When pondering our obsession with immigration Im reminded of how people in the ridiculous dystopian film Idiocracy were watering their crops with an energy drink called Brawndo. And even though the crops werent growing the suggestion to try water instead was met with the following conditioned response in the drinks defense: Its got what plants crave! Its got electrolytes!" No one knew what electrolytes were. No one could explain why they were in Brawndo. It was all sloganeering.And so it is with immigration. Why do we have immigration? Because its got what America craves! Its got people!" But why does the US the worlds third most populous country need more people? Because theyre in immigration! Its got what America craves!"The problem with a blanket advocacy of immigration" is that as with ideology" it is a category not a creed. If someone proclaimed We need ideology!" we should ask will any one do? Will liberalism conservatism libertarianism Nazism Marxism or socialism all serve equally well? Likewise we should ask about immigration: would importing 10 million liberals conservatives libertarians Nazis Marxists or socialists all serve the US equally well? (Mind you the majority of todays new immigrants are socialist minded.) Would importing 10 million Russian nationalists Chinese nationalists Iranian nationalists or Mexican nationalists be as wise as having 10 million more American nationalists? Hey who needs discernment?No one apparently when in the grip of a certain simplistic dogma of our time immigrationism." This is the belief that immigration is always good always necessary and always above reproach at least in Western nations. Nobody ever seems to ask why Japan has no immigration.Nobody for instance asks where Japan will get the needed skilled workers even though this is a popular question posed in the wake of the Swiss vote to limit their demographic upheaval. In answering this question note that a nation in the true sense of the word is an extension of the tribe which itself is an extension of the family. Now what if your family needs to have pipes fixed and no one within your home has the requisite skills? You hire someone with the necessary expertise pay him his fee and then he leaves when the job is done.You dont adopt a plumber.In other words work visas will suffice.Yet much of what justifies immigration is purely ideological. For example there is a certain argument made by certain political partisans often it seems because they think it makes them sound clever cosmopolitan and cool. It is that people of European heritage came to this continent and dominated its native peoples so its merely karma if the same now happens to us. The cry is What about the Indians?!" Two things leap to mind here. First how does allowing our nation to be Balkanized and to descend into tyranny help the Indians? A falling tide grounds all boats. Second this hate-America-first position is the prattle of a child someone having a temper tantrum and talking about how he hates mommy and will run away from home. But its all just theoretical. Its easy to look forward to our 476 to Romes impending fall when sitting in your warm house with a stuffed refrigerator on your equally stuffed derrire and sending your puerile Internet messages on the latest iPad. But the reality of Goths breaking down your door would shatter that fantasy world fast.Speaking of the Indians some have the notion that we" (and the critics are talking about white folks here) arent the first Americans anyway. But as Sitting Bull grandson Ernie LaPointe mentioned after Barack Obama cited the legendary Indian as a great American hero in his childrens book Of Thee I Sing Sitting Bull did not consider himself an American; he was a Lakota. No doubt. Remember that America" is of European origin derived from Italian Amerigo Vespuccis name and these United States were a product of a founding document crafted by European-descent people. You can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a factual thing.Nonetheless it is true that we" dominated the Indians. And the Etruscans for a time dominated the Romans who later dominated other groups on the Italian peninsula and ultimately were dominated by barbarians" in the West and Muslims in the East. The Aztecs dominated other tribes as did Shaka Zulu in Africa. All sorts of European groups were dominated and subsumed as well which is why you dont hear about Goth Frank Lombard Alan Burgundian Gaul and Frisii lobbying groups. Heck the painfully politically correct documentary series The West pointed out that the Lakota justified their dominance of other tribes to the U.S. government by saying that they were only doing what we" were doing. This is true. A modern-day Lakota featured in the series framed their conquest this way (Im paraphrasing) We were very good at what we did." This is also true.And the Europeans were better.I could leave it at that were I content to operate by the principle might makes right. But since its more true that right makes might lets delve further.Since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" should we humans just commit mass suicide to atone for our manifold trespasses with the West leading by example? Better virtue shorn than a goodness evil born? Sure we shouldnt forget that most all civilizations found their genesis in blood and conquest. And we should remember as Genesis informs that God brings good out of bad.The point is that we have a civilization here now today and the question is always the same: is it worth preserving? No? Then fine scrap it. But youd better be sure of your judgment not only because dead civilizations like dead men stay dead but because something will take your civilizations place. And that something will not be forged by seraphim and cherubim; it will be something very human and though I repeat myself very flawed.And if the answer is yes our civilization is worth preserving? Then you take the necessary measures to do so. And to the hate-America-first crowd you say: if death is preferable to enjoying the fruits of a painfully human past then you lead by example and drink the hemlock. Leave the rest of us to do the work of adults.Of course any culture can be improved. But thinking that cultural relativists who cant effectively differentiate between good and evil because theyve convinced themselves everything is gray are equal to this task is like thinking that a dietary relativist could improve your diet. Since the latter would be blind to the laws (the truth) of human nutrition and would then have nothing but taste as a guide he just might steer you toward junk food and maybe worse. Those colorful berries on that bush are awfully pretty you know.The real lesson to be learned from North Americas second great migration (the first being the Paleoindians arrival approximately 20000 years ago) is this: say what you will about the Indians they fought the good fight. They didnt invite millions of unassimilable foreigners into their lands give them special privileges and then justify it all by saying that they were just here to do jobs Indians wouldnt do (like colonize Indians).A discussion of immigration today is nothing less than a debate about what your nation is going to be tomorrow. Will it be relegated to the history books like the Alans Angles Franks Frisii and Goths or will it continue to write history? Is it worthy to do so? These are legitimate questions that should be tackled by legitimate thinkers not people who hide a visceral hatred of Western civilization inside a Trojan horse proclaiming the equality of all peoples.
