Immigration

 

I subscribe to emails received from reporter Chris Rufo. He sent me his article on Immigration on 9/25/24. I quote all of his article and will comment where need be. The title of his article is: The Real Question of the Immigration Debate.

 

Rufo: “Political campaigns are symbolic ventures, designed to drive attention to certain issues and marshal facts, language, and emotion to deliver a material advantage. From Cicero’s campaign for the consulship to Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s campaigns for the presidency, it has always been thus.”

 

My response: If the candidate is ethical, sensible, competent, honest, and not overly mendacious or manipulative, and she offers the public an explicit, tangible agenda which aims to see fulfilled, then her political campaign as a symbolic venture is acceptable, for rituals, symbols and narratives provide people with meaning and cultural order.

 

If the voters were individuating supercitizens, they will relay to politicians that the facts, language, and emotion marshaled to deliver an advantage to a campaign, had better be a clear plan that actually is good for the people and the country. No more lies, no more excuses, no more hidden agendas, no more going to Washington get rich as a supporter of the Swamp.

 

Rufo: “This is a useful lens through which to view the current immigration debate. For several weeks, two-migrant related stories have dominated national attention: Venezuelan gang members apparently seizing apartments in Aurora, Colorado, and tensions resulting from large-scale Haitian migration in Springfield, Ohio. Beneath the surface of their rhetorical heat, the controversies pint to three questions of immigration policy: who, how, and how much.”

 

My response: Immigration should be sparing, limited, legal and enforced with illegal aliens sent home, or, if some stay, they are never allowed to become citizens and vote. Americans need closed, walled, enforced borders; America is for Americans, and it is a privilege to live here, and a privilege to immigrate here. We want immigrants, few in number, but that are patriotic, willing to assimilate completely into American culture as it is, and to learn English and be self-support and living legally.

 

Rufo: “Let’s be clear away some misconceptions. Both Trump and Harris’s stated views on immigration—which may not, of course, reflect their actual views—are more nuanced than commonly portrayed. In 2021, Harris warned illegal immigrants that ‘if you come to our border, you will be turned back,’ acknowledging, at least rhetorically that Americans have the right to decide who enters the country. Likewise, Trump, despite his restrictionist reputation, often interleaves calls to ‘build the wall’ with appeals to build a ‘beautiful door.’ In other words, between the candidates, the questions of who, how and how much are ordinal, rather than categorical.

 

The first and most controversial of those questions is ‘who.’ Progressives believe that human beings are interchangeable, and that all differences are socially constructed and ultimately arbitrary. At first glance, this position seems grounded in the theory of natural right encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence’s famous phrase ‘all men are created equal.’

 

My response: Largely, under natural right theory, all men or humans are created equal, so in theory an immigrant could come from any foreign country. Yes, in theory all people are interchangeable, but context is everything. All humans, instinctually are embedded in or would default accept living under a dispensation which is socialist, altruistic, groupist, non-Western and usually accepting of authoritarian homeland rule. People do not like themselves, and usually elect to be abused slaves, no matter where they hail from.

 

We need to be hyper-picky about whom we let in: they can be anyone from anywhere, as long as they conform to and eagerly seek to conform with American mainline values, culture, and politico-economic wonder of free market constitutional republicanism.

 

This best country that the world has ever seen should not allow very many foreigners ever to immigrate, and only those that mesh with our way of life. If not, they are refused entry. If they cheated and came here illegally, they are sent home.

 

Rufo: “But this ignores a critical distinction. Yes, all men are born equal—that is, they are all born with the same human fundamentals—but this does not imply that all cultures, or civilizations are equal. Among the principles that cultures adopt and inculcate in their members, some are better, others are worse; some are compatible with America’s traditions, some are not. For American immigration policy, this means that the ‘who’ matters.”

 

My response: I agree with this entire paragraph. The solution to protect America by very selective, with actually restrictive immigration enforcement. We need to work with foreign governments so they can move towards constitutional republicanism, free market economics, and adopting American values and culture, to make things so opportunistic, free, and prosperous at home, that immigrants really have no desire to come to America, because America is coming to them, and they can blend Americanism with their native ways at home, as they see fit.

 

Rufo: “The question of ‘who’ has historically involved considering migrants’ national origin. A more refined approach would include other characteristics, such as educational attainment, employment history, language skills, and cultural values. The United States, which has an interest in admitting immigrants capable of integration and economic productivity, is well within its rights to prefer, say, an English-speaking software developer from Venezuela over a violent, uneducated gang member from the same country.

 

On the same principle, we must acknowledge that immigrants from some cultures are more capable than others of assimilating to America.”

 

My response: It is not that some are more able to assimilate to America than others; rather many recent immigrants feel their culture and values are distinct from, even superior to American values and culture, and some ever seek to replace the American value system with a foreign hostile set of values, say set up shariah law and a caliphate all across America. If immigrant applicants, refuse to assimilate, they should be sent home, or not allowed in in the first place.

 

Rufo: “In much of the Muslim world, for example, majorities believe that honor killings are justified and that Sharia law ought to be enforced by the state. While many Muslim immigrants embrace Western values, some emphatically reject them, as demonstrated by the widespread pro-Hamas protests that have broken out in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre in Israel. Pluralism is valuable, but it has limits, and America ought to select newcomers who shared its core values.”

 

My response: If potential immigrants do not share core Western and American values, then they should not be admitted. Pluralism and multiculturalism are of limited value, and they can stay home and practice their cultural and value mores.

 

Rufo: “The next question is ‘how.’ The answer is not to be found at our southern border today, which has become an anarchic, free-for-all zone. While there will always be some degree of undocumented migration—the United States is, after all, still the land of opportunity—the numbers we have seen in recent years are unprecedented. Americans have the right to insist on a rational, orderly process of immigration, with clearly defined standards and a carefully crafted selection process.

 

The final question is ‘how much.’ To answer this, one must consider not only the sheer number of immigrants but also the amount of migration-driven demographic change occurring over time. Both the absolute size and pace of recent immigration give America to be more cautious in the recent moment, despite our unique ability to assimilate newcomers. Both that scale and speed of recent immigration—some 8 million new arrivals since Joe Biden’s presidency began—is putting enormous pressure on each level of government. Localities have struggled to meet surging demand for housing, medical care, and education, particularly given the proportion of migrants with limited earning potential and English language proficiency.

 

The debate in Springfield, Ohio is relevant here. There is a material difference between assimilating 150 Haitian migrants and 15,000 Haitian migrants into the fabric of a small town. The former is easily done; the second represents a transformative challenge. And progressive ideology, which discourages integration into the national culture and claims that assimilation is a form of racism, colonialism, and xenophobia. As the left reorients our institutions away from assimilation and toward multiculturalism, our capacity to immigrate newcomers will continue to degrade.”

 

My response: If an American was to immigrate to China, Japan, or a Muslim country, would be those countries of intake be tolerant of Western ways being retained by the migrant? Not likely: Americans are the least racist, colonialist, or xenophobic people in the world, so love it or you will not enter it—America, that is. Assimilate or stay home—Progressives, American-haters and often traitors to this greatest nation, be damned.

 

Rufo: “Across the developed world, mass migration is undermining native-born citizens’ quality of life and sparking a global anti-immigration backlash. Instead of insisting that these concerns are racist conspiracy theories, defenders of mass migration would do well to take them seriously.”

 

My response: You never solve a problem by relocating it, say mass forced exodus of the population from a bad neighborhood, or ghetto neighborhood, say, by taking 75,000 out of the 82,000 residents living in the blighted communities (say north Minneapolis and Philips neighborhoods in Minneapolis), and bussing them in 3 days, without notice and them unceremoniously depositing them in affluent, peaceful Woodbury (population: 80, 891 residents), and then ordering that city to absorb them painlessly.

 

I am not being racist, but people in blighted neighborhoods—yes, mostly nonwhite—if they moved enmasse to Woodbury, would destroy Woodbury. You have spread and metastasized the problem not solved it.

 

The cure is to take those 75,000 in north Minneapolis and in Philips neighborhood and introduce them to Mavellonialist values and culture. As individuating supercitzens, they would be model citizens, and in 15 years those inner-city neighborhoods would be as livable, desirable, prosperous and crime-free as they were in 1912 when the Norwegian and Jewish immigrants lived in those neighborhoods.

 

Similarly, to solve the problems of the underdeveloped and Third World nations, mass migration will not solve their problems at home, and will sink the developed nations as predictably as transplanting north Minneapolis and Philips neighborhood in neighborhoods along Interstate 94 in Woodbury.

 

We must limit our immigration to 300,000 people per year for the next ten years, until we are able to stabilize America, and undo the terrible damage intentionally done to America by the vicious Left.

 

The people of Third World countries desperately need democracy, republicanism, capitalism, freedom, law and order, and anti-corruption campaigns and God in their lives. With mass retraining on how to live, if they were interested in reforging themselves, this mass training for the peoples of Third World countries would work wonders for them at home.

 

If they are willing to learn from us, they would go far. For without the right values, the right economics and free, small, limited government, these countries remain hopeless hellholes that have to keep sending or allowing their unfortunate masses to migrate to the developed world, eventually tanking those countries that are functioning and desirable.

 

You do not cure a diseased population by exporting the infected members of the sick society to healthy societies with little of that sickness for spreading sickness will turn all societies into sick societies.

 

Rufo: “The best outcome for the United States, in the closing stretch of a presidential campaign, would be to engage in a real discussion about these questions, which the Left is intent on avoiding. For them, mass migration is a potential source of patronage and votes, best cultivated surreptitiously. But the country at large must grapple with immigration, in all its complexity. The nation’s future depends on it.”

 

My response: The only cure is to declare the American Way is the set of values and culture that are the best in the world, and, when Mavellonialist values and culture are added to, this superior civilization will enable any country, anywhere, and its people of any color or religion, to flourish, be rich, happy, and free.

 

That is the truth, and we must not be shy about stating it openly. Accept us and grow, or reject us and die on the vine, but we will no longer be letting in your millions of suffering, desperate immigrants because the elites running these nations badly cannot, or will not embrace tangible reforms.