Immigration’s False Premises

Posted on November 7, 2017 by Robert Ringer Comments (48)

Font:

The Radical Left never tires of making bogus immigration arguments, all based on a major false premise and many false sub-premises as well.  The major false premise is that the purpose of immigration is to help those in other countries whom open-borders cheerleaders like to refer to as “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.”

Note to the open-borders crowd:  These words do not constitute a law — or even an official government policy.  They are nothing more than a couple of lines in a poem that appears on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty.

The author of these words — as well as the sonnet in which appear (“The New Colossus”) — was a woman by the name of Emma Lazarus.  As one would suspect, dear old Emma was a poet, not a legislator.

It’s not just that her words have no legal meaning, they do not even express the feelings of millions of American citizens regarding immigration.  On the contrary, they are the subjective feelings of one individual.  Thus, those who imply that they represent some sort of official U.S. policy on immigration are either uninformed or intent on misleading low-information Americans.

The reality is that no one has a right to become a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.  Even so, so-called progressives love to scream and yell about the rights of those who want to come to America and those who are already here illegally.  However, their viewpoint is based on the false premise that non-citizens are protected by the Constitution.  Sorry, but they are not.  The Constitution specifically protects the rights only of American citizens.

Notwithstanding the phony and pathetic pleas of Barack Obama that “This is not who we are as a nation,” the simple fact is that Americans do not have a moral obligation to welcome anyone into their country.  One can be sympathetic to the plight of hundreds of millions people around the globe who are living lives of quiet desperation, but that doesn’t mean he has to favor unrestricted immigration.

If we opened the doors to all those who are living in poverty and oppression in other countries, the United States population would quickly exceed 1 billion and the country would collapse into economic and social chaos.  Why would anyone who is concerned about the quality of life in America want that?

One time, loud and clear:  The purpose of immigration is not to help people in other countries.  The one and only purpose of immigration is to benefit America and Americans by bringing in men and women who can add value to the country and thereby improve the lives of its citizens.

The immigration policies of countries like Australia and New Zealand make it clear that they do not want the tired, the poor, or the huddled masses.  What they want are doctors, scientists, and engineers — and then only if they have a shortage of those professionals.  It goes without saying that wealthy people who can contribute to the country financially are also welcome.

Of course, the worst excuse of all for ignoring merit-based immigration is the desire to make America “more diverse.”  Sorry, but immigration was never intended to be a social experiment — and certainly not a lottery.

The “diversity lottery” is a very bad joke, a symbol of America’s decline into the depths of depravity and insanity.  And, as we saw with the recent terrorist attack in New York, it can have deadly consequences.

The claim that “diversity is America’s greatest strength” is the biggest of all lies.  The truth is that diversity is America’s greatest weakness.  We see this not only in America, but in countries like Germany, France, and Belgium, where far-left leaders have destroyed their once proud cultures with immigration policies that ignore the wants and needs of their own citizens.

As is always the case, when I use the term diversity, I am not referring to a person’s skin color, be he white, brown, yellow, or other.  Diversity is about a person’s cultural beliefs and practices.

The hard truth is that tribalism, which has been around since the dawn of civilization, is the underpinning of a civilized and peaceful society.  The reality that those on the Radical Left (and many in the RINO camp) refuse to accept is that people prefer to be around others who are culturally most like them and, the corollary, they have little desire to be in close proximity to those who are culturally different.

Using myself as an example, I wouldn’t mind at all if I never had contact with anyone in the Radical Left tribe.  Why would I want to be in close proximity to uncouth cultural zombies who are prone to violence?

When those in power try to force tribes with different cultural values to live together, it tends to engender hatred and violence, which is why the government should remove itself from the social-experimentation business and let tribes live separately and in peace with other tribes.

And let us not forget the scam known as “the Dreamers.”  The argument that Dreamers are innocent because their parents brought them here when they were small children is nothing but a diversion from the real issue that they did, in fact, come here illegally.

Granted, it’s not their fault that their parents broke the law, but it’s also not a justifiable reason to reward them.  To be rewarded for being brought to America illegally would give other non-citizen parents a huge incentive to continue breaking the law.

Finally, there’s the issue of illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes.  The Radical Left’s argument is that illegal immigrants do not commit any more crimes than legal citizens, which is irrelevant.  Just because some citizens in the United States are criminals is no reason to bring in more criminals.

As painful as it may be for Trump haters to hear, the final word on immigration comes from the president.  He, and he alone, has the authority to ban foreigners from entering the country, so long as he has a “rational basis” for believing they pose a threat to the nation’s security.  If challenged, of course, it’s up to the courts to judge whether or not his basis is rational.

In any event, one last time for the benefit of liberals:  People who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States have no constitutional rights, and pretending as though they do is not only not true but downright annoying.

That said, why don’t we stop tiptoeing and tell it like it really is:  Bringing in immigrants who are low skilled, do not speak our language, and have different cultural values is really nothing more than a political scheme to add Democratic voters to the registration rolls.  And, at least until recently, most Republicans have seemed to be just fine with allowing the Dirty Dems to get away with this scheme.

As the populist genie that is now out of the bottle continues to gain momentum, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans’ colossal sellout continues.

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

48 responses to “Immigration’s False Premises”

  1. Richard Head says:

    From http://www.theamericancapitalistparty.com/policie

    IMMIGRATION

    We uphold this conviction: Open borders for honest immigrants is an application of the principle of individual rights to those foreign born.

    Consequently, we support open borders for all honest men and women. We maintain that honest individuals have the moral right to choose their country of residence, that the government of a free society must uphold and protect that right, and that, in practical terms, the United States throughout its history has greatly benefited from immigration. Andrew Carnegie, Albert Einstein, Jerry Yang (co-founder of Yahoo), Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and numerous other geniuses and/or productive giants were and are immigrants to America; Silicon Valley, for example, is heavily populated with expert, foreign-born engineers. Related, labor force participation rates show that low-skilled immigrant laborers are and have long been among American society's hardest workers. To those who argue that immigrants freeload off of the welfare system, our response is dual: Factually, the welfare state is—overwhelmingly—a problem of native-born Americans, not of immigrants, who generally manifest a superlative work ethic; second, the welfare state must be utterly abolished on purely moral and humanitarian grounds regardless of America's immigration policy.

    Eliminating the welfare state will ensure even further that only those willing to work productively will immigrate to America.

    Expensive background checks to ensure the debarring of jihadists, criminals, and persons bearing communicable diseases are, economically, more than offset by immense productivity gained by welcoming such hard-working immigrants.

    • Richard Head says:

      The link to The American Capitalist Party: http://www.theamericancapitalistparty.com.

    • SteveR says:

      I feel you are mistaken. Your statement "honest individuals have the moral right to choose their country of residence" is NOT true, in any country, and, as far as I know, has NEVER been true in any country. 'Moral rights' are NOT 'rights', but an ambiguous gift of an uninformed person who has not the authority to give that 'gift'.

      • Richard Head says:

        SteveR:

        First and foremost, is your feeling a reason-based feeling, sir?

        Second, the statement "honest individuals have the moral right to choose their country of residence" is not my statement. It is a position of the hypothetical American Capitalist Party. The platform/policies are based upon Ayn Rand's philosophy: Objectivism, to which I subscribe. I believe Mr. Ringer is a "disciple" of Ayn Rand. (He will correct me if I am mistaken.)

        The purpose of my post is two-fold: 1) to remind Mr. Ringer of the philosophy upon which his life's work-products have been based, and 2) to subtly call him out when he "goes off the philosophical rails" to defend President Trump. :-)

        Like Mr. Ringer, I am rooting for President Trump to succeed, but not at the expense of compromising my principles. You may read more here: http://www.donaldfuckhead.com or http://www.politicalfolks.com. The choice of link upon which to click is offered for those who have strong feelings toward President Trump. :-)

        Hope this helps.

        Best,

        Richard "D.I.C.K." Head

        • thebacksaver says:

          Dear Mr Head:
          Please allow me to make a correction: Mr Ringer's life work-products are certainly not based upon the philosophy of Ayn Rand's objectivism. Please re-read Mr Ringers books and Ms Rand's works of non-fiction. You will see fundamental and large contrasts. Mr Ringer is more than capable of defending himself on this, but I feel compelled to say that RR has repeatedly acknowledged that Ms Rand's works (as well as many other authors) have influenced him. But to say he has based his life works on her philosophy is not accurate.

          • Richard Head says:

            Dear thebacksaver:

            My comments were made based upon my reading of many of Mr. Ringer's work-products and Ms. Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction.

            I agree Mr. Ringer is more than capable of "defending" himself, but I respectfully leave it to him to write an article describing in detail where he disagrees with Ms. Rand. :-)

            Thank you for sharing your consciousness, sir/madam.

            Best,

            D.I.C.K.

      • Blank Reg says:

        I disagree. You have a "moral" right to choose what country you would like to live in, but the world's nation states have no LEGAL OBLIGATION to let you in. That's the real point. (In fact in some cases, you would be hard pressed to get OUT from where you are, never mind getting in somewhere else)

      • John John P says:

        You are spot-on with your statement. Mr. Head comment appears to be based in feelings rather than in a learned and studied approach to the realities of governance. Mr. Head's stated position is a threat to our country's sovereignty and way of life under constitutional law. Unfortunately, we have way too many people in our country who have failed to educate themselves about our country and its constitution. We truly have serious long term issues facing us with an under educated, simplistic, and outright socially ignorant citizenry.

    • sam239 says:

      This seems like naive thinking on behalf of the American Capitalist Party. In an idealistic world maybe it would work but in practice there are too many hostile people/tribes/cultures in the world to just open this place right up.

      • Richard Head says:

        Might the American Capitalist Party be engaged in revolutionary thinking, sam239?

        Do you consider the Declaration of Independence to have been written by naive individuals, sir?

        Best,

        D.I.C.K.

    • John P says:

      Your stated position actions, if actually implemented, would pose a dire threat to our country's sovereignty and way of life under constitutional law. Unfortunately, we have way too many people in our country who have failed to truly educate themselves about our country and its constitution. We will continue to have serious long term issues facing us with an under educated, simplistic, and outright academically ignorant citizenry. Your statement content reflects a feelings based argument that offers provable highly skewed and otherwise non-factual and baseless data. Further, your commentary is a voiced opinion, not a statement of fact, and, as a consequence, is not reasoned thought for implementing sound solutions to your expressed concerns. I beg you to PLEASE educate yourself on a topic before you expound on it! If you are truly as concerned about morality and humanity try studying the Greek philosophers, our constitution, and our nation's history under the tutelage of true professors on the subject. Try taking Constitution 101 from Hillsdale College. It's online and it's FREE! If you truly want to make an impact to help people, then try to learn substantiated facts first upon which you can build a well reasoned and scholarly based argument!

      • Richard Head says:

        Please check your premises, John P. The American Capitalist Party's platform is derived from Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Ms. Rand despised Plato. She had the utmost respect for Aristotle–although she did not totally agree with him. Ms. Rand also respected the Constitution of the United States of America. Glad to read you are aware of Hillsdale College and Constitution 101 and other courses. I presume you also read Imprimis. Here is a link to the Ayn Rand Lexicon–a book I have found to be very useful during this difficulty time in our country: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/aristotle.html. Enjoy, sir!

  2. TheLookOut says:

    Robert, Thank you for addressing this PC nightmare, and telling it
    like it is. The "Establishment" knows that by hooking voters on
    freebies ensures their re-election/status.
    The lapdog media owned by the "Establishment" of course is the
    perfect vehicle to keep the non-thinkers on the plantation, and
    the immigration policy is designed to increase the inhabitants.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      You have addressed the key elements of the faulty thinking RE: immigration. The economic bribes/benefits encourage lots of losers to apply for a FREE lunch, and the lying media shills, intent on swelling the number of Dumbocrat voters, just continue with the lies and deceptions. Australia, NZ, Italy and most other nations do not accept anyone who chooses to come and surely do not offer economic incentives. Can you imagine what a beautiful country like Switzerland would look like if they let in anyone who "chose" to come and bribed them to do so?? It would be another disaster, just like the USA is turning into. University Marxists keep promoting the "diversity rant" so people are deluded with propaganda. As Robert said, the only "diversity" worth importing is someone who can ADD VALUE to the country, and not just someone to be a further burden by getting on the govt. dole.

  3. Rick G. says:

    I agree 100% with you, Robert. I sincerely believe Obama's main goal of letting it all these people is to swell the country's number of Democrats so they will permanently outnumber Republicans at the ballot box and ensure that Republicans cannot ever get elected. While President, he also ran advertisements in the media south of the border, "Come to America, we have welfare, food stamps, and free health care" as part of his America destroying agenda. This country has an immigration problem and a serious one at that. Years ago, people from other countries who came over here had to learn our language, English, which was mandatory, and our customs, and they have to learn about our political history so they could assimilate into mainstream society. No more nowadays! They let them in and turn them loose not knowing English, our customs, and everything else about this country. "Multiculturalism" is the code word now and there is no need to look like, dress like, or speak like an American. Just be who you are snd do your own thing. Even where I live in northern Kentucky, I remember growing up and never seeing any immigrants or.foreigners. I do remember a Cuban family who lived in our area, and they were here legally as refugees from Fidel Castro. They spoke English, in addition to Spanish, dressed American, held down jobs working with other Americsn citizens and pulled their.own weight and minded their own business. Other than that, there were no immigrants much to be found anywhere. Nowadays, all that has changed. There are Mexicans all over the place speaking Spanish, Muslims in their cultural garb walking along the highway and shopping at and working in their garb at Walmart, as well as people from other parts of the Middle East and Africa. Subways restaurants too, you walk in and see all these Middle Easterners working there and speaking Arabic. When you call customer service on the phone to transact business, it is extremely hard to understand them and figure out what they are saying. I usually end up hanging up immediately and trying several times until I can get someone on the line whom I can understand when doing business. There are too many people here like that in this country and the country is beginning to look like a third world country. Terrible!

    • larajf says:

      I agree completely. And it's so very sad.

    • Richard Lee Van Der says:

      YES! Excellent! I grew up a few miles away from DEARBORN, MICHIGAN. No mosque when I was growing up! It was Henry Ford-ville! But NOW! Totally changed, for the WORSE!

      • Jim Hallett says:

        Sharia law rules the roost in Dearborn now.

      • Jean says:

        When my sister taught school in Dearborn (back in the 1960s), her special ed classes were almost all Arab immigrants. Some were legitimately special needs (lots of inbreeding among the ranks), but most were unable to read or write in English because the female caretakers in the home were FORBIDDEN to speak or learn English. They also came in with head lice, tapeworm, ringworm and every third world disease; not one person educated them on how to use soap, water and a bathtub. These were working class immigrants, BTW; the males in the family worked at the Ford plant, were good union members and made very good money. Even then, she was appalled that they were so insular and backwards – by choice. Yet these are the hoards Obama was pushing on small towns all over the US, claiming their presence would be a boon to the economy.

    • CaliConservative says:

      Democrats don't need to worry about bringing in more Democrat voters, as the Republicans in Congress are showing themselves to be just as bad as the Democrats, and they hate Trump just as much

      Also interested to see Rand Paul getting assaulted by one of his neighbors while mowing his lawn over the weekend. Can you imagine the outrage if the same thing happened to Chuckie Schumer or Nancy Pelosi? There would be a call to hang the perpetrator for a hate crime!

  4. RealitySeeker says:

    “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."

    Allow me to accurately rewrite what's currently happening: give us your lazy, sickly, ignorant masses yearning for welfare who'll vote for more Marxist government and to take my guns away.

    Did I miss anything important in the rewrite?

  5. Robby Bonfire says:

    I think the Left can be beaten in political campaigns by Conservative candidates pointing out the utter folly of our having an open borders policy, while at the same time the Left is screaming for more and more gun control laws, thereby rendering the American populace even MORE vulnerable to the criminal element staking its claim here from abroad.

    I saw the story in Texas about how the man who perpetrated the church carnage "either committed suicide, or was shot by a private citizen." If he was shot by a private citizen, imagine how many lives that responsible man saved, which would have been lost, had he not owned and used his licensed weapon?

    Given that possible scenario, is the Left still screaming for more gun control laws now, or have they been shut up for at least awhile, given how gun ownership can also SAVE lives, in a crisis like this one proved to be?

    • Rick G. says:

      The Left only sees what it wants to see. And, oh by the way, whatever happened to the Communist overthrow of the U.S. government ANTIiFA promised on November 4. Their mantra is Trump Pence regime must go!

    • Jim Hallett says:

      NBC (and I am sure all the other media LIARS followed suit) led off last night's telecast (I just saw it as I was changing channels as I never watch the lamestream media poppycock newscasts!) from Texas calling for a deeper discussion of gun control and why we need it. They never stop peddling their lies!!

  6. NotPropagandized says:

    It is apparent that allowing power to combine with governance attracts the WRONG people who exploit the power to empower themselves by all sort of cute and insidious means. Our governments have all kinds of criminals and ethically challenged bad characters. It is a task indeed to know the character of a complete stranger running for office. The worst is when the criminals and bad actors form cabals and cartels to anchor themselves into tyranny over the people. It is essential that all citizens learn to pay attention and develop skills for knowing when they are looking at a phony.

  7. John Jay says:

    Actually foreigners in this country (legally or not) do have some protection under the Constitution. If they are accused of a crime, they still have the same legal protections that citizens and legal residents have. They are protected by most of the Bill of Rights. And would you want it otherwise? A tourist here on a visa accused of a crime is protected against unreasonable search and seizure, has the right to trial by jury, the right to see the evidence against them, the right to a lawyer, etc. Even an illegal alien has the same protections when accused of any crime, up to and including murder. If they don't have the same protections, that would give the government the right to imprison or execute them without due process, and if the accusation was false let the real perpetrator go free. If the foreigner is convicted, it is important that they be sentenced for the crime in the same way a convicted citizen would be. For some lesser crimes deportation may be the most appropriate sentence.

    • CaliConservative says:

      You could argue that foreigners have more rights and protections, because the protections under the Constitution are enforced diligently for them while the rights of the general American citizen are often trampled by a law enforcement body often driven more by political correctness rather than by the law

  8. Marte says:

    In my opinion, bringing in more welfare recipients, whether or not they are terrorists or any other kind of criminal, is a threat to the nation's security. They drain our energy and resources and contribute to nothing except the national debt.

    I have no idea, but do wonder if we actually NEED any new immigrants. Are there important fields lacking in people?

    I know we are short on people who are willing to get their hands dirty, use their muscles, and work outside in the heat and cold, but whose fault is that? Those who encourage EVERY child to get a college degree, even if they aren't scholars and even if their course of study will never lead to sustainable employment.

    The American work ethic has been badly battered.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      There was a shortage of some in the engineering and science field (which is what attracted a lot of bright Asians to come), but no one is calling for barring those folks – it is the welfare-seeking, criminal, illiterate, and otherwise undesirable masses that are causing the problem – AND they bring NOTHING OF VALUE to the country – only a further drain on an overextended economy that can't even come close to meeting its current obligations, let alone those in the near future, which will officially bankrupt the USA, other than being propped up by "money creation" in the digital wonderland.

  9. Richard Lee Van Der says:

    What a well-reasoned essay Mr. Ringer has put forth! Really super=excellent! It is ALL there! How could anyone disagree? I really enjoyed reading such exquisite reasoning!

  10. Clay Ziegler says:

    Robert Ringer has more “common-sense” in the fingernail of either of his “pinky fingers” then most Americans possess in their entire body! His article above contains NO incorrect or falsified information.

    For some reason though, truth and facts, seem to eluded Liberals! Our Country is NOT the World’s “Dumpster!” But if we continue to allow it to be, the rest of the World, will soon, be “Taking Out the Trash!”

    I would prefer that my grandchildren, and great grandchildren, not be enslaved in an oppressive third-world country. But if America continues on its current course, my hopes and wishes will not come to fruition!

    The decline of all previously “great” societies is summed up very well by two (2) scholars (and many more I’ve elected not to mention) over the past 200 plus years; Alexander Tyler and Joseph Olson.

    At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh, had this to say about “The Fall of The Athenian Republic” some 2,000 years prior.

    “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is, always followed by a dictatorship.” “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations, from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

    From bondage to spiritual faith
    From spiritual faith to great courage
    From courage to liberty
    From liberty to abundance
    From abundance to complacency
    From complacency to apathy
    From apathy to dependence
    From dependence back into bondage

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pointed out some interesting facts, concerning the 2000 Presidential election.

    Population of counties won by:
    Gore = 127 million <> Bush = 143 million

    Square miles of land won by:
    Gore = 580,000 <> Bush = 22,427,000

    States won by:
    Gore = 19 <> Bush = 29

    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
    Gore = 13.2 <> Bush = 2.1

    Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare.” Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the “apathy” and “complacency” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

    (Please note that we are now at November 07, 2017 [1 day before my 67th Birthday]. We, as a country, have spiraled further down over the past 17 years. If we don’t change our entitled, “communist” way of thinking, our grandchildren, and their children, don’t stand a chance!)

    My belief: If you have not worked for it; then YOU don’t deserve it! Get a job, get a life; or get out!

    Clay Ziegler
    Writer/Copywriter/Editor

    • Jean says:

      What's sad about that 40 percent of the population reaching the "govenment dependency" stage is that some of us were pushed into it – by the government! I foolishly started a freelance business during the Obama presidency. Between Obamacare (which actually forced me onto the Medicaid rolls) and self-employment taxes, I had to go back to a "real" job in order to earn enough to eat, pay the utilities, etc. And frankly, my coverage under Medicaid was much better than the private insurance my employer provides. Had I opted for the full monty with regard to transfer payments (e.g. EBT card, utility subsidies, Obama phone, et al) I could probably have lived quite nicely on the income I was earning. That in itself is a crime.

    • Rick G. says:

      Amen!!!

  11. Harry Hagan says:

    Damn diversity. A nation is only as strong as its weakest link. And as for Islamic immigration, who thought that would be a good idea? Surely not Christians. Maybe it was the group of people who detest Christianity. The ones who make all the TV shows and movies mocking it, and trying to put an end to it.

  12. Jay says:

    No such thing as 3rd world countries – only 3rd world people.

  13. Carl-Edward Endicott says:

    In a libertarian world, there would be territories, occupied by like-minded, racially homogenous people. Anyone wishing to move from one territory to another, would either buy land or pay rent. Moreover, culture is borne of genetics, which accounts for the differences amongst countries. Politicians – notably those of a liberal persuasion – refuse to acknowledge this, although their behaviour contradicts their professed sentiments. Why not let people alone, instead of telling them whom to have as a neighbour, what to drive, what to eat, how much of any resource to use (the list is endless)? Then politicians would come to see that their jobs were unnecessary.

  14. Paul Herring says:

    As an outsider, I must say it’s sad to read of the disunity and discontent in the US. There seems to be deep political divisions between the major parties to the point of downright hatred between the parties and their supporters.

    Because our countries have become global now though, your issues are not so different from those we face in Australia. Not sure if there’s outright hatred between the main political parties here, but neither is there much love lost.

    Particularly in respect of immigration do we have similar issues to yours. We’ve had a great influx of refugees here. Unfortunately, we’ve had serious challenges with migrant detention centres in the country and those offshore where the government houses many of our would-be citizens. Manus Island is one, and there have been some serious problems on Manus.

    No question about it, in immigration the problems are complex. On the one hand, we’ve been hard-wired to be compassionate towards our fellow man. On the other hand, should our own citizens be expected to stand aside while immigrants get ‘first-pick of the harvest’? It’s not unlike a compassionate family man who just manages to take care of his wife and family of four children, but who then takes in two more from off the streets. There simply isn’t enough to go round. This is unbalanced, regardless of his well-meaning actions.

    Adding to this is what Robert has indicated here: non-integration has led to isolationism in our countries. Ethnic, national, cultural and religious preferences seem to be stronger than a desire to integrate and to fit in.

    This brings me to my point. How can these divisions be overcome? If compromise is a watering down of one’s religious beliefs, can this be a long-term solution if it results in a spiritually bad conscience for the one compromising? Would that not be a watering down of a person’s carefully considered spiritual obligations? What’s the solution?

    Happily, Jehovah’s Witnesses have lived through and are currently living through situations like these. More than that, they are thriving physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually in our country and even in many underdeveloped lands where they’ve been forced to live. The Bible is the key to this phenomenon. It says at Psalm 133:1: “Look! How good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.”

    In 240 lands, Jehovah’s Witnesses are living proof that ‘all sorts of men’ can live together in harmony, irrespective of their former backgrounds. Their one uniting bond is that they’ve put aside former ethnic, cultural, national and religious differences and have learned from the Bible what God expects of them. After that, no more strife, no more breakdowns and no more disuniting views to interrupt their new, peaceful way of life.

    What can we humans, collectively or individually, do in comparison with that?

  15. Mike says:

    Regarding this immigration issue: the article is super, but he details the positions of the left as if what they say is actually what they believe and want. I'm sad when pundits take the positions of the left at face value.

    The goal of the left is the destruction of America and their path to that destruction is government power and the dilution of the culture. Their expression of love of cultural diversity is merely the "salesmanship" needed to deceive Americans into accepting the faulty cultures of non-Americans. Beliefs (culture) are what made America successful. The left HATES those beliefs (they hate God). So they hate America, the product of those beliefs.

    So their strategy to destroy America and the belief systems that created it are to overwhelm the country with millions who have ANY OTHER belief system. Those people dilute the successful culture that is already here and gives elective power to those on the left.

    That is ALL that this is. I don't care what they say about diversity. I don't care what they say about helping those in other countries, about charity, about the women, about the children, whatever – it is never about ANY OF THAT. It is always about outnumbering pro-america voters with democrat voters and increasing the numbers of those who will dilute the culture that made america great.

  16. Rick G. says:

    I could not have stated it any better, Mike.

  17. Gary says:

    Robert may be a great ad writer but he doesn't understand a damn thing about politics. His politics are a mirror of his wealth and prejudice against anyone who is not a white conservative man. It's too bad he is that shallow and doesn't even realize it.

  18. Paul Herring says:

    Gary, I've been a reader of this blog for some time – nearly two years. In that time I haven't seen any evidence of what you've said immediately above. If you're making a point it would be helpful if you exemplified it so we can get it or take your point. As it happens right now, I can't see what you mean.

  19. Spell says:

    great piece of work
    keep it the work
    thanks for sharing

Leave a Reply to Jim Hallett