“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Why do We Need Any Immigration?

Why not stay at a population of three hundred million? Guess where continued immigration is taking us.

The Only Way to Win the Immigration Battle
By Selwyn Duke (09/26/07) American Daily

It's hard to think of a battle that has been won by being defensive. You may be most skilled at blocking and slipping punches, but if that is all you do, sooner or later your opponent will land a few and enjoy victory. This occurs to me as I watch the latest amnesty battle.

As you may know, the DREAM Act -- the latest Scamnesty scheme -- is being debated in Congress at this moment. And it may be the Mexican dream, but it's our nightmare. But that isn't what I want to address today.

We may defeat this proposal as we did the last, but so what?

Are you surprised? Do I sound overly cavalier or a tad defeatist? Here is my point: Until we transform this debate and talk about the true remedy for our problem -- namely, halting legal immigration -- we will labor in vain.

As I have said before, illegal immigration isn't the problem, but merely an exacerbation of the problem. As long as we perpetuate our current immigration scheme – a formula dictating that 85 percent of immigrants will hail from the Third World and Asia – the demographic revolution we have witnessed will continue, attended by descent into Third World status.

This is the third rail of the American immigration debate, the emperor-has-no-clothes-issue, the untouchable element. It gets at a truth that no one even dares contemplate because, by golly, we're a nation of immigrants. That is what we’re told and it's not to be questioned; it is dogma. Why, I can almost hear Zero Mostel bellowing "Tradition!"

Then again, I can also hear that apocryphal saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Advocating a moratorium on legal immigration would be a return to sanity that could turn the tide. We would finally be taking the offense and proposing a change in the traditionalist direction, as opposed to making proactivity the province of the left. We would finally be pushing back, demanding some of the adversary's territory instead of just defending ours. Of course, we do have one other choice.

Certain defeat.

We may end this bad DREAM, but the left will be back, maybe in a few months, maybe in a year. And then they will return again and again and again and again; they will continue to make their proposals and propagandize, cajole and coerce, until one of their nail-in-the-coffin laws passes. It's not a matter of if, only when; one of those big punches will eventually land. This is the consequence of being defensive.

Thus, proposing the elimination of immigration is not only the right thing, it's the only thing. The present course of action guarantees eventual defeat, as the traditionalist side gets worn down through constant attack and people become acclimated to the idea of scamnesty-by-another-name. But if we finally start making the proposals -- if we finally say to the left, "No! You no longer drive the agenda, we have a say now" -- we'll be pushing back. Then, at worst, maybe we will, to use apropos terminology, be in a Mexican stand-off. And then perhaps, just possibly, we will have the time to alter the American consciousness and muster up the popular will to save our republic.

It's push back or be pushed around.

End immigration now, before it ends us


  1. This is a bizarre article, 2164th. All it says is we need to stop immigration before it "destroys our republic" but it doesn't make the case how that is supposed to happen. A link to the Hispanic caucus in congress? So what? We've seen the GOP candidates for 2008 essentially write off the black vote by declining to debate at one of their forums, if the GOP writes off the Hispanic vote as well that's a 25% chunk of the electorate the GOP is handing to the Dems without a fight.

  2. Stop the tides!

    What once was, will never be again.

    If it ever really was, once.

    For four years of blogging, through the thick and the thin, I have advocated for securing the border.

    The great mass of the body politic rose up, in defiance of the Boner Elite, and shouted them down.

    That "movement" lasted a month.

    The Border is still not secured.

    Still crazy, after all these years.

  3. The Gadsden Purchase covers the AZ section of that map.
    The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, United Mexican States transfered soveriegnty to the US of both New Mexico and California, for "peace" and $15 million in gold. Texas had already been "liberated".
    Look at your map, it is those conquered territories that are in demographic dispute, 160 years later. Just like in Europe, Africa or the Middle East. The people are where the people go, regardless of lines on the maps by diplomats and politicos.

    The roots of the immigration challenge are universal and are more than 160 years old. It is how Ceasar made his bones.
    In Migration Management.

    The influx is steady, the migration continues, but now, it's below the fold.

    The Congress moving again to "regularize" the migrants, before closing the door to more of the unauthorized newcomers.

  4. A. The illegal vote is not the "Hispanic" vote.

    B. Congress has no intention of "closing the door."

  5. Legal or illegal for that matter.

  6. Neither the Congress nor the Executive, cutler.

    Open borders is the policy.

    The defeat of the Comprehensive Immigration proposal sealed the deal, the status que remains.

    Conservatives rejoice!

  7. fil·i·bus·ter (fĭl'ə-bŭs'tər)

    2.An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country.

    It is out of use now, but some of the orginal whites going into Texas, when it wasn't Texes, where called filibusters. One might consider we are being reverse filibustered these days, almost.

    My problem is I nearly always have a lot of sympathy with the individual, but we are talking about a huge group here.

    Why we don't need any more immigration of any kind, let me count the endless ways....

    Beginning by looking a generation into the future....

    Last I heard we are up to seventy something miles of fence.

    Since large majorities of the public consistently say they are opposed to this maxssive immigration, yet nothing much gets done, maybe one sadly must conclude the fault lies with something basic like the form of our political system. We don't seem able to effectively handle a simple problem that everyone nearly wants handled.

    It's turning into chaos. Cities taking it upon themselves to flip off federal law just as they like...

  8. Teresita said...
    We've seen the GOP candidates for 2008 essentially write off the black vote by declining to debate at one of their forums, if the GOP writes off the Hispanic vote as well that's a 25% chunk of the electorate the GOP is handing to the Dems without a fight.
    True or not --this is a pretty faithful recitation of the thinking of the "die slow white devil" wing of the republican party. However, the "die fast white devil" democratic party is not in better shape. They are poised to nominate hillary clinton who 45%-49% of the electorate will not vote for under any circumstances.

    Those are higher negatives than any republican can hope to muster. Apparently the dems have forgotten that master politician bill clinton never got more than 45% of the electorate. Hillary is not nearly as personable or lucky as Bill and there is no Ross Perot around to draw off republican votes.