Fixing the "magic dirt" problem


A couple of days ago I posted a comment to LastRedoubt's thoughts on immigration that proposed some solutions to the current, massive, problem of immigration to Western nations that I think bears some expansion.

Before digging into policy proposals designed to stop the current immigration crisis in the West, let's be very clear about a few things.


Just the Basics


First: strictly limited immigration that involves bringing over only small numbers of the very best and the brightest professionals from other nations is a Good Thing.

Bringing in highly qualified doctors, engineers, mathematicians, chemists, biologists, and even managerial talent in small numbers from places like India, China, Singapore, the Western allies, and a few other places that genuinely produce good people is of great benefit to the United States of America. These people can come and make good money, pay taxes, build businesses or contribute to local workforces, and transfer knowledge and expertise to Americans.

That is actually somewhat similar to the way that I ended up in the USA. I've been living there for ten years now and consider myself incredibly blessed and fortunate to have been giving that opportunity.

However, the emphasis has to be on keeping the numbers low. In America's case, given a population of about 330 million right now, this means less than 30,000 highly skilled immigrants (that's a growth rate of 0.01%) per year- and even that might be too many. That chart above shows that, as immigration has increased, native labour-force participation has decreased (which is to be expected).

This spells disaster for the United States, and any other nation that follows a similar pattern, if not checked and reversed.

Second: just because immigrants are a source of exceptional skills and qualifications, that does not mean that they should be given citizenship right away. Moreover, a distinction must be created between having the right to stay and work in the West, and having the right to vote in the West.

The reason for this is self-evident. First-generation immigrants almost always feel a greater sense of loyalty to their native lands than to their future nations. Many such immigrants tend to head right back to their nations of origin.

The fundamental problem with just giving people citizenship, simply because they showed up and stuck it out for a bit, is that they likely will not have "skin in the game". More on that shortly.

Third: the soil of the United States of America is not "magic dirt". You are not going to magically transform Nigerians, Indians, Chinese, French, Japanese, or whatever, into Americans simply by bringing them all over and letting them set foot on American soil. It does not matter where you look in America's history; the fact remains that every wave of immigrants that has ever come through, has brought with it the ancient blood-feuds, hatreds, prejudices, and traditions of their pasts.

This is as true today as it was during the infamous New York City draft riots of 1863, in which Irish and German immigrants ended up attacking blacks in the city. The Army had to go in and sort that one out; it wasn't pretty. You simply cannot bring over thousands or millions of immigrants from less advanced nations- even if you restrict yourself to just the really bright and educated ones- and expect that they will automatically get past their previous hangups with other races and all get along holding hands singing kumbaya.

Kumbaya-thinking gets people killed. And it is what the US government, and large swathes of its people, have been engaged in for the better part of fifty years when it comes to the question of immigration.

Fourth: mass immigration is simply war by another means, for precisely the reason I outlined above.

Let's get past the emotional arguments against immigration and think about things logically for a moment. The country's big business leaders and open-borders advocates all argue that free mobility of workers, and the cheapening of labour that results, is unambiguously good for business and profits.

That is in fact true; a business that can build a product expensively using small numbers of high-quality American workers, or cheaply using large numbers of poor-quality foreign workers, is usually going to go for the latter.

So if this is true- what exactly is stopping America from opening up its borders completely?

Every single African country, most of South America, pretty much all of Eastern Europe, and vast parts of South and East Asia, would simply move right into America. And that is because many of those countries are- not to put too fine a point on it- shitholes. (Literally.) Many of them lack basics that Americans take for granted- like, say, running water, readily available and stable electricity, and the ability to walk in public without being shot or stabbed or raped.

Compared to the life that awaits people in hellholes like Venezuela or Honduras or Sudan, even living in inner-city Detroit would be a step up.

Problem is, if you decide to let, say, Iranians into the country en masse along with Arabs, you're also going to be importing a religious feud that dates back some 12 centuries with them. You want American town and city streets to be slick with blood? Go right ahead with that, then.

The same is true for just about any other major ethnic group, race, or nationality that you care to name. All of them have blood feuds and prejudices and beefs with others. All of them will turn violent sooner or later.

If you Yanks did open up your borders fully- as many of your politicians want you to- everybody would want to come to America. And that is because America is a great place to be.

But it didn't get that way by accident. It got to be a great place because its people made it that way- not because of "magic dirt" or kumbaya, but because people with something to lose tried to build a better country for themselves and their descendants.


Skin in the Game


The fundamental problem with kumbaya thinking is that it leads to some seriously perverse incentives for recent immigrants to the United States. This is because "magic dirt" theory argues that there is no distinction between people from other countries, and Americans.

This is not borne out by experience or evidence.

We know by now that the majority of immigrants from poor nations- like, say Central America- are poorly educated, poorly qualified, and not exactly likely to become rocket scientists and nuclear engineers. We also know that they are far more likely to be on welfare than native-born citizens.

If you then insist on giving those same people the ability to vote, you should not be surprised that they will vote for the exact same policies that allowed them to get to the USA and gain access to American welfare systems.

In other words, by letting in millions of people with no skin in the game, and then giving them the literally unlimited power of the ballot box without the burden of responsibility to wield that power judiciously, America guarantees that it becomes a nation of destroyers and not builders.

It has already become that, to a large extent. This must stop. And it must stop now.

Some Modest Proposals

So that's the problem. How do we go about solving it?

I've got a few ideas.

They all involve holding immigrants to a far higher standard than native-born citizens. Immigrants (like me) must prove that we have earned the right to wield the power of citizenship. If we fail that test, what the hell are we even doing here in the first place?

1. End Birthright Citizenship
So you were born in the United States of America to foreign-born parents. Big whoop. What makes you American? What, exactly, qualifies you to vote in elections and decide the fate of future generations of Americans whose ancestors have been here far longer than you?

You are no more "American" than I am- in fact you are considerably less so, given that I regard the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the closest thing to holy writ outside of the Bible. You were simply fortunate to be born into the greatest nation on Earth by way of a happy accident of geography and timing- nothing more. You have not earned your right to vote any more than I have.

2. Restrict citizenship only to men who own property, pay taxes, and are over thirty, without criminal records
This one will probably prove controversial, but it is also in line with what far wiser men than I proposed. They were called the Founding Fathers, and they understood, as current generations do not, that citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

As a result, they restricted the sovereign franchise to free men of good character and standing who owned land.

This approach will solve a number of problems very quickly. The "free rider" problem disappears instantly because men with land are far less likely to vote for taxes upon themselves to pay for others.

Because it takes years to build up the kind of wealth required to buy property, and because with age comes a certain degree of maturity and wisdom (though this is debatable with the current Millennial generation, it's true), restricting the vote to those over thirty would immediately weed out the hordes of idiots who vote in every election cycle based on muh feelz instead of a genuine concern for the nation.

And because women are far more likely to vote for big government and the welfare state that it brings, restricting the vote to men once again will immediately eliminate the problem of the government taking men's hard-earned wealth and resources and simply transferring it to women. Let's see how long third-wave feminism lasts without Big Daddy Guvmint to keep it alive.

However, with respect to immigrants, specifically, this particular change isn't enough. For that, we need to ensure additionally that:

3. Immigrants to Western nations must have lived in their nation of choice for at least three generations before being allowed to vote
The benefits of this are fairly self-explanatory. I had originally thought that forcing immigrants to stay for at least twenty years before being allowed to vote was sufficient, but I have an aunt who has been in the US for forty years and applied last year to become a citizen just so that she could vote for the Hilldebeast, because vagina.

Her children aren't all that much better. My youngest cousin, for whom I have immense respect, is a liberal- though he's considerably more moderate and realistic than his sister, who is my age and works for the United Abominations, and is of course a true bleeding-heart liberal.

Will their children be better at considering the fate of the nation and their people? I sure as hell hope so, but it's clear to me that expecting any real long-term thinking from first-generation immigrants is fairly unrealistic these days.

There is precedent for this, by the way. There are descendants of Korean immigrants to Japan whose families have been there for seven or eight generations, and who are still not eligible to vote. The Japanese turn xenophobia into a fine art. I think that's probably a little extreme- but you can't argue with the way that the Japanese have managed to preserve their culture.

4. No more anchor babies, green card marriages, or access to American welfare systems
So your parents undertook an extremely dangerous border crossing from Mexico into the United States in the dead of night just so that you could be born an American? Big whoop. You aren't American. You're a Mexican and all of the prevaricating and hand-waving in the world won't change that fact.

So you're a Filipina and you found the perfect guy to marry who promised you a green card and eventual American citizenship and a house and a car with all the frills? So what? How does that make you American? You're still Filipino and that will not change by marrying some white guy with no game and more money than brains.

So you're a dirt-poor immigrant from Somalia who came to America to make a better life for himself? What exactly entitles you to be given money that Americans paid into their own welfare systems for their own people?

These are all basic, common-sense solutions to serious abuses of America's immigration system. Why, I wonder, do so many Americans seem to regard them as extreme?

5. Want to jump the queue? Join up and be all you can be
Any immigrant who wants to avoid all of the hassle and the multi-generational waiting periods and so on, because he feels deep down in his soul that he is an American, can do so quite easily.

Just sign up for a term of at least two years, and as much longer as the nation requires, in the Armed Forces.

This is not, in and of itself, a magic solution to America's invasion by immigrants. The Romans tried something similar with the barbarian tribes that insisted on settling in the north and east of their empire. The net result was that eventually the "Roman" military became overwhelmingly Germanic in character. By the time of the Fall of the Empire, the Germanic chieftain Odoacer didn't have to do terribly much to force the last Roman Emperor to step down and hand him the crown- because, as far as the Army was concerned, he was one of them.

But it would at least ensure that, whatever their other manifest failings as human beings, immigrants who undertook arduous and difficult voluntary service in America's armed forces do put the welfare of the American people ahead of their own. And it would automatically ensure that those who aren't really serious about their commitment to becoming Americans, never do.

6. No dual-citizenship
While we're on the subject of civic duty- let's have done with this silly practice of allowing people to retain citizenship of their original nations.

If you want to be an American, bloody well be an American. If you insist on retaining your passport from Thirdworldhellistan, just so that you can go back and visit family now and then, well, sorry, but you're just not American.

An American passport allows one to travel to most parts of the world without a visa. Those that do require visas for American citizens are generally fairly quick to give them- particularly pro-American parts of Europe and Asia, like Poland in the former and the Philippines in the latter. If you want the privileges that come with being an American citizen, then you should jolly well be prepared to put up with a few inconveniences along the way.

Moreover, being a citizen of another nation means that your allegiance to the American Republic, people, and way of life is deeply suspect. Let's not pretend otherwise- if you have loyalties of any kind to another nation, how exactly are Americans supposed to expect you to help them out in times of war and crisis?

7. Your guest is your responsibility
So let's say you're an immigrant of good standing who has been in America for a long time- twenty years, maybe more. Let's say your little brother wants to immigrate and join your business and be a part of the good life. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Sure, let's have him in- provided you post a $20,000 bond for him, you are held responsible for his behaviour, and if he turns bad and becomes a criminal, you go to jail along with him.

Draconian? Yeah, it is. It also ensures that immigrants become really careful about exactly who they bring over.

8. No Muslims
I realise that arguing this in public is the fastest route to a lynching. However, it is well past time that Westerners realised that Islam is not a religion or a race. It is a political ideology that is fundamentally opposed to all of the ideals that the West holds dear. Freedom of conscience, association, religion, speech? All anathema to Islam. Freedom to keep and bear arms? Not allowed for dhimmi under Islamic law. Freedom to live without fear of persecution? Non-existent. Freedom to love who you want, regardless of sexual orientation? Yeah, right.

Islam is hostile to the West in a way that most Westerners just don't understand. Better by far to stop allowing it into Western nations as a preventative measure, than to wake up one fine morning and see headlines showing yet another car-bombing, truck rampage, or public shooting perpetrated by Muslims against innocent bystanders.

Sense and Sensibility

None of the ideas noted above are particularly extreme if you bother to stop and think them over. They are designed specifically to prevent a nation from being destroyed from within by immigrants who do not obey the laws of their new home, who do not respect its norms and traditions, and who have nothing to lose from their (often very bad) decisions.

Until November 2016, even thinking these things was practically illegal. But now, with the God-Emperor's election to power, and with nationalist movements rising across the Western world, perhaps it might just be time to dust off these supposedly racist and bigoted ideas, and give them a whirl again.

People like me, and Paul Joseph Watson, are right: the West is best. Why shouldn't Westerners want to keep it that way?

Comments

  1. "First: strictly limited immigration that involves bringing over only small numbers of the very best and the brightest professionals from other nations is a Good Thing."

    Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

    It's taking natural resources from someplace else, no different than stripmining for copper or something similar. It's immoral.

    Those other nations need their top talent, far more than the US does for any product or business. And the potential benefits of another nation growing and becoming prosperous provides the added benefit to the US that future immigrants will not desire to come here, and we'll benefit from those advancements through honest, traditional trade.

    Second, bringing in that top talent is an opening for entryists, b/c even highly talented people like more of their own kind. And they're smart enough to find ways to bring others over.

    There is no justification for immigration of others into the US at this time. None.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's taking natural resources from someplace else, no different than stripmining for copper or something similar. It's immoral.

      The last time I checked, the copper being strip-mined has no say in the matter.

      By contrast, people (like me) who came over of our own free will to live and work in the US, are also free to go anywhere else we want if those same countries will have us. Your analogy is invalid.

      Those other nations need their top talent, far more than the US does for any product or business.

      And since when is it America's problem if nations like India and China create conditions so hostile to business and entrepreneurial talent that those same people quite rationally seek to go elsewhere? That is precisely what happened with my father's generation; they saw no opportunities where they were, found that their talents would be far better rewarded overseas, and did what was best for them personally.

      Second, bringing in that top talent is an opening for entryists, b/c even highly talented people like more of their own kind. And they're smart enough to find ways to bring others over.

      Well yeah, which is why I proposed the ideas that I did to limit and even do away with that entryism. Go back up and read them a little more carefully.

      Delete
  2. [I]The last time I checked, the copper being strip-mined has no say in the matter.

    By contrast, people (like me) who came over of our own free will to live and work in the US, are also free to go anywhere else we want if those same countries will have us. Your analogy is invalid.[/I]

    No, your response makes no sense, that's why you're struggling.

    [I]And since when is it America's problem if nations like India and China create conditions so hostile to business and entrepreneurial talent that those same people quite rationally seek to go elsewhere?[/I]

    Exactly. It's not our problem, so stay away.

    So far my points hit home, and you can't even help but agree with them. Next time you write something, maybe seek out input from people who actually know what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So far my points hit home, and you can't even help but agree with them. Next time you write something, maybe seek out input from people who actually know what they're talking about.

      So far you have failed categorically to respond with any kind of logic, fact, or evidence to support your (non-existent) arguments. You have demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension so appalling that I wonder if you even passed grade school. As far as I can tell, you have come here to do any one of three things:

      1) Engage in an obsessive purity spiral, which will inevitably end with you looking extremely stupid;
      2) Throw up straw-man arguments, such as your particularly stupid "copper" analogy, and then double down when confronted with your own ineptitude, which case you are simply acting like an SJW and have no place here;
      3) Name-call obsessively like the mid-wit sperg that you are.

      None of these things are tolerated here. Go back up and read the Rules of the Blog- though judging by the two comments you have posted thus far, I suspect you may struggle with words of three syllables or less.

      Yet, I am kind. I will give you ONE further opportunity to present an actual set of arguments indicating why my article, which goes into considerable detail about how to stop mass invasion and war by restoring America's civil and constitutional safeguards against the same, is incorrect in its analyses and prescriptions.

      You now have 24 hours from the publication of this comment to respond. Further comments posted after 11.45am on Jan 13th, 2017, from your username will be deleted and your comments will no longer be tolerated.

      You are perfectly free to complain to all and sundry about me and my "inability to argue" on your own time and dime, of course. Let such folk judge for themselves whether you actually have the first clue who and what you are criticising.

      Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts