Found it on Facebook: This is not a rebuttal to illegal immigration

One of the strawmen that Progressives like to set up in the illegal immigration debate is to imply that those who oppose illegal immigrants ought to give up liking or using anything that came from somewhere other than America’s shores.  This is a perfect example:

Illegal immigrantIs it possible that all the people who “liked” that on Facebook do not understand that there is a difference between embracing ideas, on the one hand, and abandoning national sovereignty, on the other hand?

I’ve always made it perfectly clear that I think immigration is a marvelous thing.  I am the child of immigrants and all my school friends growing up were the children of immigrants.  Every man-jack of us in America is an immigrant or a descendent of immigrants.  Even the indigenous people aren’t indigenous.  They just immigrated here first, probably from Asia.  The only continent with true indigenous people is Africa, because that is the cradle of mankind.

We in America should embrace new ideas and we benefit from replenishing our population.  But part of being a strong sovereign nation is that we get to pick who comes in.  If we make smart decisions, we benefit.  If we make dumb decisions, either by inviting in too many immigrants hostile to our national values or by inviting in so few immigrants that we become desiccated, that’s our problem.  If a nation allows self-selecting immigrants to breach her border at any time, she has ceded sovereignty to the hordes, and may as well give it up.

 

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    If there wasn’t a human need for national identity and sovereignty you wouldn’t consider inanimate objects to be Turkish, Russian, Brazilian, etc… It is the fact that these objects represent the output of functioning (if at different levels of success) societies with a shared identity and geographic region that they get labeled as something national  at all.  
    We don’t name scientific theories with national origins because they don’t reflect a national heritage but a natural law so they are named after the discoverer or keep a scientific name…..unless you are a Leftist in which case scientific discoveries are the product of our great leader Stalin or Mao signaling a loss of individual sovereignty but that’s ok. 
     

  • JKB

    The steam engine was in the whole an invention of the English-speaking countries.  Other countries did simultaneously develop some elements but it was the English-speaking countries where all the elements were invented to make the whole.  The steam engine, of course, transformed the world.  And the inventions and innovations it spurred have done more to bring humanity out of poverty than any other ideas.
     
    But the steam engine and the industrial revolution was not product of the English or the Anglo-Saxons or any race or nationality.  The English-speaking countries benefitted from the variety of immigrants who came to their shores to join in the culture.  A culture than honored liberty, private property, the right to profit from your ideas, the rule of law equitably applied to all, etc.  They came from far and near to join that culture.  America surged ahead of even England because we are a people not of race or place but a people of a culture.
     
    Given that, we should defend that.  Protect the culture now denigrated by those who profited from it so much.  They promote unbridled immigration, not to bring those who would be free to our shores, but to inundate and drown the culture that made the modern world.  
     
    I challenge those who wish to throw open the gates.  If you do so, then remove the barriers to forming a small business, the protections for your favored corporations, let these new arrivals build rather than toil.  Let them be free rather than dependent up on the State.  Let them be Americans, instead of an interest group.