Those who advocate for open borders today, use the success of early, primarily white European immigrants to argue for increasing the rate of African, Arab, and Latin migrants. But the two groups cannot be compared. Coming from Europe, the early immigrants had an average IQ of around 100; with that came the ability to learn the language and contribute within a short period of time to their new homeland. Migrants today coming from the Third World often have substantially lower levels of intelligence, and can do nothing but become a perennial drain on society.456
The concept of an American melting pot only came about in the last century of our history. The term was popularized in 1908 by a play by Israel Zangwill called The Melting Pot. The play depicted an America where there was no longer any national or ethnic identity, simply a muddled concoction devoid of any sort of heritage.
Zangwill was born to Jewish migrants living in England, and he himself never lived anywhere else. He had no connection to America at any point, nor any understanding of our nation. Most of his writings were concerned with the history of the Jewish peoples, promoting Jewish culture and interests, as well as the establishment of a Jewish state. The idea that this man, who had no first-hand knowledge of America or our values, could somehow be the best arbiter of our immigration policy, is something only a deranged Liberal might accept.457
Liberals also love to cite the Statue of Liberty as evident justification for mass migration. But the Statue of Liberty was given to the US as a gift from the people of France to celebrate our independence: it has nothing to do with immigration. The table held by Lady Liberty reads, JULY IV MDCCLXXVI — July 4th, 1776. The woman depicted is the Roman goddess Libertas, who of course represents freedom, liberty, and independence.
The Statue of Liberty predates the construction of Ellis Island. The famous plaque with the poem by Emma Lazarus that reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore …” was not added until seventeen years after the dedication of the statue. The poem by Lazarus was added by a friend of Lazarus’, who almost unilaterally saw to it that this poem was mounted under the statue. Like Zangwill, Lazarus was of Jewish decent, and also very preoccupied with the establishment of a Jewish homeland.458 It appears they both were quite interested in diverting the national interest of America, to bring it in more line with the interests of their own people, rather than those of the American people. In 1882 Lazarus wrote, “I am all Israel’s now. I have no thought, no passion, no desire save for my own people.”459
The Melting Pot play, and “The New Colossus” poem, do not represent the ideas that we built our nation upon. They are nothing but propaganda pieces. They have both become immortalized as rallying cries by the Left in their incessant agitating for mass migration and the erosion of our true history, heritage, and culture. Both Zangwill and Lazarus were advocates for a Jewish homeland, and the relatively young America seemed to be a perfect fit at the time. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emanuel Celler, the Congressman who spent his entire career fighting for unlimited mass migration to the United States, was also Jewish. Celler just happened to be a vehement critic of American isolationism and of a national origin quota for immigration.460 He spent his entire career fighting to open US borders; he was joined by Jewish Senator Jacob Javits and many influential Jewish organizations dating back to the 1920s, such as the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe.
Ironically enough, now that the Jewish people have their own ethnostate, they take in virtually zero refugees or non-Jewish migrants, and regularly deport non-Jews.461
The Founders of this nation explicitly stated in the Preamble that America was a nation for “ourselves and our posterity.” The Founding Fathers had no intention of creating a homeland for all the world. Which is why until 1965, European immigration was favored, and why there was an origin-based quota system. This notion of a “nation of immigrants” was invented by people who deliberately sought to change America from its original European ideals into a nation without any sort of ethnic, religious, or cultural identity.
The poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty needs erasing. It subverts the true meaning of the Statue, and is used as a false rallying cry. As if our highest achievement as a nation is to become the dumping ground for foreign refuse. It is a subversive poem, arguing essentially for hostile invasion and insurrection, for the displacement of the rightful heirs to this nation, in our own homeland.
Liberals are attempting to equate pre-New Deal immigrants with those of today. And you simply cannot compare the two groups. People once immigrated here because they had fallen in love with the American dream. Not simply to get handouts.
Until 1965, the majority of those who came to the US were from Western and Northern Europe. There was relatively little assimilation needed for these people. There were of course cultural differences between them, but these were mostly minor. As many of the European peoples were once united by the Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, they shared similar values already. Many of the early European tribes had fought alongside each other to fend off foreign invaders. We were a nation of primarily European and Christian culture. Not a nation of Africans, Arabs, Asians, Hispanics, Muslims, and Jews. Those arguing that we are a “nation of immigrants” always intentionally leave out the fact that we were in truth a nation of nearly homogeneous white European immigrants; they are trying to conflate one group of people with another, to disastrous consequences.
The Left would like you to believe that the migrant hordes of today built the United States of America. They would like you to believe that the men and women who carved this great nation out of the wilderness are somehow cut of the same cloth as the Third Worlders pouring into it today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that there was an Ellis Island and a New York City already built for immigrants to come to, already proves that the idea that “immigrants built the USA” is logically invalid. It simply does not follow chronologically.
Aside from attempting to conflate two entirely different groups under the single umbrella-term “immigrants,” the argument “we are a nation of immigrants” attempts to posit the idea that because immigrants once came to America, they should continue to come here forever. But this is ridiculous. The amount of foreign born “Americans” (read: paper citizens) is at an all time high, more than ever before are on welfare, and we are still accepting people that have no connection whatsoever to our culture or history.
In 2013, nearly 300,000 babies were born in the US to illegal immigrant parents, making up 8 percent of the total US births that year. This figure is a drop from the 370,000 anchor babies born in the US in 2007.462 Birthright citizenship has become an all out disaster, and brings absolutely no benefit to the US. It needs to end immediately. The United States Department of Agriculture reports that 1.5 million illegal immigrants and 4 million anchor babies receive food stamps each year.463 Averaging $254 dollars a month per household, this costs Americans billions of dollars — and it is just one of the many government welfare programs non-citizens enjoy. Considering that half of all legal immigrants also use welfare, we get into Mesospheric costs quite quickly. American taxpayers have essentially become slaves to welfare-using migrants. We go to work and allow the government to confiscate about a third of our money, so that it can invite in and pay for foreigners. It is bad enough that we have many Americans choosing to live off the tax payers; add to this mass migration, and the result is a totally corrupt and unsustainable predicament.
Mass migration does nothing but increase our tax burden and increase the levels of crime in our neighborhoods. And even if mass migration did somehow benefit us, we still have a right to our own homeland, and the right to be left alone, to live peacefully with our own people, in the civilizations our ancestors built. Just because the Left wants to give our nations and our money away, in accord with some ill-defined moral authority
, their “want” does not justify any of these affronts. Even if migrants were not such drains on society and did not create so much dysfunction and the loss of so much social capital, we still have the right to keep our culture without foreign interlopers rebuilding our nation in their image. It is unconscionable that taxpayers are forced to fund the total living expenses of foreigners. Over 90 percent of migrants from the Middle East are on welfare.464 These are people who will not contribute, people that do not believe in our values, and people that have no reason to care about our traditions or our ways. People that will ultimately alter our nation forever. There should be zero welfare of any sort available to people have not been in the country for at least several decades.
Pilgrims, explorers, pioneers, and early settlers, came into a tough, harsh, and unforgiving environment. They needed a special type of grit and indomitable determination to go forth and succeed in order to form a nation out of the wild lands. Today, migrants have every luxury possible. They are given air-conditioned apartments, food, cash, everything they need, while doing nothing to earn it. To somehow say the people who came to America under harsh and often desperate conditions with little more than a dollar and a dream are the same as the hordes clamoring for welfare today, is not only insulting, it’s sickening. To suggest that those pilgrims, pioneers, explorers, settlers, and revolutionaries were “immigrants” is an absurd sophistry, one only a deranged Leftist could possibly dream up.
The Left has pushed this immigration on us in the name of “cultural enrichment.” What a brazen insult. The Occidental tradition has created the vastest and richest cultures the world has ever known. The greatest literature, music, art, architecture, philosophy, and inventions, all come from the sons of Europe. And Liberals want to tell us we need to become more diverse and enriched? By a group of people that still practice honor killings and have not figured out running water? We are going to somehow become more enriched and worldly by being forced to be neighbors with groups of people that dress nearly homogeneously in burkas and hijabs?
We already have a tremendous amount of our own “diversity.” The suggestion that we might need more is offensive. If you’ve ever traveled the US or Europe you are surely familiar with the variety of unique cultures we already enjoy. Europe has over two dozen nations, each with its special food, architecture, traditions, and heritage. If you dropped me off in Prague, I would know I was in Prague by the look of the city alone. The same is true all over Europe. Each country is unmistakable. These are not the qualities of people who lack culture or identity.
In America, there are at least as many localized sub-cultures as there are in Europe. The Pacific Northwest has an entirely different look and feel as compared to Northern California or to Southern California. I would know quite quickly if I was randomly dropped off in the French Quarter, as opposed to somewhere in New England. The assumption that we need hordes of people form the Third World to “enrich” us, as if we are the cultureless hordes, is tremendously denigrating.
The end result of forced assimilation is seen all over Europe: people from radically different cultures do not come to the West with the intention to become citizens of their new nation, they come to dominate and bring their backwards and depraved traditions along with them.
Lines in the Sand
When foreigners flood your streets, burn buildings and cars, wave foreign flags, take your resources, kill and rape the native population, this once meant your homeland was being invaded. It still does.
Leftists the world over claim that the very concept of borders, sovereign nations, and immigration laws or quotas, are all fundamentally racist, bigoted, xenophobic, and unnecessary. But nowhere is it written that people have the right to freely enter other countries. For the entirety of human history, people who did just that were referred to as invaders, and they were usually put to sword and fire.
America was not created to be the dumping ground for the rest of the planet. If you do not share our fundamental heritage, you do not have any right to come to America, or to European countries, no more than I have any fundamental right to live in Japan or Argentina or Somalia. I have zero right to go and take resources from African nations, I have zero right to go pillaging for diamonds or gold. I have no right to the rainforests of South and Central America. I have no right to migrate to South Korea, to then impose my beliefs and culture upon the South Koreans.
A recent Salon article was titled “Everyone’s wrong on immigration: Open borders are the only way to defeat Trump and build a better world.”465 The de facto function of the Left is to facilitate globalization and to create a world where there is not a single white majority country anywhere on Earth. I think at this point the real agenda is clear to anybody paying attention. The title of the article says it all, “build a better world” through “open borders.” The author further argues that the distinctions between legal and illegal are meaningless, and that immigration is a human right. He then claims that the red-tape of immigration is far too complicated. And of course, he claims that immigration laws are racist and exclusionary. Those, like this author, who advocate for a “path to citizenship” for illegals seem to forget there is already a very clear path: over a million people annually manage to navigate it just fine.
This article was written by a man named Anis Shivani — not a particularly Western name. A few questions for the Liberals, who evidently see Europe and America as evil white empires that must to be dismantled: If white people are so awful and racist, and oppressive, why does the entire planet want to live with them? If white people are such a problem, that the only way to build a better world is to eliminate them from power in the very lands that they built, why are people flocking here and trying to get all their relatives in as well?
Imagine if a bunch of French people, say a million per year, moved to Japan. Then imagine if they started complaining that there were too many Asians there, and that the Japanese have too much power, and they should not get to be the majority in their own nation. Imagine if the French started telling the Japanese that celebrating their holidays, which they have celebrated for generations upon generations, was exclusionary and racist. At some point, the Japanese would probably round up all the French, and either deport them or bury them, once their patience and tolerance inevitably ran dry. And I somehow doubt that the Liberals would utter a single objection.
Do you think the Japanese people would be okay if every neighborhood in Kyoto was filled with nothing but white Texans, flying Texas flags, and opening Texan BBQ stands on every corner? Is it “racist” of them to want to remain Japanese, rather than see Kyoto turned into a Texan colony? The cultural disparity need not be as wide as that between the Japanese and the Texans: if the Chinese or the Koreans suddenly flocked to Japan, the culture would inevitably shift away from Japanese, and towards Chinese and Korean.
Japan has very strict immigration because they understand that neither Europeans nor Africans nor anybody else can carry on their heritage and culture for them. Only the Japanese are able to do so. By manipulating our populace, instilling in us all a sense of collective racial guilt, and brainwashing us into believing that there is something wrong with the preservation of our nations, Liberals have used immigration to expand the state, import voters by the millions, and cement their power. Imagine the amount of inculcation it would take to get a nation such as Japan or South Korea to forfeit their culture, land, history, and values. It’s nearly incomprehensible to imagine a non-white nation being forced to sacrifice the very body of their history in order to appease the false god of diversity.
Liberals are pushing the limits of madness when they claim that “illegal” is a racist word. We went from illegal alien, to illegal immigrant, to undocumented immigrant, to mis-documented worker, to mis-documented American, to the ever so illustrious moniker, “dreamer.” Let’s stick with invader; it is far more accurate.
As regards migration, something else I find both ironic and telling: Before the 2016 election, all
the many Liberals proclaiming they would move to a different country if Trump won, announced they would move — to Canada! Not Mexico. Not Pakistan. Not Somalia. Not any of the nations they want to force us to welcome en masse. But Canada. A country even whiter than America. How telling.
Nothing More Sinister
There is nothing new in all of this. The entire mass migration scheme has been planned for quite some time by a hostile international clique of global Leftists. What we are seeing happen in Europe and America today is the direct result of nearly 100 years of planning to undermine European civilization through the mass migration of non-Europeans. In 1923 a book was published called Pan-Europa, by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi. Pan-Europa laid the groundwork for what would become the European Union.466 Its agenda, often referred to as the Kalergi Plan, called for the destruction of sovereign nations in Europe. Kalergi envisioned a united Europe with no borders, subject to the mass migration of non-European peoples. The stated goal of the Pan-Europa movement was to create a single European population with no sense of history, identity, culture, or tradition, so that the ruling elite would be able more easily to control the population. Kalergi had written the early manifesto of what we now refer to as demographic genocide.
There is an award given every other year to those politicians who most work to further the globalization agenda, ironically called the Charlemagne Prize. The first prize was given to Coudenhove-Kalergi for his plan. Notable winners have included George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and Angela Merkel. Notice a trend? These people all are working toward the sinister plan to create a one world government with no nations, no borders, no identity. When politicians utter the phrase “diversity is our greatest strength,” they aren’t lying. They mean it is their greatest strength to undermine the values of individual cultures and nations, create chaos, and make for a weak society that is easily controlled and manipulated.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 28