“Our current immigration policies will make the United States a poorer, grimmer, more dangerous country for everyone. Hispanics expect to gain increasing power by increasing their numbers, but they will find they have gained power in a country that increasingly resembles the failed nations from which they thought they had escaped. It is in everyone’s interests to cut immigration close to zero.”-Jared Taylor
It’s far more cost-effective to keep the customers you have than to continuously recruit new ones. This fundamental and common-sense business axiom is jettisoned when it comes to citizens of a country, however. Newsweek seems to think America getting “less white” will save it from itself, but all it will do is further fragment a society running perilously low on common ties to bind. We have for some reason decided that “diversity” is an intrinsic good without ever stopping to interrogate that notion. Let me be clear: diversity for its own sake is fundamentally irrational. By all metrics it damages and fractures any community, state, or even country so “enriched” by it, and yet it has become one of the central deities of the Leftist pantheon, as uncritically interrogated as you would expect for an ideology demanding blind faith.
In fact, open borders has so cheapened the meaning of “citizenship” there is no incentive whatsoever to become Americanized
Central to the push for “diversity” is an immigration policy that seeks to bring as many people whose civilizational outlooks are diametrically opposed to ours as possible in order to imbue what was a previously moribund culture with the vibrancy of long-eradicated diseases, crime, mistrust, dysfunction, and societal breakdown. For Victor Davis Hanson:
The more non-Westerners abandon their homelands and flee to the West—especially en masse and illegally—the more these immigrants ironically seek to replicate in their new country the very cultural conditions they forsook. All immigrants from time immemorial are naturally schizophrenic about their homelands—they romanticize their country of origin in the abstract, while experiencing relief that their new home is not like the old one they abandoned.
As Hanson noted, however, the relief of being in a functioning society doesn’t extend to the ready acknowledgement that it is obviously doing something right, and a majority of immigrants therefore continue to sentimentalize their homelands and the dysfunction they left behind and prove unwilling or unable to adapt their beliefs, customs, and attitudes to their new environs. They do not replicate the conditions of achievement in a modern society in their personal lives, nor do they cherish the principles of freedom upon which the United States was built, and it has a very destructive ripple effect. This is not to be unexpected, particularly when there is no filter for those who arrive nor any pressure to assimilate and discard previous loyalties. In fact, open borders has so cheapened the meaning of “citizenship” there is no incentive whatsoever to become Americanized; in fact, the benefits generally accrue to those least integrated.
No individual has a “right” to immigrate anywhere—this privilege is extended by a government on behalf of its citizens with the understanding that the relationship will be a reciprocal one; that is to say, both sides affect a positive impact on each other. The immigrant will necessarily discard all past loyalties and adhere to the norms, values, customs, and traditions of their new nation. I apologize if this seems a little “basic bitch,” but it’s important to remember that we elect government officials to serve as stewards of their constituents and to act in our interests. There’s a reason we call them “representatives.” Mass immigration does not benefit anyone except for those low-skill immigrants and aliens whose low wages by our standards are downright lavish compared to where they come from, and the detached political class and their wealthy benefactors, which includes Big Labor.
Ideally immigrants will come from compatible cultures, and they will not come in transformative numbers—if they are allowed to come at all. This is wholly discretionary. Assimilation is a difficult process for even the most related of cultures. Valuing the most alien and the most unassimilable, as the Left does, and in huge numbers, is producing the fracturing any logical person would expect. The percentage of Americans born abroad is at least 13.4% (where the Pew Research Center placed it in 2015, the most recent number I could find), and it stands at a whopping 27% in California (both figures exclude the 11-30 million illegal aliens). Over 20% of U.S. residents do not speak English at home. As Steven A. Camarota reports:
In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households…Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare…Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.
The Left wants to transform the United States first into a direct democracy, which inevitably degenerates into tyranny.
What’s more, those who benefit most from the dispensation of others’ money will logically continue to vote for the party most aggressive in transferring taxpayers’ hard-earned money to curry political favor and votes in a process Gavin McInnes calls “insider trading.” For example, in the 2016 presidential election, 89% of blacks and 66% of Hispanics voted for Hillary Clinton. This is of course not the only factor, but it is one powerful incentive. Indeed, despite their economic success, 65% of Asians voted Clinton in the election. Just 37% of whites voted for Hillary Clinton; with the non-white voting share of the Democrat Party at a whopping 44% nationally, it is clear that, as Tucker Carlson puts it:
Democrats aren’t simply the pro-immigration party. They’ve become the anti-border party. The party opposed to citizenship itself. They don’t want the border secured. They oppose the deportation of anyone, under any circumstances, even criminal offenses. Dems believe illegal aliens accused of murder deserve protection from you more than you deserve protection from them. They care more about Ivan Zamarripa-Castaneda than they care about you. They’ll ignore and undermine federal law on his behalf. Would they do that for you? Never.
In such an environment, to say nothing of the rancor and hostility that governs politics these days, how can we be expected to have anything resembling a civil discourse? The present racial spoils system is a zero-sum game. “Diversity” in this context is anything but inclusive. It’s all well and good for the “Intellectual Dark Web” to wax poetic about “democratic values” and “pluralism,” but these are concepts developed and implemented in homogeneous, high-trust European societies, and they took centuries if not millennia to develop; they cannot exist in a state of constant ethnic tension. Democracy is built on a social contract, a mutual respect among citizens. When citizenship becomes cheapened, when it becomes something anyone can attain with minimal effort—indeed, when illegals are given privileges beyond the average citizen—the social contract breaks down, and democracy becomes what Polybius termed “ochlocracy,” or mob rule. The Left wants to transform the United States first into a direct democracy, which inevitably degenerates into tyranny. The inexorable slide into totalitarianism is being witnessed in a number of Western democratic countries who do not have the same system of checks-and-balances the United States has. As Andrew Fraser states:
European man alone bears the spirit of civic republicanism, a tradition still largely alien to other races and peoples…There is no shortage of evidence that the Changs, the Gonzales, and the Singhs (not to mention the Goldmans with their well-known animus toward WASPs) still practice forms of ethnic nepotism strictly forbidden to Anglo-Protestants…WASPs are trusting souls. For that very reason they can be exploited easily by those who promise one thing and do another. . . . Mass Third World immigration imposes enormous risks upon Anglo-Saxon societies grounded in unique patterns of trusting behavior that evolved over many centuries. If newcomers do not accept the burdens entailed by the civic culture of the host society—most notably the need to forswear one’s pre-existing racial, ethnic and religious allegiances—they are bound to reduce the benefits of good citizenship for the host Anglo-Saxon nation.
The phrase “Demography is destiny,” is an uncomfortable truth for many of us to accept, believing that all people cherish liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. Consider the Democratic Party platform: it consists mostly of hand-outs, blaming, shaming, and the restriction, not expansion, of rights—unless of course you happen to belong to one of their privileged classes. Paul Kersey is right—if the Democrats get their way, it will soon be illegal to arrest black people…and illegal aliens, party donors, and everyone else nestled in their rotten embrace. The Democrat Party has become explicitly anti-American and anti-white in its extreme rhetoric and policies. The kind of America they are striving to create is one of strife and dysfunction, one where we can’t trust each other, where we lock our doors and bar our windows, and retreat from public life and civic engagement to buying stuff on Amazon and binge-watching Netflix.
What happens next is classic divide-and-conquer for this isolated, disaffected, and easy-to-control population; suspicion and conflict become the order of the day, problems only a “strong” (that being a euphemism for totalitarian) government can solve.