The Left has drilled the immigrant “melting pot” fantasy into our heads for so many years that most people dare not question it. They should. The United States was founded by Anglo-Saxon Protestants from Western Europe. For most of America’s history, “immigrants” meant descendants of British Common Law raised in our Western Judeo-Christian ethic. Our culture, our traditions, and most importantly, our astronomical living standards are a direct result of that particular heritage. Don’t think so? What if our founding fathers were Aztec? Or Yoruba? What prosperity did those cultures leave to their descendants? Our Republic is rich because, despite its flaws, it was founded on a set of objectively better ideas. Immigrants to the United States do not make us wealthier by virtue of looking “diverse.” Quite the opposite. They make us and themselves wealthier when they assimilate to our Western tradition – when they become “one of us.” Before the rise of fraudulent victim advocacy organizations and our massive welfare state, American immigrants that couldn’t meet our standards or disliked our values would simply pack their bags and go home. This was a delicate and humane screening test for prospective migrants. No need for reams of paperwork, a massive immigration bureaucracy, or an army of ICE agents.
Yet, where would the political Left be if they weren’t “fixing” something? Open borders are the Left’s answer to Protestant America’s rejection of socialism. Marxists suffered a humiliating intellectual defeat during the post-war era and were badly in need of new voters. Americans peeked over the Iron curtain and gasped in horror at the mountain of dead bodies piled up across socialist Europe and Asia. For at least a part of American history, Communism became a bad word. Marxist academics muttered a collective “whoops” and retreated from the battlefield of ideas. They got to work on a new scheme for pushing big government socialism on Americans. If they couldn’t convince Protestant Christians to favor statism, why not just import statists? Enter Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration bill which not only limited immigration from Western Europe but also opened America’s front door to every medieval backwater on Earth. The supposed rationale? “Diversity is our strength!” And so the multiculturalism cult was born. Acknowledging that our galaxy-exploring Western Republic probably has nothing to learn from people who yell at clouds to make rain is now a thought crime. Besides the new mass of sympathetic voters, progressives also effectively shielded themselves from having to know anything about the cultures they import. After all, what does it matter? We’re all the same – y’know, “melting pot” and all that.
So what has America gained from its multi-decade project in 3rd world diversity? Apart from more restaurants serving meat and rice, nothing. As of 2010, 71% of Hispanic immigrant households were on some form of government welfare compared to 39% of native households. As of 2013, that number was 91.4% for Middle Eastern refugees. In fact, not including later welfare expenditures, resettling one refugee costs US taxpayers almost $13,000 per year. Are these the people making us stronger via diversity? It sounds an awful lot like they’re making us a soup kitchen. 3rd world migrants tend to come from violent, tribal, and outrageously intolerant societies. Are we to assume only “nice” 3rd world immigrants come to America? Nearly 80% of undocumented Central American women and children are raped by other illegal immigrants during their trek across the US border. The idea that immigrants who live in horribly violent societies will simply drop those tendencies once they’re on American soil is utter nonsense. Illegal 3rd world aliens make up over a quarter of the federal prison population and commit murders and sexual assaults five to ten times as often as native-born Americans. America’s “melting pot” was not supposed to include this much rape in the broth.
Predictably, our politicians have learned precisely zero from this migration catastrophe. Should she win the election, Hillary Clinton has promised to import 65,000 Syrian refugees to our shores.
Western Europe has experimented with Middle Eastern immigration for nearly four decades and it’s gone about as well as you’d expect. Sweden and Denmark suddenly have the highest number of sexual assaults in all of Europe, nearly 70% of French prisoners are Muslim, ungovernable Muslim ghettos are everywhere, and migrant welfare consumption has left European coffers with nothing but spider webs and IOUs. The gruesome, almost weekly terror attacks committed by Islamic militants are also unwelcome baggage. At home, Somali immigrant communities in Maine and Minnesota have shared great, exotic traditions like sex slavery, credit card fraud, and insurance scams. Apart from warm and fuzzies, can the open borders crowd describe any tangible benefit to US citizens from importing Middle Eastern migrants?
Violence, poverty, and corruption in the third world are a direct result of the traditions and customs of the people who live there. A simple plane flight won’t change that. If fresh-off-the-tarmac Somali refugees are given US citizenship like any other native born, then US citizenship means nothing.
America is not just a random mishmash of “melted cultures.” America is supposed to be a common law republic with a legal bias in favor of human liberty and property rights. It is a “melting pot” of Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, Normans, and other Western European tribes. The Guarani people of the Amazon were not consulted when the Founders drafted our Constitution. If we like all the bells and whistles of living in a (relatively) free country, we should stop importing voters that think otherwise.
Yonathan Amselem [send him mail] is a business law attorney in the heart of the beast, Washington D.C. By night, he does real work and restocks his soda vending machines.