Lots of intriguing points and concerns raised here. My approach will be to explore those ideas through a close-up view of one particular man. I don't really aim to "educate" anyone so much as to take an empathetic but unsentimental look at one complete life that was lived in the context of these questions. Hopefully anyone who reads it comes away aware of these and other complex questions and deepens their own perspective.
Joe, you bring up some really good points. My questions are similar and have to do with assimilation. Regardless of what the color/culture of a state is originally, too much immigration without assimilation is dangerous for all. The laws are designed based on the cultural norms of those that wrote them. Add a new group of significant size and there is discontent, even violence on all sides. I think any immigration policy must be structured around assimilation. Ironically, one thing that seems to foster assimilation is intolerance.
Tolerance is not a virtue. You do not tolerate that which is inherently good.
The current regime is not only tolerating, but actively encouraging, 10,000+ fake refugees waltzing across the border daily.
Changing the people at this scale will change the culture. Import the third world; become the third world.
The massive scale of 12 million + imported during the Biden regime dilutes the voting power of every American citizen as well, directly and indirectly. The US census apportion the House of Representatives based on total population, so large numbers of illegal aliens living in America rig the apportionment process beyond lowering wages and increasing housing costs.
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free. Perhaps there is a reason these people could not build a functional society in which they wanted to remain?
Additionally, to your point on cultural compatibility, consider this:
The founders considered the entrance requirements of the country to be more important than the Bill of Rights (government restrictions). The Naturalization Act of 1790 (March 26) was passed before the 1st, 2nd and 3rd amendments (Dec 15, 1791). This is how radical the 1965 Immigration Act was in transforming the country. The founders' first act in constructing the new govt was to define citizenship, and secondary was the 10 amendment limits on the governing body for the specific type of people to become Americans. The Bill of Rights only applied to the original citizens. Hence the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This wasn't done because the founders hated other peoples, but that different peoples create different commons and different behavioral norms that have to be mitigated.
If you want to centralize and consolidate power the best thing to do is import peripheral client classes who are totally dependent on you to erode the influence of current citizens that may be independent enough to be loyal to something besides the regime.
This strategy is nothing new, leaders in ancient Rome used it to consolidate power, now your oligarchy is using it to demolish what remains of the America middle class.
Your rulers will feed what remains of the American middle class to the new voters they're importing by the millions; Any meager degree of self-sufficiency or loyalty to old America is a threat to the regime so they pick the bones of the kulaks clean before replacing them
When a country's demographics changes abruptly in the span of 2 generations:
If the country was originally brown: this is ethnic cleansing/genocide.
If the country was originally white: desirable unavoidable multiculturalization resulting from progress.
Everyone in the world is allowed to prefer to live among white people; except white people.
What limiting principle(s), if any, do you believe should be involved with immigration policies?
Let's start at the beginning. Will you educate your readers on the origin of whiteness in our immigration laws? Chronological history is important context to explain how we got here, instead of cherry picking excerpts from in between the origin of American immigration laws and our current scramble for America.
Is America a nation or empire? Was it a nation or empire when founded?
na·tion
/ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
em·pire
/ˈemˌpī(ə)r/
noun
1.
an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
The first US immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, restricted immigration for free white people of good character. Many of the founding fathers including the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote about why they thought this would be wise:
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that 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, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
"With greater empathy," you feel "hope of achieving comprehensive immigration reform, or even beginning a rational dialogue toward it." How do you define "comprehensive immigration reform?" That's usually a euphemism for perpetual amnesty. Perhaps wisdom should be a higher priority than empathy. Regardless, if there is a shared goal it must be clearly defined and not open to ambiguity.
The Barbara Jordan Commission was a genuine effort at comprehensive immigration reform as follows:
Barbara Jordan Commission
In 1995, former Texas Congresswoman and civil rights champion, Barbara Jordan, chaired the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The Commission, which was mandated by Congress with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, made the most thorough examination of the impact of U.S. immigration policies of any federal commission to date. The final recommendations were presented to Congress and President Clinton in 1997 more than six years after the commission was formed.
The Commissions recommendations to create a "credible, coherent immigrant and immigration policy" and a "credible, efficient naturalization process" included the following:
a scale back of family chain-migration by implementing a prioritization of family relationships to determine who will be admitted through family-based immigration. Spouses and minor children of US citizens would continue to be admitted as first priority;
elimination of other family-based admission categories, including:
Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
Adult, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents; and
Siblings of U.S. citizens.
a focus on the admission of highly-skilled individuals to support the national interest by bringing to the U.S. individuals whose skills would benefit our society. Recommended the elimination of the admission of unskilled workers and elimination of the diversity visa lottery;
immigration admissions level of 550,000 per year, to be divided as follows:
Nuclear family immigration 400,000;
Skill-based immigration 100,000;
Refugee resettlement 50,000.
Stressed deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.
Society is a racial construct. There is no magic dirt or blank slate universalist delusions in reality. No two people are equal, let alone subspecies, and as a result there is a disparate impact in everything that can be measured by group statistics, from murder rates to NBA participation. Disparate impact does not mean murder laws are racist nor that the NBA should have DEI or racial quotas. Importing people illiterate in their own language and likely to be a lifetime burden on America is foolish, unless it helps you gain power and/or employment I suppose.
We should just end the asylum system. That entire framework was designed to handle ww2-style continent-scale total war, not: “my country kind of sucks and I'm poor" fake refugees coordinated by the welfare-immigration industrial complex.
Some version of South Africa/Brazil/ Guatemala is coming to America soon. Regime-approved anarcho-tyranny and uncontrolled immigration will see a new divide between rich and poor, between those who can isolate themselves from the chaos and those who are swallowed in it. Predatory billionaires seeking global labor arbitrage have more influence on America's immigration policies than the majority of American citizens. Every time US citizens get a chance to vote against mass immigration, they do, but the kritarchy overrules Our Democracy.
American liberalism isn’t really about liberty. It’s about the “open society,” which is to say, the universal society—which is to say in turn, the imperial society. It’s totalizing, homogenizing, and proselytizing, even if it lets you specify your pronouns. It is a global supremacist movement that's only principle is the acquisition and maintenance of power by any means necessary.
Lots of intriguing points and concerns raised here. My approach will be to explore those ideas through a close-up view of one particular man. I don't really aim to "educate" anyone so much as to take an empathetic but unsentimental look at one complete life that was lived in the context of these questions. Hopefully anyone who reads it comes away aware of these and other complex questions and deepens their own perspective.
Joe, you bring up some really good points. My questions are similar and have to do with assimilation. Regardless of what the color/culture of a state is originally, too much immigration without assimilation is dangerous for all. The laws are designed based on the cultural norms of those that wrote them. Add a new group of significant size and there is discontent, even violence on all sides. I think any immigration policy must be structured around assimilation. Ironically, one thing that seems to foster assimilation is intolerance.
Monica,
Tolerance is not a virtue. You do not tolerate that which is inherently good.
The current regime is not only tolerating, but actively encouraging, 10,000+ fake refugees waltzing across the border daily.
Changing the people at this scale will change the culture. Import the third world; become the third world.
The massive scale of 12 million + imported during the Biden regime dilutes the voting power of every American citizen as well, directly and indirectly. The US census apportion the House of Representatives based on total population, so large numbers of illegal aliens living in America rig the apportionment process beyond lowering wages and increasing housing costs.
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free. Perhaps there is a reason these people could not build a functional society in which they wanted to remain?
Additionally, to your point on cultural compatibility, consider this:
The founders considered the entrance requirements of the country to be more important than the Bill of Rights (government restrictions). The Naturalization Act of 1790 (March 26) was passed before the 1st, 2nd and 3rd amendments (Dec 15, 1791). This is how radical the 1965 Immigration Act was in transforming the country. The founders' first act in constructing the new govt was to define citizenship, and secondary was the 10 amendment limits on the governing body for the specific type of people to become Americans. The Bill of Rights only applied to the original citizens. Hence the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This wasn't done because the founders hated other peoples, but that different peoples create different commons and different behavioral norms that have to be mitigated.
High-Low vs the Middle:
If you want to centralize and consolidate power the best thing to do is import peripheral client classes who are totally dependent on you to erode the influence of current citizens that may be independent enough to be loyal to something besides the regime.
This strategy is nothing new, leaders in ancient Rome used it to consolidate power, now your oligarchy is using it to demolish what remains of the America middle class.
Your rulers will feed what remains of the American middle class to the new voters they're importing by the millions; Any meager degree of self-sufficiency or loyalty to old America is a threat to the regime so they pick the bones of the kulaks clean before replacing them
When a country's demographics changes abruptly in the span of 2 generations:
If the country was originally brown: this is ethnic cleansing/genocide.
If the country was originally white: desirable unavoidable multiculturalization resulting from progress.
Everyone in the world is allowed to prefer to live among white people; except white people.
What limiting principle(s), if any, do you believe should be involved with immigration policies?
Let's start at the beginning. Will you educate your readers on the origin of whiteness in our immigration laws? Chronological history is important context to explain how we got here, instead of cherry picking excerpts from in between the origin of American immigration laws and our current scramble for America.
Is America a nation or empire? Was it a nation or empire when founded?
na·tion
/ˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
em·pire
/ˈemˌpī(ə)r/
noun
1.
an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
The first US immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, restricted immigration for free white people of good character. Many of the founding fathers including the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote about why they thought this would be wise:
"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that 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, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
"With greater empathy," you feel "hope of achieving comprehensive immigration reform, or even beginning a rational dialogue toward it." How do you define "comprehensive immigration reform?" That's usually a euphemism for perpetual amnesty. Perhaps wisdom should be a higher priority than empathy. Regardless, if there is a shared goal it must be clearly defined and not open to ambiguity.
The Barbara Jordan Commission was a genuine effort at comprehensive immigration reform as follows:
Barbara Jordan Commission
In 1995, former Texas Congresswoman and civil rights champion, Barbara Jordan, chaired the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. The Commission, which was mandated by Congress with the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, made the most thorough examination of the impact of U.S. immigration policies of any federal commission to date. The final recommendations were presented to Congress and President Clinton in 1997 more than six years after the commission was formed.
The Commissions recommendations to create a "credible, coherent immigrant and immigration policy" and a "credible, efficient naturalization process" included the following:
a scale back of family chain-migration by implementing a prioritization of family relationships to determine who will be admitted through family-based immigration. Spouses and minor children of US citizens would continue to be admitted as first priority;
elimination of other family-based admission categories, including:
Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
Adult, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens;
Adult, unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent residents; and
Siblings of U.S. citizens.
a focus on the admission of highly-skilled individuals to support the national interest by bringing to the U.S. individuals whose skills would benefit our society. Recommended the elimination of the admission of unskilled workers and elimination of the diversity visa lottery;
immigration admissions level of 550,000 per year, to be divided as follows:
Nuclear family immigration 400,000;
Skill-based immigration 100,000;
Refugee resettlement 50,000.
Stressed deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.
Society is a racial construct. There is no magic dirt or blank slate universalist delusions in reality. No two people are equal, let alone subspecies, and as a result there is a disparate impact in everything that can be measured by group statistics, from murder rates to NBA participation. Disparate impact does not mean murder laws are racist nor that the NBA should have DEI or racial quotas. Importing people illiterate in their own language and likely to be a lifetime burden on America is foolish, unless it helps you gain power and/or employment I suppose.
We should just end the asylum system. That entire framework was designed to handle ww2-style continent-scale total war, not: “my country kind of sucks and I'm poor" fake refugees coordinated by the welfare-immigration industrial complex.
Some version of South Africa/Brazil/ Guatemala is coming to America soon. Regime-approved anarcho-tyranny and uncontrolled immigration will see a new divide between rich and poor, between those who can isolate themselves from the chaos and those who are swallowed in it. Predatory billionaires seeking global labor arbitrage have more influence on America's immigration policies than the majority of American citizens. Every time US citizens get a chance to vote against mass immigration, they do, but the kritarchy overrules Our Democracy.
American liberalism isn’t really about liberty. It’s about the “open society,” which is to say, the universal society—which is to say in turn, the imperial society. It’s totalizing, homogenizing, and proselytizing, even if it lets you specify your pronouns. It is a global supremacist movement that's only principle is the acquisition and maintenance of power by any means necessary.