“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.
DANIEL GREENFIELD
Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.
A DACA amnesty would put more citizen children of illegal aliens — known as “anchor babies” — on federal welfare, as Breitbart News reported, while American taxpayers would be left potentially with a $26 billion bill.
Additionally, about one-in-five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one-in-seven would go on Medicaid. JOHN BINDER
The Flourishing Life of a Privileged Undocumented Immigrant
Hating America while it hands you the American Dream.
Karla Cornejo Villavicencio was the first undocumented person to ever be a finalist for the National Book Award in 2020, according to the National Book Foundation. Her book The Undocumented Americans, published this year, is a runaway bestseller. It chronicles the lives of undocumented immigrants as well as Villavicencio’s own life in America. She was brought to the United States of America from Ecuador at age four or five by her parents—also undocumented immigrants.
Villavicencio was also, she believes, the first undocumented immigrant to graduate from Harvard University. She did so in 2011. During her senior year there she penned an anonymous essay for the Daily Beast titled: “I am an illegal immigrant at Harvard.” She was also an Emerson Collective Fellow. At just thirty-one years old, she has written for magazines (while being an undocumented immigrant) such as The Atlantic, Vogue, Glamour, The New Republic, The New York Times, and Elle. She has reviewed jazz albums for a New York monthly magazine. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at in the American Studies Program at Yale University.
Very recently, Villavicencio was a DACA recipient and received a green card. She admits she owns and lives in a huge apartment.
But as far as she is concerned, America is not a nice place. It is a “fucking racist country.” Warning: The profanity and expletives in this book are employed with the ease with which traditional writers utilize commas and semicolons as grammatical tools to communicate effectively.
Her advice to kids who suffer is to go to Harvard and “‘Make hella money.’ Kill the salutatorian. Make it look like an accident, and in your valedictory address, remind your school that cops are pigs, and ICE are ZAZI’s.” She invokes them to believe that they are John at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, and perhaps, his lover.
There are moving stories of undocumented immigrants struggling to make something of their lives in America; however, the book is marred by vitriol and self-righteous moralistic dislike the author holds for the United States of America. She dedicated the book to young immigrants and children of immigrants. She declares to them: “It’s time to fuck some shit up.” This is one of the reasons she hates thinking of migrants as butterflies: She writes: “Butterflies can’t fuck a bitch up.”
She deliberately refrains from giving the reasons why her interviewees left their countries for America because she believes that people should not have to provide a reason why they deserve to emigrate. And (her words): “It’s nobody’s fucking business.” Villavicencio’s sense of entitlement has no limits. All undocumented persons in America have a universal right to be here, and anyone who wants to come not only has a moral right to do so, but America also ought to let them in. People, she writes, simply have a human right to move, to change location if they experience hunger, poverty, violence or lack of opportunity, especially, if that climate is created by the USA—as is the case with most Third World countries from which people migrate, she writes with emphasis. “Ain’t that ‘bout a bitch,” she cinches.
She admits to feeling no qualms about taking money from rich white people because she’s a Van Gogh, crazy and broke—a young Hemingway. She believes most Americans inhabit a White Supremacist country, and she feels compelled to tell everyone there is no such thing as the American Dream while bemoaning the fact that some star immigrant who has done things the “right way” will always preach a different story that Americans will eat up; a symptom of their internalized bootstrap mythology.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of a country that never deported her or her family, but, instead, has permitted her to attend a prestigious Catholic school in lieu of attending public school, paid for by a wealthy billionaire female patron whom she resented (“I would have been fine”) she almost hisses from the pages, is her assessment of the 9/11 tragedy. Villavicencio states that if you were white, 9/11 happened to you personally with blunt, scalding force. Why? Because, she submits, the antithesis of an American is an immigrant. Americans, in her view, are out to annihilate not just immigrants, but all minorities. Of the United States government she writes categorically: “They want us all dead, Latins, black people, they want us dead and sometimes they’ll slip something into our bloodstream to kill us slowly and sometimes they’ll shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot and shoot until their bloodlust is satisfied.”
She cannot bring herself to attribute one single good thing about America. She writes: “I have had the good fortune, mere dumb luck, to always have had access to decent health care. New York City provides low cost insurance to minors in low-income families.”
That is not luck. That is the result of non-discriminatory socialist policies of which she is a beneficiary.
But she admits that if you are going to write a book about undocumented immigrants in America, then you cannot be enamored with America because that will disqualify you.
She writes almost grudgingly of members of the National Guard helping undocumented workers acquire cases of water in places that required them to have an ID when Michigan law prohibited it.
Karla Cornejo Villavicencio has penned a diatribe against the United States that has bestowed more fiscal resources, accolades, and privilege and unauthorized legal protection on her than it has on many of its own citizens. This woman does not write with the voice of a marginalized outsider. Her publisher is Random House. She’s had literary agents and television crews pursuing her since her Harvard days. Here is her response to agents pursuing her for representation while she was an undocumented immigrant-senior at Harvard: “I fucking packed up my dorm. I was angry. I was twenty-one. I wasn’t fucking Barbara Streisand.”
So much for gratitude.
She speaks with more authority and a sense of nonchalant belonging than most working-class or middle-class Americans I know personally. She speaks as one entitled to be here. And she speaks with the sort of rancid resentment when the law is applied against those who are residing here illegally. When the state of New York axed drivers’ license for undocumented immigrants, she reports feeling crazy watching the “white supremacist state slowly kill and break my family apart.”
Villavicencio admits that she is crazy, and that she is “just a sad bitch.” She writes of her battles with borderline personality disorder, depression, suicidal ideation and anxiety—among other ailments. But mental illness is no excuse to tarnish what could have been a moving look at the lives of undocumented immigrants who, despite being here illegally are still, many of them, hardworking individuals who pay taxes and feel deeply patriotic about America. That they have broken the law is another issue. Mental illness is not an excuse to write a diatribe and indict a nation on charges for which it ought not be charged. She accuses the United States of America of taking the youth, dreams and labor of undocumented immigrant, spitting them out and leaving them with nothing to show for it. One wants to ask at this juncture: How many undocumented persons were kidnapped by US Government agents and brought to America and forced to work against their wills?
The onus of responsibility is on America, she believes, to prove that the state does not have the right to determine by virtue of being a sovereign and autonomous nation, who is and who is not permitted to reside within its borders. With no philosophical grounding she, along with several advocates of open borders, believe that immigration is not a privilege but, rather, a universal human right without bothering to establish the basis of that right.
One can wade though the sloppy writing, the home-girl-keeping-it-real-urban lingo employed that seems more befitting of a sophomoric teenager trying to appear cool and hip, than from an alleged accomplished writer who is still waiting for the world to tell her who she is rather than the other way around. This book is filled with amorphous anger and visceral ambition, but with little reasoned convictions. One can gloss over the profanity as the result of a paucity of imagination or, perhaps, just the stridency of a woman railing in anger at a system that has both come to her aid, and delivered the American Dream to her. All these are mere inconvenient infelicities that, by themselves, pose no real philosophical dangers to how we approach the immigration debate.
I leave readers, however, with the most incontrovertible danger that, if left unchallenged, will morally disarm opponents of illegal immigration and give the upper hand to those who increasingly believe that undocumented immigrants have a de jure right to locate themselves anywhere in the world. The unexamined premise behind the entire Argument From Entitlement that undergirds claims of unrestricted rights of documented immigrants to live in any foreign nation is the belief that needs and suffering are both a necessary and sufficient condition for establishing a legitimate claim on the efforts of others. Any response one gives to aid the suffering of others is a benevolent service one provides for another based on one’s choices that stem from either one’s values, or the simple compassion one holds in one’s heart in relation to the plight of others. One is not fulfilling a rights claim another is exercising against one by simply presenting a need or suffering another has not created and is, therefore, not responsible for. So, let us be clear: a foreign country that responds to the hunger, poverty, domestic violence, political violence, economic hardships, and even tyranny by governments against citizens of another country, is providing a relief service to the oppressed. It is not fulfilling an inalienable right to those pressing such rights claims. And that position stands no matter the baseless assertions of the United Nations.
Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including “We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People” (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6.
Exclusive–Steve Camarota: Every Illegal Alien Costs Americans $70K Over Their Lifetime
Every
illegal alien, over the course of their lifetime, costs American taxpayers
about $70,000, Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steve
Camarota says.
During an interview
with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Camarota said his research has revealed the
enormous financial burden that illegal immigration has on America’s working and
middle class taxpayers in terms of public services, depressed wages, and
welfare.
“In a person’s
lifetime, I’ve estimated that an illegal border crosser might cost taxpayers …
maybe over $70,000 a year as a net cost,” Camarota said. “And that excludes the
cost of their U.S.-born children, which gets pretty big when you add that in.”
LISTEN:
“Once [an illegal
alien] has a child, they can receive cash welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born
children,” Camarota explained. “Once they have a child, they can live in public
housing. Once they have a child, they can receive food stamps on behalf of that
child. That’s how that works.”
Camarota said the
education levels of illegal aliens, border crossers, and legal immigrants are
largely to blame for the high level of welfare usage by the f0reign-born
population in the U.S., noting that new arrivals tend to compete for jobs
against America’s poor and working class communities.
In past waves of mass
immigration, Camarota said, the U.S. did not have an expansive welfare system.
Today’s ever-growing welfare system, coupled with mass illegal and legal
immigration levels, is “extremely problematic,” according to Camarota, for
American taxpayers.
The RAISE Act — reintroduced in the
Senate by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), and
Josh Hawley (R-MO) — would cut legal immigration levels in half and convert the
immigration system to favor well-educated foreign nationals, thus relieving
American workers and taxpayers of the nearly five-decade-long wave of booming
immigration. Currently, mass legal immigration redistributes the
wealth of working and middle class Americans to the country’s top
earners.
“Virtually none of that
existed in 1900 during the last great wave of immigration, when we also took in
a number of poor people. We didn’t have a well-developed welfare state,”
Camarota continued:
We’re not going to stop
[the welfare state] tomorrow. So in that context, bringing in less
educated people who are poor is extremely problematic for public coffers, for
taxpayers in a way that it wasn’t in 1900 because the roads weren’t even paved
between the cities in 1900. It’s just a totally different world. And that’s
the point of the RAISE Act is to sort of bring in line immigration policy with
the reality say of a large government … and a welfare state. [Emphasis
added]
The immigrants are not
all coming to get welfare and they don’t immediately sign up, but over
time, an enormous fraction sign their children up. It’s likely the case
that of the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, more than half
are signed up for Medicaid — which is our most expensive program.
[Emphasis added]
As Breitbart News has reported, U.S. households
headed by foreign-born residents use nearly twice the welfare of households
headed by native-born Americans.
Every year the U.S.
admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals, with the vast majority
deriving from chain migration. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5
million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal
and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15
percent of the entire U.S. population.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM
Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
John Binder is a
reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
MULTI-CULTURALISM and the
creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open
borders.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html
“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
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
What will America stand for in 2050?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0528/p09s01-coop.html
The US should think long and hard about the high number of
Latino immigrants.
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.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/07/mexico-will-double-us-population.html
Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity
Author Samuel Huntington
Description
In his seminal
work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel
Huntington argued provocatively and presciently that with the end of the cold
war, “civilizations” were replacing ideologies as the new fault lines in
international politics.
Now in his controversial new work, Who Are We?, Huntington
focuses on an identity crisis closer to home as he examines the impact other civilizations
and their values are having on our own country.
America was founded by British settlers who brought with them a distinct
culture, says Huntington, including the English language, Protestant values,
individualism, religious commitment, and respect for law. The waves of
immigrants that later came to the United States gradually accepted these values
and assimilated into America's Anglo-Protestant culture. More recently,
however, our national identity has been eroded by the problems of assimilating
massive numbers of primarily Hispanic immigrants and challenged by issues such
as bilingualism, multiculturalism, the devaluation of citizenship, and the
“denationalization” of American elites.
September 11 brought a revival of American patriotism and a renewal of American
identity, but already there are signs that this revival is fading. Huntington
argues the need for us to reassert the core values that make us Americans.
Timely and thought-provoking, Who Are We? is an important
book that is certain to shape our national conversation about who we are.
Atlantic Magazine: Immigration is Fracturing America into Rival
Tribes
Immigration is splitting the United States into warring tribes, says an unusual article in the strongly pro-migration Atlanticmagazine.
The article, headlined “The Threat of Tribalism,”
admitted:
The causes of America’s resurgent tribalism are many. They
include seismic demographic change, which has led to predictions that whites
will lose their majority status within a few decades; declining social mobility
and a growing class divide; and media that reward expressions of outrage.
But the mass immigration of 44.5 million people is the
primary cause of the three other factors — “declining social mobility and a
growing class divide; and media that reward expressions of outrage.”
Yet the authors do not even suggest any changes whatsoever to
the replacement-level immigration which brings in one foreigner every year for
every four Americans who turn 18, which lowers wages, and ensures an
expanding array of rival languages and civic rules in the United States:
Center for Immigration Studies@CIS_org
In
2017, there were 85 cities in which a majority of residents spoke a foreign
language at home. These include:
- Hialeah, Fla. (95%);
- Laredo, Texas (92%);
- East Los Angeles, Calif. (90%)
- Elizabeth, N.J. (76%);
- Skokie, Ill. (56%);https://cis.org/Report/Almost-Half-Speak-Foreign-Language-Americas-Largest-Cities …
Almost Half Speak a Foreign Language in America's Largest
Cities | @CIS_org
56 people
are talking about this
The two Yale authors, professors Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld,
describe the diversity created by immigration:
All of this has contributed to a climate in which every group in
America—minorities and whites; conservatives and liberals;
the working class and elites—feels under attack, pitted
against the others not just for jobs and spoils, but for the right to define
the nation’s identity. In these conditions, democracy devolves into a zero-sum
competition, one in which parties succeed by stoking voters’ fears and
appealing to their ugliest us-versus-them instincts.
Again, the authors do not suggest any immigration changes that
could lower public fears over the elite’s determination to change the nation’s
identity to suit their elite interests.
Elite groups openly acknowledge that immigration is the force
which now drives American politics — including the shocking election of
real-estate developer Donald Trump in 2016. As New York Magazine says in a review of Chua’s
earlier book:
Perhaps the most bitter of all contemporary political battles —
and a Trump favorite — is immigration, which behind the ideological posturing
is a referendum on whose tribe will control the country’s demographic future …
Similarly, a new study by authors from
the University of Michigan argues that the nation’s tribal polarization
is driven by rising racial and ethnic conflict:
Race/ethnicity now cleaves the parties more neatly than ever,
and not simply because Democrats and Republicans disagree in their attitudes
about race itself. In fact, whites are sorting out of the Democratic party at a
significant rate while minorities are standing pat. Figure 1 presents evidence
in this regard using the American National Election Studies time-series data starting from 1952. The growing racial gap between the two
parties is evident. As the share of Whites among self-identified Democrats is
rapidly decreasing (outpacing demographic changes in the country as a whole),
the Republican Party remains overwhelmingly White. Our conjecture is that it is
these changes in race and ethnicity that drive most of the affective
polarization we have witnessed over the last 30 years.
By failing to identify immigration’s role in the problem, the
two Yale authors are left with a few recommendations so vague as to be
useless.
They urge that conservative Americans step up their efforts to
persuade minorities that they are equal — as if Americans have not been
trying to do that at enormous expense since the civil war, and as if
immigration does not fuel the ethnic politics which denies equality between
Americans and immigrants.
The Atlantic authors do offer some cautious
criticism of the progressive left which has worked with business to impose and
preserve mass migration, even after the 2016 election:
For its part, the left needs to rethink its scorched-earth
approach to American history and ideals. Exposing injustice, past and present,
is important, but there’s a world of difference between saying that America has
repeatedly failed to live up to its constitutional principles and saying that
those principles are lies or smoke screens for oppression.
But neither of those two recommendations address what
the Yale authors admit is the primary cause of rising tribalism — the
elite’s policy of importing foreign workers and their tribes into
the United States.
Nor did they provide readers even a cursory description of
President Donald Trump’s promised fix, his Four Pillars reforms.
Moreover, neither author acknowledges the basic reality
that their peers in the elite do want tribalism to overthrow Americans’ shared,
non-racial, civic culture, which the elites prefer to dismiss as merely a
“white” culture. Chua indirectly admits this goal in her 2018 book, Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate
of Nations, as the New
York Magazinereviewer describes:
Better-educated whites, who dominate the country’s political and
cultural institutions and are the main beneficiaries of the globalized economy,
have adopted as their “tribal” identity a sort of post-national
cosmopolitanism, defined against what they regard as the provincial culture of
poor whites …
it seems inevitable that American whites will lose their
majority status sometime around the middle of the current century. More
cosmopolitan whites tend to view this prospect with indifference or even
excitement.
Reihan Salam, a conservative author, writes in the Sept.
21 Wall Street Journal:
it is clear to many thoughtful liberal scholars and journalists
that immigration-driven cultural change has greatly contributed to right-wing
populism. On the other, they view slowing the pace of immigration as a complete
non-starter. As they see it, the only option is to double down on the status
quo and hope that the storm passes—even if this approach risks triggering a
crisis for open societies, such as the one we are arguably living through
today. It is as though these thinkers are convinced that … that conservatives
who worry about the pace of cultural change must be crushed rather than
accommodated.
For example, Bloomberg writer Noah Smith welcomes the
government-imposed foreign populations because it means that Americans cannot
expect the millions of foreigners in their midst to follow Americans’
collective civic rules about how people are supposed to behave. Smith claims:
Diversity provides a backstop defense against the natural
tendencies of homogenization and conformity … A country with institutions
strong enough not to have to rely on homogeneity will be the strongest country
imaginable.
But the civic culture destroyed by diversity includes shared
expectations of civic equality within freedom, of Internet-enabled free speech
and organization, and of debates over facts not feelings. The civic rules
help Americans prevent their elite from segregating themselves into “oligarchical socialism,” globalist
virtue-signaling, elite colleges and gated communities, stock-market wealth,
and technological power over political debate.
Smith does admit his experiment with imposed civic
variety may prove disastrous to American people:
I believe that there is a chance our experiment might fail. That
building a free society from people of all races, religions, and national
origins might in fact prove too hard a task …
But no matter the risk to 300 million non-elite Americans, Smith
insists “the America experiment [with diversity] must continue.”
Smith counters polite criticism of his diversity-first argument
by describing his critics as racists, so exemplifying the tribalism which Smith
uses and which the two Atlantic authors
claim to oppose:
1/Tucker
Carlson's question - "How is diversity our strength?" was not asked
in good faith, but for purposes of racist demagoguery.
But I will try to answer it in good faith, because it's an important question
in its own right.https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1038222675322318850 …
Andrew
Lawrence@ndrew_lawrence
Tucker Carlson really really really really does not like
living in a diverse country
2,287
people are talking about this
Tom Jawetz is the vice-president for immigration policy at the
Democrats’ primary think-tank, the Center for American Progress. He argues
that immigration is about the treatment of all people worldwide, not about
Americans’ concerns. That radically universal view demotes his moral duty to
his fellow Americans down to the same level as his moral duty to
distant peoples of Singapore, Lichtenstein, Nepal or Indonesia.
Conversations
about #migration are
about something so much more fundamental. They are about how we value other
human beings. They are about whether we stand by our universal principles. @MJRodriguesEU #GlobalCompactMigration
So of course, ordinary Americans — of all colors and classes and variations — are collectively pushing back against their hostile or
uncaring elite. New York Magazine insists
on defining them see as “whites,” but the members of Trump’s multi-colored coalition have:
defined their tribal identity in opposition to the [elite]
Establishment, which they perceive as a distant, occupying foreign power,
indifferent to their interests and intent on elevating minorities and
foreigners to pride of place within “their” country.
The Atlantic article
can be read here.
Four million young Americans will join the workforce this year,
but the federal government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants,
and allow an army of at least 2 million visa-workers to work U.S. jobs,
alongside asylum-claiming migrants and illegal aliens.
Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic
growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people
by flooding the market
with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual
and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes
Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their
families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also
pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows
towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.
No comments:
Post a Comment