by Monsieur Voltaire
If US citizenship were a currency, one day soon it would be trading even with the Vietnamese Dong, thanks to the part ill-conceived, part treasonous policies that our ruling class are foisting on us. On one hand, America’s rulers are giving citizenship away like some corny 5-for-1 special at Stop n Shop: you buy into the idea of voting Dem and cleaning motel rooms for a few bucks a day, you get the whole benefits of Welfare-state America for yourself, your spouse and all the tots you can make. On the other, our media, entertainment and education rackets are convincing us that National pride, stewardship of our culture and understanding of our exceptionalism are just what rednecks do in flyover country when they are not playing the banjo or romancing their first cousins and that, therefore, US citizenship is little more than the duty to obey whatever US laws poll well at the moment.
What people are losing sight of is that citizenship is one of the most precious assets a country has—a right and a responsibility. It is the right to safely live, work and prosper in the USA; it is the right to elect our leaders in the conscious effort of leaving a better nation to our progeny; the responsibility to abide by the people’s laws; and the responsibility to have a stake in and contribute to the well-being of the Nation. Most importantly, citizenship is by nature a finite good, and must be understood as such. This is our first important premise in the case against illegal immigration, so let’s get started.
1 – Citizenship is a finite good, and the number of immigrants that any nation can absorb is also finite. Aside from the political-philosophy aspect of this statement, there is also commonsense at play: the ability for any country to absorb new foreigners in any given year stops at a discrete number. We can argue what the number is, but whether it is zero or one hundred million, there is a limit past which the host country will capsize economically, socially, culturally–or literally, if you are Rep. Hank Johnson or the geniuses who keep reelecting him.
2 – It is safe to assume that whatever this number for the US, it will be less than the number of would-be immigrants. A 2013 worldwide Gallup poll estimates that approximately 138 million adults worldwide would want to immigrate into the US, which, with their children and immediate families would bring that number to around 250 million—which would nearly double our population here at home.
3 – If citizenship is a finite good and the number of immigrant slots available in the US is less than that of would-be immigrants, even an illiterate fool would begin to understand that the laws of scarcity apply here: if Pedro, Tran, Dimitri, Mohammed and Fritz are all competing for the same one or two lucky slots, the value of these slots must be directly proportional to the scarcity of their supply versus the intensity of the demand. Simply put: even if you can rip away all the cultural and patriotic overtones from the concept of US citizenship (and that’s a big if), you must concede that it is a highly valuable good made precious by its scarcity in the face of high demand.
4 – Given these premises, illegal immigration is not a victimless crime—it is outright theft. It is theft at the expense of those waiting in line to immigrate here legally, in front of whom the illegal would have cut into line. And most of all, it is theft to US citizens, who are now forced to share their public goods—which are also a finite resource–with an intruder they didn’t invite (i.e., a thief). But the comparison with theft does not stop here. We are told that the illegal immigrant—the new saint in the Left’s godless mythology—only wants a shot at a better life; well, so does the thief, which is why I have zero sympathy for either of their plights. Scrap that—sympathizing with those who would forcibly take valuable goods from others for their own advantage would make me a morally perverse monster.
Given all this, the question arises of why our rulers of both parties would want to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens? There are three layers of answers to this question, which I will address separately.
A – The expedient or pseudo-humanitarian lie. It’s simply impossible to deport them all. It would be unfair to separate families. It would benefit our economy. We must know who they are, so we need to let them “come out of the shadows” (a despicable cliche’ that I detest all the more for its going constantly unchallenged). They are decent, hard-working people just wanting a better life. At best, all these are nothing more than half-believed pabulums that our rulers repeat so that low-info useful idiots will enthusiastically endorse the cause of amnesty. At worst (and this is what I believe they are), they are knowingly-told lies. Yes, we can deport a sizable majority if not all of them, as we have in the past. No, it’s not unfair to separate families, because they can all go back to their country together just as they snuck into ours together. No, amnesty will most definitely not benefit the economy, and it will instead depress wages and increase unemployment. Yes, we can easily know who illegals are, if we only would respect our own employment and ID laws. And no, thieves are not good people, regardless of whether they steal to have a better life or not—apart from the fact that we take their hard-working goodness on faith (wait–don’t they live in the shadows?).
B – The desire for ballot, welfare and cheap-labor fodder. This reason takes us at least out of the realm of outright demagogic lies (see point A above), since it has become widely known among those of us paying attention that Democrats want to beef up their dependent underclass constituency, and Wall Street Journal/Chamber of Commerce moguls want to heed their corporate crowd’s calls for an endless supply of cheap labor. By now, this has become so self-evident that I don’t need to further expand on it. Suffice to say that importing the Third World to achieve such crass ends while destroying the American fabric in the process is nothing less than a crime against history—but this is not even the worst. Read on.
C – The ruling class’s desire to permanently change the electorate (and America) into an easily-ruled country of apathetic lemmings. You will have noticed that I haven’t mentioned Republicans so far in this whole sad affair that we call our “national immigration debate.” But the question must arise as to why *Republicans* would want to go along with the Democrats’ scheme of importing a permanent underclass (and no, I don’t buy into the notion that Republicans do the biddings of corporations—just take a look at which corporate entity donates to whom to debunk that lie). But wouldn’t Republicans end up in a permanent minority? How can’t they not know it? Are they even more stupid than we give them credit for?
The eye opener and bombshell for me was a 2006 paper that Fredo Arias-King, aide to former Mexican president Vincente Fox, wrote after coming into contact with 80 US congressmen and senators of both parties and discussing the subject of immigration. Sample quote from the article:
“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them ‘rednecks’, and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the ‘just and constitutional laws’ they devised.”
The thesis of the article (which is scholarly, bears reading in full, and actually laments this attitude among US elected representatives) is that the ruling class of both parties wants an easier electorate to lord over. And that since poor individuals from Mexico and Central America have a fatalistic tolerance of high levels of governmental corruption, the US ruling class wants to saturate America with them so as to no longer be burdened with “political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general” (direct quote from the article, in reference to the words of a Republican house member).
In conclusion, it is plain to see that we are being played for fools, and that the replacement of traditional America is precisely what our ruling class wants. It is also plain to see that the arguments against this travesty can be made calmly and logically as part of reconquering the discourse, and that our fellow Americans must be awakened from the lie- and sentimentality-induced trance that this issue has a habit of bringing on. We absolutely must stand up to the traitors in our government (I know, it’s a weighty word, but it fits here), and let them know that we know what they are up to, and we won’t stand for it.
Notes: Fredo Arias King, Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will, (2006). From http://www.cis.org/Usurpation-Elites-People’sWill, last accessed on 8/16/13. • (1028 views)