Monday, May 19, 2008

An Astonishingly Warlike Political Statement Of Openness-Valorization

Here are some quotes from a current debate between myself and a Live Journal user called Rational Passion: [JB]'If your position's wrong, civilization is overrun, if sovereignty and discrimination are wrong, [a great many] foreigners don't get immigration visas. '
[RP] "...a civilization that can only muster the will to defend itself on the basis of racism and xenophobia is a society that deserves to be overrun and will be overrun ..."
[RP again] "What I hold is that the self-interest of the USA is best advanced by a world system of free trade and open immigration, with the constant threat of annihilation made by the USA to any nation that interferes with said system."
[JB] 'If Americans are violating the claimed rights of prospective immigrants, by debarring hundreds of millions of them, wouldn't that make us the largest violator of rights in the world, and morally ineligible to wield "constant threat of annihilation", or is everything relative on the rights landscape? Is "self-interest of the USA" a collectivist, holistic one, or merely the sum of the interests of the existing citizens? Don't actual Americans need to have the level of aggression not be increased here, as by foreigners entering in a way which does increase that level? Why the "only... racism and xenophobia" description, [which is] so much like New Left smearing. The left has no rational argument for being given more power, what does it make others look like if they duplicate the left in that way? Is the above use of 'xenophobia' a diagnosis, faux-diagnosis or a smear? Stout defense does not embolden adversaries...'
Added 5-30-08: If No Conflict Of Interest May Be Thought To Exist...
...where the true interest of everyone is thought to be of the highest, and the most considerate of future consequences; is it still in the interest of the prospective immigrant to move here in a way that would entrain the increase of aggression on the net taxpayers of our citizenry? That is, when interest is defined as above, and the prospective immigrant then, cannot see doing any damage to a more civilized country as good for his interest, in that sense. Either there are really no conflicts of interest, as suggested above, or there really are insoluble ones. In either case, the prospective immigrant may be excluded when he would damage interests here. Civilization is in danger now because of the small extent allowed to it, and the very large numbers who would gladly move in and destroy what is left. This is why no significant increase in the level of aggression can be safely tolerated here and now, nor for generations to come.

Combined 6-16-08 from: Friday, May 30, 2008

Major Media News Blackout On Terroristic Tactics By Mass Immigrationists
Why has this been covered almost exclusively in rarefied precincts of the internet: Assassination threats against Tom Tancredo Those who take the side of immigrants can't be terrorists? What if Islamic immigration itself is a terror offensive against civilization?

12 comments:

scottynx said...

Ya gotta love these hard-core libertarians and leftists. They often seem to qualify their belief that open immigration is good for us with the whole "if it doesn't work out then we were just too unworthy/evil" style of argument.

Here is a comment left at HalfSigma's site:

"Milton Friedman is quoted as saying, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” I say, “What an incredible opportunity.” It is why Ronald Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” He knew that social welfare of communism cannot co-exist with open borders. If we can spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives for the freedom of a bunch of rag head sand niggers, I think a little pain and suffering for returning personal freedom to the people of the United States is well worth the sacrifice. How much pain we feel will depend how much the American psyche is controlled by cowardice, irresponsibility, and laziness. If you believe in free trade; shouldn’t men’s labor, the most fundamental and basic unit of trade, also be free? Bring it on."
[emphasis mine].
"HalfSigma: DC elite thinks immigration is "swell""
http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/05/dc-elite-thinks.html#comment-113133494

Got that? If americans feel pain from open borders it is just because we are cowards, irresponsible, and lazy, lacking this "superior" human beings' "bring it on" attitude.

This is the libertarian version of leftists stating that if open borders don't work, american racism and xenophobia will be the only possible cause.

This will be their excuse in the coming decades if mass immigration isn't stopped and the results (american third-worldization) become increasingly clear to all but the most hard-core deluded or secluded elites. Leftists and hard-core libertarians (they are close to eachother in many ways) will say american racism (with ongoing racial disparities being the only needed proof of that) and weakness of work-ethic, intelligence and resourcefulness is to blame. Reality must conform to theory, instead of vis versa, in their minds. American character flaws are the only permitted possible reasons that open borders could possibly result in disaster instead of a utopia.

John S. Bolton said...

That's what happened with this one, too. He made out Americans as racist and xenophobic, and too stupid to see that our vocation is to invade country after country, liberating them with "puppet" regimes & "democracy be damned". If we restrict immigration, that makes us the enemy, because there are no enemies, or something like that. He says defense would mean "barbarians" would gather at our borders, and that we will end up killing "all" of those who are not treated as Americans. If we're so horrible to be around, how can we be denying anyone a benefit by excluding them from immigrating? Basically he says you're racist and xenophobic, unless you accept his "open immigration" AND buy into invading any number of countries. My points got no answer other than insults and an invitation to sign on to a bizarre militaristic program, then he resigned from the debate.

John S. Bolton said...

I also find that immigration restricionists tend to be brave, responsible and strongly energetic and diligent in their efforts. There is risk of losing jobs, relations and advancement, but these people brave that and often more, going out with signs to places where illegals are, or to the violent border itself, like the Minutemen. In Europe they risk even more.
Responsibility is shown in their concern for the future and public affairs. How many will take responsibility for what the future of their nation looks like, and inform themselves of what may be projected and on what basis. Projecting the future is the responsibility of the learned, but so many of these more average people, take it on themselves to find out, and draw the responsible inferences. Their behavior shows responsibility in the self-control that they show in comparison to others involved. Effort is shown in the tireless contacting of officials and the public, which the other side cannot come within a small fraction of matching. the impulse to destroy is vagrant and casual, like your libertarian's impulsive smearing. The energy to persist and maintain pressure from a group takes diligence and strength, and its unpaid, unlike the lobbying money that the other side gets.

Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

The Libertarian position is, "If I'm wrong you're evil." Their follow up, is then you deserve to die. And it should be horrible. And it was because you are a girlie man and not a super man, i.e. libertarian.

But why can't supermen close borders? The superman has to bring them here and crush them here? Anything else is xenophobia?

The superman has to have the equivalent of slaves, because he is going to crush them? If they aren't crushed the superman wasn't super and should go extinct. Isn't that what Hitler said in his bunker?

What about these other countries? The US takes more immigrants than all other countries in the world combined. And for that matter more than all other countries in history combined.

Libertarians are saying if you are not a super man, then you should be for closed borders and no immigration. So the Libertarian party should be limited to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, because the rest of us are girlie men who should be for closed borders according to the LP credo.

John S. Bolton said...

It is rather like that; but this one I quoted says we deserve to be overrun because we supposedly can't organize defense on any other basis than around racism and xenophobia. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, the catch-22 set up, just like the bureaucrats themselves. If we're destined to be overrun in either case, though, then why worry about someone's false-alarm of racism and their throwing out of a faux-diagnosis of xenophobia? These libertarians are not pc either, did you notice the racism avoidance is for other people, not the elect, who can say barbarians about the third world, and even saying the "sand nigers" is for them. The one quoted in the post counsels an aggresive military program of repeated invasions, including to support free trade and 'open immigration', so he's out of step with the anti-militarism of the left, liberals and others.

John S. Bolton said...

One should also resent the foreigners saying that citizens are lazy. If it means you go ahead and work harder to take care of foreigners children, no actually, I think we will work harder at getting their incorrigibles excluded. America is not for everyone, it's for the protection of the citizenry.

Tanstaafl said...

Defenses can and have been organized based on economics (as in the average invader costs more than he contributes) and the law (as in the invaders and our traitorous leaders are ignoring it). Ultimately those making such arguments are called racists and xenophobes anyway.

At the core the debate about immigration is about race. I don't want to be surrounded by people who don't look, act, or think like I do; who don't care about me as much as they care about others who look, act, and think like themselves. The law and economics and culture spring from a population's genetic mix.

It is normal to feel resentful of invaders. The idea that only Whites feel it is not only ridiculous, it is a lie told with malice aforethought. Intelligent people who propagate this lie, while they can clearly see the ethnocentrism of many invaders and the traitors who welcome them, are guilty of aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing and genocide.

By the way, an aggressive foreign policy that ships our sheepdogs all over the world to die defending one-world globalism, while our own borders and interior are left undefended from gangs and crime brought by immigration is not libertarianism. It is neoconservativism.

Scotty said...

I can't find an e-mail address for you so i will post this here. Here is a 4 decade long study on Mexican American assimilation (or lack of it) that may interest you. A google news search for "Generations of Exclusion" reveals only 2 references to the paper in the entire MSM, unlike the widely disseminated Manhattan Institute study:

UCLA press release:
"Mexican American Integration Slow, Education Halted, Study Finds"
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-of-four-generations-46372.aspx

US News and World Report:
"Mexican Immigrants Prove Slow to Fit In" (article is about several studies)
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/15/mexican-immigrants-prove-slow-to-fit-in.html?PageNr=2

LA Times:
"New study builds on old one to track Mexican American progress"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mexstudy27apr27,1,3434451.story

"Generations of Exlusion"
http://www.amazon.com/Generations-Exclusion-Mexican-Americans-Assimilation/dp/0871548488/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211402336&sr=8-1

The UCLA press release is the most informative. It *explicitly* states that mexican americans are not assimilating like past European immigrants did. In contrast, the two MSM references leave that point to be deduced by the reader (as admittedly simple as that task *should* be for most people with a brain and a rudimentary historical understanding). I think that is a phenomenal thing for two hispanic UCLA researchers to explicitly admit, and immigration restrictionists should spread their words far and wide.

scottynx said...

scotty and scottynx are the same person.

John S. Bolton said...

That comparison of today's immigrants with those of 100 years ago should be made with the emphasis on how today's come in much lower. There's a mythology to work against. Hardly anyone realizes that the 1908 immigrant did not come in at below the national average income or occupational classification: they were in the middle even in their first year or so. It is the rich and white-collar population of cities like NY, Philadelphia and Boston whose incomes and occupations they were distinctly below. The national average was much poorer and unspecialized, small-town manual labor-dominated.

Tanstaafl said...

They also didn't come in illegally - not anything like they have since 1965.

John S. Bolton said...

Re: island model
Another approach to that question is to compare the the number of children of foreign-born enrolled in public schools to the total, and the percent of foreign-born here. The percentage is double, as if immigrants had twice as many children, but they don't; it's from the age ranges that they're in, like the island theory.
Quality of population converges to that of the immigrants, and this is a large part of what I mean by saying that if the libertarian is mistaken or practicing deceit on us, civilization is overrun.