The Immigration Debate
Usually, we would not start an article with a video, but in this instance, it is very helpful. The speaker, Konstantin Kisin, makes the critical point that framing the immigration question is essential.
We urge you to take the time to view and digest what he is saying.
We agree that the Left has framed the argument as a moral question. However, the morality has its basis in Marxist assumptions, which posit that all wealth should be shared and that those who have it did not earn it but got it through exploitation. The latter cultural Marxism variation is that all difference in wealth and status is a result of “white privilege” and racial discrimination. The current immigration policy could be seen as an international DEI “social justice” variant. That is why there is no longer an attempt to bring in highly educated Europeans who are most compatible with the existing American population and whose education is most helpful to the economy. Instead, the Left actually imports millions of uneducated and difficult-to-assimilate people because they are impoverished and supposedly owed our standard of living. Anyone who opposes this has to be a racist.
Let’s first make clear that to question current Democrat immigration policies is not racist or xenophobic. That is a baseless and vicious charge intended to end the conversation, not to have one.
Mass immigration and open borders are on the ballot this year. How are you going to vote on the matter?
Conservatives recognize that immigration helped build this country and will continue to do so. We are not against immigration. What we are against is mass, unvetted, government-supported immigration that harms existing citizens.
Our government should not sacrifice its citizens or our freedoms on the altar of progressive Marxist social theories.
Current immigration policies were formed and executed on several progressive assumptions to which Conservatives object and believe incorrect.
The notion that all cultures are equal and that the host country does not have the right to choose those who fit best into the host culture and who bring valuable skills is baloney. All cultures are not equal; some integrate better than others, and the nation needs educated and skilled workers as well as the unskilled.
For example, some religions and groups treat their women like cattle. They are literally owned by their husbands, must be covered head to foot, and cannot work, own property, or even go out in public without an approved male escort. They believe in child brides and genital mutilation and enforce all these rules with brutal force. Their religion organizes all aspects of life, including political life. When Islam reaches a population tipping point, they then, under the basic tenets of their religion, believe force can be used to bend the rest of the public to their ways.
That is not “equal” or “better” to how we treat women. We are under no obligation to allow a culture like that into our midst, and that will only create havoc. If you doubt anything said in this regard, study the history of Lebanon.
Additionally, Conservatives are watching in horror what is happening in Europe. We do not want to copy that model. Realistically, progressive ideas about mass immigration don’t work.
The first obligation of government is to protect its citizens. Policies that create social tension, crime, and bankrupt social safety nets are harmful to existing citizens.
Progressives seem to say we have no right to judge the behaviors embedded in some cultures as wrong or incompatible. Yet they constantly criticize things they believe we, as Americans, have done wrong in the past. Why do they think judgments can be made in some cases but not others?
Have you noticed they are constantly trying to change Americans from what they regard as retrograde behaviors and beliefs but feel attempts to select immigrants are xenophobic and discriminatory? The contradictions in their approach are genuinely astonishing.
We are the host country. We have both the duty and obligation only to allow those into the country those we wish to. There is no human right to violate our laws, traditions, social mores, or borders. No society is under the moral obligation to commit suicide because of the fear that self-preservation may offend someone.
The first right of all citizens, and by extension, of their society and government, is the right to self-preservation. Without that, no rights will have any further meaning.
Progressives see a borderless world, see all cultures as equally valid, and don’t care about anyone’s qualifications or ability to support themselves. This is the inherent problem Milton Freidman talked about when open immigration is combined with a domestic welfare state.
Speaking of a welfare state, we have one. Liberals won that victory. However, existing citizens now face the risk that the social safety net designed for them will be bankrupted by extending benefits to millions of illegals who have not paid into the system. Where is the justice in that? What is the justice in jamming the emergency rooms, degrading the education of our children, and endangering the physical safety of our own people?
Progressives seem to feel guilty about our wealth. To them, it is all a product of exploitation and thus ill-gotten; therefore, you have no right to your existing standard of living. They feel it should be forcibly shared with the entire world. They hate capitalism and see mass immigration as a global share-the-wealth exercise.
We, the producers of the wealth, those who have paid taxes, served in the military and served our communities, have no right to challenge their sociological theories, according to progressives.
Objections to their theories can only stem from racism, in their view. Progressives are good, and conservatives are evil.
Conservatives believe that wealth is earned and created. Not all people are wealth creators. We believe in a system of private ownership and freedom. Because of people’s inherent differences, outcomes will always differ. Everyone should be equal before the law, but differences in intelligence, drive, and even luck will always make outcomes different.
Progressives say if all outcomes are not the same, such disparate outcomes can ONLY be attributed to racism and power dynamics. Therefore, selective systems for sorting out immigrants are racist. This is simply DEI applied on an international scale and enforced with immigration policy.
Progressives also see a lot of potential voters and thus wish to gain a permanent electoral advantage. They believe mass immigration will produce a dependent class that will reliably vote Democratic.
A book called The Emerging Democratic Majority was written in 2004. It posited that inner-city minorities, women, and immigrants would give the Democrats a permanent voting majority. This became pretty much the Democrats’ playbook.
They respond by saying a plan to import a new constituency is a lie and conspiracy theory. Why do they object to legislation making only citizens eligible to vote if it is? Why do they violate existing immigration laws? Their actions speak louder than their words.
So not only are Progressives basically suggesting we accept a variant of international socialism (share our wealth globally), but they are also willing to break fundamental rules that created our freedom.
The struggle leading to the 1770s was a long battle between the King and his subjects. From the Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution to the founding Revolution in the US, the whole struggle culminated in the idea that the legislature writes the laws and derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
The struggle for freedom rejected the idea of kings’ or bureaucrats’ divine right to rule through edict.
Progressives have violated these principles by simply ignoring the written law, failing to enforce it, and substituting their theories through bureaucratic edicts. This is not so different from the king’s whim being implemented by his administrative team.
In addition, after illegal immigrants break the law to enter the country, Democrats lavish benefits upon them, offer them amnesty and get them registered to vote. And they dump them into communities, expecting citizens to heartily welcome the increase in crime, the disruption of education, and the reductions in social services.
Democrats basically say that the needs of newcomers trump the responsibilities the government has to existing citizens.
Conservatives suggest that putting illegals ahead of Americans has the whole equation backward.
Biden, Harris, and their appointee, Mayorkas, have violated their oath of office to enforce the law. In doing so, they attacked the structures of freedom that gave government legitimacy and did grave harm to the rule of law.
So, Conservatives object not only to the theories behind mass immigration but also to the way it is being done in violation of the law, the separation of powers, and the laws of the country.
Previous waves of immigration required families to finance the trip and support their relations. It was not state-subsidized.
Where the law stands now, immigrants need to go through the naturalization process. Many comply with the law today, while others are arbitrarily encouraged to violate the rules.
The Democrats basically have said we will abet millions of lawbreakers. Through Federal agencies and tax-free NGOs and charities, we will circumvent the law because, while we don’t have the votes to change the existing law, we will aid those who openly violate the law.
In short, there is no rule of law, and the legislature is not really writing the laws; the King has said otherwise.
Finally, history shows that the successful assimilation of immigrants is best done with the “melting pot.”
The phrase is often used but rarely described.
Most previous waves of immigrants were family members reuniting. Those early immigrants helped new immigrants assimilate, often in ethnic neighborhoods. They helped their relatives fit in and succeed.
The model has been broken. Instead, the government snatches random groups and transports them into communities that are not full of existing assimilated countrymen.
The melting pot also played a role in public schools and civic groups. But today, even in primary school, curricula teach children to hate the host country, which is racist and evil to the core. How can self-hating Americans integrate newcomers into a despised and hateful society? With a pervasive attitude, one wonders why immigrants should even wish to come to such an awful country in the first place.
In short, progressives have destroyed the role of family and ethnic neighborhoods and the public schools to operate effectively “the melting pot.”
True, there is assimilation taking place, but progressives are deliberately trying to make the process difficult and less effective. Assimilation often occurs despite the wreckage progressives have made of our schools and civic institutions.
Many immigrants must be puzzled. They know life is better here, so they risked life, limb, and treasure to get here. However, many of the social workers and teachers seem to think the host country is awful. Thankfully, many immigrants know better.
Thus, the argument about immigration is on two levels. One side has a theory that all cultures are equal, are beneficial, and can be easily integrated into society. They believe your wealth can be shared with the world without your consent or that of elected officials. If the law stands in the way, ignore it and, in essence, write a new law by bureaucratic edict.
The Conservative side says cultures are not equal; some have sound, and some have destructive features. We are not obligated to let people in the country who are a danger to others and lack essential skills to support themselves. We have the right and obligation to be selective.
The interests of citizens come first before those of newcomers; illegals should not be allowed to vote, and foreigners should not determine the outcome of our elections.
Illegal migrants should not get immediate benefits from the social safety net to which they have not contributed. To do so endangers the benefits of those who have followed the law and contributed to the programs.
Moreover, the way Democrats have gone about cramming their theories down our throats violates the rule of law and the legitimacy of the government itself. The executive branch fails to enforce existing laws and then substitutes its edicts for what should be “real law” written by the legislative branch.
The result is social chaos and grave injustices inflicted upon this nation’s citizens. But then again, if you don’t believe in the idea of “citizen” or “nation,” you proceed because it helps the progressives gain and entrench power so that they become a permanent majority and can remake society to comport with their dreams and theories.
In summary, there are many theoretical and practical reasons for opposing mass, unvetted, government-sponsored immigration. Progressives are breaking the law, destabilizing the social safety net, endangering public safety, and deliberately impeding the functioning of the melting pot with their identity politics. All of this seems to be for the purpose of gaining and maintaining political power.
It is cleverly cloaked in Leftist morality, but the aim is permanent political power.
No earthly institutions—nations, clubs, schools, or companies—don’t require some criteria for entry. Come to think of it, even the Lord discriminates among those who can enter his Heavenly kingdom.
