November 20, 2017
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
DACA, Immigration and the Basic Issues at
Stake
Friends,
The current debate about immigration involves not just the DACA [Deferred
Arrivals for Childhood Arrivals] illegals (many of whom are assuredly NOT
children), but how to treat the continuing influx of across-the-border
immigrants who are in so many ways altering both the economics and the culture of our society.
There
are, so it seems to me, several major points we should remember in this, what
seems, endless discussion and debate:
1)
Illegals will continue to come to the United States by any means they can,
looking for jobs—and for our nation’s generous social welfare programs and
social safety net—as long as we let them, as long as we don’t truly secure the
borders of the country, and as long as political leaders conveniently turn a
blind eye to what has been and is occurring.
2)
Illegals, who may not pay the same taxes or live at the same standards as
American citizens, in many cases undercut the ability of citizens to work and
find work, taking jobs that ordinarily would be done by citizens.
3)
Despite the claimed “contributions” (in sales tax revenues, purchasing, etc.)
that illegals make to the American economy, their overall net economic effect
(e.g., welfare, free medical care, educational benefits, etc.) has been
negative, in the many billions of dollars.
4)
For Democrats the influx of illegals, especially from Mexico and Central
America, is seen as an advantage, a political boon that is enabling them to
replace voters in the South and West who have deserted the Democratic Party due
to its movement to the far Left, and in some cases—such as California, New
Mexico, and a few other states—has permitted them to gain a solid lock on
voting in those states: continued immigration is seen by Democratic strategists
as major means of gaining eventual and full control politically over the
nation.
5)
Republicans and conservatives are split over the issue of immigration. While
all mouth the slogan, “Make our borders secure,” a considerable portion of
so-called “conservatives” and of GOP legislators continue to push for what
essentially comes down to an “open borders” approach to the issue. Some, such
as Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina,
motivated by large agri-business and Chamber of Commerce support, advocate what
they term “compromise,” which would essentially allow in millions of additional
“workers” and allow them to stay, with an eventual “path to citizenship.”
Others, including Senator Jeff Flake and some at the libertarian CATO
Institute, for instance, also make the argument that immigration—and its
supposed economic benefits—should be seen as part of the general advocacy for
“free trade” and (open) “free markets.” In other words, for them the perceived
economic advantages of cheap (illegal) labor and the nebulous idea of “freedom” trump concerns about territorial
integrity or cultural homogeneity—which arguments they see as “nativist” or
“xenophobic.” In this Flake (for all his vaunted and false claims that he is a
“conservative”) and those like him are joined at the hip with the far Left open
borders zealots.
6)
The undeniable fact is that mass immigration, and specifically illegal
immigration—the kind of immigration we have seen during the past half century,
certainly since the disastrous immigration bill of 1986—is radically altering the
fabric of our historic culture, and this, to some degree, is by design: the
desire of the motivating and dominant political forces in our society to
transform the country through ethnic and population replacement. New Latino
immigrants are out-populating native citizens in birth rates in many cases by
more than a two-to-one ratio.
I
think here of numerous examples. And one that always sticks out in my mind is
Siler City, North Carolina. For years as a boy my family would travel through
that town, which is about half-way between Raleigh and Charlotte, as we motored
west to visit my father’s relatives. Oftentimes we would stop to get gas or a
bite to eat. Siler City was a typical small North Carolina town, populated by
hardy, hard-working folks, some of whom once worked in nearby textile mills
(most of which have now gone to Mexico or China). Made famous by “The Andy
Griffith Show,” it was also the final residence of Aunt Bee actress, Frances
Bavier. Siler City counts around 8,000
inhabitants---and 50% [49.8%] of them by the last census data are Latinos.
Thus, in the schools, in business, and—on the various welfare rolls—the very
nature of this once-archetypal Southern town has changed. And its culture and
outlook have changed, as well.
For
three years I studied for my doctorate in Pamplona, Spain; later (1980-1981) I
taught on the collegiate level in Argentina. I am fluent in Spanish, and I love
and appreciate Hispanic culture, history, and the beauty of the language. But
just as I did not wish to impose my North American—“Estadounidense”—culture, my
politics, and my language on Spain or Argentina, so I would not have or desire
to have that culture, language and politics imposed here.
Every
nation, every society, I believe, has a God-given right to its history, its
cultural integrity, and the richness of its own past. Certainly, over the
centuries our nation, like most others in the world, has received and will continue
to receive immigrants—new arrivals. Sometimes those immigrants will come in
waves, as for example the influx of Irish prior to the War Between the States,
or the Scandinavians late in the 19th century. The key has always
been the ability to assimilate—especially given the backgrounds and ethnicity
of the new arrivals—and the willingness of the newcomers to integrate into what
has been called “the melting pot,” to share our historic beliefs and values,
that is, to want be “Americans.”
The
most recent mass influx largely from below the border has placed this template
in serious jeopardy. Entire communities and neighborhoods in California, for
example, are now unrecognizable, and resemble and could well be any town in
Morelos or Jalisco states in Mexico, except that they retain the older
infrastructures (e.g., roads and transportation, government support systems,
etc.) that were built and put in place by earlier non-Latino leaders (and are
now under severe duress with the new immigrants).
But
the culture has changed and is changing, and, as never before there is a marked
resistance to actual assimilation from a large proportion of the
newcomers. And this resistance and
unwillingness to assimilate is abetted and encouraged by many American
political leaders and by those in academia and the media, who partake in
various ways in the cultural Marxist narrative that posits that historic white
peoples and the civilization they created are, by definition, oppressive and
evil, and thus, must be brought down and destroyed. Many—certainly not all—Latino
immigrants have, thus, become pawns, if not willing participants, in this
effort.
Every
people, every nation, has a natural right to its historic culture, its history
and a usable past, to its language and richness of a national (and regional)
literature. Every people, every historic country, has a right to its land and
to protect its borders from unwanted incursions from “outsiders.” Unlike the
insane “open borders” theology that now runs rampant through much of current
Christian “teaching” on this topic, nations are like families in macrocosm.
Just as the family, father-mother-and-children, has the right in natural law to
reject entry of any unwanted outsider and to preserve its integrity and safety,
so analogously the nation—a collection of families united in their history and
traditions, beliefs, customs, language—has a natural right to prevent entry of
those it deems a threat, unmalleable or incapable of integration, economically,
socially, and, yes, culturally.
This
is how the broader debate over immigration should be focused. It is not
“racist” or “xenophobic” to believe in and to defend your own historic culture
and your traditions. It is not “hateful” to believe that those citizens who
have lived here and contributed historically through their labor and multiple
contributions to the well-being of the country (including through taxes and
participation in the public life of the community) should have—must have—first
crack, the first opportunity, to fill positions and jobs when they become
available. It is not a sign of “white supremacy” when our citizens insist on
using our historic English language in business and commerce, and in our schools and education. And
protecting our borders—really protecting them, unlike the palpable hypocrisy of
a Thom Tillis—with a wall and with stepped up enforcement and sending back
illegals, who by the very definition
“illegal” have broken our laws, is not an example of “bigotry” or
“nativism.”
It
continues to be up to us—to you and me—to let our elected political leaders
know what we think, and to give our support to such excellent immigration
control organizations as FAIR [Foundation for American Immigration Reform],
NumberUSA, American for Legal Immigration PAC [ALIPAC], NC LISTENS, and the
American Immigration Control Foundation [AIC Foundation]. These organizations
have produced impressive studies and reports, and lobby our politicians. But
too often their voices are drowned out by the filthy lucre of international
corporate business and the babbling bile of social justice warriors who, in
effect, would destroy this nation as we have known it.
No comments:
Post a Comment