What's next?
0 comment Tuesday, September 30, 2014 |
What happens next with the amnesty bill?
If the majority of commentators and pundits are right, the bill in its present form has practically no chance of getting through the House. But suppose the minority who think some form of amnesty will be approved are correct? Most of us who oppose the idea of amnesty in any way, shape, or form refuse to consider that dire possibility, but it is certainly a possibility.
If there is amnesty granted, and if the provisions for increased legal immigration go into effect also, voila! We will suddenly have millions (how many? 12 million, or maybe more like 30 million) of new citizens-in-the-making, with millions more to come.
I wonder what this will do to the anti-illegal cause; the vast majority of people who have been the most ardent opponents of amnesty have positioned themselves as being opposed ONLY to illegal immigration. Will there be any opposition to the transforming of America via legal immigration then? Or will those who have so vocally opposed the influx of illegals suddenly feel warm and 'welcoming' towards the same number of legal immigrants?
For various reasons, mostly due to the modern Western phobia of being called a 'racist', immigration restrictionists have loudly proclaimed their support for all forms of legal immigration, asserting that only illegal immigration is unwelcome. Very few pundits and commentators have refrained from jumping on that 'I'm-no-xenophobe' bandwagon, with the exceptions being the VDare regulars, and a few others like Ilana Mercer, and, somewhat surprisingly, Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO. Ponnuru is very moderate but he does at least approach the subject of legal immigration. Are these people simply the only ones who can see clearly enough to recognize that mass immigration is a problem, not just illegal immigration? By limiting the discussion to criticism of illegal immigration only, by chastising and marginalizing and in some cases banning from web forums, those who criticize legal immigration, the right has played into the hands of the open-borders zealots. While not wanting to give the open-borders pharisees too much credit for intelligence, I do think they are shrewd enough to know that if they succeed in painting all opposition to open borders as 'racist' and 'xenophobic', they will have won half the battle. When those on the right who want to enforce our laws are forced to fight the battle with one hand tied behind their backs as it were, the battle is no longer a fair fight. If we have conceded the terms of the debate to the open-borders fanatics of both left and right, then we are at quite a disadvantage. If and when an amnesty bill is made law, and if and when our borders are opened wider to those tens of millions of new legal immigrants. the restrictionists will be left speechless. If those now opposing illegal immigration are confronted with the new reality of wide-open legal immigration, with all the concomitant problems, how can they respond, having already agreed that legal immigration is good, and that to oppose it is racist? They will not have a leg to stand on. Has anyone even stopped to consider this?
Actually on one immigration-related web forum, a lone poster posed this question on a thread: what will happen when and if all the illegals are made legal? What will we do then? When last I viewed that thread, there were no responses. Not a one. Zip; zero. It was sad, but I think the members of the forum are so inculcated with the idea that only illegal immigration is a problem, and that to deny that is racist, that they cannot consider opposing legal immigration no matter how problematic.
One other web forum which deals with illegal immigration announces that it is a forum " strictly for those Americans dedicated to the political civic processes that are not motivated by racism." [Emphasis mine]
While I don't doubt the good intentions of the site owner, it seems to me that this is Politically Correct in the extreme. Of course it is wrong to allow comments which are ugly or which incite to unlawful acts, and I suppose it is good PR to disavow 'racism', how does one determine motivation? That, it seems to me, is getting into Orwellian territory: trying to seek out 'thought crimes'. And it is essentially bowing to the censorship of the left (and the PC right), which has essentially proscribed ALL opposition to immigration, even illegal immigration, as being 'motivated by racism.' To the PC zealots, who thrive in both parties, one is a racist or a xenophobe by definition if one is an immigration restrictionist, or anything other than an open-borders believer.
By the definition of the Politically Correct commissars, the Founders of this country were 'racists' and 'xenophobes' and 'nativists' and 'isolationists' because they believed, first of all, in borders; they did NOT believe in allowing anyone and everyone into the country. They believed that America was a country based on blood ties and kinship, on Anglo-Saxon traditions and culture. They did not believe that all men are interchangeable; they recognized differences among races and ethnicities. For instance, Alexander Hamilton said:
In the recommendation to admit indiscriminately foreign emigrants of every description to the privileges of American citizens, on their first entrance into our country, there is an attempt to break down every pale which has been erected for the preservation of a national spirit and a national character; and to let in the most powerful means of perverting and corrupting both the one and the other.
Now according to the cultural Marxists whose views are dogma for many today, these views are 'racist' and 'ethnocentric', and should be outlawed and punished. (How that kind of thinking is compatible with our First Amendment is beyond me.) Nevertheless, the PC enforcers have succeeded in cowing most of us into submission, even those on the 'right'. The result is, freedom of speech and freedom of thought are becoming more and more circumscribed by the 'need' to appear unprejudiced, tolerant, sensitive, and inclusive. So we are now a timid nation, careful of every word we speak, lest someone brand us with the dreaded R word.
So those of us who are rightly and justifiably concerned with preserving our country, our way of life, our language, our culture, our traditions, our freedoms (or what's left of them) are hamstrung in our self-defense because of this tyranny of Political Correctness. We have to break free of this PC spell and re-discover the now-radical idea that it is natural to act in our own self-interest. It is our right as citizens of this sovereign nation to consider what is best for American citizens, for ourselves, our families, our neighbors, before we consider the wants of others. This is not only natural and normal, it is morally legitimate, just as it is to put our families ahead of total strangers when there are choices to be made. Our ancestors took this as a given; it is only in our present leftist-dominated age that we have come to feel guilty for acting in our own self-interest, or in our national self-interest. We have let ourselves be browbeaten into feeling guilty for this, to question the very legitimacy of it. We have got to reject this PC conditioning to which we've all been subjected.
So when and if our treasonous, venal 'leaders' wave their magic amnesty wand, and open the floodgates to the huddled masses yearning for freebies, what will we then say to defend ourselves? Will we be reduced to silence, because to oppose the influx would be so intolerant and Politically Incorrect?
We are on the verge of having to face that situation; will our patriotic feeling and our natural, primal instinct for our nation assert itself? Or will we hold our tongues, and acquiesce to the loss of our nation?