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 writers pen? Long a staunch immigration critic Ive 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 Conservative commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He warned Replace 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 wasnt exactly in agreement.) And no its not that a pod from outer space has taken over my body or worse yet that Ive 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? Arent 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 250000 a year to approximately 1000000.
If youre 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 theyre 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 years Republican wave election it was considered an accomplishment that the GOP denied the Democrats supermajorities in CAs legislative chambers.
Oh did I mention that whites in CA are no longer even a plurality?
And heres the reality:
Once the rest of the country looks like CA demographically it will look like it politically.
This isnt to say Republicans would disappear. Theyd 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 isnt 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 its 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 Americas 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 theyre 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 dont get it. Imbued with what Ive termed immigrationism" and Proposition Nation pap theyre 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 arent 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 Ill just assume hes out to lunch (in Tijuana) on this issue. But lets 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 whats the bright side to amnesty? The well-known metaphor about a frog in a frying pan of water tells us that since frogs cant 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 hell 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.
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 writers pen? Long a staunch immigration critic Ive 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 Conservative commentator Selwyn Duke just yesterday inveighed against any immigration (legal or not). He warned Replace 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 wasnt exactly in agreement.) And no its not that a pod from outer space has taken over my body or worse yet that Ive 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? Arent 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 250000 a year to approximately 1000000.
If youre 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 theyre 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 years Republican wave election it was considered an accomplishment that the GOP denied the Democrats supermajorities in CAs legislative chambers.
Oh did I mention that whites in CA are no longer even a plurality?
And heres the reality:
Once the rest of the country looks like CA demographically it will look like it politically.
This isnt to say Republicans would disappear. Theyd 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 isnt 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 its 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 Americas 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 theyre 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 dont get it. Imbued with what Ive termed immigrationism" and Proposition Nation pap theyre 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 arent 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 Ill just assume hes out to lunch (in Tijuana) on this issue. But lets 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 whats the bright side to amnesty? The well-known metaphor about a frog in a frying pan of water tells us that since frogs cant 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 hell 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.