Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 11, 2018, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Colorado Springs.

Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Imprimis_JulAug_18_8pgWEB.pdf

some excerpts (bold highlighting added):​

Immigration policies should serve the interests of the American people and of the nation—they should not be viewed as acts of charity to the world. Putting America first is a rational goal. It is the essence of sovereignty. And the sovereign nation-state is the only home of citizenship—as it is the only home of constitutional government.

...

More than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: “It is an accepted maxim of international law . . . and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within [a sovereign nation’s] dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” This view was reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump’s travel ban on foreign nationals from eight countries, six of which have majority Muslim populations.

…

… Greater diversity means inevitably that we have less in common, and the more we encourage diversity the less we honor the common good. Any honest and clear-sighted observer should be able to see that diversity is a solvent that dissolves the unity and cohesiveness of a nation—and we should not be deceived into believing that its proponents do not understand the full impact of their advocacy!

Diversity, of course, marches under the banner of tolerance, but is a bastion of intolerance. It enforces its ideological liberalism with an iron fist that is driven by political correctness, the most ingenious (and insidious) device for suppressing freedom of speech and political dissent ever invented.

…

The Immigration Act of 1965 was a kind of affirmative action plan to provide remedies for those races or ethnic groups that had been discriminated against in the past. Caucasian immigrants from European nations had been given preference in past years; now it was time to diversify the immigrant population by changing the focus to Third World nations, primarily nations in Latin America and Asia. The goal, as some scholars have slowly come to realize, was to diversify the demographic composition of the American population from majority white to a majority of people of color. There was also some anticipation that those coming from these Third World countries were more likely to need the ministrations of the welfare state and therefore more likely to be captured by the Democratic Party, the party promoting the welfare state.

…

 

Rollover is expected with assimilation, especially with increasing affluence and moving to more expensive neighborhoods. But demographics likely changed due to immigrant percentages. 1941 appears to be a milestone for Puerto Rico (see ref and link below), though a US territory much earlier. How this has worked out politically I don’t know. It seems many have served in the military.

But newer waves of immigrants pose a far deeper problem, due to their history and lack of knowledge of ours. If they are low-income, low-skilled, uneducated, they will take away needed jobs and government aid from citizens who need it most. If they are illegal aliens, the problem is much worse. And this is just for the otherwise law-abiding types. There is good reason to believe that gang activity and crime will increase greatly with such influxes. We already have enough of that to deal with.