Support This Website! Shop Here!

Monday, June 25, 2018

Ending the Immigration "Crisis"

Most people don't think about it, but immigration is distinct from naturalization. This fact alone changes the whole debate. Remember, the United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790.

However, while naturalization, the ability to vote and hold elected office, was tightly restricted for the first century of United States' history, immigration to this country was completely unrestricted. Absolutely anyone could move into the United States, start a new life, pay taxes, participate in military service and conduct business. The United States had an "open-borders" policy for the first century of its existence. Anyone could immigrate into the US and start a new life, but only those who went through the naturalization process, only those who became citizens, could vote or hold elective office.

This set of policies, in which open immigration was permitted, but naturalization was tightly controlled, persisted until the 1870's and 1880's. Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. For the next several decades, growing support for Darwinian eugenics eventually drove the US government to close the borders and adopt immigration laws. These new immigration laws were intended to end the open immigration policy which the Founding Fathers had permitted, in favor of preventing "racial taint" from immigrants who entered from undesirable countries.

Note well: the "racial taint" argument was made by the Progessivism movement, with eugenicist luminaries such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson leading the race-baiting charge against immigrants. While Christianity had used government policy to end slavery, Progressivists used government policy to impose Darwinian eugenics. Eugenics has been government policy every since. In fact, every president since, and including, Theodore Roosevelt - with the sole exceptions of GW Bush and Ronald Reagan - has supported eugenics.

So, by 1882, America had passed its first immigration law, the Chinese Exclusion Act. A series of additional immigration acts soon followed, as the United States tried desperately to show that whites were superior to all other races. When the policies were first imposed, "white" was defined rather differently. "White" and "Protestant" were considered essentially identical. Thus, immigrants from Mediterranean countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece, were considered "black" for purposes of immigration and segregation laws. Irish immigrants, being Catholic, were held to be human trash. By the early 1900s, both immigration and segregation laws were considered good Progressive policy, endorsed especially by Democrats and by Woodrow Wilson, who complemented the new immigration laws by introducing segregation at the federal level for the first time.

Even a passing acquaintance with US history demonstrates how our immigration laws built on Progressivism and Darwinian eugenics. It is one of the great ironies of history that so many modern "conservatives" are pushing the self-same Progressivist ideology that their Republican forbears fought over a century ago. If we are really interested in following the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, we would return to the "open borders" policy our Founding Fathers designed and intended for the country. From the perspective of the men who wrote the US Constitution, immigration was never a problem. Naturalization was their only concern.

The Founders knew what we refuse to recognize. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, actually make better-behaved citizens than America's current voting citizens do. Wherever illegal immigrants congregate in high numbers, crime rates fall.
To shed light on this contention, Governing conducted an analysis using recently released metro area population estimates from the Pew Research Center for “unauthorized immigrants” -- people who crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas. The analysis not only found no link with violent crime, but indicated concentrations of unauthorized immigrants were associated with marginally lower violent crime rates. A statistically significant negative correlation was also shown for property crimes. For every 1 percentage-point increase in the unauthorized immigrant share of a metro area’s population, average property crime rates dropped by 94 incidents per 100,000 residents.... 
It's these same places that tend to record relatively low crime rates. The 20 metro areas where unauthorized immigrants were most prevalent in the Governing analysis recorded, on average, property crime rates 10 percent lower and violent crime rates 8 percent lower than those of all other regions reviewed. El Paso and San Diego, both adjoining the Mexican border, post some of the lowest violent crime rates of any big American cities year after year, for example

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration is based on faulty eugenics theory.  Thus, conservatives should be fighting to implement the Founding Fathers' original vision: open borders for immigrants, but naturalization - the ability to vote and hold office - tightly restricted. In that way, we get the best of both worlds. We get the immigrants who were vibrant enough and motivated enough to come to this country, we reap the benefit of their entrepreneurial spirit, while giving them as much time as they need to decide whether or not they want to become full citizens of our republic. What could be better than that?

1 comment:

cwby said...

This article fails to take into account culture.

Culture is extremely important and should be protected.

Let's take a current example like the immigration crisis in Europe. They come from an Islamic culture that is intent on converting the current culture to theirs. It happens all of the time and in many countries.

Remember that almost immediately after WWII, Europe started bringing in cheap labor from the Middle East and North Africa. They allowed them to stay and grow. They had 4x or 5x more children per couple than the Europeans so they grew fast. Soon they commanded modest benefits. Then it was more and more and more. Now they are in a situation where that small immigrant community is much larger and now a threat. Many of the refugees are there for the freebees and they get it!!

In countries like Germany and Sweden, there is no change in he violent crimes because they are reported differently to hide the fact that immigrant men, most of them Muslim, are engaged in rape and assault on the native women. Yet, the statistics do not change.

Could it happen in the US? It had and it was from the start. The cultures of the North and South were different and caused a lot of the havoc leading up to the Civil War. Take a look at Thomas Sowell's Black Liberals White Rednecks

Bottom line:
The US has to be careful who it lets into the country.
Poor and illiterate people have a hard time adding enough value to earn a good wage. Thus they become a burden to the State. Before the 1930's, people had to sponsor you and vouch for your ability to work and not become part of the criminal element or a burden on society.
We have seen it in Europe and I have seen it here in the US

I grew up in El Paso poor and have seen the abuses.
My Mom still lives there and sees the difference in culture. Many in the neighborhood are there for the free stuff. Let's not pretend that they are saintly and above committing fraud. They are not.
Believe it or not, many feel that the government owes them all of the stuff that they are getting because it is free and they want what they feel they are owed. Entitlement attitudes from illegals.
Turn them in and the State looks the other way.
There is an agenda to show illegals in a good light but those who know the neighborhoods and American citizens in those border areas know the truth.