Polite Kid

Polite Kid

0 comment Wednesday, July 30, 2014 |
Ya think?
In this article from the London Daily Telegraph, the obvious is acknowledged.
The alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners and last year's terrorist attacks on London have made more people fear Islam as a religion, not merely its extremist elements, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.
A growing number of people fear that the country faces "a Muslim problem" and more than half of the respondents to the YouGov survey said that Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy. That compares with less than a third after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America five years ago.
The findings were revealed as Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, conceded that the multi-culturalist approach encouraged by the Left for two decades had probably been a mistake and could have contributed to the alienation that many young Muslims said they felt and experienced.'
[...]Miss Kelly said that diversity had been "a huge asset" but she acknowledged that the wave of immigration, the highest in British history, had brought fresh challenges.
[..]After years when many on the Left have either shut down the debate on cultural diversity or sought to avoid it, Miss Kelly said, "We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues." [Italics mine]
Obviously Miss Kelly is part of the problem, I mean, anybody who can say diversity is 'a huge asset' with a straight face is delusional or a pathological liar.
How, exactly, is this 'diversity' I hear so much about a 'huge asset'? And while you're at it, tell me how, precisely (and I need specifics) diversity is supposedly 'our strength'? Out of all the people who have parroted that imbecilic phrase, I have never heard one of them specify how diversity strengthens us, or why it is such a boon to us that we sacrifice the lives of our citizens in order to create it. And diversity, however much we have of it, is never enough, it seems. There are always cries for 'more', no matter how much diversity we have had inflicted on us in the West. It appears, just as the famous saying 'you can never be too rich or too thin' also applies to diversity; you can never be too diverse.
Diversity is the reason why we are balkanized and fragmented in the West; the reason why we have countless squabbling ethnic/racial/religious groups, all of them with a grievance and a grudge against the majority, all of them victims, all with chips on their shoulders, all with a list of demands on the rest of us. All of them require special concessions and special 'outreach programs' which cost money (taxpayers' money, of course) and all of them are ultra-sensitive and must be handled with kid gloves.
As a result of all this enriching, strengthening diversity, Western countries are instituting coercive laws to ensure that nobody is offended, slurred, discriminated against, or disrespected. People like Miss Rita Kelly are appointed to positions like Communities Secretary to cater to and make obeisance to the 'diverse communities', and to properly indoctrinate the recalcitrant majority who stubbornly refuse to get with the PC program. And when Miss Kelly says disingenuously ''We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues.'' -- surely she does not expect to be believed. Of course there is not and cannot be anything resembling honest discussion, which is not censored by Political Correctness, either in the UK or here in America. Any discussion or 'debate' which is allowed in our countries is heavily censored and rigged in favor of the 'victim' groups, and the Moslems are skilled at making themselves out to be victims, even as they commit terror acts the world over.
And because of our seeming insatiable need for 'diversity' and all its enrichments, we allow millions of these Mohammedans, an unknown number of whom are estimated to be members of terrorist 'sleeper' cells and jihad movements, to enter our countries and live among us. To question their presence is heresy. So on and on it goes; the recent spate of terror scares on several airlines illustrate the madness of our policies, and yet no one in authority dares criticize the presence of the Mohammedans among us. Granted, our politicians are now widely regarded as sellouts and traitors by many of their constituents; we have very low expectations of them. And even most of the more 'conservative' pundits will not even hint at the possibility of removing Moslems from our midst. What will it take to break the PC spell?
One of the few commentators who has consistently been saying that we need to curb Moslem immigration and repatriate some of them is Lawrence Auster, and he says this again in a recent post, dealing with the recent terror scares:
I�ve said it before, and I�ll say it again: this is our future, FOREVER, so long as significant numbers of Muslims reside and travel freely in the West.
Look at it this way. Would Charles Martel, after defeating the Arab-Moorish army at the battle of Tours and then driving it forever out of Gaul at the battle of Narbonne a few years later, have then commenced admitting "peaceful" and "moderate" Muslim immigrants and tourists into Gaul? We say we�re waging a war against a certain group, but never question the mass presence of that group among us.
And again, another voice of truth in the blogosphere is the redoubtable Fjordman, writing from Norway.
Here is a sample of Fjordman's comments, in his recent lengthy essay:
In Norway, it is probably unprecedented in the thousand years since the city of Oslo was founded at the end of the Viking Age that the indigenous population is being attacked on such a large and random scale. And the government is doing� well, pretty much nothing really, except for hiding the problem as much as possible and continuing Muslim immigration. This isn't good enough.
We are tired of hearing nonsense about "Islamophobia" while our children live in fear of Islamic terrorism. The purpose of the state is to uphold law and order and maintain the nation's borders and territorial integrity. Western European governments are doing neither, yet are busy with political censorship and interfering with details of our private lives where they have no business. It's time they are reminded that they are our servants, not our rulers.
Time for a few brave souls to step up and speak the unspeakable: maybe when enough people break the taboo, the timid among us, who need 'permission' to think and say these things, will find their voice.
But as I always say, time is short. The clock is running.

Labels: , ,


0 comment |
In case you haven't noticed, 'Mild Colonial Boy' has begun posting again, his blog now being titled The New Anti-Jacobin.
The new name is very promising, and I like the quotes in his sidebar, especially this one:
''I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one�s opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Sounds very much like my own motivations these days.
Anyway it is good to see MCB blogging again.

Labels: ,


0 comment Tuesday, July 29, 2014 |
This piece by the columnist 'Spengler' came to my attention today. I had an immediate and strong reaction to it: his observations come across as condescending, arrogant, and ignorant.
Who is this guy, Spengler, anyway? Here is a thread from Gene Expression which asks that question.
Whoever he is, my impression is that, first, he is (contrary to some of the posters in the above thread) not American, given his lack of knowledge of real America, and, second, he considers himself the intellectual, with the usual contempt for the hoi polloi.
Most of us Americans, that is, red-state true Americans, have a natural aversion to that type, so I admit to having a bias there.
So, I read a few more columns by Spengler, on the subject of America, in which he opines and pontificates about us.
But the latest column, 'American Idolatry' was the most obnoxious, from my perspective.
Spengler, up on his high horse (which is his usual perch, by the way) denounces American popular culture as a 'culture of resentment'; he says that Americans shun 'high culture' and elevate mediocrity. He implies that we choose and prefer dumbed-down entertainment like country music, which he disparages as self-pity and dismisses country folk as complaining losers, unworthy of their depiction in 'high art' like Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.
Some country-music fanciers no doubt will find this callous, and I want to disclose that I do not care one way or another whether their wife left them, their dog died, or their truck broke down.
And Spengler reserves special scorn and ridicule for Hank Williams, which further diminishes his opinions, for me at least.
Oddly, Spengler seems to imply that rock music is a degraded offspring of what he considers trashy country music. I say this is odd, because he seems to revere black music (singling out black gospel music as a great art form) but doesn't see rock music as black-derived as most critics insist. But I agree with him; rock has its roots in country music much more than black music.
Still, Spengler's distaste for poor country folks just drips from his writing.
He bemoans the fact that, as he sees it, Americans have rejected authority 'from on high'; they prefer music made in their own self-image instead of the sublime works like Handel's 'Messiah'. He cites this rebellion as tantamount to the rebellion of Adam and Eve, and other such primal sins. I call this a rather bathetic bit of hyperbole, myself, comparing a preference for country music to the fall of Man in Eden.
And incidentally, Spengler, that 'African-American' spiritual music you adore so much is said to have its origins in Scotland, according to this article from last year.
Spengler is fond of saying that American culture is an oxymoron, and he further says in this piece that Americans not only can't laugh at our own culture, but we in fact have no culture, no collective character, no defining traits.
He goes on at some length, to support this idea of America as simply a Babel of conflicting and disparate cultures, by mentioning many writers such as Saul Bellow, Gertrude Stein, et al, as exemplars of the 'melting pot' ethos in America. He quotes Stein's famous line about Oakland, California: 'There's no there there', and says this phrase describes America. If there is, truly, no 'there' there, it's because there is and has been an all-out assault on our heritage, our traditions, and our national character. What better way to dismantle a country than to introduce millions upon millions of strangers from utterly alien cultures, who have contempt for our history and at best, indifference to our way of life, or who in fact want to transform this country into a replica of their foundering homelands?
So sadly, there is some truth in what he is saying. America is losing the qualities which made it recognizably American. As one of the dwindling number who still holds to traditional America, America as it was before the cultural Marxists and the melting-pot ideologues and the revisionist 'historians' from the Ministry of Truth had their way, it pains me to say that there is a grain of truth to what he is saying.
Too many of our younger generations, those who have no first-hand knowledge of America in the B.P.C (before Political Correctness) era, believe that America is just this characterless crazyquilt, made up of many clashing, dissonant bits and pieces of secondhand cultures. Just check the comments by this blogger, in response to Spengler's article:
The US is anything but homogeneous: we are the natural home of every race, ethnic group and religion on the face of the earth, so we embody not just a few but every cultural trait. We're kinda like the first citizens of the world, so to speak.''
Sad. Sad, sad. What would our Founding Fathers say to such assertions? Did our forefathers struggle to create this country, to establish it, and did our dads and grandfathers fight WWII so that America can be the 'home of every race, ethnic group, and religion on the face of the earth?' I guarantee you, they did not. They risked their lives, and many lost their lives, to preserve this land as the country they grew up in and loved, an America which was not 'all things to all people' but an America with a distinctive English-speaking culture. Our Founding Fathers created this country for themselves and their posterity. Some Americans don't seem to know what 'posterity' means. It does not mean everybody in the world.
So thanks to those who have spread the idea that this nation is everybody's and nobody's, just a multicultural gumbo with no dominant flavor, just a derelict old house to be inhabited by squatters, America is losing the distinctiveness it once had. In fact, if Spengler ever gets around enough to visit all the Western countries, he will see the same process at work. Is England still English? I understand it's Politically Incorrect to be English now, because it isn't 'inclusive' enough; after all, it's absurd to think that a Pakistani can ever become 'English'; an Englishman is white and European, after all.
I have not been to London in some years, and from what I have heard, I would not want to return; the old London is no more, apparently. I hear that Ireland is changing too, via immigration from the Third World. And everywhere this process is happening, the national identity is under assault. To preserve traditional European cultures is being made a 'hate crime' it seems. Where is Spengler on all this? This is the real war that is going on, not that sideshow in the Middle East. The real war is within Western countries, and the first casualty is our national identity and our traditions.
And in the name of 'multiculturalism' and 'inclusion' and non-offense, we will be deprived of our freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association.
So yes, Spengler is in a sense right, hence my choice of the name 'vanishing American.'
Once upon a time, though, back at the inception of our country, there was no doubt that there was a distinct American character. See Edmund Burke's comments in a speech he made in 1775:
In the American character, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.
'This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies [of America] than in any other people of the earth.'So Spengler, in decrying the American rejection of 'authority' is acknowledging the same distinguishing trait noted by Burke some 231 years ago, when this country was an English colony.
But as so many disparate groups of people, with differing traits and traditions were introduced into our country, this national identity began to dissolve. The 'melting pot' has done its corrosive work on the American character. Less and less are we collectively displaying the traits that so distinguished our colonist ancestors. Maybe that is partly because so few of us in America today are in fact of the same blood as those doughty colonists. And for many that old-stock heritage has been attenuated by many generations of admixture with differing people. We are in a sense not the people we were back in 1775.
Despite what the Politically Correct wishful thinkers say, there is a genetic component to character, personality, and temperament. We are decidedly not 'blank slates' which can take on, chameleon-like, the color of our surroundings. We are our fathers' children.
And if there is any hope for reversing the destruction of our country, I think it will be up to us, the descendants of the original old-stock Americans, the sons and daughters of those Englishmen with their fierce spirit of liberty, to turn the tide. The mettle of our ancestors, and their love for liberty, was tried and proven through the centuries, and it's up to us to pick up where they left off.
If that's not diverse and inclusive enough, so be it.

Labels:


0 comment |
According to John Derbyshire at NRO, the 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act' passed by the Senate last week, just might be the 'worst bill ever.'
After having read many analyses of it, especially that of Robert Rector, it's easy to agree with him.
A couple of quotes from his piece at NRO's 'The Corner':
The stupidity and rottenness of CIRA is really beyond the ability of a single human mind to encompass it.
... I will not even vote for any politician who agrees to go into conference on this horror. How big are Capitol Hill garbage bins? That's the only place this heap of dreck belongs.
I agree with Derbyshire; I agree that the House should not even agree to go into conference on this monstrosity of a bill.
Read the Derbyshire piece here.

Labels: ,


0 comment |
According to one immigrant:
When asked why the taxpayers should be burdened with her needs, the feisty Zeituni said, "This country is owned by almighty God. You people who preach Jesus Christ almighty God and the rest of it, you are here to help people, help the poor, help other countries and help women. That's what the United States is supposed to do? And you have to give me my right light, [sic] every person's right."
[Emphasis mine.]
This kind of attitude is far too common among the immigrants who come here today, whether they come legally or illegally, or whether they are 'refugees'.
Further:
"Do you want to become an American citizen?" Elias asked.
"If I didn't why the hell would I have been here all this time?" she responded.
"If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen."
The above quotes are from one version of the interview, which is here.
Further, from a variant version of the article:
For two years Onyango said she lived in a homeless shelter, before she was assigned public housing despite thousands of legal residents also awaiting assistance.
"I didn't take any advantage of the system. The system took advantage of me." "I didn't ask for it; they gave it to me. Ask your system. I didn't create it or vote for it. Go and ask your system," she said unapologetically.
I suspect there are many other comparable stories, featuring equally arrogant attitudes of entitlement, that might be told, from around the country.
The system is set up to favor people like this lady, and at the expense of others perhaps more deserving, including, and especially citizens.
I really don't think she is being given special treatment or VIP status because of her family links to those in high places; I think she is just one more being given privileged status as all third-world immigrants are.
Do check out the comments on the article; there are some surprisingly frank ones, some laugh-out-loud ones, but who knows how long before they are deleted for honesty.

Labels: , , ,


0 comment |
The title of this post is a quote from a self-described conservative blogger, who, in a post on the border issue, invited comments and 'debate', incongruously adding the caveat: 'Nativists need not apply!'
Was he ironically alluding to that famous phrase of the 19th-century exclusionary sign, stating 'No Irish need apply'?
I would guess so, although I would point out that the story of the 'No Irish' signs is now considered apocryphal by some scholars. But regardless, the phrase has entered our store of 'common wisdom' though it may not be true; it's always used by those seeking to discredit 'nativism' and to advocate for free, unfettered immigration.
Nativism: the word has certainly been getting quite a workout of late. The New York Times, true to liberal practice, throws the word around rather freely, lately using it in an op-ed piece on March 3, 2006. But oddly the phrase is much favored by the pro-amnesty faction of the GOP lately, too. What do we make of an insult which is deployed by both the ultra-liberal NYT and a 'conservative' like Michael Medved? Of course Medved is not the only Republican to whip out the 'nativist' card, but he did so in yesterday's piece at Townhall.com.
This is sadly typical of the 'respectable conservative' viewpoint; attempting to paint the amnesty faction as the 'mainstream', majority opinion, and to distance oneself from those evil narrow-minded 'nativists' who are thus being disinvited from the 'debate.' I wonder what kind of debate can be had with only certain points of view allowed? Is this in the spirit of our Founding Fathers? Maybe those founders were themselves (shudder!) nativists according to the neocons' definition.
But what is the dictionary definition?
1. A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants
2. The reestablishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, especially in opposition to acculturation.
Now I suppose I need some morally superior neocon open-borderite to explain, from his high moral perch, what is wrong with the above policy. When, specifically, did it become wrong to favor 'the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants'? What kind of person thinks such a policy is objectionable? If it is so, then we have to condemn just about any country which has existed since time began; it is a 'given', at least in a world which makes any sense, that a country exists for the benefit of its people. The people, according to our Founders, are the nation. The 1798 Naturalization Act provided certain conditions for those desiring to become citizens of the United States. The people of this country, via their representatives, had a right to decide who enters and who becomes an American, according to their own interests as a nation. It is a given that the country exists for the citizens, not for the whole world, or humanity at large. Citizens have primacy. So find fault with that. Tell me why it is not so, or why it should not be so.
Yet I guarantee you that many people today would find fault with that principle, and do. These people are by defnition liberals, because they evidently believe that each generation can rewrite the principles of their country to suit modern prejudices. Liberals take it as a given that each generation is more enlightened, wiser, more knowledgeable, and just better than those benighted old white guys who founded this country. They, our forebears, were ignorant, and didn't know what we know. And there are a good many people who subscribe to this arrogant view of history, who really believe that we today are superior to the writers of our Constitution, and even better than our parents and grandparents. These people conflate scientific and technical knowledge with wisdom and enlightenment. It is undeniable that we are technically more advanced than previous generations but the state of the world belies the notion that we are wiser or more advanced. Yet people arrogantly assume this. And not all those who do so are Democrats; there are plenty of liberals who vote Republican as well as those who blindly follow the Democrat Party or the Greens. Liberalism, as I will continue to say, suffuses all our thought these days, and unless we consciously reject it and swim against the current, we end up being swept along with the liberal tide.
There are plenty of Republicans, especially those of the Wall Street Journal/Country Club set, whose presuppositions are mostly liberal; they mingle with the hip liberal intelligentsia and they don't want to be associated with those hicks and rednecks who hold 'backward' nativist views. And there are Republicans whose principles are nothing more than blind loyalty to a party label or the person of the President, and who will follow pied pipers towards open borders and other such radical notions.
And there are Republicans who differ from Democrats only in supporting a strong military or lower taxes.
So we have an unholy alliance of ostensible 'conservatives' aligning with the likes of ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy in support of the Senate amnesty bill. Why these people have suddenly lost their antipathy for the most liberal of Democrats is a mystery, but many Republicans are suddenly choosing strange bedfellows on this border issue. As I've said, we are seeing a sifting of the GOP via this issue, and the results aren't promising. Precious few of the GOP are proving to be truly conservative or pro-American. It's getting harder to assume that the GOP are the 'pro-American' patriotic party, while so many of them are supporting mass immigration, a truly radical notion. I will say it again: there is nothing conservative about mass immigration and the transformation of our country. There is no conservative argument to be made for it.
None. Whatsoever.
So, Michael Medved and his fellow liberal Republicans, they of the 'respectable' wing of the GOP, are lining up with the leftists to take potshots at conservatives, and resorting to using the same ad hominems and trite NYT-style name-calling. Thanks for showing us where you stand, and where your loyalties lie.
Medved, I am afraid, is in the same camp as the other immigration sentimentalists, who are legion. If I had a dollar for every maudlin story I've heard lately about poor immigrant grandparents (who came to Ellis Island penniless, in steerage, not knowing a word of English, etc). I would be wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. Enough with the hackneyed tearjerker stories. When did we confer mass sainthood on immigrants? Why is having immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents suddenly a claim to moral authority on the border issue? If anything, it increases the likelihood of a blind spot on the subject. Bias comes in many forms, and these people, with their weepy soft spot for immigrants, have a bias, and cannot treat the subject rationally. Perhaps these people, not those bad, bad nativists, should abstain from the debate because they cannot detach from their feelings and personal prejudices on the subject. We don't make policy on the basis of anecdotes about family members, or at least in a civilized, rational country we shouldn't. If, in a democracy, we have people making decisions on the basis of personal bias and emotion, without regard for the common interest or the well-being of the country as a whole, our country will not be a principled country. It will be everybody against everybody else, based on selfish feelings and competing interests. But we live in a narcissistic age when the individual's 'feelings' reign supreme. So we have de facto open borders, and tens of millions of illegals because we have gone soft and maudlin about immigration. Those of us who counsel detached common sense and adherence to the rule of law, and to our traditions, are called 'mean-spirited' or 'hard-hearted' or -- wait for it -- 'nativist.'
So be it.
I'd rather be a 'nativist' than a Politically-Correct open borders shill, selling out my country for the sake of striking a morally superior pose. Or for the sake of cheap domestic help or exploitable labor. The word 'nativist' is only a slur in the minds of those who don't put the interests of American citizens first.
And if I am part of a 'fringe' movement, as all the liberals in both parties say, then hooray for the fringe. My ancestors (who were not immigrants, thank you, but settlers, colonists, trail-blazers, and oh yes, some American Indians) who fought for this country's independence, were a 'fringe' group, according to the establishment of that time. The majority of the 'respectable' folk wanted to stay part of the British colonial system, and gave their allegiance to the Crown. I promise you that these respectable, establishment loyalists called my patriot ancestors in Virginia and Massachusetts disparaging names. According to them, the patriots were a 'fringe' group. So much for mainstream opinion.
I also guarantee you that my Founding ancestors held views which were much more 'nativist' and 'xenophobic' than the pious cant spouted by the pro-amnesty, open borders 'conservatives' of today. I challenge Medved, who prides himself on being some kind of American History expert, to find any support in the founding documents, or in the personal writings of our Founders, for mass immigration or open borders. Can't be done. The maudlin, hack poem by Emma Lazarus,(Give me your tired, your poor...') contrary to public opinion, is not representative of our Founding principles.
So, I will hold fast to the principles of my forefathers in this country: for a sovereign America, which is based on an Anglocentric history, culture, and language, a sovereign America which has borders and protects them, a sovereign America which is not hopelessly entangled with the corrupt leaders of a country like Mexico. I will stand with those men, whom I know to be right and to be sound thinkers and true patriots. If doing so draws scorn and derision and abuse from the 'open borders' pharisees and cheap labor procurers, then that merely confirms I am on the right side.
I encourage my fellow nativists (and I know there are many; we are the majority, contrary to what the country club Republicans and the moonbat lefties say) to reclaim the word, not to be ashamed of it.
So I will wear the 'nativist fringe' badge with considerable pride.

Labels:


0 comment Monday, July 28, 2014 |
Jim Walsh, a retired Immigration Service officer, in this article from the Springfield, MO News-Leader, breaks one of the unspoken rules of the immigration debate, He actually dares to say that we need to limit legal immigration, not just stop illegal immigration. Good for Walsh; it takes a brave man to violate the PC taboos limiting our speech.
Walsh gives sound reasons why this is true, and yet his statements will probably earn him the inevitable accusation of 'racism'.
It's striking how so many people, when the subject of immigration is being discussed, will say emphatically that they are all in favor of any and all legal immigration, opposing illegal immigration only. After all, they say, 'I'm not a racist!' Somehow, it's become accepted that supporting limits on legal immigration, either by number or quality of immigrants, is by definition 'racist'. No one seems willing to examine this presupposition; everyone seems content to accept it, and to restrict their own speech -- and perhaps even their thoughts -- to avoid the 'racist' label.
So we see the spectacle of otherwise hard-nosed 'conservatives' submitting to the dictates of Politically Correct respectability by enthusiastically saying all legal immigration is good, only illegal immigration is bad.
When, and by what authority was this unwritten rule decreed?
Before the fateful year of 1965, it was an accepted truth that not all immigration was good, and that our immigration policy should serve America. The idea was to welcome people who would be a good fit in America; people with useful skills, good character, healthy people, and people who were not hostile to America or the American system. Communists, for example, or anyone supporting the overthrow of our government, were not desirable immigrants. Of course there was an altruistic effort to welcome genuine political refugees, people whose lives and freedom were endangered in their home countries. But even these people were not indiscriminately admitted without regard for their suitability to our country.
Now, in our post-1965. topsy-turvy, through-the-Looking-Glass world, it seems we welcome immigrants, including legal immigrants, who are from hostile regions and cultures (example: the 9/11 hijackers), and others who have little ability or desire to become part of America. We seem to perversely select those who will be the most unassimilable and probably the most dependent economically. Our legal immigration system is insanity in action. Yet pragmatism and American interests are not as important as 'diversity' and social engineering when choosing immigrants.
We currently welcome 1.3 million legal immigrants each year. Most of these people are third-world people, non-English speakers, from very dissimilar cultures, who are almost guaranteed to have adjustment problems in America, and who will be heavy users of social programs. Our system of 'chain migration', in which family members are welcomed, assures a constant flow of people from the 'old country' who help to create ethnically isolated enclaves and subcultures, and further balkanization in our country. Why is our country pursuing these destructive policies? It's hard not to conclude that there is a conscious effort to change the face of America, to dilute and undermine the traditional culture of America, the Anglo-Protestant American culture, and to create some kind of multicultural crazyquilt, a congeries of conflicting ethnic groups.
Suppose we stopped all illegal immigration tomorrow (unlikely, I know) and then subsequently doubled the number of legal immigrants, as some Congressmen are proposing. As of now, it's estimated by some that we get 3 million illegals each year; doubling the present legal immigrant numbers would produce about that many legal immigrants. Would 3 million legal immigrants from third-world countries be any less disruptive to our economy, our environment, our culture, and our standard of living than the current 3 million illegals?
Legal immigration is part of the problem. It may be politically correct to deny this but we do so at our peril.

Labels: