|
As soon as open-border enthusiasts such as Kennedy, one
of the architects of the Great Society’s disastrous 1965 Immigration
Act, discover that, like most legal immigrants, I’m an immigration
restrictionist, they tell me to go back whence I came (Canada and before
that South-Africa and before that Israel), the idea being that I’m not
suited to join “the
nation of immigrants.” I’ll save them the
effort: I fully agree that Americans have little use for me. I’m a
troublesome scribe with a love of the English idiom and an annoying
attachment to the American ideas of limited government and
self-governance. You wouldn’t want to import too many such subversives,
who’ll agitate for a return to the values that made this place great, if
only fleetingly. A word of caution, however, before you send the spouse
packing. Squeaky clean, screened-to-the-hilt, highly-skilled newcomers
like him will become increasingly essential in subsidizing America’s
immigration free-for-all.
Mind you, people of early American probity, to
paraphrase Mary McGrory, are carefully weeded out by contemporary
America’s immigration policies. These select for low moral character by
rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking—an undesirable
feature that’ll be further refined by the imminent passing of the
amnesty bill. An example should clarify what I mean by “select
for low moral character”: Most of our South-African friends, all highly
qualified, upstanding family men and women, have opted to go to
Australia or the UK. Why? Well, legal immigrants to the U.S. don’t “wait
their turn,” as the uninformed pointy-heads keep chanting. It is usually
their qualifications that, indirectly, get them admitted into the
country. The H-1B visa, for one, is a temporary work permit—and also a
route to acquiring legal permanent resident status. However, if one
loses the job with the sponsoring company, the visa holder must leave
the U.S. within ten days.
What responsible, caring, family man would subject his
dependants to such insecurity and upheaval? As I say, most of the people
we know would never contemplate breaking the law by remaining in the
country illegally. And not because they’re dull or unimaginative (an
“argument” I’ve heard made by Darwinian libertarians, who praise
immigration scofflaws for their entrepreneurial risk-taking, no less).
But because they have the wherewithal—intellectual and moral—to
weigh opportunity costs
and plan for the future,
rather than say “mańana” to tomorrow and live for
today. Unhip perhaps, but certainly the kind of people America could do
with.
Another peculiarity of the policies being discussed is
the emphasis on family reunification, as opposed skills relevant to the
American economy. Other countries, like Canada, look to the occupation,
facility with the official language, age, and education of the
candidate. Not the United States. Since 1965, with no real debate or
voter participation, Congress replaced the national-origin immigration
criterion (which ensured newcomers reinforced the historical majority)
with an all-nations-are equal multicultural quota system, which
effectively resulted in an emphasis on mass importation of people from
the Third World. The new influx was no longer expected to acculturate to
liberal democratic Judeo-Christian traditions. With family
‘reunification’ superseding all other considerations, immigration has
become an economic drain—as demonstrated, for example, by Harvard’s
George Borjas.
There’s another corollary to privileging Third-Worlders:
if ever we were to import our family, we’d add two or three, elderly,
English-speakers to the nation. Small extended families, however, are
not the norm among most immigrant families. Birth rates being what they
are in the Third World, one qualified legal immigrant from, say, Africa
is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal
ticket—integrates and pays his way; the rest remain, more often than
not, unassimilable and welfare dependent. With millions of new arrivals
each year, the problem of overcrowding in major cities cannot be
overlooked.
The exclusive emphasis of late on border security in the
immigration debate has helped open-border advocates immeasurably. Everyone
(and his dog) currently concurs that we have no problem with legal
immigration, only with the illegal variety. It’s now mandatory to pair
an objection to the invasion of the American Southwest with an embrace
of all forms of legal immigration. The sole
emphasis on border security has, in all
likelihood, entrenched the status quo—Americans will never assert their
right to determine the nature of the country they live in and, by
extension, the kind of immigrants they welcome. The security risk
newcomers pose is the only permissible topic for conversation.
What would this round-up be without a good-news
immigration story? You can all breathe easy. Guess who U.S. immigration
law enforcers apprehended at the Canadian border and stripped of her
American permanent residency with an intimidating display of machismo?
My daughter! The Bandido is finally at bay.
Yeah, “family values don't stop at the Rio Grande,”
el presidente,
once thundered. He forgot to mention that they do stop
with the documented residents of the United States.
© 2006 By Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily.com
April 28
|
