The big taboo
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.