We Are a Nation of Immigrants…but:
The “nation of immigrants” rhetoric is rarely part of a fully formed thought or constructive observation; it’s more of a pleasant noise. In that way, the “nation of immigrants” claptrap rhymes along with the “diversity is a strength” mantra. Like many clichés, these phrases are repeated so often that their meaning is totally lost, if there ever was any.
The nation of immigrants that we once were has been changed. The nation we once were has been disunited by multiculturalism, racial grievances, and class warfare. In response, we must stop admitting people to this nation who will contribute to tribalism and the welfare state.
By Charles Martel/American Thinker
In any debate about immigration, the response you are likely to get will probably include the sickly-sweet mantra, “We’re a nation of immigrants.”
Whether you’re pointing out that illegal immigrants are driving down wages, failing to assimilate, or promoting the welfare state, the answer is predictable: “We’re a nation of immigrants.”
The “nation of immigrants” mantra is often a plea for compassion toward immigrants. The phrase reflects a desperate, well-meaning desire to rationalize the presence of people who are violating our laws and patronizing the welfare system. The trouble is that repeating a phrase does nothing to enforce our law, preserve our culture, or keep the welfare-state Leviathan at bay.
“We’re a nation of immigrants” is an accurate description as far as it goes, but it leaves out several facts whose omission renders the phrase extremely misleading, and totally meaningless.
We were a nation of legal immigrants, almost all of whom arrived as part of a planned legal process, many via Ellis Island. We are a nation of immigrants who, in the past, didn’t depend on the welfare state — even if for no better reason than that there was not much of a welfare state in the past. We were once a nation of immigrants who assimilated instead of maintaining multicultural divisions, as modern immigrants tend to do. There are serious differences between the immigrants who arrived to America in the 19th and early 20th centuries and those who are arriving today, Hispanics in particular.
The late political scientist Samuel Huntington, in his classic 2004 essay “The Hispanic Challenge,” outlined six profound differences that make Hispanic immigration “the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity.” Huntington wrote:
Contemporary Mexican and, more broadly, Latin American immigration is without precedent in U.S. history. … Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence.
Contiguity refers to the fact that no other first-world country has such an extensive border with a third-world country, and the wealth gap between the U.S. and Mexico is the largest between two bordering countries in the world. As for scale, the largest group of our foreign-born population in 1960 were Italians, numbering just over one million, but in 2000, the largest group of foreign-born were 8 million Mexicans. The illegality is absolutely without comparison and “is overwhelmingly a post-1965 and Mexican phenomenon,” as Huntington notes. Hispanic immigration tends to be regionally concentrated, which blocks assimilation. Unlike immigration from Europe, which slowed after World War I, the persistence of Hispanic immigration is essentially unbroken. Finally, and most troubling, our historical relationship with Mexico gives rise to the belief that the American southwest was stolen from Hispanics and should be retaken, which is a view far more common than most would like to admit. Repeating mantras about “a nation of immigrants” is child’s play in the face of these staggering problems.
Huntington’s analysis was incredibly prescient and deserves to be the starting point of any discussion of amnesty or euphemisms for amnesty such as “comprehensive immigration reform.” There is not a single Republic politician or Beltway pundit today who better understands the impact of Hispanic immigration on American life than Huntington did.
But for those who want a cheap and easy way to avoid critical discussion of illegal immigration, “we’re a nation of immigrants” is the go-to response. From the vapid college liberal to the compassionate conservative who wants to make a dog and pony show of magnanimity, the phrase is a quick fix of atonement. After being browbeaten for maintaining a racist society, many white conservatives are itching for an opportunity to grovel. As a result, people who are not racist are supporting self-destructive amnesty in a vain effort to show that they aren’t racist. And what better way to show racial open-mindedness than with an open border? Too many Republicans gripe about the welfare state while cheerleading the immigration that guarantees a larger welfare state.
The “nation of immigrants” rhetoric is rarely part of a fully formed thought or constructive observation; it’s more of a pleasant noise. In that way, the “nation of immigrants” claptrap rhymes along with the “diversity is a strength” mantra. Like many clichés, these phrases are repeated so often that their meaning is totally lost, if there ever was any.
Our essential retort to immigration mantras should be that we are a nation of laws, amnesty rewards people who disrespect our laws, and only legal immigration is welcome.
The nation of immigrants that we once were has been changed. The nation we once were has been disunited by multiculturalism, racial grievances, and class warfare. In response, we must stop admitting people to this nation who will contribute to tribalism and the welfare state.
From Ian: Latma: Channel 10's amazing scoop [youtube http://www.y 
From BBC: Egyptian police have sealed off the Rafah border crossing wi 
From New York Daily News: Federal authorities Thursday scrambled to fi 
From Ma'an: The Abdul Qader al-Husseini brigades on Thursday clai 
Haaretz's Barak Ravid reports that US Secretary of State John FN 
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone. Moshe Averick destroys Yesh Atid 
US officials told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday to expect more I 
A bipartisan group of Congressional Representatives has urged 'm 
Charles Krauthammer destroys President Hussein Obama on his response t 
Those poor starving Gazans are now able to get Kentucky Fried Chicken 
Hot off her attempt to 'get' the Haredim by declaring discri 
According to a report in the New York Times, Russia has sent Yakhont a 
{ 9 comments }
America can’t afford to allow even legal immigrants in let alone illegal ones. American is broke and the U.S. Congress continues importing 100,000 legal green card-holding immigrants every 30 days.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty820.htm
I am 70 years old and could really give a shit…I am on my way out…you deal with it…and the stupid mooslimes!
Gerald,
Legal immigrants do not take from America. The vast majority want to add their wealth and education to be a part of America and for the privileged of being American.
If you are not aware, when legal immigrants sign for their Green Card, they are prohibited from asking/ obtaining for any form of welfare for five years. Plus, legal immigrants have to show that they have the wealth and the economic means to come into America.
However, illegal immigrants can ask and be given welfare within 24 hours of entering the US and it is pretty much the same in the UK.
Go figure.
That is why, if we our honest we have to admit, Western governments have created a two tier immigrations system. One for legal immigrants who governments hold to the letter of the law. And a less stringent tier for illegal immigrants who they do not hold the individuals to the same letter of the law. And will even, go so far as reward them for breaking the law or multiple laws.
Marxist political parties get re-elected on immigrant vote, however their evil power grabbing is leaving a stench, they have become repulsive.
slobo,
bad attitude mate – it is partly because people “couldn’t give a shit” that arsehole politicains have been allowed to ruin Oz. If you are pissed of then take it out on those that caused your problems, and that is almost certainly not the folks on this site.
Any country can cope, if it is willing to enforce its own laws.
The problem is less the legality of the immigrants, but the govs Carte Blanche for all those poor, misunderstood ‘refugees’.
Truth is, refugees are happy to arrive, eager to fit in and proud to work.
Those demanding arrogantly that we ‘accommodate’ them, just want to spread the misery around.
the Racism of Low Expectations!
Georgie W. B. Peorgie said today that we should welcome immigrants because they bring new skills and ideas. I’m assume he’s talking about new ways to perpetrate crime, commit terrorism and institute sharia? Is he now working for the EU? I mean, WHAT economy can they help and WHAT gap do they fill? There are not enough jobs for the immigrants that are here now! The only thing immigrants do is burden the economy with more people doing nothing, having babies, creating trouble, committing crime, driving without licenses or insurance, stealing construction materials, etc. The EU keeps screaming for more immigrants for nonexistent jobs while a good forty percent of them are sitting on their asses collecting welfare and thinking of ways to destroy civilization. It seems to me that immigrants serve nothing but the welfare/race industry. A very small minority serve a very few while the rest of us have to subsidize their welfare, arrest, trial and incarceration. It’s just more corporate socialism to me.
@Georgina,
Brilliant phrase, “the Racism of Low Expectations!”
The problem with the word ‘refugee’ is that everyone on this forum knows that it is a canard used by economic migrants who are one nationality claiming to be another nationality for the convenience of gaining easy entry into the west.
“We are a nation of immigants,” is cliche, similarly to “Support our Troops”. But, that does not mean it doesn’t have a deep meaning at its roots, and the assumption that today’s immigrants are simply people taking advantage of a “welfare state” is an example of trying to disprove one cliche with another. Because some take advantage of the social safety nets, does not mean that all, or even a crucial percentage, do. The people here illegally, at least the ones I have come across, are more hard-working, add more to the economy, than the average working citizen. The real welfare state, IMHO, are today’s corporations, who make their profits with so much externalized costs as to be obscene.
One other comment. This is my first time on this site. If you look at your writers, your commentary, and your own description of this site, calling this site satirical seems like a lazy excuse for not creating something with more of an understandable core. It’s like asking republicans to make serious comments on Stephen Colbert’s remarks, only Steve Colbert is consistently satirical. Well, that’s how it seems to me.
Cheers,
Ray Teurfs
Comments on this entry are closed.