Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Wednesday, July 30, 2014
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
Close the Borders! By: Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 20, 2000


Dear Mr. Weinkopf:

Contrary to your recent article, there are some very good reasons to curtail immigration. To wit:

1. Economic Reasons:

Immigration undermines our commitment to a middle-class society. People with less than a college education are getting no wage increases in the current economic regime.

As long as we keep taking in poor people, we will never end poverty in America. We are running our economy like a chain-letter scam. Tight labor markets are the right-wing answer to poverty.

Employers provide health care when labor markets are tight, and employers of sweatshop labor do not pay their share of the health care costs for uninsured workers.

Cheap labor discourages automation and technical innovation, which are the basis of long-term growth. It also encourages domestic servants and other forms of decadence, including nannies, which encourage women to work outside the home and break down the traditional family.

Arguments that industry suffers a "labor shortage" are a flat-out 2+2=5 LIE; details on request. Plus, labor shortage is not an accepted concept in capitalist economics: there are no shortages of things, only things that are more expensive than the purchasers feel they should cost. Industry just wants cheap workers.

Immigrant entrepreneurs are statistically rare, frequently specialize in bad industries like sweatshops, and benefit mostly themselves.

Alan Greenspan explicitly, in plain English, has defended mass immigration to keep down "wage inflation." Wage inflation (in real dollars) is a good, not an evil.

Greenspan's comments are a clear sign of how the current elite has no loyalty to the well-being of Americans, but merely views the US as the best production platform for making money. Their ideal is free movement of goods, labor, and capital, leading to the liquidation of the nation-state as an impediment to making money. This is globalism, and make no mistake, it implies world government in the long run.

People who say immigration causes economic growth are right only in the sense of aggregate GNP. Per capita GNP is the rational goal, and immigration lowers this by diluting our economy by poor, i.e. unproductive, workers.

By adding poor people, while increasing the profits of the rich, immigration increases social inequality.

Several thorough studies have shown that any economic benefits of immigration are very small, and mainly go to the immigrants themselves.

2. Social Reasons:

Immigration undermines the social, cultural, and ethnic cohesion necessary to sustain our society. These factors are more important than people think.

We are losing our common language. Linguistic difference has destoyed or threatened to destroy several nations.

Many immigrants are openly disloyal to America. Chinese immigrants are stealing our secrets and corrupting our political system. Mexicans, including persons high in their government, openly promote "El Plan De Aztlan" for the reconquest of the Southwest. This is not hyperbole; for any American citizen, it is naked treason. In the long run, it threatens civil war.

We are losing our loyalty to a common heritage. Mexicans in Denver are protesting Columbus Day and treating Columbus as a villain. To any American, he is, by definition, a hero. No nation can survive hating its past.

Immigration imposes massive social costs: It has been reliably estimated to cost every California family thousands per year for social services. It also serves to prop up the welfare state apparatus by expanding demand.

In schools, immigration causes overcrowding and learning in multilingual classrooms.

Immigrants are over-represented in the criminal population.

The problem is not just assimilation. High numbers intrinsically defeat immigration, both by making ghettoes viable and by creating political pressures for multiculturalism. And if the problem is that the means of assimilation are broken, the obvious answer is a moratorium until they are fixed.

Immigration will force us to accept social mores we abhor. Moslems, for example, will vote to allow polygamy. Immigrants also entangle us in foreign policy commitments that are not in the national interest, and threaten our existing ones.

Immigrants massively vote Democratic, worsening all of America's political ills.

3. Environmental Reasons:

The simple fact, which nothing can ever change, is that more people means more environmental damage. Even if regulation and technology mitigate this, more people still means more damage than with less people. Immigration, which will account for 90% of our growth, will double America's population in the next lifetime.

The Kyoto Protocol (which will be adopted in some form or name eventually) commits us to quantitative reductions in emissions. If we bring in more people, this means existing Americans have to reduce their standard of living in order to make room for foreigners to come here and pollute. This will be the pattern for the future on other environmental issues.

Immigration-driven population growth drives sprawl, traffic congestion, and the costs of suburban growth. It also drives up the demand for housing, pricing natives out of the regions where they grew up, fraying the social fabric and squeezing middle-class families. Southern California is the best example of this.

America is not full of empty land. Nobody actually wants to live in North Dakota. Everyone wants to live in California or Connecticut, which have European population densities. Plus you don't run out of land; you run out of water and amenities.

4. Moral Reasons:

No nation is under a fundamental moral obligation to take immigrants; this is a sovereign decision in service of the national interest. The opposite view is a classic case of the liberal mentality that demands the government be Santa Claus.

For us to accept immigrants is a favor we do them for which they owe us something, not a free gift and certainly not the other way around. Current immigrants are failing in their obligation to assimilate, and therefore don't deserve to come here. (Refugees from oppression are not immigrants: ideally they should go into refugee camps and move on, when circumstances change.)

If the US is obliged to take immigrants, I have two questions: Why aren't other nations similarly obliged. And how many should we take? Remember always: numbers are the real question. People have several standard bad answers, which I rebut as follows:

"America is a nation of immigrants." First, this is a flat statistical falsehood. The vast majority of Americans were born here. Second, there is no "ergo" in this argument; why does the fact that many of us are descended from immigrants oblige us to take immigrants today?

"Immigration made America great." First, no one has proved America would not have achieved greatness with no immigration after 1776. Second, immigration, when it got out of control -- 1890-1914 -- made a mess of America, which was a mess in 1910. It gave us the political corruption and proletariat we had avoided like the plague. Third, mass immigration was a response to the specific circumstances of a country needing vast amounts of unskilled labor for agriculture and industrialization. Land grants also made America great.

"Immigration is America's tradition."

First, our traditional level of immigration, averaged year by year, is something like the equivalent of 200,000 per year, not the million-plus we get today.

Second, immigration was not a tradition, it was just a fact. A tradition is something that is honored and valued as being part of the heritage that makes us the nation we are. Immigration, eo ipso, corrodes our national identity and must be ameliorated by other factors, like assimilation, that preserve it.Third, our historical immigration was, to be quite blunt, European. You can't justify something as a tradition and not accept the tradition the way it really was.

Fourth, the people who use this argument, who tend to be globalists who care about nothing but money, never seem to care about other arguments from tradition. The overall premise of their ideology refutes their specific premise here.

A nation is the property of its citizens, who have an unapologetic right to remain its owners, and to pass this ownership on to their descendants. However, no generation, whatever laws it votes for, has the right to destroy the nation, which is an inherited trust it did not create and which it has an obligation to pass on intact.

"What men get cheaply, they do not value." American citizenship has become cheap.

5. Rational Immigration Policy:

The essential and obvious goal is to permit only that immigration which serves the national interest. 90% of current immigration does not.

Politically, the first thing to do is pass the Stump (R-AZ) moratorium bill.

What we want is the lowest possible number compatible with true (not Santa Claus) humanitarian principles and the fact that some individuals make exceptional contributions. The presumption must be "no," with a few exceptions. The fundamental principle must be enthroned that immigration is the exception, not the rule.

The key thing is to establish rigid legislative control over the numbers that cannot be finessed. In 1965, we were told that the "reform" that has brought a million a year, would bring 5,000.

For more information, see http://www.vdare.com.

Sincerely,

Robert Locke




We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com