Let's get real, and stay real folks. The scruffy "march against globalism" folks feign outrage when it comes to international commodities (of this or that but not ev'ry decade) have no problem allowing the unmanaged influx of undocumented or unwanted strangers to scuttle into our broken system instead of staying home and making the best of it.
With The New Case Against Immigration, National Review's Mark Krikorian has written one of the year's bravest books. In a political atmosphere where proposing to crack down on even illegal immigration can get one labeled a "nativist" or "xenophobe" in polite circles#151;and a racist in others#151;Krikorian dares to question the level of legal immigration, a topic most fear to explore.
For openers. it boggles the mind that an axis of political, media and business elites favors illegal immigration. Nonetheless, stopping illegal immigration is popular among voters. It's so popular, in fact, that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain forsook his mainstream media constituency and its citizen-of-the-world mentality to give lip service to what American citizens want#151;at least while the Republican primaries lasted.
If Krikorian's name were Mark Running Bear, he'd probably get less flack for questioning the practical effects of legal immigration. I'd bet a dollar that the author hears retorts that Krikorian sure sounds like an immigrant name, as he receives cheap shots about the Armenian Mob.
Everyone should have learned in grade school that one of the minimum standards for being considered a real life nation-state is having a definable border and the means to control it (though, no doubt, that's a controversial topic in many public schools today).
Krikorian's premise is that America has a right to decide who comes herelegally or notand set a limit on newcomers. Period.
In fact, The New Case Against Immigration spends surprisingly little time on illegal immigration; instead, Krikorian focuses on the effects of mass immigration upon a modern welfare state infected by political correctness.
Unlike many who dare to broach this topic, Krikorian does not contend that today's immigrants refuse to assimilate with American culture or have little interest in it. Rather, he turns the argument on its head.
It's not that immigrants are much different than they were a hundred years agoit's that America is different in several important ways:
- The nation no longer is set up for mass assimilation. In recent decades, we have set up a racial spoils system that is supposed to make up for past American sins, but it applies to newcomers as well. The public schoolsthe main engine of assimilation in past generations#151;don’t even try to make proud Americans out of Americans anymore.
- Those who come to the United States from many countries often encounter a seismic shift in technology, traditions and mores. A century ago, the main differences an immigrant faced when coming to America were life under liberty and vastly improved opportunities.
- America no longer is a frontier country looking to populate vast empty territories with a growing need to entice sturdy laborers to our shores.
- Most importantly, the U.S. is now a welfare stateand minimum income, health care and schooling are guaranteed for anyone who crosses our border. This alone makes mass immigration impractical.
Read it all at Front Page...
© 2008 - 2014, Gabriel Thy. All rights reserved.