The Bright Side to Amnesty

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   11/19/14
To many, the above title may seem much like speaking of the bright side to malignant cancer. And did it really come out of this writer’s pen? Long a staunch immigration critic, I’ve written many articles on the subject; Pat Buchanan used one of my lines in his book Death of the West; and Congressman John Conyers quoted me in the House on May 16, 2007, saying, “[C]onservative commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He warned, ‘[R]eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a Western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West.’” (Conyers wasn’t exactly in agreement.) And, no, it’s not that a pod from outer space has taken over my body or, worse yet, that I’ve become a liberal. I inveigh against all immigration still. I still oppose amnesty in all forms and under all guises. Nonetheless, the latter would have, perhaps, a small bright side.

This cannot be understood without grasping that illegal migration is not the problem.

It is an exacerbation of the problem.

What does this mean? Aren’t the only problems posed by migration ones unique to the illegal variety, such as an uncontrolled entry into our country that can allow diseases, terrorists and WMDs to cross our borders?

The real problem — the only one that really matters over the long term — is that we are importing socialist-oriented voters with mindsets contrary to Western ideals. This is because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA65), which created a situation wherein 85 percent of our new immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia. Moreover, the legislation has led to an increase in overall immigration from a historic average of 250,000 a year to approximately 1,000,000.[pullquote]The real problem — the only one that really matters over the long term — is that we are importing socialist-oriented voters with mindsets contrary to Western ideals.[/pullquote]

If you’re Obama and his fellow travelers and believe in “fundamentally” changing America, you love this because, upon being naturalized, approximately 80 percent of these newcomers will vote for you. You know Republicans get close to 90 percent of their votes from whites, so the formula for ideological conquest is simple: reduce the percentage of whites in America as much and as fast as possible. And INA65 certainly fits that bill. Non-Hispanic whites were close to 90 percent of the population in 1965.

Now they’re just under 63 percent.

And California is the model for the leftist hegemony in question. Once a solidly Republican state that launched Ronald Reagan to national prominence, it would not be carried by him in a presidential election today. The last time the state went Republican was 1988, when George H.W. Bush edged Michael Dukakis by four points. Since then no Democrat has carried the state by less than a double-digit margin; the best showing the GOP had was when it held Lurch-like John Kerry to 10 points. Obama won the state by 24 points in 2008 and 23 points in ’12. And in this year’s Republican wave election, it was considered an accomplishment that the GOP denied the Democrats supermajorities in CA’s legislative chambers.

Oh, did I mention that whites in CA are no longer even a plurality?

And here’s the reality:

Once the rest of the country looks like CA demographically, it will look like it politically.

This isn’t to say Republicans would disappear. They’d reinvent themselves as parties and politicians do, winning some elections by moving, to use our provisional terminology, “left.” It also must be mentioned that immigration isn’t the only factor in our decline; the media, academia and entertainment arena do a superb job fashioning leftist foot soldiers. And we should also note that with a world generally to the “left” of the US, it’s hard to imagine where we could find traditionalist immigrants; importing socialist Swedes, Germans and French is problematic as well. (A notable difference, however, is that while the latter assimilate into our more conservative white population, Hispanics often operate within America’s Hispanic milieu, which reinforces their socialist beliefs.)

Yet this is simply another reason why I adamantly oppose all (im)migration. When Ben Franklin famously answered the question of whether the 1787 Constitutional Convention had given us a republic or a monarchy by saying “A republic, if you can keep it,” there would have been no “ifs” about it if our nation had comprised mainly monarchical Englishmen. So the message here is simply a statement of the obvious: foreigners cannot be relied upon to preserve authentic Americanism because they’re not American. Full stop.

This is especially true when they harbor deep-seated un-American ideologies, hail from non-Western cultures and enter a multiculturalism-infected land that tells them “When in Rome…feel free to do as Ostrogoths would do.”

Despite this, most conservatives don’t get it. Imbued with what I’ve termed “immigrationism” and Proposition Nation pap, they’re very diligent about conserving the Immigration and Nationality Act status quo. An example that will shock many is Senator Ted Cruz, who last year proposed not only increasing the number of “high-skilled temporary workers fivefold” — as if there aren’t high-skilled Americans looking for jobs — but, unbelievably, also the doubling of legal immigration (the relevant portion of the video starts at 3:27).

Given that Cruz seems like a good man, I’ll just assume he’s out to lunch (in Tijuana) on this issue. But let’s be clear: if you had to pick your poison and choose just one culture-rending policy, a giant amnesty one year would be preferable to a giant legal-immigration increase applicable every year.

So what’s the bright side to amnesty? The well-known metaphor about a frog in a frying pan of water tells us that since frogs can’t sense incremental temperature changes, a very low flame under that pan may mean the creature will remain fixed in his position until he boils to death. In contrast, turn the burner up high enough and he’ll jump out and save himself.

Along with our many other problems, “Americans” (insofar as they still exist) are enduring the slow boil of cultural and demographic genocide. And executive amnesty, as with other kinds of leftist overreach, just may serve to turn that flame up high and rouse people from their torpor.

Yet this is the dimmest of bright sides, a 1-in-50 shot whose mention is mainly valuable in service to a larger point: we do need fundamental change. We need a revolution of mind, heart and spirit in which we return to our Christian foundation and dispense with moral relativism and all its corollaries — of which cultural relativism is one. Related to this, John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 2:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs….

The “American experiment” was never meant to be one in which we could learn if, for the first time in history, a nation could intensely balkanize itself and — by rebranding it “diversity” — survive.

I do not believe the US will survive long in its present form. And when chroniclers finally write The Rise and Fall of the American Republic, they may record that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was the most destructive legislation in her history, a turning point from which there was no turning back.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (1085 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Bright Side to Amnesty

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I see what you mean. For all practical purposes, illegal immigrants who get into the interior aren’t being deported anyway (as Jeff Sessions has pointed out). So refusing to deport them (which is all Obama can do with anything approaching legitimacy, not that he cares about his limits) means little — but it ensures that the disaster of some sort of bipartisan immigration reform bill is held off for at least a couple more years. That’s a pretty thin silver lining to the dark cloud, but it is there.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If the Senate Republicans had any balls, they would tell the Obamanation that if he passes amnesty for any more illegal aliens, they will not confirm any of his judicial nominations for the last two years of his administration.

  3. David Ray says:

    Wasn’t it Ted “Splash” Kennedy who engineered that BS bill of 1965?

    I was that bill and the plethora of feminist codes & regulations that guaranteed the ruin of this nation. (At least the great Phyllis Schlafly staved off the ERA amendment.)

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Yes, it was. Essentially Democrats made a bet with Republicans in 1965: Republicans assumed that immigrants, even from socialist countries, would assimilate to American values and therefore could be induced to vote for the Republican platform, while Democrats wagered that people who voted socialist south of the border (the Mexican PRI party held power for 70 straight years!) were not suddenly going to become more Conservative when they crossed the Rio Grande. We can see now that Democrats won the bet and are very close to taking over this nation even as their popularity with whites is at an all-time low.

  4. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Great points here, Selwyn. I agree with your statement that Conyers quoted, and indeed there are too few of us who recognize that continued high levels of immigration, whether legal or not, will doom this country or at best force us to permanently divide it in order to preserve any liberty at all. I was afraid that Cruz was weak on this issue, and obviously he is, leaving us almost no Conservatives to support in 2016. I do not understand why it’s so difficult for Republicans to understand that if you transform the culture, you transform the politics, especially when the horrifying spectacle of California is unfolding right before our eyes. I am seriously thinking we need to draft Jeff Sessions as he seems to be the only one who “gets it” on immigration.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, Tom Cotton and David Brat at least ran on border security, so they may also be good candidates. Of course, they also have almost no experience as candidates and office-holders. There are probably a few other reliable sorts scattered about.

    • Misanthropette says:

      Americans have been indoctrinated to believe (falsely) that political hack mottoes such as “We are a nation of immigrants” means that we can never turn off the faucet, or worse, that immigration is a natural right (Catholics have done much to promote that belief as well). I wonder why Jeff Sessions seems to be the only senator who “gets it”?

      Does the answer lie not in Washington, DC, or with the next Great Presidential Hope, but in our state legislatures asserting their 9th and 10th Amendment jurisdiction over a panoply of issues? If enough Americans now see the dangers of the federal leviathan, certainly 37 state legislatures under Republican control hold sway over Article V procedures to amend the Constitution? Phyllis Schlafley understood that the legislatures were key to stopping ratification of the ERA. This time state legislatures are the key to checking Washington’s lawlessness.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Rick Perry has threatened to sue to prevent the amnesty on the grounds that it creates extra expenses for his state, and no doubt Greg Abbott will continue the suit when he comes in. Other states are likely to join in. The only way for the Fascist Messiah to block the suits would be to pay them off — which requires appropriations that Congress will never pass.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    It’s hard to disagree with what The Duke is saying. But at the same time it’s worth noting that it has been (stupid liberal Commie) whites of European ancestry who have been leading the charge in selling this country out (aka “fundamental transformation”). And thank you, Selwyn, for pointing out how deep this goes…including the the conservative darling, Ted Cruz.

    As Dennis Prager notes, one part of the American trinity is “E Pluribus Unum” — out of many, one. Although people have always had at least a secondary affiliation with their tribe (Italians, Germans, etc.), the ethos of America was to consider oneself American first. And one could instantly do so despite any prior affiliation, something that is not possible in most countries. A white European mixed-ancestry mutt like me could be born in Japan and live all my life there, but I could never be Japanese.

    So the greatest danger might be the Balkanization or tribalization of America. Are the third-worlders who come to America looking for opportunity or the proverbial sugar daddy in the form of a welfare state? Do we realize just how influential the racial/racist mindset is of those coming from South of the Border who are subject to decades of propaganda from La Raza about how America really belongs to them? Is that any kind of a recipe for integration and assimilation?

    What we do know is that both the Democrats and Establishment Republicans would sell this country down the river in order to gain or keep political power. Yes, the Establishment Republicans lack the heavy grievance-based ideology of the Left. But they seem no less unwilling to break America into pieces for momentary political gain.

    Only the history books not yet written can tell us if a new generation of Americans emerges who will value freedom and opportunity over being a serf or over some narrow and racial tribal affiliation. If one looks at the suburbs and outlying places in California, that answer isn’t very promises. Victor Davis Hanson has partially documented the insular and tribal separatist shanty towns that the illegals from South of the Border have constructed. And this two-tier society fits very well with the gated-community mindset of both the elites on the Left and in the Republican Establishment. This society may yet play itself out into some kind of autocratic, two-tiered Orwellian novel.

    But because American ideals are not inherently a racial thing, they can be held and espoused by anyone. With the lights going off all across the West (those switches flipped mainly by whites), wouldn’t it be ironic if illegal immigrants were the ones who picked up the torch? It is unlikely, especially in Europe where the weak multi-culti identity is being swamped by the robust Islamic identity. And, no, I don’t think that illegal aliens (or those coming from the third world legally) to America are inherently conservative. But on the other hand, it’s arguable that many of these people are not as indoctrinated in Leftism/Progressivism as are our domestic whites.

    Who knows what will come out of this turmoil? But one thing is for certain: Something will grow out of it that will not be so easy for the Left and Democrats to control. And it’s possible that the GOP will fold as a party (at this point, we can only hope) and some new, liberty-based movement sweeps the land.

    On the other hand, that’s one of the problems with importing third-worlders, legal or otherwise, particularly if they are left to their own Balkanized enclaves and are not taught anything about Americanism but to despise it. No offense to anyone in particular, but people can get used to living like trailer trash. One aspect about America is that immigrants were bound and determined to create a better life for themselves and not simply to transplant their Old World ways. That may not be true of the socialist-infused/tribal immigrants (legal or otherwise) who are radically altering the demographics of this country.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The key difference between the Democrats and the Republican leadership is the difference between the corrupt and the corrupted. The Democrats seek to destroy the country as it was, and remake it as a racially diverse eurotopia. The GOP leadership lacks the gumption to recognize this and challenge it as well as they should — but some other Republicans do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *