The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Immigration, Assimilation and Sovereignty

Posted on | July 3, 2010 | 26 Comments

Michelle Malkin writes about “the unhyphenated, the law-abiding, the gratitude-filled sons and daughters and grandchildren of legal immigrants” and supplies a  brief history of the Founding Fathers’ views on immigration and assimilation.

As I’ve often said, the way liberals (including some Republicans who think they’re conservative) talk about immigration, you might get the idea that Emma Lazarus had written the Constitution. Contrary to nonsensical emotional gush about the “wretched refuse,” the Founders were quite sensible and, dare I say, conservative about immigration.

Above all else, their Lockean understanding of government meant that they understood that politics is about the pursuit of legitimate self-interest. They expressed this without apology in saying that they had ordained the Constitution to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” James Madison explained this principle in Federalist No. 10:

As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

Nothing could be more predictable, Madison was saying, than that the poor and the rich should disagree in politics, or that farmers and merchants should come into conflict over economic policy. The pursuit of self-interest is perfectly natural and legitimate.

The aim of the Constitution was to establish a national government that was limited and balanced in such a way that no one faction might impose its self-interest on everyone, and that competing factional interests might be reconciled peacefully, without the resentment that favoritism would inspire. Modern liberalism is subversive of those goals in three key ways:

  • Unlimited Federal Power — Throughout the 20th century, liberals strove to undermine the Constitution’s limits on the federal government, centralizing power in Washington and effectively rendering the states mere administrative districts of the whole. This is why our political life has become so polarized and divisive: Whichever faction controls D.C. can now dictate policy everywhere, so that control of the federal government is the only game that matters.
  • Identity Politics — Especially since the 1960s, liberals have sought to divide the population into identity groups, and to exacerbate conflicts between blacks and whites, Latinos and Anglos, women and men, etc. The transparent purpose of this liberal activism is to create a Coalition of the Perpetually Aggrieved as a vehicle to restore the Democratic Party to the political dominance it enjoyed 1933-46.
  • Redistributionist Policies — FDR’s fixer Harry Hopkins once explained the political rationale of the New Deal very bluntly: “We’ve going to tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, elect, elect, elect.” In other words, “Vote for us, and we’ll tax the rich to give you stuff” — bribing voters with money plundered from the wealthy. Such a policy can only gain political ascendancy by the incitement of economic envy, convincing voters that the wealth of the rich is illegitimate, and that the poor somehow have a right to pick the pockets of the rich. Ronald Reagan described this attitude in 1964: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”

Borrowing the terms Thomas Sowell employed in The Vision of the Anointed: Self Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, we might say that liberalism requires the belief that the self-interests of some people (“targets”) are illegitimate, while the self-interests of other people (“mascots”) are sacred. And perhaps nowhere is this attitude more transparently displayed than in liberal rhetoric about immigration.

Liberals evidently believe that the only interest which merits consideration in discussion of immigration policy is the “rights” of immigrants — the scare-quotes necessitated by the dubious nature of the implicit assertion that being born outside the U.S. automatically confers some distinct set of “rights” which (naturally) Americans are accused of scheming to violate.

On what grounds can a Swede or a Somali or a Salvadoran assert any “right” to emigrate to this country? The United States, like every other country in the world, has laws and regulations prescribing the procedures by which people may seek permission to enter as tourists or on business, to become residents, to seek employment, to become naturalized citizens, etc.

 Only by the decision to come here do they become subject to U.S. rules. If they don’t want to abide by these laws and regulations, they can just stay home, with their rights unimpeded — no harm, no foul. Finish this sentence:

The purpose of U.S. immigration law is . . .

C’mon, take a wild guess.

The purpose of U.S. immigration law is to protect the interests of the United States and its citizens.

Liberalism subverts this purpose, by telling us that immigration laws instead are, or ought to be, designed to advance the interests of immigrants. Their interests are legitimate. Your interests are not. 

In this sense, immigration is just another redistribution scheme undertaken for the benefit of another identity group in the Coalition of the Perpetually Aggrieved. If you worry that  illegal immigration harms the United States, liberals want to make you feel guilty for having such concerns. In effect, liberalism tells Americans:

“Screw you. You’re a bunch of greedy, rich, lazy xenophobes who are only concerned about out-of-control immigration because you hate foreigners.”

So you’re a “target,” as Sowell would say, and illegal immigrants are “mascots.” Therefore you have no  interests that are not automatically trumped by the “rights” of illegals, who are presumed to be in need of protection, lest they be victimized by you evil, oppressive Americans. Liberalism sabotages U.S. sovereignty, by attempting to deny Americans the ability to enact and enforce laws that protect our own national interests.

The immigration debate is horribly distorted by this liberal mentality, so that Malkin feels compelled to ask:

Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be “RAAAAACIST”?

Read the whole thing.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Foreigners, Immigration, Michelle Malkin, Racism

Comments

  • DEZ

    Well done!

  • DEZ

    Well done!

  • http://Uncoverage.net Dell

    Best piece I’ve ever read from RSM. Ranks up there with the best of the best.

    Don’t be surprised to see this reposted by JJ.

  • http://Uncoverage.net Dell

    Best piece I’ve ever read from RSM. Ranks up there with the best of the best.

    Don’t be surprised to see this reposted by JJ.

  • http://www.justgrits.wordpress.com Obi’s Sister

    ((Sorry about Argentina))

    I read her post earlier today. It brought to mind a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, circa 1907:

    “”In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

    Using that definition, most of the liberals in government today wouldn’t measure up as Americans, either. But they wouldn’t hesitate to label me a raaaaacist just for making that connection.

  • http://www.justgrits.wordpress.com Obi’s Sister

    ((Sorry about Argentina))

    I read her post earlier today. It brought to mind a quote from Teddy Roosevelt, circa 1907:

    “”In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

    Using that definition, most of the liberals in government today wouldn’t measure up as Americans, either. But they wouldn’t hesitate to label me a raaaaacist just for making that connection.

  • http://xanga.com/tenshii_rage Stephanie

    Phew, I was gettin bored with being Christian and seeing the value and dignity of every human life- this justifies me being neither. Should abortion be mandated for illegal female aliens, so they don’t give birth to evil anchor alien babies?

  • http://xanga.com/tenshii_rage Stephanie

    Phew, I was gettin bored with being Christian and seeing the value and dignity of every human life- this justifies me being neither. Should abortion be mandated for illegal female aliens, so they don’t give birth to evil anchor alien babies?

  • Rodan

    RS,
    The Jazz Man will call this thread “racist”. The Left really believe that immigration is a right! The Jazz man will use Leftist talking points.

  • Rodan

    RS,
    The Jazz Man will call this thread “racist”. The Left really believe that immigration is a right! The Jazz man will use Leftist talking points.

  • Wondering Jew

    Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about.

    This sort of thing may not get as many hits as “Miley Cyrus Upskirt” (on which I am happy to help you keep your Google bomb), but it is infinitely more interesting.

    And needless to say, you are dead-on about illegal immigration (and for that matter, most legal immigration as well)

  • Wondering Jew

    Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about.

    This sort of thing may not get as many hits as “Miley Cyrus Upskirt” (on which I am happy to help you keep your Google bomb), but it is infinitely more interesting.

    And needless to say, you are dead-on about illegal immigration (and for that matter, most legal immigration as well)

  • Pingback: Nation of Cowards » Blog Archive » Rule 5: Karissa Shannon Gets Patriotic!

  • http://www.nationofcowards.us The Man

    The phrase your looking for Stephanie is: “subject to the jurisdiction of…”

    The whole notion of ‘anchor babies’ is nearly as specious as your bizarre argument.

    If you’re being ironic I apologize but it went right over my head.

  • http://www.nationofcowards.us The Man

    The phrase your looking for Stephanie is: “subject to the jurisdiction of…”

    The whole notion of ‘anchor babies’ is nearly as specious as your bizarre argument.

    If you’re being ironic I apologize but it went right over my head.

  • Pingback: Why do we let immigrants into America? « Blog de KingShamus

  • Pingback: Why do we let immigrants into America? « Blog de KingShamus

  • Nonhyphenated Guy

    “A NOTE OF CAUTION for Conservatives: Don’t be in any misled belief about people like Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley. In their hearts they are Indian.”

    Well, I AM impressed. Just because someone is ostensibly of the same race as you, it gives you the ability to see into their hearts, as well as the right to speak on their behalf. I’ve tried that with other Czechs and it doesn’t seem to work too well, maybe it’s some sort of ancient Indian mystic ability, or perhaps you are just superior to the other races? Maybe if I ask Jindal or Haley they can use their mystic abilities to tell me what is in your heart, but they are probably too busy being leaders and not obsessing over their race.

  • Nonhyphenated Guy

    “A NOTE OF CAUTION for Conservatives: Don’t be in any misled belief about people like Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley. In their hearts they are Indian.”

    Well, I AM impressed. Just because someone is ostensibly of the same race as you, it gives you the ability to see into their hearts, as well as the right to speak on their behalf. I’ve tried that with other Czechs and it doesn’t seem to work too well, maybe it’s some sort of ancient Indian mystic ability, or perhaps you are just superior to the other races? Maybe if I ask Jindal or Haley they can use their mystic abilities to tell me what is in your heart, but they are probably too busy being leaders and not obsessing over their race.

  • Pingback: Virginia Right! News Hound for 7/4/2010 | Virginia Right!

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    You may “dare say” that the Founders were “conservative” on immigration … but saying it doesn’t make it so.

    They were 100%, full-bore, no-shit, open borders fanatics.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    You may “dare say” that the Founders were “conservative” on immigration … but saying it doesn’t make it so.

    They were 100%, full-bore, no-shit, open borders fanatics.

  • Wondering Jew

    Um. . . Nice try Thomas, but not exactly. They wanted immigration from what would now be considered the U.K., particularly England so they could expand their Western Frontier. They tolerated it in modest numbers but with some wariness (see Ben Franklin) from other parts of Europe. For better or for worse, Non-European immigration would have been unthinkable to them.

  • Wondering Jew

    Um. . . Nice try Thomas, but not exactly. They wanted immigration from what would now be considered the U.K., particularly England so they could expand their Western Frontier. They tolerated it in modest numbers but with some wariness (see Ben Franklin) from other parts of Europe. For better or for worse, Non-European immigration would have been unthinkable to them.

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    If non-European immigration was “unthinkable” to the framers, then why did they:

    a) Re-define slave importation from Africa as “immigration;”

    b) Write a 20-year prohibition on any regulation of it into the Constitution;

    c) Write a 20-year prohibition on amending that prohibition out of the Constitution, into the Constitution?

    And why did they do so while nowhere else in the Constitution endowing the federal government with any power whatsoever over immigration, even in the face of anti-Federalist arguments that that was one of the defects in the constitutional proposal?

    And why, through the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe — all “founding fathers” — and beyond, until the Supreme Court said otherwise in 1875, did Congress consider itself forbidden to regulate immigration in any way, shape, manner or form?

  • http://knappster.blogspot.com Thomas L. Knapp

    If non-European immigration was “unthinkable” to the framers, then why did they:

    a) Re-define slave importation from Africa as “immigration;”

    b) Write a 20-year prohibition on any regulation of it into the Constitution;

    c) Write a 20-year prohibition on amending that prohibition out of the Constitution, into the Constitution?

    And why did they do so while nowhere else in the Constitution endowing the federal government with any power whatsoever over immigration, even in the face of anti-Federalist arguments that that was one of the defects in the constitutional proposal?

    And why, through the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe — all “founding fathers” — and beyond, until the Supreme Court said otherwise in 1875, did Congress consider itself forbidden to regulate immigration in any way, shape, manner or form?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE