Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

In many countries worldwide over the last 200 years, people have bordered one another and dueled over disputed lands:  Bessarabia, Kosovo, Danzig, Alsasce Lorraine, Ossetia, Palestine, etc.  Often different names for places, different languages, and a question of cultural supremacy was the root of the conflict.  Spiritual–not material–questions of whose culture, religion, language, heroes, symbols, and people would be dominant were the main issues.

America and Mexico share the largest frontier of a First and Third World country on Earth.  Mexicans in Mexico (and now in American public schools) are taught how America dastardly stole the Southwest.  It is brushed over that Mexico lost a war, signed a treaty, and even sold additional lands to the US some decades later in the form of the Gadsen Purchase.  Nonetheless, for them this is an ancient land, their ancient soil, and they want it.  Quite a few of them live here now, and where they have coalesced in large numbers, they have little respect for American claims over the symbols, culture, and language of their new home.

Once upon a time, perhaps 30-50 years ago, the fewer Mexicans that lived here were more fully assimilated, particularly in smaller towns where they worked in agriculture. They were eager to fit it, not least because their differences were often a source of derision by natives. It was a painful process, but it yielded great dividends for everyone concerned. (Of course, there’s always been some tension, as in the infamous Zoot Suit Riots.)  It’s noteworthy in the video above that one of the young American-flag-wearing students was part Mexican, though he has chosen his American identity.  His type, once more common, is becoming the minority.  The very numerous Mexican-Americans are reinforced every year by huge numbers of native newcomers from Mexico, are cordoned off in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods, enjoy a parallel media and a compliant education system, and see nothing but declining pride and confidence by Americans, as exemplified by this school principal’s idea that it’s “disrespectful” to wear an American flag in America on Cinco de Mayo.

A little cultural pride by immigrants is to be expected, though it’s dangerous for it to be tolerated without parallel displays of loyalty.  But in this instance it’s more fraught with political and social meaning because there is, in effect, a colonization of the American southwest taken place, complete with linguistic, political, economic, and social ascendancy, complete disrespect for our laws and customs, and mass departure by native born Americans.  This is not about having a few margaritas at Chilis and seeing a native dance.  Most Americans enjoy such things.  It’s about whether native born Americans and our country’s sacred symbols will be complete displaced, as the Serbs have been displaced from Kosovo, the Germans from Alsasce Lorraine and Danzig, the Romanians from Bessarabia, and so many others have been pushed off their lands by a more confident, more numerous, and more organized group.   If there’s one thing a video like this should convey, more than anything else, it’s that diversity is anything but our strength when it involves the migration of large numbers of very different people that have no interest in assimilating into their new, chosen land.

There is already a Mexico, and it’s hardly a paradise.  If we don’t want to see the entire Southwest turn into Tampaulipas North, then we need to kick out the illegals and forcibly erase the cultural pride and expressions of those that choose to live here, just as they (and their taskmasters in the media and academia) are trying to erase ours.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The American Conservative has been a bit unwieldly from the start, attracting dubious characters whose only “conservative” instinct was isolationism rooted in the very unconservative impulses of pacifism and alienation from the values of fellow Americans.  Pat Buchanan has had little involvement for a while.  Taki left and started his own magazine, which now appears to be headed towards self-destruction.   What remained has been adrift for quite a while. Now, confirming for the millionth time the truth of O’Sullivan’s First Law, the American Conservative under the leadership of Ron Unz has started to question the immigration reform views of traditional conservatives, suggesting that fears of Hispanic Crime–which tends to be 3X the rate of native-born whites–are overstated and exaggerated. Don’t we have the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal to promote such mythology?

Of course, crime is not the only reason to oppose massive Latin American immigration.  There are other issues like the job security of native born Americans and the ways that Third World values corrupt our political culture and collective ways of life.  Ignoring these other concerns shows a real lack of conservatism, and the suggestion that these fears are irrational is not only stupid, but is easily refuted factually, as Heather MacDonald and Steve Sailer have done for years.   But the bigger question is:  why, even if crime were absolutely a non-factor in Latin American immigration, would a conservative, concerned with conserving a particular American way of life from change and degradation, support what has been one of the most significant drivers of our national dissolution, disunity, and decline.  I would not want millions of people from anywhere coming here, even if they all were quite pacific.  Conservatism is supposed to be about conserving something, but Unz has demonstrated (again) a marked indifference to the survival of America as a coherent and historical entity.

Read Full Post »

Leading neoconservative Elliot Abrams, reveals his essential liberalism and indifference to America as an historical entity by calling for massive Haitian immigration as a response to the Haitian earthquake.   As we all know, there’s plenty of jobs to go around in America these days, and the Haitians that on Monday are swarming US Navy helicopters and practicing voodoo, would make fine citizens the minute they cross our frontiers.

This goes beyond mere liberal stupidity.  Abrams is a self-serving hypocrite. He openly and without apology promotes one set for rules for his ethno-religious group–Jews–for whom he publicly frets about “alarming demographic data” in the form of intermarriage, while promoting quite another set of rules for the historically European country he calls home.  For neoconservatives, America’s demographics deserve no respect and are only noticed as a remind for their own group’s status as a minority, a problem reminiscent of their once very vulnerable status in Europe, that must be rectified today through purposeful relegation of native-born European-Americans to minority status.  This is not good policy, and it will likely backfire some day on those whom it aims to protect and render invisible.

Read Full Post »

What’s happening in Haiti is very sad.  But the images coming from there are utterly predictable. The outpouring of global charity at most is treating the symptoms; the causes remain, and this mass death will be repeated elsewhere in similar countries for similar reasons.  Let’s face it:  Haiti’s chief problem is that it’s filled with Hatians.  The mass death toll from this event is a consequence chiefly of that fact.  Its government, economy, construction practices, and every single aspect of society is hellish, not so different from what prevails in Somalia or Afghanistan, and it’s been that way pretty much forever. If Haiti were filled with Swiss or Americans, very few people would have died.  But whenever a big disaster hits the Third World it’s followed by mass extermination.  By contrast, the 7.1 earthquake in San Francisco in 1989 killed about 60 people.  These facts are not coincidences.  When these horrible things happen, I tend to think: one more super unlucky consequence of living in the Third World, none of which will be changing any time soon, because the foundation of those societies, their people, are not changing any time soon.

In addition to understandable sympathy and charity in the short term, is the question of what to do with our own little corner of the globe.  If the Third World is the way it is not because of a lack of resources, but rather its people, as well as institutions that reflect the values, prejudices, and shortcomings of such people, why do we want millions and millions of such people to come to our country, which is run very differently and does not have Third World problems, until fairly recently?   This is a purposeful policy choice by our leaders who are either short-sighted or devilish themselves.

Read Full Post »

Numbers USA Ad

Read Full Post »

One of my least favorite parlor tricks of liberals, including neoconservatives and libertarians, is to define “rational” as a very narrow range of individualist philosophical views, based on a few pseudo-scientific axioms of one kind or another, and thereby rendering it nearly impossible for one’s opponents to win an argument before the discussion has begun because their opponents’ concerns, such as the good of a nation or the Glory of God, are defined beforehand as irrational and irrelevant.

There is much of this in Ilya Somin’s recent discussion of the evils of nationalism over at Volokh or in a surprisingly dispassionate defense of disloyalty by David Schraub over at the University of Chicago. This is what Enlightenment Universalism is, of course. It rejects the organic, historical and blood ties of peoples. It rejects the idea that God and revealed truth might have some influence in our political and moral life. It denies that matters that cannot be reduced to philosophical formulae might also be true, such as the idea that men should not marry men, women should first and foremost be mothers, or that people who talk and act funny and have unpronounceable names should be treated differently than our native-born sons.

What I wrote in response to Schraub exposes this little sleight of hand that all-too-often avoids the merits of the issue:

Majorities in fact have real power and a real moral right to preserve themselves as a people. Unless they’re suffering from mass psychosis, they do and should impose certain standards on those who would benefit from the nation and its laws and its protection, not least not to actively aid enemies of the nation.

We sadly ask so little of citizens, particularly newcomers, who often have dual loyalties. We are in fact a remarkably tolerant people, and it’s gone too far, culminating in such ridiculous acts as serving in foreign armies by the President’s Chief of Staff and the mass murder of soldiers after repeated statements of disloyalty by the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan.

Nations are safer, more secure, and more pleasant when people are loyal and have some sense of allegiance and community. There will always be loyalty of one kind or another, but where disloyalty to the nation is tolerated usually it’s reserved instead for some other nation or group, whether it’s one’s ethnic subgroup, one’s religious community, a foreign nation, or some combination of the three.

There is something very obvious going on here, and part of the answer is in the authors and their backgrounds. They are ethnic and religious minorities, and highly educated transnational cosmopolitans to be exact. They are not typical Americans, but their views are highly influential. Big surprise, “Uzair Kayhani” came to Schraub’s defense. I’m surprised Osama bin Laden himself didn’t pipe in. The views of these people are why the Army tolerated the anti-American rantings of Major Nidal Hassan. They are why we tolerate foreign tongues and weird styles of dress by foreigners in our cities. This is why it’s been drummed into us to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

The universalist enlightenment liberalism they are promoting is a set of rules that is very useful for minority tribes surrounded by a majority with different values and interests. These views advance the minority by rendering the majority’s dominance on cultural, economic, and political matters less so, such that its older standards of excellence are dismissed as exclusionary and morally suspect. Who cares if you were descended from those on the Mayflower? That’s ethnocentric and elitist. Who cares if your granddad fought in World War II? It doesn’t matter where you were born or what your family ever did, you’re just a citizen no different than an FOB in a Hijab.

Under this viewpoint, the majority’s becomes one voice in a multicultural chorus. Of course, in spite of its pretensions to fairness, it’s obviously a self-interested ideology. When these same minorities are in charge or in the majority–such as Jews in Israel or Chinese in China or Muslims in any Muslim country–they almost always adopt different and sensible rules aimed at the self-preservation of their nation and their religion.

I do not necessarily begrudge them such nationalism at home; within the limits of justice, it is natural and to be expected. But I do begrudge the attempt by alienated minorities of all kinds to redefine and rewrite the rules of the game in my home, where we have a majority, our own folkways, our own traditions, and our own way of life. Those traditions, of course, are and were very flexible. They were flexible enough historically that many minorities felt welcome here and did not, until recently, feel it terribly offensive to have Christmas as a federal holiday or to change their names from Chandrakumar to “Sean.” But this tolerance was not our only value. It was part of a broader tradition, that of a real nation with more than a creed but a real national character–courageous, risk-taking, unpretentious, in love with space and freedom, upwardly mobile, self-reliant, proud, God-fearing, patriotic, inventive, practical–but this character has been deliberately and maliciously erased by the deliberate efforts of a subset of minorities and newcomers, for whom such very minor indignities as Nativity Scenes, the “strong silent” WASPy ideal of masculinity, and the old informal rules of “fair business,” undermined their own rise to power.

Don’t fall for this trick, friends. What appears to be a fair, universalist, philosophical account of the good is often based on controversial and unproven premises; a little looking makes it clear often that the speaker is insincere, his arguments are sophistical, and that his goals are the same tribalism (in the ascent) for which he denounces you, even when you’re merely trying only to defend a known way of life.

Read Full Post »

In response to a jobs-protection provision in a pending amnesty bill, Hispanic chauvinist Ruben Navarette writes:

Why should [as Rep. Luis Guittierez said] “no one born here in this country … ever lose an opportunity for gainful employment at the expense of someone not born here?” Remember, these aren’t illegal immigrants but legal immigrants coming on visas.

Why should U.S. citizens get a benefit not from education or hard work but from something they had nothing to do with — where they were born? If a job is available, U.S. workers should be free to compete for it, but not have it handed to them on a silver platter. Likewise, foreign workers who come here legally should have a shot at competing for that same job.

Of course, protectionists claim that the playing field isn’t level since foreign workers will often accept less money to do the same job, thus putting American workers at a disadvantage.

Tough.

Pro-immigration activists alternately talk about compassion while saying “tough” to Americans. The only unifying principle is the good of their tribe. Ruben is a Hispanic. He is not a loyal American. He has demonstrated this repeatedly in his writings, which are totally indifferent to the good of other Americans. It matters not where he was born; it’s clear he’s totally indifferent to the common good and can’t even think in such terms. This kind of talk would be intolerable among anyone but minorities.

I suppose if we enforced our laws against border-hopping, stopped fraudulent H1B Visa applications (which supposedly require a company first to hire an American), and generally leveraged US power for the benefit of American citizens, even at the expense low-skilled Mexican workers, “tough,” wouldn’t exactly fly with Ruben. That’s when we’re called to be “compassionate.” Ruben’s column is not a moral statement aiming at justice but a triumphalist one: we’re winning, you’re losing, and you people need to deal with it and stop complaining. “You” . . . Americans that is . . . must be sacrificed for the principles of globalism, for the “economy,” for all the bad things your ancestors did, and for the good of morally exquisite Third Worlders that are trying to make more money at our expense.

Allowing mass immigration is a policy choice. It’s a choice to underenforce the laws, and it’s a choice to let people in with visas. No company or family or individual would behave the way Navarette counsels when dealing with people they genuinely care about. No CEO would say, “Well we can give this business to our own in-house team and save some jobs and keep the money in house or we can save a nickel by sending it to a vendor.” There is a community of interest in a firm, and the firm’s management is supposed to look out for the good of the firm as a whole. This is obvious. No family would shrug its shoulders at a brother or sister or dad’s job loss due to the pressure of low-wage, low-skill competitors. A country is no different. It was obvious, until recently, that its leaders should look out for the good of its citizens.

There is no doubt that Navarette would not be fighting for mass immigration if it did not benefit his group to acquire greater numbers, greater cultural influence, and greater wealth at the expense of native-born Americans. We know this because leftists like him who now prattle about the virtues of globalism spent a good part of the middle 20th Century defending the mass exclusion of “neo-colonialists” (i.e., white Europeans) from places like India, Rhodesia, and Mexico. Leftists swooned with admiration as these countries built up nationalist economic orders, complete with protectionist state-owned monopolies like PEMEX. When will Navarette dare to speak out about this vital feature of Mexican political and economic life? Can anyone imagine Navarette telling South African blacks or Indian nationalists or Mexican protectionists “tough” when they defend their historically nationalist and anti-white policies?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »