I don't understand why Americans are opposed to importing other countries' children. Caucasians aren't having babies anymore. They currently make up 70% of the population, but have less than 50% of the babies and we've been in this situation since 2011. It won't change. By 2050, this will be a majority "minority" country even if all immigration stopped today. And the only people who have children are first-generation immigrants. Second-generation has the same birth dearth that the native population has - by the second generation, the American Borg have assimilated them.
The situation is brutally simple: we aren't having enough babies to sustain economic growth. We *HAVE* TO steal other countries' children if we want to maintain the economy we are used to.
That's why no one is really going to stop immigration, ever. The only shocking thing is that we're actually going straight for the kids this time, instead of importing parents and waiting for them to have children, which is what we always used to do.
Screw the countries that are losing the kids. Human beings are the greatest resource any country can have, and we're stripping Central and South American countries of that resource just as quickly as we can. George Will recognizes this, which is why he's four-score FOR the immigration.
What is rather more shocking is that the USCCB hasn't addressed this issue at all. A strong argument can be made that we are actually violating Catholic teaching by importing other countries' children, directly stripping these other countries of their future. Sure, the argument FOR immigration, that we're re-uniting families, is undoubtedly more powerful, but the argument against is not exactly weak.
The more children we take from any country, the more completely destroyed it will be within a generation. Why do you think Russia has outlawed adoptions abroad? They already have a birth dearth that will essentially destroy them in a century. They don't need to hemorrhage any more children. China is in a similar situation. Inside of 50 years, every country in the world will be in this situation.
By stealing children, we are buying time. Sure, the country won't look the same as it did, won't have the same values as it did, but it doesn't look the same now as it did in the 1930s, nor did the 1930s look like the 1870s, and none of these decades looked like 1789. We've had one Constitution but several Americas over the course of the last 200 years. This immigration policy merely assures that we will have at least one America more before the Baby Bust destroys everything.
7 comments:
One big reason some conservatives oppose it is because they fear that this will equal more votes for the Democrats, which will mean the ultimate triumph of the Dem's social agenda (unlimited abortion on demand, gay "marriage," etc.). Sad how Latinos are just written off like that, as though they're genetically programmed to vote Democrat or something. That's not the case. If conservatives would greet the immigrants with kindness and help them, like Glenn Beck is doing, it would help their image and may even win some over (not that they should be doing it for that reason, of course). Instead, look at the hate Beck received from many conservatives just for passing out teddy bears! It seems the American Right today can't even do the right thing for cynical, political reasons, let alone out of truly Christian charity.
So, if everything is doomed to collapse into barbarism, and no one is having children, what's the point?
There's nothing any of us can do to change it.
I feel like I'm missing something. You and others have been hammering this sort of stuff for awhile, Steve. To what end?
Since if it is as bleak as you seem to think, I'm not sure why I bothered to try and have the family I do. Hell, if it's all so pointless, I'm not sure why I get out of bed in the morning.
M.R., these people coming across the border are pawns of the criminal cartels in Mexico, Central, and South America. We have enough of a crime problem now without bringing in more fresh recruits from there. And in case you haven't noticed, the Dems are very enthusiastic about bringing these people into the USA. And most of these children weren't children at all. The children were mostly older teenagers, and probably already gang members. And teary ol' Glen Beck was handing out teddy bears to them?! What a moron!
Flambeaux, when we changed from an agricultural America to an industrial America, did the sky fall? Did the heavens roll up like a scroll?
No.
To say that the America we know and love is gone and is not coming back is not to say that this is The End (tm). Sure, bucolic America was nice in the 1800s, but it had polio and whooping cough and smallpox and people died from a scratch on their finger.
Things will be different. Better in some ways, worse in others. It will be more Hispanic. If you like Tex-mex, that means it will be awesome. If not, not. But this America is passing away.
Steve- I think you articulated this well and thank you again. Lots of folks are worried about immigrants voting as Dems... might be the only way to change the Democratic party! And in turn force the Republicans to change as well.
Bottom line is that if we had not stopped having children there would be no need for the government to allow this mass illegal immigration. But as it is our Social Security system is dependent on these people that will pay into the system with no expectation of ever receiving a benefit.
I do support efforts to apprehend all of the illegal immigrants coming across the border for the purpose of trying to cull the criminal element.
Are you *currently* being sent into Hell forever ... automatically excommunicated (outside) of God’s Catholic Church ?
Answer: Yes you are ... you can reverse it ... please continue.
Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- infallible Source of Dogma >
"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."
You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church ... Dogma you have *never* seen.
Site > Immaculata-one.com ... infallible Dogma throughout.
The Catholic Faith *is not* Bible interpretation ... it is the Catholic infallible Sources of Dogma. The Catholic Church didn’t even define the Bible’s New Testament Canon until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage.
- - - -
Can a group which enforces the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic unchangeable Dogma be the Catholic Church?
No, it cannot possibly be the Catholic Church ... and promotion of the opposite of the Catholic Dogma is exactly what the vatican-2 heretic cult does ... and has been doing since it’s founding on 8 December 1965 at the Vatican.
The vatican-2 heresy does not have the Office of the Papacy ... only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.
The Dogma cannot “change” or be “reversed” ... God does not “change”.
The founding documents of the vatican-2 heretic cult … the “vatican-2 council” documents … have well over 200 heresies *against* prior defined unchangeable Dogma. Every (apparent) bishop at the “council” approved the mountain of heresy, which caused their automatic excommunication, see Section 13.2 of the below site.
- - - -
Section 12 > Anti-Christ vatican-2 heresies (50 listed) ... followed by many Catholic corrections.
Sections 13 and 13.1 > Photographic *proof* of heresy at the Vatican.
Because of … the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or for physical participation in a heretic cult (such as the v-2 cult) …
… we were all placed, body and soul, *outside* of Christianity (the Catholic Church) on 8 December 1965 … the close date of the “council”.
Section 13.2 > Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or participating in a heretic cult such as ... vatican-2, lutheran, methodist, evangelical, etc.
Section 107 > St. Athanasius (died 373 A.D.) ... “Even if the Church were reduced to a handful ...” - - during the “arian” heresy ... we are there again, but worse.
Section 13.3 > Matt 16:18, Gates of Hell scripture ... is *not* about the Office of the Papacy ... four Dogmatic Councils defined it ... that heresy will not cause the Dogma to disappear.
Section 13.4 > The vatican-2 heretic cult does not have the Office of the Papacy only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.
Section 13.6 > The Catholic Dogma on Jurisdiction and Automatic Excommunication for heresy define that ... God has allowed Catholic Jurisdiction ... for Mass and Confession to disappear from the world. There is no such thing as Catholic Mass outside of the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic heresies such as “vatican-2”, “sspx”, “sspv”, “cmri”, etc. ... do not have Catholic Mass.
Section 19.1 > Dogma on Abjuration for *re-entering* Christianity (the Catholic Church) … after being automatically excommunicated. A Formal Abjuration is provided here also.
Section 10.2 > Returning to a state of grace, in places and times when Confession is not available, like now.
- - - -
Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. -- infallible Source of Dogma >
"The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy."
Blessed John Eudes, died 1680 >
“The greatest evil existing today is heresy, an infernal rage which hurls countless souls into eternal damnation.”
Everything you must know, believe, and do to get to Heaven is on > > Immaculata-one.com.
Victoria
Our Lady of Conquest
Pray for us
Great stuff as usual, Steve. I'm not sure I agree or disagree, and that means stuff is good--to entertain a thought without accepting it.
My 2 objections...reservations... are
--to importing the failed Latin American culture along with its people. Britain has it even worse of course, the most popular name amond newborns being Muhammad.
---and the corollary, that via family unification, we're not importing blank slates to be raised to love the American Way, we're actually importing their parents, the adults, undocumented Democrats.
Who vote to repeat the failed [leftist] political philosophy of the places they fled! [And in buying the 'social justice' part, unwittingly empowering the left's dismantling of Judeo-Christian morality.]
I mean, I dig Christianity and credit the West's success to it, but wouldn't we be better off importing educated Hindus from India and converting their kids to Christianity [Bobby Jindal] than importing Christians and trying to educate/convert them to a sensible socio-political philosophy?
The Hispanic American fatherlessness rate has just shot through the roof, and they still overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
This is kind of a new thought, Steve--inspired by your post here--but I hope you see where I'm going with this. It's easier to convert someone to Christianity than away from leftism.
Post a Comment