From the print edition of The New American
If the people won’t change the government, change the people.
Much like today’s United States, the Roman Empire was a polyglot, multicultural realm encompassing disparate peoples. Unlike us, Rome got that way via invasion — not through inviting one. But Rome did enjoy one advantage vis-à-vis preserving the empire: Its restless foreign subjects couldn’t vote. How long would Rome have lasted and its government remained “Roman” if they could have?
In our amnesty debates, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) being the latest, a point is often missed. People warn of the fiscal consequences of absorbing poor migrants; libertarians say the solution is nixing the welfare state. People complain about “pressing one” for English and say we must insist newcomers learn English. Then there’s illegal-alien crime, which requires a strict law-and-order approach. The problem? Importing waves of socialists and giving them the vote ensures none of these solutions will ever happen.
Since 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World; 70 to 90 percent of them vote for leftist Democrats upon naturalization. The demographic/cultural/electoral changes this causes are a major reason California, once a Reagan red state, is now devolving into a one-party, Democrat dystopia. And it’s a reason why the whole country is following suit.
This, not “compassion,” is why statists are immigrationists: They’re importing voters and using aliens to make Americanism alien to America. The result? As statism-oriented newcomers help empower thinly veiled socialists, fiscal irresponsibility, the welfare state, soft-on-crime approaches, our culture’s destruction (e.g., the statue wars), and the rest of the leftist program increasingly become the norm. Demographics is destiny — especially when voting is ensured.
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” it’s said. But what about when you’re fooled seven times? We’ve seen seven amnesties; all along were promises to “secure the border.” Do you really think the eighth time, a DACA amnesty, will be the charm, that Lucy won’t again pull the football away at the last second, Charlie Brown?
Photo: AP Images
This article appears in the October 9, 2017, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.
DACA wouldn’t just be the next phase of voting-bloc importation, but another gift that keeps on giving. As author Mickey Kaus wrote in the Washington Post, “We’d be inviting the world.… Under ‘chain migration’ rules established in 1965 … new [DACA] citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws until whole villages have moved to the United States.” Additionally, the strengthened leftist voting blocs would lead to even more amnesties in the future.
Most Americans nonetheless support DACA, not surprising given that propaganda abounds. This starts with the terms “Dreamer” itself (we all have dreams; some don’t involve America’s destruction) and “undocumented immigrant” (read: undocumented Democrat), which is much like calling a rapist an undocumented husband. Let’s examine the pro-DACA arguments.
• “We can’t divide families”: Illegally migrating is what divides families, and reunification is most easily achieved by deporting illegals. Doesn’t sending one illegal home makes more sense than bringing 11 of his relatives here?
• “Children shouldn’t be punished because of their parents’ acts”: When doesn’t enforcing the law adversely affect children? Imprison a couple for bank robbery, and their kids end up in foster care. Moreover, does this concern for juvenile collateral damage materialize when the IRS seizes a parent’s assets? Should we cease enforcing the law, period, “for the children”? Additionally, repatriating an illegal isn’t punishment. If DACA beneficiaries really exhibit achievement, as immigrationists claim, they have then benefited from America’s opportunities. Now it’s time to return home and enrich their native countries with those acquired skills.
• “These illegals have nowhere to go back home”: This is contradictory. If reuniting families is an issue, the illegals must generally have family back home. If this isn’t so, why is nixing immigration law’s chain-migration provision controversial? Note also, a recently issued Mexican government document stated, among other things, “that Mexico will receive with open arms the young Dreamers who return to our country.”
• “We need workers”: With 95 million Americans not in the labor force and robots poised to fill many jobs, this argument rings hollow.
Though most DACA illegals are adults, this issue does concern children. For allowing the American Republic’s destruction hurts all children in America, those alive today and those yet to be born. Note, too, that as long as the put-America-last, illegals-über-alles mentality prevails, there’ll always be more illegals, more amnesty appeals and more attendant propaganda. It wouldn’t end until the Republic did. So perhaps our slogan should be: Deport, deport, deport — for the children.
Photo: AP Images