Twelve years ago in this space, I penned a commentary entitled “The case for annexing Mexico,” a partly tongue-in-cheek offering which suggested that if America was going to tolerate such a porous southern border, we might as well make it official and begin negotiations with Mexico toward its annexation.
Given the infinite capacity for ironic humor on the part of the Divine, I was subsequently approached by a publisher who convinced me to pursue a book-length project of the same name.
The original column itself was a follow-up to an earlier column entitled “The case for imperialism,” another partly tongue-in-cheek commentary which suggested that if America had been the “big stick” colonialist world power so many have accused her of being, the world would be a great deal safer at present.
As we know, on Monday of this week, Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant who came to the U.S. about seven years ago on an F43 family immigrant visa, attempted to detonate a crude explosive device in a subway corridor near New York City’s Port Authority Bus Terminal.
A Muslim apparently radicalized via ISIS propaganda, Ullah’s motives are said to have included everything from a general umbrage at U.S. policy toward Muslims to President Donald Trump’s recent recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Ullah’s actions followed several years of increased “lone wolf” jihadi attacks in America and the West, all of which were rationalized, diminished and spun by the political left as being something other than Islamic radicalism, or justified as a result of our alleged oppression of predominantly Muslim countries.
Things worked pretty well in Scandinavian nations for several decades despite their governments’ increasing proclivity for adopting socialistic policies.
Since getting on the bandwagon of a more European style of socialism, we have seen a rapid decline in the domestic situation in Scandinavia (predominantly Sweden and Norway).
These changes involved said nations adopting a more politically correct bearing, replete with notions of “white guilt” and a perceived duty to import thousands from Third World cesspools to share in their bounty.
Most of these immigrants have been Muslims, who have literally rendered areas within these nations untenable, at least for native populations.
The reason things worked pretty well despite the socialist policies had to do with ethnic and cultural homogeneity.
Now, while ethnic and cultural homogeneity are by no means guarantors of domestic tranquility, populations that possess these do tend to have less to argue about.
The same might be said for Japan (for example); while the Japanese remain fiercely proud of their culture and intent upon preserving it, no one in the West is hammering on them to change because they’re not white.
Inasmuch as ethnic and cultural homogeneity are not guarantors of domestic tranquility, neither do ethnic and cultural heterogeneity (diversity) guarantee chaos and unrest – although they can help bring these things about.
In New York during the 1970s and 1980s, it was difficult not to notice the influx of immigrants from the aforementioned Third World cesspools and how their deportment differed from that of groups which preceded them.
By the time I was in my mid-20s, I had worked with fascinating people from all over the globe, but I found most of these new immigrants to be boorish, pushy, shiftless, xenophobic and entitlement-minded in the extreme.
Learning English was barely a priority, and many didn’t seem too happy to be here in the first place.
For my part, I didn’t much care whether they were here legally or illegally; I could have done without them.
Many factors enter into our nation’s immigration policy, and many others factor into why illegal immigration has been tolerated for so long.
Our tradition of welcoming those from less prosperous and less free nations, the shortsighted greed of commercial organizations lobbying for cheap labor, voters’ misplaced sympathies, the Democratic Party seeking to expand its base and ideologues of various stripes with varying agendas have all played a part.
It is the international socialist agenda that, I believe, has had the greatest impact on immigration policy in the U.S. and the West in recent decades.
In America, progressive Beltway elites, the establishment press and their political co-conspirators are driving this agenda.
Diversity was indeed strength in the days when immigrants were encouraged to buy into the American Dream, but the socialist propaganda machine has conditioned newer immigrants in much the same way as they have conditioned rank-and-file liberals into an abiding antipathy toward America.
Additionally, those in Western governments have prioritized the importation of those from nations and regions whose culture and beliefs are incompatible with ours.
In recent years, this has included a whole lot of Muslims.
Politicians in the West are of course aware of the social, political and psychological factors in play when culturally diverse populations exist.
They know full well that ethnic and cultural heterogeneity can be problematic, particularly when those within individual ethnic and cultural groups are subtly encouraged not to peacefully co-exist.
Employing racialism, guilt, intimidation (you’re a racist if you object to terrorists, rapists and murderers flooding into your country) and Orwellian levels of contradiction and denial (“This isn’t about Islam”), they have induced millions of Westerners into accepting the feeblest of justifications for dangerously compromising their safety, lives and liberty.
While President Trump’s stated intention of cracking down on illegal and chain immigration in the wake of Akayed Ullah’s attempted terrorist attack is certainly a welcome development, until Americans come to the realization that our immigration policies are no longer predicated upon altruism, tradition, or our sense of justice, but upon the imperatives of truly evil people, then we will never be safe.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush