HandyHandle

I can’t imagine anyone ignorant enough to think otherwise. Third World immigrants were a tiny fraction of the electorate before Hart-Cellar kicked in. Americans have been demoralized when it comes to the subject of immigration – demoralized by schools, television, movies, every mainstream persuasive outlet. Mustn’t hurt immigrant feelings, as we march into the multicultural sunset.

Pragmatism maintains that if something works in a particular case it’s true in that particular case. If it doesn’t work in another particular case it’s false in that particular case. Et cetera, case by particular case. There is no generalization, no hierarchy of knowledge, each case is isolated from the one before and the one after – a literally insane way to view the world. But this much is correct: If something doesn’t work there’s something wrong somewhere. An argument for a blunder always contains a flaw. Objectivism doesn’t mean you walk into an inferno just because someone with an agenda hands you a glib Objectivist-sounding argument proving fire doesn’t burn. Some Objectivists argue that the concept of individual rights leads to open immigration. Yet per my earlier posts Third World immigration is destroying America. The argument of these Objectivists must be fallacious. No one is obligated to explain where their argument goes wrong, pointing out the consequences is enough. “Don’t bother to examine a folly ...” Nicky is the one who must explain. Our government ought to restrict immigration in order to protect our way of life. Nicky claims this violates the foreigner’s person, his rights. How? No one sought him out in his country. No one dragged him to our border. He came to the border, not the border to him. Nicky is obliged to explain exactly how immigration restrictions violate a foreigner’s rights, and why, in the name of open borders, we must stand by and watch our country being destroyed.

“Most Hispanics vote big government” is rather different from “most everyone who voted big government is socialist.” I see what I eat, but don’t always eat what I see. Just because the Progressives were socialists doesn’t change the 2012 (and before) election statistics. In general Third World immigrants overwhelmingly choose the most socialist candidate. Their children aren’t much better, see for example “Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project” Figure 4.2

I wonder if softwareNerd understands my analogy. I thought he had asked when does immigration become an invasion, so I invented the following analogy: A hair is to one illegal immigrant invader as a beard is to an invasion of illegal immigrants. (A reference to the well-known conundrum.) SoftwareNerd makes some astounding claims: Third World immigration has NOT changed American demography and politics. Third World immigration has NOT turned America further toward socialism. Astounding because so easily refuted. For the first (demographics) visit most any town or city and look around you. For the second (politics) look at the voting statistics for the last presidential election, with the assumption that most immigrants today are non-white and Obama is more socialist than his opponents were. For example, Hispanics: “Latino Voters in the 2012 Election” (Pew Research) Obama 71% : Romney 27% Asians were even worse than Hispanics: “United States presidential election, 2012” (Wikipedia) Obama 73% : Romney 26% Patriots should seek an end to Third World immigration. Spare us the Mexican sob stories. Whatever is positive in open immigration is worth far less than the price of the baggage it comes with. Ultimately only altruism can justify open immigration. If you’re a racist for not wanting your country swamped by the Third World you’ll just have to live with the designation. You’re a racist. Get used to it ringing in your ears.

I had asked softwareNerd to “... tie any abstract pronouncements to their concrete results. If the concrete result is evil, we can be sure the abstraction is wrong or inapplicable.” This is rather more than saying: a contradiction is sure to be wrong. What I was getting at is that our abstractions about rights and immigration should be tied to the real world. If applying individual rights to a certain case leads to the end of America as we know it, then there is something wrong with the application. That’s common sense, not pragmatism. What? Sounds like Nicky equivocates between a foreigner and an American. It’s not that the foreigner (peace loving or whatever) has no rights at all, merely that he has no right to enter America without due process. By forbidding such entry, or requiring conditions for it, we take nothing from him. In this regard he has nothing for us to take. America was not such a bad place from 1924 to 1968. First the “roaring twenties” then a depression, then unprecedented prosperity. Nicky makes it out to have been one of Stalin’s Gulags or something.

Nicky: No, you’re trying to define “border” into meaninglessness. An abstract line surrounding an area. Even open border advocates recognize the barrier nature of a country’s border, they just disagree on what to bar. For example, admitting only foreigners free of contagious diseases (though many diseases are difficult to diagnose in the early stages) and only foreigners without a criminal record (which wouldn’t mean much if their country’s government is corrupt, and nothing at all if they hadn’t been caught), etc. I’ve never heard of an open border advocate who argued for no restrictions whatsoever. Unless Nicky is one. ------------------------------------ Corrections (to my first post regarding Prop. 187): In 1994 it passed three to two, not two to one. The injunction was issued within days (three) not hours. The injunction was issued by “a federal district court judge” of the “United States District Court” as many references say. None of these corrections affects the point of the post. ------------------------------------ If you don’t elaborate I can only guess what you mean. We’re not supposed to notice the beard? Pretend that Third World immigration hasn’t changed American demography and politics? Pretend it hasn’t made harder turning America toward freedom? Pretend it hasn’t further turned America toward socialism? Or what? Please tie any abstract pronouncements to their concrete results. If the concrete result is evil, we can be sure the abstraction is wrong or inapplicable. I doubt if Prop. 187 could pass in California today, and the reason involves asking: how many.

The question, how many invaders constitutes an invasion, is like asking how many hairs on a man’s chin constitutes a beard. Hey, it’s a beard. You may think it’s only some hairs everywhere you look. Whatever, the man needs a shave. No, I’m not saying we should mow down immigrants, the analogy goes only so far. But yes, illegal immigrants should be deported and much more done to keep them out in the first place. Restriction worked from 1924 to 1968 in America and it works today in, for example, Israel. We must also end birthright citizenship – anchor babies, like a ship weighing anchor (we get the ship as well as the anchor). This could be done without a Constitutional amendment – the current interpretation of the Constitution is simply wrong. As for foreigners that had entered legally and been made citizens (or illegals amnestied in 1986) but should not have been, that’s a more difficult problem. At least a “naturalized” – an oxymoron based on wishful thinking – citizen convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving assault, ought to be “denaturalized” and after serving his sentence, deported. Getting rid of such rotten apples in the immigrant barrel would require a Constitutional amendment. I’m sick of reading about unspeakable crimes committed by Third World types. Another consideration, mentioned before, is that they are voting us into full scale socialism. Again, opposing open immigration is the selfish thing to do.

I oppose open immigration because of my idea of America – and the Third World is not my idea of America. Nicky says that I deny others their rights. Perhaps he refers to foreigners’ rights, as many open border advocates do. Their position is that a foreigner has a right to come into my country whatever I may think of him, that the very idea of “my country” is spurious – collectivist and socialist. I have no right, and my government has no right, to keep him out. I’m slow to understand. Just as the skin of your body separates you from your environment, a country’s border separates the body politic from the rest of the world. Outside of one world globalism the very idea of a country requires a border, and if a border means anything it is a barrier to indiscriminant entry. Contrary to so-called libertarian anarchists, government does have a proper role to play in America. An important part of that role is to give our border meaning by protecting America from invasion. This protection does not entail violating anyone’s rights, for a foreigner in fact has no inalienable right to enter another country. In fact this was the way things were in America from 1924 to 1968 as a matter of law. Since 1968 the government hasn’t been doing its job. The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (the Hart-Cellar Act), which went into effect in 1968, was a big step in the direction of open borders. Reagan’s amnesty of 1986 was another. The consequence of open borders is conquest by immigration. Slowly and slowly and by degrees that is what is happening. And like a cloud changing from a fox terrier into a monster your unconscious of the change. You look away and look back, and the terrier is gone. Whether to oppose this conquest or not is a question of self-defense. We’re losing our country, if that means anything to you.

In today’s political climate illegal immigrants are refused suffrage and very little else. Open immigration without citizenship will result in effective citizenship for all immigrants. Look what happened to California’s Proposition 187, a referendum on the abolition of all taxpayer funded welfare for illegal immigrants. That was in 1994 when California’s demographic was not as heavily (legal) immigrant as it is today. Despite well funded opposition from the usual suspects the referendum passed two to one. Within hours the Ninth Circuit Court issued a temporary injunction, later extended indefinitely. There’s a lot to fear. Look at LAPD’s most wanted list on any random day, or any big city. Then the Leftists will bewail the fate of “second-class citizens” and after the courts are through they’ll be first class citizens, with the vote along with everything else. Leftists promote immigration for their own reason. These days about 85% of legal immigrants, and practically all illegal, are from the Third World. Statistically – overwhelmingly if not all – Third World immigrants vote for the most socialist candidate. A few “valedictorians” don’t make up for this. Unrestricted immigration is changing the face of America, its culture – and its politics from part-way socialist to full-tilt socialist. Immigration without citizenship is the camel’s nose under the tent. It’s amnesty under an assumed name. Opposing it is the selfish thing to do.

Onyx, Can you give the details? The largest youth movement in Israel, what was it, was the dining hall building theirs, when was this, how do you know, etc.