Monday, January 5, 2015

Immigration and The National Interest

I have always been a strong proponent of nationalism when it comes to the United States.
The notion of American nationalism is an ideal worth defending. We are a nation of nations, ironically enough, bound together not by the traditional fascist symbols of nationalism, race, ethnicity, or empire; but by ideals embodied in the greatest political documents ever written, the Declaration and the Constitution. The left sees our riches and feels guilt, assuming they are the result of plunder. In fact, they are the result of trade, invention and industry.
So what are to make of the left's desire for unfettered immigration and the business class' desire for working class immigration? How do they accord with the national interest? I submit that they do not.  While some immigration of skilled workers is in the national interest, wholesale immigration that undermines national values, strains our infrastructure and depresses wages does not help the nation.  We have built the most stable wealthy and freest nation in the world. We are under no obligation to allow centuries of work to be undone by unfettered immigration and a generous welfare state.  I am certain that the left looks to mass immigration to change the character of the nation for that very reason, out of their resentment at the success that liberty and a strong constitutional order have wrought.

Take a look at Sweden, where immigrants from war-torn countries in the Middle East are never turned away.  The presence of so many immigrants is leading to a vast increase in crime and especially rape (actual rape, not imaginary frat house rape.) It is also causing the erosion of legitimate political debate as the parties of both right and left have cut a deal to prevent any debate on immigration at all.  CDR Salamander has the story:
As large boats drift throughout the Mediterranean Sea, waiting to come ashore; as open borders to the east and south minimize barriers to entry, and a political elite who are tuning out the concerns of its own people - and more importantly - want to make sure no one calls them a nasty name - well, where does this go?. . .For immigration to work where the people lack education, technical skill, and cultural literacy; if they come to work hard and contribute to society, most of the friction will come only from the indigenous population who are on the lower side of the economic spectrum whose wages are depressed (another reason to keep unskilled immigration at low levels, it impacts most your nation's most economically vulnerable). However - what if they come to only take? 
. . . 
It doesn't have to be this way. Smart, humane, and economically sound policies are out there to keep things manageable without asking a people to commit cultural suicide or to turn to their darker natures to preserve their unique culture.
Sultan Knish argues that both the left and the business class take their cues on immigration from the concept of empire, which is the opposite of nationalism and that only nationalism can beat back the forces of empire.
The argument between the establishments of the right and the left is over two different kinds of empires. The Republican establishment in America and its various center-right counterparts abroad have attached themselves to the liberal vision of a transnational empire of international law so much that they have forgotten that this vision came from the left, rather than from the right.
This Empire of International Law proved to have some uses for global trade and security, particularly during the Cold War. These practical arrangements however are overshadowed by the fact that it, like every empire, sacrifices the interests of its peoples to its own structure. This is true of the structure at every level, from the EU to the Federal structure of the United States. The system has displaced the people. And the system runs on principles that require cheap labor leading to policies like amnesty.
While I agree that immigration of skilled workers will help our economy, we have a right and duty to control who and how many to ensure that the interests of the American people are upheld.  This is why Obama's policies, which have only encouraged a new flood of illegal immigration are so treacherous.  His message to Central America was almost explicitly a call to violate our borders.  He did so in the very best leftist tradition.

Our only hope is that the forces driving immigration from across the borders are subsiding.  For the first time in quite a while, Mexico did not supply the majority of illegal border crossers into America.  I predicted over a year ago that illegal immigration from Mexico would slow.  Now that it has, it makes it easier to secure the border and get on with overall immigration reform.


  1. ..."(actual rape, not imaginary frat house rape.)"

    Why would you write that!? You didn't need to address your point with that line. Rape is rape. Yes,there are behaviors that can put someone at risk of sexual assault(accepting a drink from someone else,not watching your drink etc) but you didn't need to write that! I know you didn't mean to be malicious or insensitive to certain victims of sexual violence but was that statement really warranted?

    1. Rape is on the decline in the U.S. unlike those countries with an influx of Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants. But the leftist press believes made up stories about frat houses in order to denigrate white males. That's why I used to that term.