Time for a Complete Halt on All Immigration
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.