Toward the conclusion of my pleasant stay at the national, WorldNetDaily, “Taking America Back” conference (some images are here), I was asked by the especially able organizer, Albert Thompson, to take part in a panel discussion on illegal immigration. The thinking was that, as an immigrant, I’d be able to speak to the topic with added force.
Unfortunately ─ or fortunately for the audience and the organizer ─ previous panels were running late, and I was forced to depart for Miami International to catch one of two flights back to the Pacific Northwest. In any event, I did not get to say my piece. As I take my duty to do the job Americans won’t do very seriously (to use Peter Brimelow’s refrain), I’ll say it now.
The problem with the immigration master narrative is this: The scope of the discussion is limited to illegal immigration only, and is framed as follows: Follow our laws and we’ll welcome you into out country; break the law, and out you go. This politically permissible position against illegal immigration, moreover, relies for its justification on the law. But argument from the positive law is usually flawed. The state’s laws ─ most of which do not comport with natural law ─ are an unreliable gauge of right and wrong. What Americans ought to be discussing, and are not, is mass immigration (which subsumes illegal immigration). And, in particular, the radical transforming of America, through state-engineered immigration policies.
Since the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act took effect ─ with no real debate or voter participation ─ immigration to the US has been predicated on a multicultural, egalitarian quota system. The result of this system in practice has been an emphasis on mass importation of people from the Third World. Family reunification supersedes America’s economic or cultural interests. At the time, Congress was more circumspect about the pitfalls of this plan than it is today. Members of the Senate openly conceded in their debates that America had a distinct and undeniable identity, which previous immigration — being mostly from the traditional northern and western European sources — had not altered.
The representatives promised (falsely) that the radical new amendments would generally preserve the country’s historical and cultural complexion. So eager was one senator to pass the Act – which was to herald the age of mass, indiscriminate immigration – that he vowed: “our cities will not be flooded with millions of immigrants annually…under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration [will remain] substantially the same,” and “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”
These pre-PC assurances came not from a “nativist” or a member of the Know-Nothing Party, but from no other than then-Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Edward Kennedy. This was all before it became taboo to discuss openly, as the late senator did on that occasion, the reshaping of America by means of central planning. (Such discussion is now regularly squelched with accusations of racism or via totemic, robotic incantations of “We are a multicultural nation of immigrants.”)
In 1965, when Edward Kennedy was promoting his “vision” for America, he candidly acknowledged that (for better or for worse) the country had not always been a mess of multicultural pottage, and that an adventurous immigration policy had the potential to render the place unrecognizable.
The 1965 Act has produced a torrential influx of immigrants. Every qualified immigrant holds an entry ticket for his extended family. Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies — in “High Noon to Midnight: Does Current Immigration Policy Doom American Jewry” — courageously (for it runs counter to the views of most of our fellow American Jews) highlights the bizarre situation where entire villages from rural Mexico and the West Bank in Israel have U.S. citizenship. Why do they have it? Because one member qualifies for it, and then brings in the entire town.
The Center for Immigration Studies concurs: “The ending of the national origins quotas opened the doors to mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America (regions where people are far more likely to want to emigrate), and the law’s emphasis on family reunification ensured that those through the door first would be able to bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations.”
The realities of chain migration explain why “eighty five per cent of the 11.8 million legal immigrants arriving in the US between 1971 and 1990 were from the Third World,” and why “in 1986 less than 4 percent of the over 600,000 legal immigrants were admitted on the basis of skills.”
In pluralistic, multicultural America, the historic American nation ─ its culture and Christian faith ─ will, eventually, be confined to an ethnic enclave among many. This is the “End of Days” scenario that immigration patriots must contemplate, once they’ve exited the hypobaric chamber that is the current “conversation” about immigration.
Friends of Israel in America are unequivocal in standing up for that country’s right to retain its Jewish identity. What would become of that identity if all self-styled Arab refugees were to be granted the so-called right of return? Hatched by Israel’s enemies, this scheme will see millions of such refugees granted the right to immigrate to Israel proper, where they will overwhelm the Jewish majority. Friends of Israel know that Jews must remain numerically preponderant in the Jewish state if the prosperous, progressive nature of the country and its liberal institutions is to endure.
Likewise, should friends of Israel think of mass immigration into America as a global “right of return” that would end America.
©2010 By ILANA MERCER
*Image credit alamy
CATEGORIES: Argument, Immigration, Israel, Multiculturalism, Nation & Nationhood, Natural Law, Natural Law & Justice, Natural rights