain its own borders, language, ethnicity, and culture.  Likewise, each nation should respect the borders, language, ethnicity, and culture of other nations.

We in the United States, in order to uphold our own enfeebled nation-state, should resist this newest amnesty.  Regardless of the rhetoric, this bill increases the already perilous threat to our language, ethnicity, and culture.

The awful ‘Gang of Eight’ and the major political parties will pressure everyone to support the bill.  The Democrats will support the expanded voter base, and Rubio and McCain will warn Republican suckers that without the support of Hispanics they will never win another presidency.

romney-cincy

Typical Romney rally in Cincinnati: Not many brown faces in this crowd. “Fend for yourselves!” doesn’t play out among non-White voting blocs.

But these arguments are false: non-white voting blocs do not share elite progressive concerns; they only want government benefits.  And for conservatives, Hispanics will never, as a whole, become ‘good Republicans’; amnesty will only accelerate the decline of American conservatism.

Strong popular opposition to immigration ‘reform’ has derailed such immigration bills in the recent past, and may well do so again.  We shall see if the American people have the will to preserve themselves.

Clusivius

The immigration situation for Western nations outside of Europe isn’t quite so grim as Patulcius suggests.

In general, very limited immigration can benefit a country if it can attract the world’s best and brightest.  The phenomenon of ‘brain drain’ brings such talented people to an advanced country like the United States.  These are people whose skills would be wasted in their own poor countries.

And, outside of Europe, the immigrants are assimilating.  In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, most immigrants show signs of learning English (or French in Quebec) and their children have absorbed much of the culture.  By the third generation, these immigrants are often culturally indistinguishable from the white natives.  The prognosis in the long term for the assimilation of immigrants in these countries is quite good, despite some of the heated rhetoric.

Admittedly, immigrants are failing to assimilate within parts of the United States, such as southern Florida and regions of the American southwest, and these do pose a threat to the integrity of the country.  But in areas where a single immigrant group doesn’t dominate a large area, the immigrants will gradually adopt the culture of their new countries.

The greatest danger of immigration, particularly in the United States but also in other Western countries, comes from the political disruption that immigrants bring, at least in the short run.  For the most part, immigrants have little respect for individual liberty as a political ideal.  Their own countries use politics as a means to gain support from different factions within their electorate, and immigrant populations (like many native populations) view voting as an exercise in determining the distribution of largesse.

Elites in the United States dislike individual liberty, and they have managed to tilt the electoral balance in their favor by flooding the country with new voters who care nothing for the Constitution, for individual rights, or for self-sufficiency.  Since so many native-born citizens no longer value these freedoms, they will vanish at the national level as immigration continues to accelerate.

I, too, oppose the amnesty bill.


[1] Dann, Carrie. “They’re Off! Immigration Debate Begins on Senate Floor.” NBC News. NBCNews.com, 7 June 2013. Web. 10 June 2013. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18829022-theyre-off-immigration-debate-begins-on-senate-floor?lite

[2] How difficult can this be for an immigrant without papers?

Advertisements
  • December 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
%d bloggers like this: