During the run-up to the 2016 election, leaders in the Democratic and Republican Parties who had agreed about nothing for a generation concluded that “populism” was the emergent threat. But partisans seldom have clear vision. To understand our troubled world, we must do better. “I have tried to see not differently but further than any party,” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his introduction to Democracy in America. “While they are busy with tomorrow, I have wished to consider the whole future.” We should follow his lead, in the hope of seeing further than today’s parties.
Democracy in America, written shortly after Tocqueville’s visit to Jacksonian America—that brief historical period of which the supposed “populism” of today is an echo—makes no mention of populism. What did Tocqueville see? During the 1950s, scholars thought that he saw American exceptionalism and invoked his insights to argue that Marx’s ideas could never take hold in the United States. In the 1990s, they thought that Tocqueville saw the need for civic association, and relied on his views to argue that formerly Communist countries required such connections for the spirit of democracy to take hold. These are valid but partial glimpses of the larger meaning of Tocqueville’s work. In a haunting letter, written in 1856, a few years before he died, Tocqueville lamented, “This profound saying could be applied especially to me: it is not good for man to be alone.” This observation brings us closer to the truth. Tocqueville’s writing about Jacksonian America was informed by the central problem that he saw everywhere he looked: existential homelessness. Democracy in America is an extended rumination on the homeless man of the democratic age.
Today, the problem of existential homelessness has become acute. Growing rates of anxiety, loneliness, and suicide offer statistical confirmation. Facebook and Amazon are among the largest and most powerful corporations on the planet, yet the realization is dawning that social media “friends” are poor substitutes for the real thing and that man cannot live by online shopping alone. (See “When Supplements Become Substitutes,” Autumn 2018.) The mobile phone connects us to the world but imprisons us inside ourselves. Human life must be lived at human scale, in the face-to-face relations of everyday life. These flesh-and-blood connections extend from our local neighborhoods to the nation—the largest durable community known to man.
Since 1989 and the end of the Cold War, though, we have increasingly tried to build a world without attention to these communities—building it instead around the configuration of what I call “management society and selfie man.” If only populism were the crisis we face. Populism is a political problem. It is something that we can fix—say, by pursuing more beneficial policies for the struggling middle class, or by adjusting trade policy. Homelessness of the existential sort that Tocqueville described is a deeper problem. Tocqueville marveled that American federalism helped address the problem of homelessness by giving citizens “a share in their government.” Yet how can federalism work today if we are so frightened by real-time, everyday dealings with our fellow citizens that we text-message one another to see if it’s okay to talk over the phone?
The populist versus globalist formulation gives us an easy out, letting us think in oppositional terms. Either we defend the “globalist” project of complete economic, political, and cultural integration, and create a universal human society; or we fall back into the parochial, inherited nations and communities from which we have come and to which we are, in some measure, still bound. The either/or of “globalism” or “populism” promises moral satisfaction: for the globalists, the moral enemy is the unenlightened masses; for the populists, it is the putatively enlightened elites. Set up in this way, the conflict between the two self-assured parties only grows, and the unaddressed crisis deepens.
I propose that Tocqueville’s Democracy in America can be an instructive guide to what troubles the human soul in the democratic age. Through its insights, we can see that existential homelessness, not populism, is the true crisis we face.
Since 1989, “globalism” has been our watchword. Our understanding of globalism today is largely economic and cultural. We speak of global markets and of the overwhelming power of Western culture, which dissolves local, regional, and national cultures everywhere. We take economic and cultural globalization, in fact, to be proof of an irreversible process, opposition to which is futile. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville had already foreseen it: “Variety is disappearing from the human race; the same ways of behaving, thinking and feeling are found in every corner of the world.” Ever the subtle sociologist and psychologist, he thought that the underlying cause of what we call today “globalization” was the inevitable breaking of links that occurred as we moved from the aristocratic to the democratic age. He worried about the thoughts that would come “naturally into our imagination” once those links were fully broken:
Aristocracy links everyone, from peasant to king, in one long chain. Democracy breaks the chain and frees each link. Thus, not only does democracy make men forget their ancestors; it also clouds their understanding of their descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries. Each man is forever thrown back on himself, making it easier for him to get shut up in the solitude of his own heart. To escape from imposed systems, the yoke of habit, family maxims, class prejudices, and to some extent, national prejudices; to treat tradition as valuable for information only, and accept existing facts as no more than a useful sketch to show how things could be done differently and better—such are the principal characteristics of the democratic philosophical method.
From this philosophical point of departure in the democratic age would arise the view that all things can be changed, improved, rationalized, and made to conform to a comprehensive system.
What a contrast from the aristocratic age, in which the impossibility of turning the world into any kind of system meant that life’s burdens could be ameliorated but not changed. A single, coordinated world was conceivable in the aristocratic age only if God Himself brought it about. Democratic man, on the other hand, dares to think that such a project of unification is within his grasp—that he, not God, can save the planet, as environmentalists have declared; or that, through his efforts, a globally coordinated world can be created and managed.
“Tocqueville’s Democracy in America can be a useful guide to what troubles the human soul in the democratic age.”
In the democratic age, Tocqueville foresaw, “unity will become an obsession.” Liberal pluralism, evolutionary biology, and free markets all presume an unfolding, emergent, unknowable future, but Tocqueville saw already in 1835 that such a presumption would frighten democratic man, that he would become fixated instead on unity, as a way to insulate himself against his terror. Real differences—between men and women, peoples, or states—would become psychologically unbearable. Hence, in the post-1989 world, the need for men and women to be seen as interchangeable; theneedto believe that the cultural and national inheritances that distinguish us are burdens to be jettisoned rather than inheritances to be honored; and the needto institute democracy worldwide. Where is the citizen, Tocqueville wondered, who is prepared to live in a non-parsimonious world, a world that does not cohere as a system to be managed—a world so wondrous and unknowable that we would cherish and protect theliberty through which we participate in its mysterious development at all levels, from the local to the national?
While Tocqueville wrote reverentially about the gift of liberty in the democratic age, he understood that democratic man would find the plural world of parochial local and national attachments in which that liberty was embedded to be an encumbrance. He would wish to take flight. Having already broken free of some of the linkages that bound him to his past, to other people, or to nature, democratic man would wish to break free from linkages altogether. That is why, today, so many of us are “spiritual” rather than “religious,” “co-parents” rather than “fathers” or “mothers,” “global citizens” rather than citizens of a country, “Anywheres” rather than “Somewheres.” Always cognizant of our finitude, we long for universals through which we imagine that we will find release.
Tocqueville judged that this democratic impulse went too far. Human beings are, finally, creatures that must have a home, a family, a locale, a nation, a religion. The psychological dilemma of the democratic age is that democratic man can see beyond the immediacy of his parochial horizon, by virtue of the de-linkage that Tocqueville thought defined the democratic age. Democratic man therefore sees the cosmopolitan promise, but because he is an embodied creature, the promise can never be fully realized—hence the agony ofthose who see in every choice a limit to the unbounded freedom that they believe is truly their own.
Tocqueville anticipated the globalist disposition, but he also suggested the need to temper it. At the same time that everything local and national is being repudiated in the name of global universalism, something else has emerged—the phenomenon of selfie man, which insulates citizens one from another while giving them the opportunity for previously undreamed-of self-elevation. Why is it, we wonder, that precisely at the moment when we deny that families, neighbors, towns, regions, and states can address the difficulties we face, hundreds of millions of people around the world—perhaps even billions—are taking selfies? At the very moment when you and I seem increasingly powerless in a globalized world, we take pictures of ourselves, everywhere, as if the world around us becomes important only by virtue of our presence in it. Globalism in tandem with selfie man is a configuration in which we are at once powerless to act with our neighbors to solve problems and empowered so that we no longer need our neighbors.
Tocqueville makes a remark at the end of Democracy in America that sheds some light on this curious co-relationship. In the future, he warned, democratic citizens will feel themselves to be “either greater than kings or less than men.” Does this not sum up the current psychic condition in much of the West? In our selfie lives, we are “greater than kings”—for we remove from our kingdoms, without recourse, all who do not accede to our self-presentation. On our Facebook pages, are we not greater than kings? On the other hand, with respect to the communal actions necessary to build a world, we are “less than men,” happily handing over the keys to the global managers.
Democratic politics, Tocqueville knew, is not possible in this condition. Insofar as selfie man is political at all, it is through episodic activism, not through the labor of an engaged citizen. For selfie man, the task of government changes: politics is no longer the hard work of face-to-face, local-to-national, democratic deliberation, ordered and upheld by the Constitution. Rather, politics is activism—the goal of which, these days, is too often virtue-signaling on behalf of others, and the result of which is episodic eruptions of righteousness that produce nothing but moral self-satisfaction. Selfie man declares much but does little.
Much of Tocqueville’s effort in Democracy in America is directed toward pulling democratic (now selfie) man out of himself, so that he may build a home with others. That’s not possible, though, without the give-and-take of everyday life, in real time. To declare, as those entranced by selfie man do, that “I must be recognized, and you must respect me,” is to cut short the labor of working together with our neighbors, through which we come to discover who we are. We gain a foothold of self-knowledge only through our dealings with others. Tocqueville understood this and worried that as democratic man closed in upon himself, his life would become both small and inappropriately self-assured. That is why he wrote extensively about “self-interest, rightly understood,” by which he meant that type of self-interest formed in and through relations with others. Without it, we end up with selfie man.
Tocqueville, then, not only anticipated the emergence of globalism and the advent of selfie man but understood that the two would be correlate developments in the democratic age. To give our current post-1989 crisis a pithy formulation, indebted entirely to Tocqueville, we have built a world around the formula: management society and selfie man, in which we oscillate between being greater than kings and less than men. Because of this formula, our judgments, too, veer wildly. At one moment, all things seem possible; in the next, nothing. We cannot build a stable, durable, or healthy world around this formula. However unformed the opposition may be, it understands that the concept of management society and selfie man is unsustainable. Either those who hold the reins of political power will find a way to overcome the sense of homelessness that this has created, or successors will step in, with answers of their own.
What is to be done? We should start by noting that the crisis has occurred because we have dreamed that the limits of ordinary life can be circumvented without cost. In an 1836 letter to Eugène Stoffels, Tocqueville called himself “a liberal of a new kind.” No simple formula accounts for the full meaning of this phrase. Many argue today that the liberal world order is being dismantled by those who envision alternatives to it, but Tocqueville would say that a homogenous world order is not a liberal world order at all. A liberal world order is a plural world order, with multiple nations making multiple wagers about possible alternative futures. A liberal world order, in short, is an emergent world order, which cannot be organized and ordered from above, as so-called liberals have been trying to do since at least 1989. By liberal, Tocqueville meant that the labors of building a world together begin in our immediate society—in family, in civic and religious associations, and so on. The state can supplement the work of society but cannot substitute for it. So, too, with the work of the state; global or transnational efforts may supplement it, but those supplements must not be turned into substitutes.
Thinking about the problem in this liberal, emergent, bottom-up way allows us to avoid taking an ideologically narrow position for or against globalism. In one of the most important passages of Democracy in America, Tocqueville wrote that “feelings and ideas are renewed, the heart enlarged, and the understanding expanded, only by the reciprocal actions of men, one upon another.” It is in face-to-face relations that we begin to build our world. Higher levels of organization supplement those face-to-face relations, but they cannot substitute for them without cost. Today, we are suffering the consequences of trying to do just that. We are promised release and liberation from our parochial bonds through globalism and the management society that will make it possible; we are promised “safe-space” security through the social media tools that make selfie man possible. This platform, fit only for homeless souls, is on the verge of collapsing. We should be both hopeful and worried about what we can build in its place.
Rather than understand our crisis in terms of the opposition between globalism and populism—or, as many would have it, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness—we should think as Tocqueville did. In the democratic age, we will “feel ourselves to be greater than kings and less than men” unless we work tirelessly to build a world at the level of our local communities and at the level of our nations. Globalism and selfie man go hand in hand. The alternative to both is the embodied life of citizens.
It is a sad fact that Tocqueville understood the temptation to reject the embodied life of citizens because of the parochial limits that such life entails. Again, both globalism and selfie man offer an easy out: neither requires that we build a world together with our neighbors. There is, however, an additional reason that it is so difficult for us to defend or return to our home: identity politics declares that our homes are stained, impure, and not worthy of defense.
In the worldview of identity politics, our embodied communities bear witness to seemingly irredeemable fault and transgression—the legacy of slavery in America and the legacy of colonialism and two world wars in Europe. These sins impugn all the thoughts and actions of the guilty parties, from the distant past to the distant future—in short, for all time. While the confession of “privilege” may save the offending sinner from damnation, it does not bring him into the light of day. For that, he must now occupy the liminal space of purgatory, leaving his fate undecided. Identity politics does not produce an existential homelessness for which embodied life is the antidote, but instead discloses sin that originates in the very embodied communities that Tocqueville recommends and invites those at fault to a peculiar form of redemption—namely, self-repudiation. The alternative is to bear the burden of sin without hope of redemption.
Like the Christianity of old, identity politics metes out both judgment and redemption, though without the apparatus of God, in whom secularized Christians no longer believe. In this way, identity politics superimposes on the self-satisfaction of selfie man a moral self-satisfaction available for all who are the innocent victims of fault and transgression.
Identity politics announces the sins of persons and social groups who have blotted their nations with ineradicable stain. Globalism not only allows citizens to evade the never-ending challenges of building a world together with our neighbors; it also invites the irredeemable identity groups—some admixture of “white,” “male,” “heterosexual,” or “Christian”—to cover their transgressions with the fig leaf of innocence, if only they renounce their blemished nations. The mixed legacy of shame and glory borne by those whose fault and transgression make them irredeemable cannot be forgiven by God, for He doesn’t exist in identity politics; they can only be forgiven by renouncing the nation. We begin anew not by healing brokenness but by erasing it. In a strange and sublime historical twist that few have noticed, what the Law was to the Gospel in Reformation thought, identity politics is to globalism in post-Christian thought for us today: the one condemns; the other redeems.
Nothing has so surprised me as I have moved back and forth from Georgetown’s campus in Washington, D.C., to its campus in Doha, Qatar, in the past dozen years, as the perplexity that my Middle Eastern students express when they ask why Americans and Europeans seem to have an almost religious need to repudiate their nations and their history. Perhaps Islam, being a religion of law, grants some immunity against the deep interior agitations that the remembrance of fault and transgression elicits in America and Europe today, especially in formerly Protestant lands. Love of country in the Middle East, unlike in America and in large swaths of Europe, is actually thinkable.
“Like the Christianity of old, identity politics metes out both judgment and redemption, though without God.”
For nearly 2,000 years, fault and transgression in the West have been understood in Christian terms. Now Christianity has receded but not the category of fault and transgression. I wonder if we have not reached a dangerous—even explosive—stage. Fault and transgression seem today to have only a political remedy: the repudiation of nations. Globalism releases us from the unpayable debt that our nations owe; it promises to “make all things new” (Rev. 21:5). Who would not want such a new beginning? Yet it seems that Tocqueville long ago saw that new beginnings were never really possible. We can remove all the Confederate statues in America, but our history will remain. In Europe, the same is true.
Our problem, then, is not populism. Our crisis
runs deeper than the inconvenient eruption of
passion and irrationalism that invariably
accompanies an unheard cry, an unnameable
prayer. Our crisis is that we no longer know
where our home lies. Tocqueville tells us that our limits can never be overcome, that we must make peace with our villages, towns, cities, provinces, and states, notwithstanding their limits. We are haunted, though, by more than our limits. We are haunted by fault and transgression. Religious categories have become narrowly political. Because religion should never be underestimated, I suspect that a century from now, this forced compression of something bigger than politics intopolitics will have played out in one of three ways.
First: we can carry on believing that fault and transgression can be atoned for only by actively renouncing our nations, to the detriment of the largest durable community that man may ever have. This path will offer us a veneer of cosmopolitanism that barely covers the virulent tribalism that even successful nations never completely overcome—and will be the powerful animus for the dream of a politics of blood and soil on the right, especially in Europe. Our nations will become weaker, while national elites who proclaim the gospel of cosmopolitanism will tighten their grip on power. Second: we can place fault and transgression back in their Christian theological context, recognize that God understood that our faults and transgressions could be atoned for only through divine mercy and mortal repentance, and live within our nations, attentive to the peril of hubris to which the largest durable community that man may ever have is prone. Third: we can follow Nietzsche’s recommendation that guilt’s burden be lifted through forgetfulness. Here, I think, is the paganism of the alt-right and, I suspect, the impulse to build unapologetically on a foundation of blood and soil. Here, too, is a repudiation of hope.
Joshua Mitchell is a professor of political theory at Georgetown University and a Visiting Fellow in American Political Thought at the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at the Heritage Foundation.
Our Borders, Ourselves: America in the
Author Lawrence Auster
Multiculturalism and unmitigated
immigration have weakened America quite possibly to the point of no return.
At its founding, immigration was integral in the formation of
the United States of America. The melting pot was the essence of our beginning.
The blending of diverse people overwhelmingly from Europe made the country an
extension of the greatest of civilizations. When immigration was measured, when
assimilation was demanded, and when our borders were controlled, America
thrived. This diversity within limits enriched America. But in the last half
century or so, when uncontrolled immigration from the world over was pushed upon
us, when balkanization was encouraged, America faltered. "Diversity"
became a deceptive catchword and a force hostile to cultural and natural
distinctions. Illegal immigrants were welcomed by the millions. Eventually, we
saw racial profiling in college admissions, politicians pitting groups of
people against each other, and white becoming
a bad word.
Borders, Ourselves, genius conservative essayist Lawrence Auster
details the fraud foisted upon the American people in the name of diversity.
Published posthumously, Our
Borders explains how the Immigration Act of 1965 led to the
erasing of white America and the nihilist culture we live in today.
The granting of aggressive race consciousness to minority groups
and the denial of it to the majority are only one part of the problem. This
book identifies the principal ideas and forces--racial, political,
psychological, moral, and religious--that are destroying American civilization
and shows how those forces have been institutionalized and internalized by the
American people themselves, including conservatives. Auster explains in detail
the shift from classical liberalism to modern liberalism, which corresponds to
the shift from self-respect to self-esteem.
Once a society has denied the existence of right and wrong, it
has abandoned its own history and denied its own legitimacy. It has opened a
Pandora's Box of evils that, according to Auster, can never be returned whence
Immigration Poses An Existential Crisis For The West
needs well-enforced borders but President Donald Trump’s national “emergency”
is part of a much larger crisis facing Western nations.
entropy, widespread violence and economic desperation, prevalent in many parts
of Central and South America, the Middle East and Africa, are
driving millions north—mostly to America and the European Union. The sheer potential numbers
could pose overwhelming challenges of assimilation and undermine the cultural
underpinnings of our market economies and democratic institutions.
recent sharp increase in Border Patrol apprehensions of illegal migrants and
asylum seekers has exhausted U.S. recourses to detain those awaiting
adjudication. Within several weeks of apprehension, they join 11
permanent legal status—driving down wages for lower-paid Americans and
overwhelming local cultures in some of the nation’s poorest communities.
technologies—cameras, drones and the like—are more cost efficient than a wall,
but only a wall could keep migrants from setting foot on American soil and
being released into the general population.
asylum claims are questionable. Mexico offers migrants humanitarian visas and
the opportunity to work, but politically motivated judges have squashed
administration attempts to limit asylum claims.
federal courts led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts have become quite
comfortable arrogating power in response to public sentiment—for example,
striking down state statutes prohibiting gay marriage—and acceding to political
pressure from Democrats—the
peculiar reasoning Roberts
applied to declare Affordable Care Act fines are taxes.
claims about “Obama Judges” and
“Trump Judges” have
some merit but in any case, Trump’s immigration point man, Stephen Miller, has
not done the homework to effectively argue that a national emergency exists.
charges the illegal flood is full of criminals, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
always a comforting presence, counters that Americans commit rape, robbery and
homicide too. What matters is whether poor
immigrants commit crimes at an alarming higher rate that our indigenous population.
2015, Germany has admitted over 1.4
million asylum seekers—about 2% of its population, and they commit about 14% of the crimes.
Surely, the FBI could help Miller to come up with comparable U.S. statistics.
Then we could get at the truth—or he has but the administration is not willing
to back off on its crime claims.
National Emergency Act empowers a majority in the Congress to nullify
presidential declarations. However, with the GOP holding the Senate, lawsuits
will decide whether
the president can supplement the $1.4 billion authorized by Congress to build
55 miles of border fence by transferring Department of Defense funds to instead
build 234 miles of fence.
does not define a national emergency. Instead that is spread over at least 470
statutory provisions. One states “the Secretary of Defense can ‘undertake
military construction projects … necessary to support such use of the armed
Robert Jackson reminded in Youngstown v.
which overturned President Harry Truman’s nationalization of the steel industry
to support the Korean War effort, presidential
at its peak when it acts with the support of Congress and “at its lowest ebb”
when it is “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.”
Republicans controlled Congress, Trump could not get his wall built, and he
campaigned on the issue in 2018 and got shellacked. Now congressional House
Democrats have decided there is no pressing need for a wall.
president recognizes he will get pilloried in the lower courts but expects a
fair hearing in the Supreme Court. He should ponder Roberts’s ire regarding his
charges about the politicization of the courts—sometimes being right is not
Americans living in large prosperous cities, the influx of well-educated legal
immigrants, especially in STEM disciplines, are welcome, but many illegal
immigrants become burdens in the labor markets and on public services in Trump
fails to get his wall, the crisis at the border could easily become a mass
migration that imposes incalculable burdens on those Americans least able to
“The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is
12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable
in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault
on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia. His excuse: sex with young girls was
common with his people. He said, "I was unaware that it was a crime."
America Vs Mexico:
By Frosty Wooldridge
Anyone understand why Mexicans fail miserably
at creating a successful civilization? Ever wonder why millions of them invade
the United States in search of a better life? Have you noticed that once they
arrive, they create the same kind of 'society' in the United States?
Unconsciously, they create the same conditions they left behind. You can take
the boy out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the boy.
For example, in Denver in December, illegal
alien Navi dragged his girlfriend to death behind his car. Illegal alien Cruz
shot his girlfriend dead in the back because she wouldn't reconcile with him.
Illegal alien Ruizz ran over and killed Justin Goodman, but Ruizz drove away
from the scene leaving Goodman to die. In Greeley, Colorado they suffered 270
hit and run accidents in one year. Over 80 percent of hit and run wrecks in
Denver involve illegal aliens. Denver boasts the drug smuggling capital of the
West as well as the people smuggling mecca of the country. Illegals cheat,
distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it's a normal way
of life. For them, it is.
Mexico's civilization stands diametrically
opposed to America's culture. Both countries manifest different ways of
thinking and operating.
With George Bush's push to create the
"Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" by dissolving
our borders with Mexico, he places all Americans at risk.
Would you become friends with neighbors who
throw their trash on city streets and parks, create ghettoes wherever they
enclave their numbers, promote corruption, deal in violence, encourage drug
use, manifest poverty, endorse sexism and downgrade education?
America's culture and Mexico's culture remain
diametrically opposed to one another. America's fought Mexico and won. Today,
Mexico invades America with sheer numbers of poor.
However, cultures rarely change and neither do
As you can see from the ten points below,
everything about Mexico degrades everything about America. For further
information, you may visit
you will find a plethora of information by a brilliant journalist Brenda
Walker. Her original report may be viewed on www.Vdare.com on January 17, 2007
under the title: "Ten Reasons Why America Should Not Marry Mexico." I
suggest you read more of her work.She
exemplifies incisive, sobering and shocking information.
These ten point stem directly from Brenda
Walker's work. Let's examine why America must not entangle itself by merging
The legal age of sexual consent in Mexico is
12 years old. Sex with children at this age and younger is socially acceptable
in Mexico. For example: A Mexican Lopez-Mendez pleaded guilty to sexual assault
on a 10 year old girl in West Virginia. His excuse: sex with young girls was
common with his people. He said, "I was unaware that it was a crime."
Mexicans remain the most sexist males next to
Islamic men. Both boast the most misogynous cultures in the world. Rape and
other violence toward women are not treated as serious crimes. In Mexico, a
custom known as "rapto" whereby men kidnap women for sex is regarded
as harmless amusement. Mexican society regards women little more than objects.
Crime and violence remain mainstays of Mexican
culture. Drug cartels and the Mexican army coordinate their massive efforts to
promote drug distribution not only in Mexico but into the USA. Mexico City
suffers the second highest crime rate in Latin America. Kidnapping remains
second only to Columbia for ransom money. Beheadings, killings and gun fire
erupt at drug distribution points on the US/Mexican border.
Spontaneous hanging continues in Mexico. A mob
beat up and burned to death two policemen on live television in 2004 in Mexico
City. As Brenda Walker wrote, "Mexicans do not have the same belief as
Americans that the law is central to the equitable functioning of a complex
nation. It's the Third World."
Mexicans abhor education. In their country,
illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our country, only 9.6 percent of fourth
generation Mexicans earn a high school diploma. Mexico does not promote
educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or
immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent.
Drunk driving remains acceptable in Mexico. As
it stands, 44,000 Americans die on our nation's highways annually. Half that
number stems from drunken drivers. U.S. Congressman Steve King reports that 13
American suffer death from drunken driving Mexicans each day. Alcoholism runs
rampant in Mexican culture. They suffer the most DUI arrests.
Mexicans set the benchmark for animal cruelty.
Mexicans love dog fighting, bullfighting, cock fighting and horse tripping.
Those blood sports play in every arena and backyard in Mexico. They expand into
America as more Mexicans arrive. They also engage in "steer-tailing"
where the rider yanks the animal's tail in an attempt to flip it to the ground.
In horse tripping, they run the animals at full gallop around a ring, then, use
ropes to trip them at full speed. It's a death sentence as the horses break
their legs, teeth, shoulders and necks-all to the delight of the cheering
As La Raza confirms, Mexicans maintain the
most racist society in North America. "For the Hispanic race, everything;
for anyone outside the race, nothing!" Guadalupe Loaeza, a journalist,
said, "Mexican society is fundamentally racist and classist. The color of
your skin is a key that either opens or shuts doors. The lighter your skin, the
more doors open to you."
Corruption becomes a mechanism by which Mexico
operates. Corruption remains systemic. The Washington Post wrote, "Mexico
is considered one of the most corrupt countries in the hemisphere." They
feature drug cartels, sex slave trade, people smuggling, car theft cartels,
real estate scam cartels, murder for money and, you must bribe your mail man to
get your mail.
Last, but not least, Mexicans are Marxists.
They promote a one-party government. As with any kind of Marxism, brutal
totalitarian rule keeps the rich in power and everyone else subservient.
As we allow millions of Mexicans to colonize
our country, we can't help but be caught up in these ten deadly cultural traits
of Mexicans. With over 12 million Mexicans here today, the predictions grow to
as many as 20 even 40 million Mexicans in a few decades as they come here for a
The fact remains, as they come to America for
a better life, they make our lives a living hell.
Illegal immigrants are easily able to migrate into
Virginia and other states because Congress does not provide border agencies
with the legal authority, funds, and resources to catch, jail, and deter
migrants, or to jail the many employers who hire hard-working, compliant,
low-wage illegal aliens who live in the United States.
Cops Arrest 80 at
Mexican-Run Cockfight in
County Sheriff's Office via Martinsville Bulletin
7 Jun 2019716
numerous suspected illegal aliens and drug-traffickers at an illegal cockfight
in Patrick County, Virginia, according to a report in the Martinsville Bulletin.
were arrested at the cockfight, while 40 people allegedly escaped on foot as
the officers raided the site, said the Bulletin:
Patrick County Sheriff Dan Smith
said in an email Sunday that more than 50 officers from multiple law enforcement
agencies executed a search warrant at 435 Long Branch Road at 1245 p.m. on
Saturday. Smith said the site was the venue, and had been on multiple past
occasions, for illegal cockfighting.
Evidence collected during the
investigation shows that the operation is Mexican-based, and participants from
as far as Texas and Georgia allegedly traveled to engage in the illegal
activity, according to Smith. Cock fighting is classified as a felony under
Cash, methamphetamine, firearms,
multiple-edged weapons and assorted property, including vehicles, were seized
from the property.
The article provides the name of the
80 arrested people. Nearly all have Hispanic names and live in nearby North
Carolina. The cockfight was arranged by a Mexican-run operation, the article
Police reports say Mexican drug
gangs use low-level couriers to distribute small quantities of drugs to rural
customers, like pizza delivery services deliver pizzas.
The couriers are often illegal
migrants who minimize their legal risks by transporting small quantities of
drugs. If caught, they are usually returned to Mexican by the United States and
sometimes get back pay from the drug rings.
The same business model was
spotlighted in March when a federal grand jury indicted 12 alleged gang members
of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel for distributing and selling drugs.
Harrisonburg, VIRGINIA – A federal
grand jury sitting in U.S. District Court in Harrisonburg has indicted 12
members of Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), a Mexican-based criminal
organization considered by the Department of Justice to be one of the five most
dangerous transnational organizations in the world, on federal drug conspiracy
charges, United States Attorney Thomas T. Cullen announced today.
“CJNG is one of the most dangerous
drug cartels in the world, and its members and associates are actively
operating in the Shenandoah Valley and Southside Virginia,” United States
Attorney Cullen stated today. “Dismantling organized drug activity and
staunching the flow of deadly substances like heroin and cocaine into our
communities are among my top priorities as U.S. attorney. I am grateful
that our federal, state, and local partners share this goal and for their hard
work during the course of this investigation.”
As part of the conspiracy, it is
alleged that the defendants maintained a series of residential properties in
and around Axton for the purpose of receiving, storing, packaging, and
distributing multiple kilograms of cocaine and multiple pounds of marijuana
which they had received directly from members of CJNG. These drugs were then
allegedly shipped to Winchester, and elsewhere throughout the Mid-Atlantic
region, for redistribution.
Illegal immigrants are easily able
to migrate into Virginia and other states because Congress does not provide
border agencies with the legal authority, funds, and resources to catch, jail,
and deter migrants, or to jail the many employers who hire hard-working,
compliant, low-wage illegal aliens who live in the United States.
Research: Vast Majority of Illegals, 4-in-9 Legal
The vast majority of illegal aliens and a sizeable portion of legal
immigrants living in the United States are not proficient in the English language,
a survey finds.
Pew Research Center study finds that an
overwhelming majority of the 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.
do not define themselves as being proficient in English. Despite a slight
uptick in the number of illegal aliens who claim they are English proficient,
still only about 34 percent said they are proficient in English.
only about 57 percent of legal immigrants — that is, legal foreign-born
residents whom the federal government has admitted to the country — are
proficient in English, according to the Pew Research study.
aliens arriving to the U.S. from Mexico, Northern Triangle countries, and other
parts of Latin America have exceptionally low English proficiency rates. For
example, only about 25 percent of illegal aliens from Mexico said they were
only 22 percent of illegal aliens from the Northern Triangle said they were
proficient in English, as well a minority of 43 percent of illegal aliens from
other Latin American countries.
Pew Research estimates that only about 3.4 million illegal aliens of the entire
illegal alien population said they were English proficient.
Breitbart News has chronicled, foreign language-speakers have increasingly made
up the U.S. population, forcing Americans to adapt in their
day-to-day lives and work environment to non-English atmospheres.
example, nearly half of all residents in the country’s biggest cities speak a
foreign language at home, according to research by the Center for
year, a new flow of illegal aliens either cross the U.S.-Mexico border or
overstay their visas and compete against the majority of working and middle
class Americans for oftentimes entry-level and generally lower wage jobs.
Americans are not only subjected to this illegal labor market competition but
also must compete against an additional 1.2 million legal immigrants who are
admitted to the U.S. annually.
Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Can we have a quick reality check and acknowledge that what is
happening to America is a million times worse than what’s happening in Europe
and is of much greater consequence?
regularly point to the mass migration afflicting Europe as if it’s the Ghost of
Christmas Future for America. Since waves of Third World migrants began
sweeping into the European Union, we’ve seen terrorism, knifings, rape gangs
and riots popping up all over the birthplace of Western civilization. Sweden
has gone from a country where rape was essentially nonexistent to the Rape
Capital of the World.
It’s sweet of Americans to be so concerned about Europe, but maybe they should
look at their own country. On account of a mass immigration policy imposed on
us by our government, the United States has undergone a transformation unprecedented in all
of world history.
From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically
stable — not to be confused with “a nation of immigrants.” The
country was about 85% to 90% white, almost entirely British, German, French and
Dutch, and 10% to 15% African American. (The American Indian population,
technically in their own nations, steadily plummeted — an example of how vast
numbers of new people can displace the old, both accidentally and on
In a generation, the white majority has nearly disappeared, while the black
percentage has remained about the same, with more than 90% of African Americans
still native-born. White Americans are one border surge away from becoming a
minority in their own country.
2016, non-Hispanic whites were 61.3% of the population and 54% of all births.
That was two years ago, before Trump came in and flung open the border to all
of Latin America, especially children and pregnant ladies hoping to have an
Back in 1995, the Census Bureau estimated that whites would decline to about
64% of the population by 2020. Today, the Census Bureau projects the nation
will be less than 60% white by then. We’re moving faster than even La Raza
could have hoped!
This isn’t about race — though it might be of some concern to the rapidly
diminishing white population that our cultural overlords are so tormented by
“The Unbearable Whiteness of Congress” — The Daily Beast
“Whiteness is terrorism” — Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams on
“The Problem of Whiteness” — course at University of Wisconsin-Madison
White Race” — Harvard Magazine (“The goal of abolishing the white race is
on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could
incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”)
This stunning demographic replacement matters because American culture is
the envy of the
world. Not only was this wonderful culture created by white Western
Europeans, but merely asking immigrants to assimilate to it is generally
considered a hate crime.
If everyone assimilated to our culture, who cares what race they are? But given
sufficient numbers, they don’t. They don’t need to, and we certainly aren’t
asking them to. The reason we successfully assimilated not-so-different
European cultures was that we controlled the numbers — essentially stopping
immigration for 50 years while we forged an American character.
Let’s compare our demographic situation to the European countries we’re weeping
over. France is still about 80% French (85% Western European), and England is
about 80% English (85% Western European). Even Holland is still approximately
76% Dutch (80% Western European).
What we’re witnessing in Europe is that continent’s first brush with the joys
American conservatives’ obsession with Europe’s snail-like introduction to
diversity, while ignoring a demographic tsunami in their own country, is the
mirror image of neoconservatives’ fixation on unrest in the Middle East, while
ignoring the invasion on our border.
When did it become deplorable, Walmart-y behavior to care about your own
country? Not to care more, but merely to care as much as you do
about the rest of the world?
It seems as if progress is inevitable, that things always get better and never
retrogress. But the Roman Empire had philosophers, literature, science, great
buildings, statues and works of art. It had advanced communication, plumbing
and transportation systems. It had a universal set of measures, laws and
And then the Dark Ages came. In the blink of an eye, all that was lost. The
people no longer had the technological know-how even to repair bridges
and aqueducts built by the Romans. They had lost the ability to make cement.
They lost many of the works of Aristotle. Roads and plumbing fell into
disrepair. Statues crumbled. Nikki Haley would be happy!
Only centuries later did civilization begin to reassert itself, barely climbing
back to the accomplishments of several centuries earlier.
Whatever the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, one thing is for damn
sure: There were not vast bands of powerful Romans prattling about “Roman
privilege,” demanding that the Huns be given preference over Romans and writing
articles with titles like “Abolish the Romans!”
That is the driving impulse of one of our two major political parties.
The other party
can’t bestir itself to care about anything other than tax
cuts, abortion and moving our embassy to Jerusalem.
Mass Immigration Poses An Existential Crisis For The West
well-enforced borders but President Donald Trump’s national “emergency” is part
of a much larger crisis facing Western nations.
State entropy, widespread violence and
economic desperation, prevalent in many parts of Central and South America, the
Middle East and Africa, are driving millions north—mostly to America and the European
Union. The sheer potential numbers could pose overwhelming challenges of
assimilation and undermine the cultural underpinnings of our market economies
and democratic institutions.
The recent sharp increase in Border
Patrol apprehensions of illegal migrants and asylum seekers has exhausted U.S.
recourses to detain those awaiting adjudication. Within several weeks of
apprehension, they join 11 million immigrantswithout permanent legal status—driving down
wages for lower-paid Americans and overwhelming local cultures in some of the
nation’s poorest communities.
drones and the like—are more cost efficient than a wall, but only a wall could
keep migrants from setting foot on American soil and being released into the
Most asylum claims are questionable.
Mexico offers migrants humanitarian visas and the opportunity to work, but
politically motivated judges have squashed administration attempts to limit
Sadly, federal courts led by Supreme
Court Chief Justice Roberts have become quite comfortable arrogating power in
response to public sentiment—for example, striking down state statutes
prohibiting gay marriage—and acceding to political pressure from Democrats—the peculiar reasoning Roberts applied to declare
Affordable Care Act fines are taxes.
Presidential claims about “Obama
Judges” and “Trump Judges” have
some merit but in any case, Trump’s immigration point man, Stephen Miller, has
not done the homework to effectively argue that a national emergency exists.
Trump charges the illegal flood is full
of criminals, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, always a comforting presence,
counters that Americans commit rape, robbery and homicide too. What matters is
whether poor immigrants commit crimes at an alarming higher rate that our
Since 2015, Germany has admitted
over 1.4 million asylum seekers—about 2% of its population, and they
commit about 14% of the crimes. Surely, the FBI could help Miller to come up
with comparable U.S. statistics. Then we could get at the truth—or he has but
the administration is not willing to back off on its crime claims.
The 1976 National Emergency Act empowers
a majority in the Congress to nullify presidential declarations. However, with
the GOP holding the Senate, lawsuits will decide whether the president can supplement the
$1.4 billion authorized by Congress to build 55 miles of border fence by
transferring Department of Defense funds to instead build 234 miles of fence.
The NEA does not define a national
emergency. Instead that is spread over at least 470 statutory provisions. One
states “the Secretary of Defense can ‘undertake military construction projects
… necessary to support such use of the armed forces.’”
As Justice Robert Jackson reminded
in Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952), which overturned President Harry
Truman’s nationalization of the steel industry to support the Korean War
effort, presidential discretion is at its peak when it acts with
the support of Congress and “at its lowest ebb” when it is “incompatible with
the expressed or implied will of Congress.”
When the Republicans controlled
Congress, Trump could not get his wall built, and he campaigned on the issue in
2018 and got shellacked. Now congressional House Democrats have decided there
is no pressing need for a wall.
The president recognizes he will get
pilloried in the lower courts but expects a fair hearing in the Supreme Court.
He should ponder Roberts’s ire regarding his charges about the politicization
of the courts—sometimes being right is not enough.
For Americans living in large prosperous
cities, the influx of well-educated legal immigrants, especially in STEM
disciplines, are welcome, but many illegal immigrants become burdens in the
labor markets and on public services in Trump country.
If Trump fails to get his wall, the
crisis at the border could easily become a mass migration that imposes
incalculable burdens on those Americans least able to bear them.
Frank Gaffney. (Photo by Win
During a discussion about the need for immigrants to assimilate
into American society and the spectre of sharia (Islamic law) in U.S.
communities, Center for Security Policy Chairman Frank Gaffney said it is
imperative to keep in mind "that you cannot assimilate vast numbers of
people who simply don’t want to be part of your society." Gaffney, a
former assistant secretary for Defense in the Reagan administration, added that
Judge Jeanine Pirro is being suppressed because she dared to ask a question
about the origins of the anti-Israel views expressed by Rep. Ilhan Omar
When asked about assimilation during a March 20 interview
on Breitbart News Daily, Gaffney said to host Alex Marlow, This topic "reminds me
of the old story that conservatives are liberals who’ve been mugged by reality,
and the thing you're describing, Alex, is being mugged by the reality that you
cannot assimilate vast numbers of people who simply don’t want to be part of
"They want to transform it into something very different
and ultimately, at some point, you either resist or you submit," he said.
"Submission is going to be pretty ugly, and it’s happening in parts of
Europe already, and there’s more in the offing, I’m afraid. [Garbled] This
rising tide of sharia supremacism, it’s chilling.”
He continued, "The trouble is, it’s not simply a problem in
its own right, it’s a foretaste of what the Ilhan Omars and the Keith Ellisons
and the André Carsons, Rashida Tlaibs, and so on, would have in mind for
America, too, if they had their way. This is the really vexing problem of our
“Again, not all Muslims want to live under sharia," said
Gaffney. "They don’t want to impose it on the rest of us. But
enough of them do and the authorities of the [Islamic] faith certainly
As for Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose program on the Fox News
Channel has been suspended for a second week, Gaffney said, "Jeanine Pirro, who is a friend of mine and
much-admired former public servant and now, extraordinary resource, on her
program, Justice w/Judge Jeanine, was suspended last week and may
be again this week, and maybe – who knows – indefinitely."
Jeanine Pirro. (Photo
by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)
“The faux-Fox [News Channel] is suppressing Jeanine Pirro explicitly – as you know, Alex – because she
dared, even in a question, to connect the dots between what Ilhan Omar is doing
with anti-Semitism, on the one hand, and the traditions, teachings, and
practices of sharia, as we’ve come to know it," said Gaffney.
On her March 9 program, Jeanine Pirro said, “This is not
who your party is" in reference to the Democrat Party. “Your party is not
anti-Israel, [Omar] is. Think about this. She’s not getting this anti-Israel
sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party,
where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which
according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get
Rep. Ilhan Omar
(D-Minn.) (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in
itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” said Pirro.
Comments and tweets made by Rep. Omar have been condemned by
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as "anti-Semitic"
and "deeply offensive."
MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist
country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.
“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's
Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with
little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the
vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does
accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of
welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to
the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be
booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR
The US should think long and hard about the high number of
By Lawrence Harrison
It's not just a short-run issue of immigrants competing with
citizens for jobs as unemployment approaches 10 percent or the number of
uninsured straining the quality of healthcare. Heavy immigration from Latin
America threatens our cohesiveness as a nation.
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE U.S. POPULATION
By Tom Barrett
At the current rate of invasion (mostly through
Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run
with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants
who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop
the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant
population in the United States.
Open the floodgates of our welfare state to the uneducated,
impoverished, and unskilled masses of the world and in a generation or three
America, as we know it, will be gone. JOHN BINDER
But many less-skilled migrants play their largest role by
simply shifting small slices of wealth from person to person, for example, by
competing up rents in their neighborhood or by competing down wages in their
workplace. The crudest examples can be seen in agriculture.
"Critics argue that giving
amnesty to 12 to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate
negative impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black
Americans and the white working class — who would be in direct competition for
blue-collar jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population."
The U.S.-born baby is, of course, a U.S. citizen, whose
illegal alien parents are eligible to receive, on the baby’s behalf, food
stamps, nutrition from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and
numerous tax benefits, including the EITC.
Most importantly, the newborn is deportation insurance
for its parents. Illegal aliens facing deportation can argue that to deport one
or more parents would create an “extreme hardship” for the new baby. If an
immigration officer agrees, we’ve added a new adult to the nation’s population.
At age 21 the former birthright citizen baby can formally apply for green cards
for parents and siblings, and they, in turn, can start their own immigration
US now has more Spanish speakers than Spain – only Mexico
·US has 41 million native speakers plus 11 million who
·New Mexico, California, Texas and Arizona have highest
DYING AMERICA: Poverty, Open Borders, Widespread
Homelessness, Housing Crisis, Opioids, Corrupt Politicians and Then Suicide!
"In a state like Florida, where immigrants make
up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly
wages reduced by perhaps more than 12.5 percent. In California, where
immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages
are reduced by potentially 17 percent." JOHN BINDER
"In the last decade alone, the U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants,
forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage
foreign workers. Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents
living in the U.S. by 2060. This would represent an unprecedented electoral
gain for the Left, as Democrats win about 90 percent of
congressional districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national
Atlantic Op-Ed: The Migration Wave
Has Barely Begun
Americans need to reform their immigration laws before
hundreds of millions of foreigners decide to take up residence in the United
States, says David Frum, an author at the pro-globalist Atlantic magazine.
“If Americans want to shape their
own national destiny, rather than have it shaped by others, they have decisions
to make now,” says Frum, a
Canadian-born Never Trump advocate who is also a consistent voice for the
immigration reforms which would help young Americans rejuvenate American
With immigration pressures bound to
increase, it becomes more imperative than ever to restore the high value of
national citizenship, not to denigrate or disparage others but because for many
of your fellow citizens—perhaps less affluent, educated, and successful than
you—the claim “I am a U.S. citizen” is the only claim they have to any
resources or protection. Without immigration restrictions, there are no
national borders. Without national borders, there are no nation-states. Without
nation-states, there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no
democracy. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then
voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.
Americans are entitled to consider
carefully whom they will number among themselves. They would be
irresponsible not to consider this carefully—because all of
these expensive commitments must be built on a deep agreement that all who live
inside the borders of the United States count as “ourselves.” The years of slow
immigration, 1915 to 1975, were also years in which the United States became a
more cohesive nation: the years of the civil-rights revolution, the building of
a mass middle class, the construction of a national social-insurance system,
the projection of U.S. power in two world wars. As immigration has accelerated,
the country seems to have splintered apart.
Many Americans feel that the
country is falling short of its promises of equal opportunity and equal
respect. Levels of immigration that are too high only enhance the difficulty of
living up to those promises. Reducing immigration, and selecting immigrants
more carefully, will enable the country to more quickly and successfully absorb
the people who come here, and to ensure equality of opportunity to both the
newly arrived and the long-settled—to restore to Americans the feeling of
belonging to one united nation, responsible for the care and flourishing of all
Frum’s article was written before
homeland security chief Kirstjen Nielsen said March 6 that 900,000 migrants may
cross the southern border this year. That is one migrant for every four
Americans who will be born in 2019.
However, Frum’s task of persuasion
is difficult because there are enormous social and professional pressure on his
college-educated readers to go along with the cheap-labor immigration policies
which are moving income and wealth from young employees up to
older CEOs and investors
Speaking at a naturalization ceremony in Texas on March 18, former
President George W. Bush said immigration to America “is a blessing and a
strength.” He also said that “borders need to be respected,” and praised the
work of border patrol agents, but that’s not what the media seized upon.
Post inserted “blessing and strength”
into the lead of its story, headlined “George W. Bush: ‘May we never forget
that immigration is a blessing and a strength’,” also working into the first
sentence the following dig at Donald Trump: “a message that sharply contrasts
with President Trump’s rhetoric on the issue.”
Politics covered the speech, making sure to
note “the rhetoric and policy positions from Bush came in contrast to much of
the modern Republican Party and President Donald Trump.” The BBC
said, “Mr Bush’s comments were seen as an
implicit rebuke to President Donald Trump’s administration.”
And on and on. CBS News: “Bush urges politicians to ‘dial down rhetoric’ on immigration.”
Globe: “described immigration as ‘a blessing
and a strength,’ a message that sharply contrasts with President Trump’s
rhetoric on the issue.” People: “it was a soft rebuke of the prevailing anti-immigrant position
of some members of the Republican Party, including President Donald Trump.”
Get it? George W. Bush has won his grim battle with history.
Various photos showed him inviting dozens of new citizens up to the podium,
including Muslims in headscarves, Hispanics, and Africans. Apparently including
anyone of European descent would have been bad optics.
And never mind that if Bush II hadn’t bombed, invaded and occupied
Iraq, the Middle East might be relatively stable today. Iraq, for all its
problems, would nonetheless provide a strategic counterweight to Iran. We would
have saved trillions of dollars and spared millions of lives, and additional
millions of refugees would have stayed home.
What’s Really Happening
The problem with all this media-spun anti-Trump “wisdom” from Bush is simple:
President Trump is right, and the spin is wrong.
It is true that America was enriched in the past by waves of new
immigrants. It is true that in the past, these waves of new immigrants
benefited the economy. And it is true that even now, if immigration were
brought under control, reduced somewhat, and reformed so that only highly
skilled immigrants with a commitment to learning English were vetted and
admitted, it would again be beneficial to our economy and enrich our culture.
But that’s not what’s happening.
According to CarryingCapacity.org, the United States “now accepts over one million legal immigrants
each year, which is more than all of the other industrialized nations in the
world, combined.” Additionally, according to ImmigrationCounters.com, nearly 28 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United
Attempting to quantify the costs and benefits of immigration into
the United States is not easy. According to a study conducted by the Federation
for American Immigration Reform, the cost
to America taxpayers to provide illegal immigrants government funded education,
health care, justice and law enforcement, public assistance, and general
government services is estimated at $135 billion per year. According to
the Center for Immigration
Studies, “63% of non-citizen households access
welfare programs compared to 35% of native households.”
Statistics abound—and for every study suggesting that America’s
immigration is creating a burden on the economy, there is another that
concludes the opposite, that immigrants continue to provide a net economic
benefit to the economy. So rather than provide yet another regurgitation of
battling statistics, it is important to note some crucial qualitative
differences between immigration trends in America today, compared with past
centuries in America.
Why Immigration to America Today Is Different
Immigrants today are not coming from
nations of equal or greater economic achievement. In the past, immigrants
from Europe, for the most part, were emigrating from nations that were as
advanced as the United States was, if not more so. Today the overwhelming
majority of immigrants are coming from developing nations.
Immigrants in the past came
primarily from European nations which had cultural values—educational,
religious, and political—that were, if not nearly identical to American
cultural values, at shared a similar trajectory towards achieving those
values. Immigrants today come from nations that, relatively speaking, have
far fewer cultural similarities to America than past waves of immigrants.
Immigrants today, for the most part,
are coming from nations that are rapidly increasing in population and, in
aggregate, dwarf the United States in population. Related to this is the
fact that in the past, the people already in America were themselves
rapidly increasing in population, but this is no longer the case, except
among populations of recently arrived immigrants.
Immigrants today arrive via 10-hour
hops on an airliner. In the past, waves of immigrants spent 10 months
traversing land and sea in a journey of staggering expense and significant
dangers. While this isn’t universally true, particularly for the overland
migrants that cross America’s southern border, the general point stands:
coming to America today does not require the commitment it required in the
Similarly, in the past, immigrants
pretty much renounced their countries of origin. They made a one-way trip
and they adopted the language and values of America. Today, retaining
cultural unity with one’s country of origin is a few clicks on the
internet, a cheap telephone call, an affordable airfare. Technology has
greatly eroded the forces that used to impel immigrants to become
Immigrants in the past arrived in an
America that had a voracious need for unskilled workers. Today the
American economy is relentlessly automating jobs that used to require
unskilled labor, and the American population already has a surplus of
Immigrants today are arriving in a
welfare state, where they are assured of food, shelter, and medical care
that are, in general, orders of magnitude better than anything available
to them in their native countries. This creates a completely different
incentive to today’s immigrants. In past centuries, immigrants came to
America to find freedom and to work. Today they are offered a smorgasbord
of taxpayer-funded social services.
Immigrant students today—especially
in the coastal urban centers where most of them settle—enter a public
education system that teaches them with a reverse-racist, anti-capitalist
bias. They are taught in our public schools not to assimilate, but to
“celebrate diversity”; not to earn opportunities through hard work, but
through fighting discrimination. They are taught, often in their native
language, that they have arrived in a nation dominated by racist and
sexist white males, who exploit the world to amass evil profits.
Recipes for Disaster
These final three points are the most troublesome. If immigration reform
advocates made those a priority and addressed them decisively with new
policies, the other concerns might be manageable. But we must address the
problems caused by immigrants with low job-skills, who encounter the welfare
state, and are subjected to anti-Western cultural messaging.
To suggest Americans should resist competing with highly skilled
immigrants, for example, is not only xenophobic, but it smacks of an
entitlement mentality. Allowing immigrants into the United States who are
qualified to join our ranks of scientists, engineers, researchers and doctors
will only help our economy and overall standard of living. Allowing unskilled
immigrants into this country, however, when we already have tens of millions of
unskilled workers who are either in our prisons or unemployed and collecting
welfare—who themselves could perform this work—is much more likely to
constitute a drain on our economy.
Similarly, it is a recipe for disaster to allow immigrants into an
America where the curricula in K-12 schools and universities—beholden to
powerful left-wing teachers and faculty unions—indoctrinates immigrants to
resent the alleged evils of capitalism and the incorrigible racist, sexist core
of our American culture. This is particularly true when accompanying this siren
song of corruption is easy access to social services of all kinds, including
welfare. If new immigrants are taught the cards are stacked against them, and
at the same time they are offered a free ride that provides a standard of
living many times greater than what they knew in the countries they came from,
Clearly an increasing population, all else held equal, does cause
overall economic expansion. It isn’t clear at all, however, that this is the
optimal way to create economic expansion. First of all, global human population
is destined to level off by 2050 anyway, so rather than expanding the
population through immigration, economic policy needs to search for the answer
as to how to continue to experience economic growth despite a stable, aging
population. In Japan, they have already made this policy decision—with zero net
immigration and the oldest population on earth, Japan leads the world in the
development of androids that will, presumably, become caregivers to the
elderly. Economic growth oriented towards improving the quality of life for the
elderly is one example of a sustainable growth sector—economic growth dependent
on an immigrant-fueled population expansion is not sustainable.
There is another factor, of course, that makes immigration today
far more problematic than it was in previous generations. Now more than ever,
mass immigration of unskilled economic migrants and political refugees has
become a strategy to move America sharply to the Left by dramatically
transforming the electorate.
What the establishment uniparty is doing in America today is a
deliberate devaluation of American votes, and a deliberate thwarting of the
political rule of Americans who have lived and worked in America for
generations. Trump’s bellicosity may scare the soccer moms, but they along with
everyone else who loves America ought to reflect on his actions instead of his
tone. He is the only major politician in modern times who has tried to do
anything to stop this. George W. Bush, God bless him, should stop letting the
media use his words as weapons in their war against Trump.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is
available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a
significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content,
please contact email@example.com.
is a Senior Fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a co-founder of
the California Policy Center, a free-market think tank based in Southern
California, where he served as their first president. He is a prolific writer
on the topics of political reform and sustainable economic development. Ring, a
fifth-generation Californian, has an undergraduate degree in political science
from UC Davis, and an MBA in finance from the University of Southern
‘Assimilate or Leave’ has
Always Been U.S. Immigration Policy
The Democratic Left or
DemLeft has denounced as racist Trump's recommendation that "the Squad"
of four left-wing Members of Congress go back to where they (or their
ancestors) came from if they do not like the United States. The DemLeft has
doubled down on this accusation by defining the Squad as "women of
color" even though Rashida Tlaib is no more a person of color than
The truth is instead that
the Democratic Left has put into practice advice misattributed to Joseph Goebbels:
"Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty." The DemLeft is
itself the real purveyor of divisive racial identity politics that undermine
American Nationalism; the force that has held our country together for more
than 240 years and has made the United States the greatest nation on earth.
American Nationalism is
Inclusive of All Who Share Our Values
It is very easy to be an
American Nationalist. We come in all colors so there is no "us" to
look like, and we have freedom of religion so there is no "us" to
pray like. You must however share our collective national values to be one of
This is far from a new concept as shown by the Prussian reformer Johann
to the German Nation. Fichte "…did not divide man-kind into
Germans and non-Germans, but rather into those who believed in the spontaneous
originality and liberty of man and those who did not. The former, Fichte held,
were Germans, no matter what their racial or political affiliation; the latter
were not" (Koppel S. Pinson, Modern
Germany; its History and Civilization).
American Nationalism is
similarly inclusive of all who share our values, and it has zero tolerance for
discrimination against any American's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or
sexual orientation. Theodore Roosevelt's 1894 essay on “True Americanism”
elaborated of recent immigrants, "An immense number of them have become
completely Americanized, and these stand on exactly the same plane as the
descendants of any Puritan, Cavalier, or Knickerbocker among us, and do their
full and honorable share of the nation’s work."
The proposition that people
who do not like the United States should go back where they or their ancestors
came from predates Donald Trump by almost 200 years. The “Annual Register” of
1820 said of Caucasian immigrants from German-speaking countries, "…if
they cannot accommodate themselves to the moral, political, and physical state
of this country, the Atlantic Ocean will always be open to them to return to
their native countries." Theodore Roosevelt added of predominantly
Caucasian immigrants, "It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant
to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear
the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to
bear the name at all, and, if he comes from Europe, the sooner he goes back
there the better." Donald Trump has therefore said nothing that has not
been said many times before, and by some of our nation's most respected
Fichte's and Roosevelt's premise was therefore quite simple:
anybody who shares our values is one of us, and those who do not share our
values do not belong among us, except perhaps as temporary visitors. There are
serious questions as to whether "the Squad" and other members of the
extreme left wing of the Democratic Party share American values.
"The Squad" is
Racially Divisive, Balkanizing, and Un-American
Let's start with Squad
member Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
who said, "We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a
brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black
voice.” If a white member of Congress said, "We don't need any more white
faces that don't want to be a white voice," we would wonder where he kept
his sheet and hood, and we would probably find them. Squad member Ilhan Omar added,
"This is not going to be the country of white people." If a Caucasian
member of Congress said, "This is not going to be the country of black
people," we would expect and probably find a sheet and hood.
Theodore Roosevelt would
have almost certainly opined that we don't need any faces of any color that don't
want to be American voices. Those that want to be white, black, or brown voices
should go back where they (or their ancestors) came from, and the white voices
can take their sheets and hoods with them. A story by Robert A. Heinlein
meanwhile features an African-American President of the United States who says,
"A group calling itself La Raza had better mean the human race -- the
whole human race -- or they'll get the same treatment from me as the Ku Klux
Klan." This is exactly the treatment that any form of divisiveracial identity politics
-- Black nationalism, White nationalism, Nation of Islam, or La Raza --
Squad member Rashida Tlaib
tweeted: "When will the world stop dehumanizing our Palestinian
people who just want to be free?" Tlaib's Palestinian people just to want
to be free to abuse and terrorize Jews, Christians, Muslims who do not share
Hamas' depraved ideology, women and LGBT people,
but the bottom line is that if Tlaib considers herself a Palestinian, she
should follow Theodore Roosevelt's advice, renounce her American citizenship,
and move to "Palestine."Tlaib also
argued "…that Palestinians are not responsible for terrorism
or vitriol, even as she has lambasted the president’s use of words and called
Israel a white-supremacist nation." If Tlaib's Palestinian people are not
responsible, then who launched all those rockets and arson balloons at
Israel -- the bogeyman?
tweeted, "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the
people and help them see the evil doings of Israel" while adding,
"It's all about the Benjamins ($100 bills), baby" -- an obvious
reference to Jews and money. Omar apologized for this remark but is apparently sorry
only that she got caught because she later joined fellow Squad members Tlaib
and Ocasio-Cortez to support boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against
Israel. BDS is nothing more than a way to support Hamas without
violating laws against providing direct material support to a terrorist
organization. Israel, and not Tlaib's Palestinian people, shares American
values on the rights and dignity of women, LGBT people, and people of other
religions. Omar also equated the Somali deaths during
the battle of Mogadishu to those of American soldiers.
These issues have nothing to
do with the color of "the Squad's" skins (at least one of which is
Caucasian) and everything to do with the content of its character. Theodore
Roosevelt and the author of the material in the Annual Register of
1820 would have probably reached the same conclusion as President Trump.
Civis Americanus is the pen
name of an American Thinker contributor who remembers the lessons of history,
and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again
the hard way.
In modern English, nationalism has
become a dirty word. It is lumped together with racism, xenophobia, chauvinism,
and intolerance. To accuse someone of harboring
nationalistic views is a formula for exclusion. Few scholars can
survive carrying such charges in their professional
luggage. Accusations of nationalism are directed at politicians as
well, with predictable results. In academia and the press, attempts
to discredit and condemn nationalism are numerous. A recent example
is "An Open Letter Against the New Nationalism" published August 19, 2019
in the Commonweal magazine.
It has to be emphasized that
aggressiveness toward neighbors and attempts to destroy them for the sake of
one's own Lebensraum are not nationalism. They
are a pathology prompted by greed and arrogance. One of the
shortcomings of the aforementioned Letter is unjustified attribution of
aggressiveness to what I call defensive nationalism, bent on preservation of
identity and history.
Nationalism was not created by the French
Revolution, as some scholars maintain, nor was it a product of literacy, as
Marxist scholar Benedict Anderson wanted. It has many
parents. It involves defense and protection of group identity that
took generations to develop. It contributes to the individual's
Liberal democracy was supposed to dissolve
nationalism and bring an end to history, but even within Professor Fukuyama's
lifetime, it has failed to do so. History rushed past his
predictions and doled out to humanity new wars and new ways of fighting
wars. It is true that Western democracies have avoided war on their
territory, but they have participated in numerous proxy wars. In
2019, the world is as unlikely to erupt into eternal peace as ever. Wars
are being fought, and nothing indicates that they won't be fought in the
future, even though liberal democracy seems strongly embedded in first-world
Nor has the territory of Western
democracies become immune to challenges from abroad. This is why big
money is spent on the military (and not just because of greed of the
military-industrial complex). Enemies of Western democracies are
powerful and real. Recent events in Hong Kong add to the large body
of proof that some world powers, as well as many smaller countries, reject the
democratic system and abhor liberalism. The Hong Kong example has
filled the front pages of newspapers in summer 2019, but there are numerous
other cases of lesser visibility and greater long-term danger to democracies. In
the same year, two Russian deep-cover agents, Elena
Vavilova and Andrei
Bezrukov, were unmasked in Canada; they lived there for decades under the
stolen names of Tracy Foley and Donald Heathfield. It remains
unclear whether their Canadian-born children were groomed for Russian
espionage. How hostile to Canada and, more broadly, to Western
democracies does one have to be to institute this kind of spy network? For
it goes without saying that Vavilova and Bezrukov were not the only such spies
discovered on the American continent in recent years, and their task was not to
ferret out recipes for the best ice cream. A bunch of similarnelegaly (as
they are called in Russian) were discovered in the United States a few years
ago. Like the seizures of cocaine, it did not eliminate the traffic.
What is the foundation of our defense
against such hostile plans? I contend that it is the sense of
nationhood, otherwise called nationalism. American soldiers in
Afghanistan fight not to preserve liberal democracy. They fight out
of loyalty to their nation and their military unit. When it comes to
collective survival, it is patriotism and not the right to vote that is being
appealed to. As an anonymous tweeter recently stated, "loving
America is what holds us together and what many have fought and died
for." Yes, America gives us freedom of speech and the right to
vote, but so do many other countries. It is American nationhood, its
long story in history, and its innumerable unique characteristics that are the
object of love, not its liberal democratic format.
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We
shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall
fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall
never surrender."Who are the "we" Churchill
speaks about? Are they democracy's soldiers? No, they are
Englishmen, and Churchill is appealing to their nationalism and not to their
preferences concerning political systems. The British Army and the
Royal Air Force swear an oath promising that "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in
duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and
Successors." Here the Crown represents the Nation; again, the
pledge is made not to a political system, but to a person and, through her, to
the nation. Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of all
When democracies were in direct danger in
WW2, no appeal was made to their political systems. Rather, the
concept of nationhood was invoked.
What if nationhood disappeared, as so many
utopian scholars seem to desire? What would the leaders appeal to if
their territory were under attack? If nations disappear, we are back
to the jungle. We might defend our immediate family, but this would
not count for much in case of foreign aggression. To abandon our
nationalism while our enemies give way to their greed and hatred would be
Margaret Canovan has observed that "modern liberal democratic
ideals depend for their plausibility on the collective power generated by
national loyalties that are inconsistent with the ideals themselves (p.
137)." In other words, liberal democracies play down nationhood
or become outright hostile to it, yet it is nationhood that stands between them
and their potential adversaries. In case of external danger,
countries are mobilized by loyalty to the nation, yet nationhood plays no
significant role in theorizing liberal democracies. Fukuyama's
theory was an extreme case of such blissful insensibility to what seems to be a
crucial yet invisible element of a modern democratic state.
As Yoran Hazony has recently argued
in The Virtue of Nationalism (2018), we weaken a key element
of our security by continuing to relegate nationalism to negative
characteristics of human communities. The optimism that permeates
self-definitions of the so-called developed countries does not take into
account the fact that many in the world wish America ill and that the sense of
national identity may be the key to self-defense. Nationalism should
not be relegated to the "dirty words" basket, for it may be the
ultimate guardian of democracy.