Immigration today, immigration tomorrow, immigration
forever? In recent times there has been much controversy over President-elect
Donald Trump’s campaign-trail suggestion that we temporarily halt immigration
from Muslim nations (which has been modified). The Left claims such a notion is
“discriminatory,” un-American and even, most ridiculously, unconstitutional.
Yet there’s a simple way to avoid this debate altogether:
Institute a moratorium on all immigration.
This is a serious proposal — and a necessary one. Consider:
with the U.S. having a replacement-level fertility rate of 2.1 children per
woman, immigration is the only reason our population is
increasing. As to this, our numbers have swelled from 100 million people in
1915 to 200 million in 1968 to 320 million today. And it’s projected they will
reach approximately 400 million just after 2050.
Obviously, such growth involves strain on natural
resources, social services and infrastructure. Yet while the Left purports to
care about the environment, it also pursues open-border policies with jihadist-like
zeal. But when will enough population be enough? When it stands at 450 million?
A half billion? A billion? The Left likes to push “family planning.” But
what about national-family planning?
In addition, more than 94 million Americans are not in the labor
force, and the
real unemployment rate is far higher than the government’s fraudulent
figure of approximately five percent. Moreover, recent years have seen companies replacing American
high-tech workers with foreigners (often forcing our countrymen to train
their replacements, as salt in the wound). What rational case can be made
that the U.S. needs more people?
Actually, there is one rational, if nefarious, case: the
desire for political power. Since the institution of the Immigration and
Nationality Act in 1965, 85 percent of our legal immigrants have come from the
Third World. Upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat. In
contrast, the Republicans derive approximately 90 percent of their votes from
European-descent Americans. Do you see the rational case, or at least the
rationale, now?
This post-1965 immigration model, along with oft-offered-amnesty to
illegal migrants, has ushered in great demographic upheaval. Where our country
was almost 90 percent non-Hispanic white in 1965, it’s now just 61.9 percent
so. This is precisely what is being spoken of, by the way, when you hear the
media and politicians talking about the “demographic changes” that are pulling
the nation left.
Don’t be fooled by Donald Trump’s Nov. 8 victory, either.
The President-elect campaigned as a nationalistic populist, not a conservative,
and for a variety of reasons he possessed great crossover appeal; in addition,
Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. There is a reason California, where
Ronald Reagan once reigned supreme, could not be won by him today. There’s a
reason Virginia and North Carolina (of all places) are swing states; and why
Illinois, which went GOP six elections in a row 1968 through 1988, is now a
presidential-election Democrat bastion. And a big part of it is spelled
i-m-m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n.
Power-mad, anti-Western politicians are well aware of this,
mind you. Barack Obama said last
year that immigration was making America "more and more of a hodgepodge of
folks" and that he was "hopeful" this would drown out
conservatism. Andrew Neather, ex-adviser to former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, was even more blunt in 2009 when he admitted that
the massive Third World immigration into the U.K. was designed "to rub the
Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." And
Swedish multiculturalist and social engineer Mona Sahlin, commenting on the
planned Islamization of her land, said in
2001, "[T]he Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden
is never coming back."
This is also why Obama has intensified the demographic
warfare via illegal migration, most notably with an alleged amnesty plan that
would legalize foreigners, “take
over the host” (us) and “push citizens into the shadows.” Part of this
scheme appears to involve “seeding” red states with Muslim migrants and other
foreigners, who then will break the ice and create communities that will
attract even more newcomers from their nations. Goodbye, Main Street, U.S.A. —
hello, Hodgepodgeville.
By the way, what do you call people who, lusting after
power, invite foreigners into their own lands to overwhelm their countrymen?
Any thoughts?
Note that the 1965 immigration act wasn’t billed as a
culture-ender and nation-render. In fact, writes the
Center for Immigration Studies:
Senate immigration
subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the
nation with the following [when pushing the ’65 legislation]:
"First,
our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the
proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same
... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to
the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with
immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived
nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of
immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as
the critics seem to think."
Every claim above is the precise opposite of what came to
pass. Our immigration did increase from a historical norm of approximately
250,000 a year to 1,000,000, we have been inundated with immigrants from one
country and area (Mexico and Latin America) and from the most “populated and
deprived nations,” and our ethnic (and racial) mix has changed radically.
Note, too, that in delivering his apologia, Ol’ Teddy
tacitly admitted the above would be negative developments — he didn’t just
dismiss such concerns as “racist.”
In fact, those concerns stemmed from a widely recognized
truth: a nation demographically unstable is an unstable nation. For
if such changes lead to balkanization, it will not long be a “nation,” properly
defined as an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the
family. (The “Sioux Nation” was not a “country,” per se; it was thus named
because all members were Sioux.) “E pluribus hodgepodge” is not a recipe for
national success.
Of course, our immigration policy was once quite different.
Not only were far fewer immigrants admitted, but for many decades prior to ’65,
policies ensured that the U.S.’s demographic balance would be maintained. Such
a model is now called “discriminatory.”But consider: with millions of ethnic
Chinese flooding into Tibet, overwhelming the natives, anthropologists may
scream, “This is cultural and demographic genocide!” When the same thing
happens to Western nations?
Then it’s called “diversity.”
That’s not the only hypocrisy here. While reporting last
year on white techie types displacing Hispanics in San Francisco’s Mission
District, fake-news paper The New York Times disparagingly termed the
phenomenon “bleaching out the Latino culture.” Yet fake-news station MSNBC
has talked
about the “browning of America” — favorably. Apparently, some
demographic changes are more equal than others.
Of course, suspending legal immigration is currently still
a “fringe” view, in the grip as we are of immigrationism, the belief that immigration
is always good, always necessary and must be the one constant in an
ever-changing universe of policy. But with the Trump phenomenon having moved
the dial on what’s politically possible and palatable, it’s time to start
talking about it — and moving that dial a bit more.
Talk-show host Mark Levin has rhetorically asked, “Is the
purpose of immigration law to change the demographics of the nation?” Today, in
America, it is. But with patriotic movements already having struck a blow
against the Establishment — in Europe with Brexit and in the U.S. with Trump —
it’s time to do the same with immigration. Establishment immigration policy
must go.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/time_for_a_complete_halt_on_emallem_immigration_.html#ixzz4T7Vg4Cmi