Let’s try to understand the immigration debate a little better.
I recently went to a talk at a synagogue by an immigration lawyer. She was an idealist and advocated open borders. She was from India and possibly had been an illegal immigrant herself. She also possibly got into law school with affirmative action – that is diversity at the expense of the white naive idealist.
I couldn’t stand it. The lawyer was sweet and charming, and dedicated to helping needy persons. But she told the big lie, and then a few smaller ones, regarding immigration.
Here is the big lie:
Democrats and Progressives want to make all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. legal, and then eventually citizens. This is called “immigration reform.” Once all these illegal immigrants become legal, then the Progressives promise they will really, really stop all illegal immigration. They will protect the borders, enforce rules regarding visas, and allow only legal immigration. They will support and implement all immigration laws. They will deport everyone who overstays their visas who has come here illegally.
Lie, lie, lie.
They said the same thing in 1986. President Reagan and the Democrats made millions of illegal immigrants legal (almost all democratic voters), and they promised the society that this was the end of it. From now on, all illegal immigration will be stopped. The immigration laws will be enforced. Illegal crossing the borders will be stopped. Illegal immigrants will be deported.
(60% of all illegal immigrants came here legally but overstayed their visas — a fact somehow is never discussed. Deporting an illegal immigrant is seen as cruel, racist, and immoral. But Americans will be deported from virtually every country if they overstay their visas!)
After 1986, the immigration laws were never fully enforce, now with 12 million illegal immigrants in America, all demanding that we do it again. In 1986 the American population was 4% Hispanic, now in 2018 it is 16%. Many Hispanics demanding “immigration reform” want virtual open borders. This is called the Hispanic Invasion.
Regardless of what the Progressives say – as this immigration lawyer said – the Progressives have no intention of implementing the new immigration laws once they pass “immigration reform” and make all illegal immigrants legal.
The reason for this is that many Progressives believe in diversity – the more people of color the better, and the more people of color, the more votes the Democrats will have. There is often a racial component of major U.S. policies.
Also, there is the ideology of “white supremacy.” This is the new battle cry of the Progressives, the black con, and the Hispanic con. That this country was founded by Europeans and European Americans are the dominant majority is now seen as racist and evil. “White supremacy” — that is whites being more successful in their careers and lifestyles than some minority groups — is more and more a synonym for fascism and white racism. (These “oppressed” minority groups don’t include the Asian, African-Carribean, and Jewish minorities, who tend to be more successful than the white majority.)
Progressives and the minority con see the 1926 Immigration Law which gave priority to European immigrants as racist. They see the U.S. as not an ordinary country but a “concept,” a concept of idealism. Thus the U.S. doesn’t belong to its citizens, but to the world, that is, to all the citizens in the world.
The logical consequence of this dysfunctional belief is that the U.S. has an obligation to the world to allow non-European immigrants into the country until the U.S. looks like the world. Until then the U.S. is a racist country. (Ignore the fact that no
-other country looks like the world.)
To create a more ideal society, whites – especially the white naive idealist – must be taken down and people of color put up. Thus, we must have open borders until people of color dominate the country.
A common lesser lie found in the political discourse regarding immigration is that “illegal immigration” is considered a synonym of “legal immigration.” Thus, when Conservatives argue against illegal immigration they are defined as being “anti-immigrant,” – and even racist – even though they passionately support “legal immigration.” Their families were immigrants themselves and they see the value of legal immigration.
A violation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative
(Don’t get turned off by the big words.)
The philosopher Immanuel Kant had the idea that we should behave in a way, so that if our behavior was a universal norm, it would be a good world. His idea is no more complicated than when your mom used to ask you, when you were behaving badly: “What if everyone acted like you?”
Thus, this immigration lawyer was demanding that the U.S. had open borders. Her argument was that God didn’t create borders, man did. Thus, God wanted open borders.
OK, let’s agree with her. Let’s all put our arms around each other and sing Kumbiya.
But what about the other countries? Let’s apply the same ideals demanded of the U.S. onto all the other countries. Can you think of any country with open borders? Any Latin American countries? Does Mexico allow impoverished Haitians to immigrate? Do they allow all the illegal kids, coming on the roofs of trains to the U.S., to get off and stay in Mexico?
Canada and Australia beat their idealistic chests and say they immigrate more people per capita than the U.S. – which they do. However, the don’t mention that they allow no illegal immigrants. They turn them back right at the border. And they kick out anyone who overstays their visiting visa (just like most Latin America countries do). Plus, Canada and Australia generally don’t allow family reunification, where relatives of citizens and green card holders get priority over people who can economically contribute to the country. In Canada and Australia, immigrants who contribute to the country get priority.
Does India allow illegal immigration? China? Russia? Is Europe trying to stop the invasion of illegal immigration from Africa? (Of course, humanitarians would say all Africa should have a right to immigrate to Europe. But who would pay the costs of this? Certainly, not the humanitarians. It is their job to tell others what to do, and not do it themselves.)
Rewarding Illegal immigrants
We can’t stop illegal immigrants when we reward them for being illegal. This is 101 behavioral psychology: rewarding behavior encourages it; punishing behavior discourages it.
When we give over 12 million illegal immigrants legal status – with all the financial benefits – can we really be surprised that illegal immigration will be increased in the future? And we have historical evidence that this will happen. It already happened after 1986.
Even if we build the wall 50 feet tall, still 60% of illegal immigrants simply overstayed their visas. Shall we – like the dysfunctional idealists say – simply give anyone who overstays their visiting visas legal status and eventual citizenship, with all the benefits? (See “Anchor Babies”)
All illegal immigrants are patriotic American
Of course, any idea that opposes open borders is considered racist and evil. Illegal immigrants must be seen as patriotic Americans who want to blend into the society and contribute. But the truth is that most illegal immigrants don’t want “citizenship,” they want “dual citizenship.” They want all the benefits of American citizenship – especially the right to send money back to their country and immigrate their relatives, as well as make more money for themselves, plus welfare benefits, free health care, and free education for their kids (including special educatioh). All the while they have a right to maintain a loyalty to their home country and having all the rights of being a citizen in their home country. Most Americans only have one country.
Illegal immigrants do the work American citizens don’t want to do.
We also have the false idea that we need illegal immigrants because they do the work that Americans don’t want to do – which is true. However, once these illegal immigrants become citizens, many of them won’t do the difficult, low paying work any longer. They will have welfare benefits and educational opportunities so they can get better jobs. Often they can make more money on welfare than working, once citizens — especially when the mother is a “single mother” and the common-law husband works off the books. These new citizens, who are “people of color” will be now able to often out-compete the white naive idealist because of the legal diversity quotas in most areas of the economy (and education). Then we will need more illegal immigrants.
Another, smaller, lie is that illegal immigrants don’t commit any more crimes than the average American – which is true. However, once they become legal and are no longer facing deportation if convicted of a serious crime, there is a significant probability that many will arrogate to themselves the moral blank check because America has treated them so cruelly, just because they are browner than the white naive idealist.
Let’s have a realistic, legal, rational, humanitarian immigration system that is strictly implemented. Meanwhile, let’s implement the immigration laws that we have now, so that we will give our taxpayers evidence that we will actually apply the new immigration laws as well.
See also “The Solution to Immigration”
I agree with your thoughts on immigration policy!
Tx for your affirmation. Common sense in political policy seems like a rare thing.
Rachel Moss says
Hi RG, I agree with the “lie” points that you mentioned. I think this “immigration reform” that they are suggesting is just like getting back at the first step of the cycle. It’s like doing the first step of the twisted immigration cycle (legalizing illegal immigrants), which in the first place, should not be considered because as a common sense, they all started with an illegal status. And rewarding them with a legal status would just reinforce the idea that it’s okay to start out with something wrong if it goes better at the end.
Davina Johns says
I’d like to point out how I absolutely agree with what you said about the change of attitudes of the illegal immigrants once they attained their legal status. They would start to become more demanding of their job status/preference, would become more lenient abiding to laws knowing that they would not be deported, and they would be entitled to dual citizenship, exhausting benefits of both their current and home country. This attitude almost equates to greed and we all know that too much of anything is bad
Tx so much for your comments. Your thoughts significantly add to the value of this site.
One way we help our poorer neighbors to the south without allowing an Hispanic invasion, with all it’s dyfunction, is to give Latin American countries more economic and political help, without harming our own country (and ripping off the white sucker).
And I think you’re right, that giving all illegal immigrants legal status and eventual citizenship will only be the START of their demands. The Hispanic con learns quickly from the black con. Immediately after they are granted citizenship, they will probably begin to DEMAND neurotic equality, justice and peace:
If Hispanics are 15% of the population they should have 15% of all the wealth in the country, 15% of all the political positions, 15% all the high social status. Then there should be only 15% of people in all jails of Hispanic decent. Anything else is racist.
There should be affirmative action, diversity and reparations (for all the cruel treatment they received) until there is neurotic equality in all areas.
Finally, of course, the U.S. must be bi-lingual. Spanish is just as good as English. Anything else is racist. Then, of course, to treat the Chinese immigrants with neurotic equality, we must be tried-lingual. All American citizens must required to be fluent in Chinese.
Meanwhile, the white sucker……well, he can just go screw himself.
Tx so much for your comment. I hope we can get more comments like yours that will shine some light on our serious political/economic problems.
Here’s question for you: You seem to have a clear, rational, and honest perception of the immigrant con and the progressive con regarding immigration. But why isn’t there more people in our government and intellegentsia who have this basic clear thought? Are we right and everyone wrong?
And then they call anyone with a clear perception of the immigration problem “racist, anti-immigrant, anti-poor” and so on. Is it immoral to think clearly?
Perhaps one reason there aren’t more people like us is that most people’s minds, including the minds of our educational institutions, are polluted with the propaganda of: big business, government (which is, in turn, polluted with contributions of lobbyists), the progressive con, the black con, the Hispanic con, the lawyer con, and so on.
Or maybe it is that everyone is so consumed with their self-interest, there isn’t much space left on their hard drive to contain ideas that are good for all groups (and all species) in the long run.
It seems difficult to think clearly in these times. That’s why your thoughts are so valuable.
RG, I don’t think that the big lie you claim, is a lie at all:
“Here is the big lie:
Democrats and Progressives want to make all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. legal, and then eventually citizens. This is called “immigration reform.” Once all these illegal immigrants become legal, then the Progressives promise they will really, really, really stop all illegal immigration. They will protect the borders, enforce rules regarding visas, and allow only legal immigration. They will support and implement all immigration laws.”
Having worked for the DHS for part of my life, I can say that its easier for an illegal immigrant to become a naturalized citizen than an applicant who applies following the rules. Why do you think the Dems don’t want to enforce border security?
I see Maria’s point. Being from Florida, its clear that our democratic officials are hell bent on not enforcing our borders because once the illegals are allowed to vote, they figure since they were the once to allow them to come in, the illegals will vote for them. For these people: More Illegals = More votes.
Norad Tumble says
I can already see that Jeff is correct. Here in California our local town now allows for non citizens / non permanent residents ie. illegals to vote. The claim is that since they are part of our community, they should have a say in terms of what the community does. I think its ridiculous. In this case why have borders at all?
Maria, Jeff, and Norad,
Tx for your comments. It’s amazing that we have let this happen. I have the idea that one reason is that everyone is afraid of the black con guilt trip. If we say anything about the U.S. having the right to have borders, we are denounced as racists, bigots, nazis and whatever other name the Progressive con can come up with. This can hurt our social life — especially with Hispanics and liberals — and be devastating to our careers.
I wonder why we haven’t heard the antithesis to these ideas: the argument for open borders?
Davina Johns says
I agree with Norad, it doesn’t make sense to have borders at all, if we’re already allowing illegal immigrants to have the same rights that we have. Immigrating illegally in the first place is not a good thing at all.