Skip to main content

See also:

Five reasons America has no right to protect its borders

Native-born Americans have no right to shut out immigrants such as these
Native-born Americans have no right to shut out immigrants such as these
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Between Eric Cantor’s defeat and the flood of 60,000 brown children across the southern border, immigration has been a particularly hot debate this month of June. Conservative media loudly insists that Cantor lost because of “support for amnesty,” and that the wave of at least 60,000 children is being orchestrated by the Obama administration in order to overload the system and thereby put pressure on the House of Representatives to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which the Senate passed a year ago on June 27, 2013.

Implicit behind all this rhetoric is the false assumption that the native-born people of the United States of America have any right whatsoever to protect or defend the country’s borders. For once one examines who we are as Americans, there is literally zero room for any kind of opposition to immigration – legal or illegal. American Whites in particular have long since rendered themselves incapable of formulating a moral justification to restrict immigration. Here are the five reasons why:

1. Melting pot

The concept is quite simple: Humans from all races and ethnic groups immigrate to America, mate with each other, make babies, and within two generations everyone is so thoroughly blended and mixed that “Old World hatreds” cease to exist. This blending process has already happened with the massive waves of European immigrants who came here between 1840-1924, and it will most likely happen with the post-1965 wave of non-white immigrants as well, especially given its widespread support.

No one in America seriously opposes the melting pot or the resulting blending process, at least not anyone in the mainstream. To oppose the melting pot is to oppose America and over 90 percent of the people in it. There’s just one problem though: Whereas America melts down and destroys ethnic/tribal identity, the rest of the nations of the world are composed of people of a specific ethnicity. To support the melting pot is to support the universal brotherhood of man – the idea that everyone is of “one race, the human race.” To support the melting pot is to deny that America should preserve a particular ethnic group or a particular race.

But if there is no particular people to protect and defend, then there is no moral basis to stop anyone from anywhere in the world from immigrating to the U.S. if they want to. Put it another way, because the melting pot encompasses all of humanity, than all 7 billion humans on this planet have the moral right to immigrate to the United States. There cannot be any restrictions on what ingredients go into the melting pot, at least not on an ethnic or racial basis. And for reasons that follow, there also can’t be restrictions on a cultural basis. For if all humans are created equal, than all cultures are created equal as well. This brings us to the next reason:

2. Equality

Once upon a time there was a sociologist named Henry Pratt Fairchild. He served as President of the American Eugenics Society from 1929-1931 and believed that assimilation of immigrants from Eastern Europe (especially the Poles) and Southern Europe (especially the Italians) was impossible due to innate genetic differences between them and Northwestern Europeans (especially the English/Anglo-Saxons).

The point is, this guy didn’t even want other types of White people to immigrate to the U.S, much less Africans, Asians, or Mexicans. He was far from alone in his sentiments. And yet, he recognized back then that the native-born peoples had boxed themselves out of any legitimate reason for restricting immigration:

“There can be little doubt that race prejudice is the greatest single barrier to assimilation. It is a disgraceful anomaly that the people of the United States, who preach and profess to believe in the doctrine of universal brotherhood, who have given political equality to the negroes, who proclaim all men born equal, should in their lives exemplify the narrowest race prejudice."

Fairchild was disgusted by the blatant contradictions between the egalitarian rhetoric of native-born Americans and their desire to limit immigration to Northern & Western Europeans. Even 90 years ago when segregation was still in full force, the religion of equality permeated the American mind so deeply that the advocates of the 1924 immigration act, which had the effect of limiting immigration almost exclusively to Northwest Europeans (at least for its first three years), argued for the law on the basis that “immigration policy should reflect equally the interests of all ethnic groups currently in the country.”

The pathetic weakness of such arguments is self-evident to anyone who believes in protecting and defending their own tribe. The Poles, Italians, and the rest of the Eastern & Southern Europeans ferociously went to bat for their own kind to stop the 1924 act, while the majority of immigration restrictionists tied both hands behind their back by using the false rhetoric of “equality” and “fairness” to mask their natural, innate desire to preserve their own kind. Quite frankly, the only reason the restrictionists got their way was because of the Red Scare.

Bottom line: Equality is akin to disarmament. Any tribe of people anywhere on earth that embraces equality and egalitarianism has surrendered any right to defend themselves as a people. Equality is the denial of differences between individual humans and groups of humans. Equality cannot be reconciled with immigration restriction any more than a mentos can stop coke from fizzling. Equality and unrestricted immigration go hand in hand with each other.

3. Nation of immigrants

The same script from 1924 is playing out here in 2014, only with a different cast of characters. Whereas in 24, the majority Northwest European population wanted to keep the Southeast Europeans out, today the majority-White population – many of whom are descended from those Southeast Europeans – wants to keep Hispanics out.

To be fair, the opposition to Hispanic immigration is not done on a racial basis, at least not explicitly. Instead it’s done on a “legal/illegal” basis. This drives liberals insane because they see the “legal/illegal” dichotomy as a proxy for those who deep down just don’t want brown people living here. But whether the left is right about that or not is ultimately irrelevant here, because in both 1924 and 2014, restrictionists used something other than a defense of their own kind.

It’s not a mystery as to why they disarmed themselves: Since at least 1840 when a massive flood of Irish and Germans came here, the U.S. has been a nation of immigrants. If you want to count the Puritans and the other Anglo-Saxon colonizers, than it’s been a nation of immigrants since its inception. As such, the core population has been in a constant state of flux:

1776-1840: Anglo-Protestant

1840-1890: Northwest European-Protestant

1890-1965: European-Christian

1965-today: World-Whatever

It may or may not be the case that any of these core populations were worth preserving, but the point is that once the floodgates are opened to any tribe of any race for any reason, there’s no closing them. The Anglo-Protestant core is gone and is never coming back. The Northwest European-Protestant core is gone and is never coming back. The European-Christian core is still the majority for now (or at the very least, European-descended peoples are the majority population as of 2014), but it is also on the way out for the same reasons as the previous two cores: The utter refusal or even disgust at the idea of defending themselves as a people.

4. Ellis Island syndrome

One of the phrases that American Whites love to cling to, particularly White conservatives, comes from the Irish Catholic John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Their fealty to this catchphrase is exposed for the crock that it is once they start whining about how their ancestors were treated by the restrictionists who successfully passed the 1924 act.

Without fail, all of the opponents of amnesty today go out of their way to pay tribute to Ellis Island and how wonderful, amazing, exceptional, and freedom-loving those immigrants were. They practically shed tears over Emma Lazarus’ inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Yet when those same tired, poor, huddled masses take the opportunity to move from a third world to a first world country like those 60,000 Latino children did, all of the sudden White conservatives scream “rule of law! Sovereignty! Borders!” Here’s my personal favorite: “We can’t take in everyone!”

In the world of White conservatives, the United States was perfectly capable of taking in over 1 million of their own ancestors per year, but is now somehow incapable of taking in the new generation of huddled masses. Kennedy’s words go out the door when it comes to their own ancestors. They don’t want to hear anything about how the country may have been better off without their ancestors, and that is arrogant selfishness of the highest order. Then again, such selfishness makes perfect sense when you consider the ideology that conservatives swear by:

5. Individualism

This alone is sufficient to discredit whatever arguments they have against immigration, legal or otherwise. Few ideas are more toxic and cancerous to a nation than the idea that the individual transcends his inborn identity – that he can become “whoever he wants to be” and can, in effect, make himself into a god, complete with all the material riches he could ever desire. Absent the context of his tribe, faith, family, and ancestry, a man is nothing.

Individualism goes hand in hand with capitalism – an inherently exploitative system that leaves more chaos and destruction in its wake than a Transformers movie. It is thus no coincidence that conservatives in this country support both. War, capitalism, individual “rights” – it’s a consistent ideology. It also has zero room for immigration restriction.

If the individual has some innate “natural right” to make as much money as he darn well pleases – if acquiring wealth and experiencing “freedom” is the purpose of life – then the individual also has the right to immigrate to whatever country he wants in order to acquire said wealth and experience said freedom. Collective interests never trump individual interests, according to amnesty-opposing conservatives. Their sick ideology of individualism belies them.

Conclusion

It’s been established since the 1960s, and probably long before so, that America’s destiny is to become a multiracial, multicultural frat club where individuals live to please themselves from the cradle to the grave. Whether such a country is sustainable or not is beside the point, because American Whites across the ideological spectrum unquestioningly support this destiny.

Founded on the concept that all men are created equal, America is simultaneously a nation of immigrants and a nation of individuals. It is the new Tower of Babel, the place where ethnic and racial identity gets boiled away in the blending and mixing of the melting pot. Here is the answer to the National Question of “who we are” as Americans: We are the world – and in this world, it’s always Christmas time. We are all part of God's great big family, so let’s feed the world by saying no to borders and yes to unrestricted immigration!