Against Amnesty

Ted Sallis


A priority for “our” President and Congress is pushing forward competing visions of “immigration reform” — “reform” being required because our unenforced immigration laws are flouted, and no one will defend the interests of the White American majority.  These competing “reform” proposals will differ in some details, but they will offer amnesty — with citizenship — to the illegals, while increasing legal immigration, coupled to a pathetically transparent “fig-leaf” cover-lie of “increased enforcement.”  Without getting into the fine details of these alternative proposals, let’s look at the fundamental issues.

The idea of “strict enforcement” is a joke.  First, we have had experience with such lies with Reagan’s amnesty.  Second, enforcement, even if mildly attempted for show, will not last.  There’s a basic asymmetry between amnesty and enforcement, which should be obvious to all but the most dim.  Amnesty, once given, will not be taken back.  Once done, it’s done.  Enforcement, on the other hand, must be continuous; it must be on-going. Once the amnesty is done, what stops the Establishment from eventually reneging on enforcement?  Even if amnesty includes a long period of waiting for citizenship, I see no one in American politics with the political will to say, “Hey, the enforcement’s not taking place, so the amnesty is rescinded.”  That’s not going to happen.  Yes, I know the Senate proposal says no one gets citizenship if the “enforcement metrics” are not met.  If you really believe that, there’s a bridge in NYC linking Manhattan and Brooklyn that’s for sale. In reality, one can expect any period of “strict enforcement” to be relatively brief.  Once the attention of the American people is diverted elsewhere, immigration law will once again go unenforced, borders will be open, and a new illegal population will grow, waiting for the next mass amnesty, and the next empty promises of “strict enforcement.” 

Or, consider another likely alternative — over time, the Establishment may increase the legal immigration quotas to such an extent that illegal immigration per se will become superfluous.  After all, the easiest way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is to simply make all immigrants legal.  If the entire population of Mexico has the legal right to migrate to the USA, then the Establishment can honestly say that illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen to zero.  Now, that possibility is an indictment of the “I’m not racist” argument that “we’re not against immigration, only illegal immigration.”  When people paint themselves into a corner like that, it is only time before the Establishment calls their bluff, legalizes everyone, and then asks, “What’s the problem now?  They’re all legal!  You aren’t racist, are you?” 

Advertisement

Note that many of the proposals being currently considered carry provisions for increased legal immigration.  For example, the recent Senate proposal — pushed forward by some Republicans such as the execrable John McCain — not only gives illegal alien amnesty but also wants to drastically increase “highly skilled” legal immigration.  In other words, in addition to flooding America with low-skilled, anti-White Democrat-voting Hispanics, McCain and company, at the same time, want to flood America with anti-White, Democrat-voting technocratic Asians.  So, in addition to the Hispanics competing with blue-collar Whites at one end of the economic spectrum, we will also have Asians crowding out White students from our top universities, and using ethnic nepotism and special advantages to unfairly “compete” with Whites.  Note that the “highly skilled immigrants” are likely going to be in professions like the sciences, IT, mathematics, and engineering.  In other words, politicians are careful not to import “competitors” for their own fields of specialization, such as political science, law, and business/economics.  Also, Asian immigrants specialize in fields that do not significantly overlap with traditional Jewish interests. For example, as Kevin MacDonald wrote in Culture of Critique (emphasis added):

On the other end of the IQ–reproductive strategy distribution, immigrants from East Asian countries are out-competing whites, especially of the lower-middle and working classes, in gaining admission to universities and in prestigious, high-income jobs. The longterm result will be that the entire white population (not including Jews) is likely to suffer a social status decline as these new immigrants become more numerous. (Jews are unlikely to suffer a decline in social status not only because their mean IQ is well above that of the East Asians but, more importantly, also because Jewish IQ is highly skewed toward excelling in verbal skills. The high IQ of East Asians is skewed toward performance IQ, which makes them powerful competitors in engineering and technology. See PTSDA, [Ch. 7] and Lynn [1987]. Jews and East Asians are thus likely to occupy different ecological niches in contemporary societies.) Lower-middle-class Caucasians, more than any other group, are expected to lose out. If present trends continue, in the long run the United States will be dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.

Thus, the ethnocentric and networked “highly skilled immigrants” will be “competing” primarily with more atomized, individualistic White non-Jews in technical, non-political fields.  Jews and the non-Jewish political class, who support mass immigration, will continue to see their own niche dominance go unchallenged.  But, of course, the White masses are considered good for something: marching like lemmings to voting booths to support Republican politicians who hold these same voters in complete contempt.

The real problem is with all immigration that derives from demographic sources racially and culturally distant from the majority population.  Until folks can honestly talk about immigration as a whole, the “legalize everyone” endgame is the ultimate option that the Establishment has to defuse nativist sentiment.  And, anyway, once these illegals become citizens and vote, do you think they’ll support continued “strict enforcement?”  Obviously, they’ll vote to further open the borders.  Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

Further, one can ask — if all these politicians are really serious about enforcement, why not do it now?  Why hold enforcement hostage to amnesty?  Why haven’t the laws already on the books been enforced?  Of course, some will say enforcement has increased, pointing to a “for show” increase in deportations — which doesn’t even put a dent in the illegal population in the slightest — or a decrease in the illegal flow, said decrease really being due to America’s economic decline, and not any real qualitative change in actual enforcement policy.  And I recently read Democrat leadership stating that we’ve reached the limit of what we can do with enforcement — a telling admission that if amnesty is extorted in exchange for enforcement, we really won’t get any long-term enforcement.  If and when the US economy improves, the illegal flood will again increase to record numbers. 

And I’d like to say a word in favor of the much maligned “self-deportation.” If such a program were strictly enforced throughout the entire country, and if it included the children of illegals, including those children born in the USA, as subject to the restrictions, it would work. If workplace employment restrictions were absolutely and strictly enforced, if education and social welfare were denied to illegals (including the children), if all of the “goodies” were removed, they would have no choice but to self-deport.  The problem is that this has never been systematically attempted on a national basis; instead, some states do the opposite and give even more benefits to illegals and their offspring.  Self-deportation, if actually practiced nationwide, would work with mathematical certainty.  But, it won’t be tried, will it?  And self-deportation is really taking it easy on illegal immigrants, who are really no different from military invaders; after all, the German troops who marched into Paris in June 1940 were also illegal immigrants, were they not?  Self-deportation is actually a rather mild and humane approach to the problems of a mass invasion.  Letting the invaders stay — much less letting them become citizens — is the insane approach.

The political incentive for Republicans in supporting illegal alien amnesty and increased legal immigration is hard to understand.  Reagan gave a mass amnesty in 1986, which did not create a generation of Hispanic GOP voters.  Instead, Latinos overwhelmingly voted Democrat in ’88, and have continued to be an integral part of the Democratic coalition.  Further, the GOP love affair with legal immigration, and their promotion of “highly skilled immigrants,” and their obsession with Asians as “natural Republicans,” haven’t stopped Asians from voting Democratat levels surpassing even Jews and Hispanics.  The bottom line is that the GOP base is composed of White folks, and the Republicans utterly despise their own base, and take it for granted.  That last point is one that all of the GOP leadership and the media “talking heads” don’t seem to grasp — their assumption that White support for the GOP can be taken for granted may not be true.  What if, at some point in the future, a fraction of Whites give up on the GOP, and either stay home on Election Day or vote third party?  Given how close national elections are, losing even a small fraction of White support can make the GOP unelectable.  And there is research supporting the idea that GOP support for amnesty will not gain Latino votes, but may well cost White votes.

Will Whites fall for the GOP scam forever?  They voted for Nixon and got affirmative action.  They voted for Reagan and got a mass illegal amnesty, mass non-White legal immigration, the MLK holiday, and the exponential growth of political correctness.  They voted for the Bush family, and got more civil rights laws, and they got Bush Jr., together with 2008 GOP Presidential candidate McCain, bringing forth the current illegal amnesty nightmare by their fervid support, supplying “cover from the Right.”  Let’s not forget Bob “Civil Rights Republican” Dole and Jack “Martin Luther King Jr. Republican” Kemp telling “bigots” to leave the 2006 GOP convention.  That’s the allegedly “far-right, lily-White, racist” Republican Party of the past — one wonders what the “enlightened GOP” of the future will be like?  How long will Whites be hoodwinked?   At what point will they realize that the Republican Party ranks high among the most racially destructive forces in history — worse than the Democrats because the Democratic Party is at least overt in its anti-Whiteness, while the GOP routinely pursues viciously destructive policies while hiding behind the guise of implicit Whiteness.  Treason and betrayal — the stock in trade of the GOP — are much worse than open and honest opposition.

The idea that “polls show that even current GOP voters support amnesty” is disingenuous, because, if true, these polls result from the typical unthinking conformist voter listening to their leaders and to all the pundits.  To these people winning elections is an end to itself, and they fantasize that welfare-addicted and affirmative action-addicted minorities will vote Republican, if the GOP becomes less “racist” and less “White male.”  And how stupid is the GOP anyway?  Can they out-pander the Democrats for minority votes?  Can they do so without even the unthinking Fox TV-viewing, Rush Limbaugh-listening GOP voters waking up and reconsidering their Republican support?  And did the GOP really think they were going to get many Latino votes in the last election?  The pundits have stampeded the GOP into a sense of “election shock” when the outcome was plain to see far in advance.  Romney’s hope was to get as many White votes as possible.  In this he failed, and that lesson is apparently lost on the befuddled GOP, which is being herded in the amnesty direction without even acknowledging that the election results were perfectly predicable.  If the GOP as a whole was not for amnesty before the election, then why should the electoral results change anything?  The pro-amnesty forces were just waiting for the inevitable results of low Hispanic GOP voting to push the Republican panic button, and the GOP, already in the pocket of “pro-cheap immigrant labor big business,” fell right into the trap.  As Sam Francis would say — The Stupid Party, indeed; Obama and the Democrats want to politically bury the GOP for years to come.  And the Republicans go along — eagerly now! – with their own demographic demise: stupid, stupid, stupid.

What about economic arguments?  Putting aside the fact that the long-term overall societal costs of this “immigration reform” outweigh any plausible short-term national economic gain, we can ask: do illegals do “jobs that Americans won’t do?”  Certainly Americans won’t do the jobs at the wages and working conditions caused by a reliance on unskilled illegal immigrants.  But those who worship “the free market” should let that market work its magic in the context of strict enforcement of the immigration laws.  There may be short-term negative economic consequences, but if the “free market” really works as its promoters say it does, adjustments will be made to ensure that the obese American population will not starve to death as “the food rots in the fields.” 

More importantly, the idea that “the illegals do jobs that Americans don’t do” can be turned on its head.  Yes, we can agree that “stoop labor in the fields” and similar forms of employment are hard, and that most Americans would not be interested in performing such activities.  But, then, we must also agree that as the current “hard-working” illegals age, they will no longer be able to perform such physically demanding manual labor.  Who will replace them?  Surely not their children.  We are not going to have a heredity caste of unskilled manual laborers in America, are we?  Certainly, pro-illegal liberals and ethnic activists envision that the children of illegals will “live the American dream,” get educated (at native American taxpayers’ expense) and go on to professional careers (using affirmative action to unfairly compete with native born White Americans).  If this is so, then the question must be asked: who will “pick the crops” and “clean the hotel rooms” and “work in the restaurants” in the next generation?  As the current illegals become too old, and their children become upwardly mobile, who is going to do all these “jobs that Americans won’t do?”  The answer: yet another batch of millions of more uneducated, Third World immigrants!  Who else is there?  And when these new immigrants retire and when their children “move on up” who will take their place?  You guessed it — yet more millions of uneducated Third World immigrants. 

Therefore, over time, America will become filled with the posterity of Third World immigrants — legal and illegal — who are allowed to live and work here so that Mr. and Mrs. American can have cheaper fruits and vegetables in the supermarket, or can save some money eating out, or can have some unskilled immigrant cleaning their hotel room.  Can you imagine anything so ill-considered, so short-sighted, and so selfish?  And, obviously, this is not sustainable.  At some point, if this insanity is continued generation after generation, America will become part of the Third World, and there will be no more incentive for immigrants to come here to do the jobs that degraded “Americans” will then have to do for themselves.  Or, before that low point is reached, the economic pressures of the growing underclass will necessitate automation being introduced, to the extent possible, to replace manual labor. (And, make no mistake, the affirmative action “professionals” derived from the descendants of this influx will be an underclass in actual performance, if not in position and salary.) 

It would be best to automate now; however, as long as a continuous stream of cheap, pliant labor pours into the USA, there will be no incentive to invest in the required technology.  So, things will continue until collapse, and/or until a despairing realization that the influx is unsustainable, and the influx must be stopped, forces a change from unskilled labor to large-scale use of advanced automation.  Unfortunately, even if the automation alternative eventually wins out, it will already be too late.  Millions upon millions of fecund Third Worlders and their progeny will already be here, and they will not leave even if their presence is not only economically superfluous but completely counter-productive.  But, honestly, I don’t see the automation alternative ever working here in the USA.  Rightist globalists are addicted to cheap human labor and Leftist globalists are addicted to race replacement of the White majority.  The most likely outcome is that every generation a fresh mass influx of unskilled workers will be utilized to provide manual labor support for an increasingly degenerate “American” population.

Therefore, the next time an amnesty advocate makes the point that the illegals “do jobs Americans won’t do” just calmly ask them: who will be doing these jobs 20 years from now?  30 years?  40?  50?   The real answer: a ponzi scheme of continued unskilled Third World labor influx, generation after generation, until the whole endeavor collapses under its own weight.  Is it worth it?  Is cheap supermarket produce worth the loss of your country and the dispossession of your posterity?  Is “economic growth” worth it — said “growth” being targeted to those businesses that privatize the profits of immigration while socializing the costs, and while real wages for American citizens continues to decline?   Is avoiding the investment in technology and automation worth the greater cost of transforming the USA into Mexico Norte?  If in the long run this migrant labor ponzi scheme is unsustainable — and it is — better to deal with the consequences now, rather than wait to a point where the population and what passes for its leadership will be unable, or unwilling, to do what is required to salvage anything from impeding demographic and environmental collapse.

No chance though of anyone listening.  Democrats are pursuing real votes while Republicans pursue imaginary votes and the image of moral righteousness, while the average American is content with dispossession as long as those strawberries are not too expensive at their supermarket produce section.  The obvious question as to who will do the “jobs Americans won’t do” in the future is never asked.  The politicians don’t want Americans to ask, and, anyway, Americans are too stupid to think of asking the question in the first place. Or, if they do consider it, they immediately banish the thought from their mind because the only answer, and its implications, is too unpleasant to dwell on.

Just business as usual. Amnesty for illegal immigrants, increased legal immigration. One day the sheeple will look around at an alien nation in which they are a despised minority and they’ll ask — “what happened?”  And if they answer that last question honestly, then they will curse themselves and their parents and grandparents for their fecklessness, selfishness, and short-sightedness.  But, unfortunately, it will be far too late to do anything but curse and regret.  Far, far too late for anything but that.

Which leads us to the issue of moral obligations.  Some pro-amnesty activists state that the USA has a moral obligation to give amnesty to those who have invaded this country, squatting on the land, and replacing the native population.  This is wrong.  Instead, our primary moral obligation is to current American citizens and their posterity — and that supersedes any imaginary moral obligation to those who illegally invade our nation, and then have the temerity to scream about their rights.  Race replacement mass immigration is genocide against the majority, and therefore the onus of moral obligation must lie in the direction of helping the invaded, not assisting the invaders.

If we don’t take care of ourselves and our posterity, no one else will.  The current “American leadership” is failing in their custodial responsibility to this nation and its future, and the consequences of this failure will be as devastating as they are predictable.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

1 Trackback to "Against Amnesty"

  1. on January 30, 2013 at 2:45 pm

Comments are closed.