View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by Thomas E. Brewton | July 4th, 2006
To say that we're a nation of immigrants is not an argument for allowing Hispanics to impose their language and culture upon the United States.
The message of this article is not that immigration is bad, but that immigration without assimilation – linguistically and culturally – is disastrous.
Multi-cultural and PC education, along with the welfare state, could hardly have been designed more effectively (borrowing Walter Lippmann's phrase) to dissolve American society in the acids of modernity and immigration. If these remain in power and if immigration continues at the pace of recent years, the United States will become a disunited crowd of people at each other's throats and easy prey for Islamic jihad or any other foreign enemy.
Some arguments for uncontrolled immigration are based on abstractions about economic equality of "the workers" and "constitutional rights" to the benefits of our over-extended welfare, health care, and educational systems.
More fundamental, however, than the abstract French "Rights of Man" is national cohesion and survival.
To say that we're a nation of immigrants is not an argument to support uncontrolled illegal immigration. And it assuredly is not an argument for allowing Hispanics to impose their language and culture upon the United States.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid denounced making English our official language, calling the legislation racist. In addition to political intemperance, his characterization was a matter of historically demonstrable imprudence.
The longest-lasting and greatest of history's civilizations was the Roman Empire, which endured for more than a thousand years. Until the junking of history by liberal-progressive educators in the 20th century, our statesmen were well informed about Roman history and viewed it as a model to be studied and emulated.
Cicero, one of Rome's great statesmen, in his dialog the Commonwealth, noted that major influxes of foreign populations can be disastrous to a republic:
But maritime cities are likewise naturally exposed to corrupt influences, and revolutions of manners. Their civilization is more or less adulterated by new languages and customs, and they import not only foreign merchandise, but foreign fashions, to such a degree that nothing can continue unalloyed in the national institutions . . . And this is one evident reason of the calamities and revolutions of Greece, because she became infected with the vices which belong to maritime cities, which I just now briefly enumerated.
In the Republic Cicero observed:
. . . The commonwealth, then, is the people’s affair; and the people is not every group of men, associated in any manner, but is the coming together of a considerable number of men who are united by a common agreement about law and rights and by the desire to participate in mutual advantages . . .
The United States is daily becoming less a commonwealth united by common language, culture, and agreement about law and rights than a bus station where Mexican illegals remain for a while to collect pay checks and welfare benefits before heading back home.
Handled correctly, however, as our own history proves, legal immigration can as easily be a blessing as a curse. Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire noted:
The narrow policy of preserving, without foreign mixture, the pure blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune and hastened the ruin of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honourable, to adopt virtue and merit for her own wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians.
This policy worked, however, only when the encompassed populations were assimilated into the Roman culture. Gibbon continues,
Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and they insensibly coalesced into one great nation, united by language, manners, and civil institutions . . . So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin tongue . . . Domestic peace and union were the natural consequences of the moderate and comprehensive policy embraced by the Romans.
Fast-forward to the United States of the early 1830s described by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. Tocqueville wrote:
Other inhabitants of America have the same physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their laws and customs; and these people are miserable. The laws and customs of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that special and predominant cause of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.
. . . American laws are therefore good, and to them must be attributed a large portion of the success that attends the government of democracy in America; but I do not believe them to be the principal cause of that success . . . there is still reason to believe that their effect is inferior to that produced by the customs of the people . . . Mexico, which is not less fortunately situated than the Anglo-American Union, has adopted these same laws, but is unable to accustom itself to the government of democracy.
. . . But in what portion of the globe shall we find more fertile plains, mightier rivers, or more unexplored and inexhaustible riches than in South America? Yet South Americans have been unable to maintain democratic institutions.
. . . The customs of the Americans of the United States are, then, the peculiar cause which renders that people the only one of the American nations that is able to support democratic government . . . Too much importance is attributed to legislation, too little to customs . . . The importance of customs is a common truth to which study and experience incessantly direct our attention. It may be regarded as a central point in the range of observation, and the common termination of all my inquiries.
On a preceding page, in a footnote, Tocqueville explained, "I remind the reader of the general significance which I give to the word 'customs:' namely, the moral and intellectual characteristics of the men of society."
With regard to the moral aspect of 'customs,' he wrote:
In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion; but it directs the customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state.
Note that Mexico is, and always has been, under dictatorial government of one variety or another. Nominally a federal republic since 1917, Mexico has been under the thumb of PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) socialist bosses with the exception of the current president. But no matter who is in control, Mexico remains a socialistic, collectivized, and therefore impoverished nation in which political rule and corruption have seldom been parted.
Thus Mexicans, legal and illegal, come into the United States with a different language and as alien a set of ideas about the rule of law and social customs as they might had they arrived from another planet. Confronting this challenge, we thumb our noses at the historical lessons from past civilizations. We willingly abandon the language and the laws and customs that produced the success of the United States and conform our language, laws, and customs to those of the invaders.
Without a reversion to the "melting pot" paradigm of public education as it existed into the 1920s (and as late as the 50s in some parts of the nation), there can be no hope of averting a calamitous amplification of the cultural civil war started by our liberal-socialists in the mid-1920s. If we continue on that path, the United States is doomed.
Too much importance is attributed to legislation, too little to customs. I prided myself on reaching this insight recently, but now I see that de Tocqueville got there first and said it better. It's not the provisions of our Constitution that make us a good country. A number of countries have splendid constitutions but bad governments. It's the attitudes of the people which are reflected in the Constitution.
Comment by dchamil | July 4, 2006
I am starting to wonder which country I live in. Our government is starting to care more about the illegal Hispanic aliens than the people who pay taxes which pay their salaries.
I am tired of watching our beautiful country turn into a third world country at the hands of our politicians.
Finding out President Bush sold out America for oil makes me realize our government only cares about money and themselves. I guess when you make as much money as the people making decisions you don't care what type of people you are letting in since it doesn't affect you on a daily basis.
Comment by Doreen | July 5, 2006
Dear Fellow American:
Don’t get caught not knowing what to say if the topic comes up while in the midst of friends and family. Don’t get caught looking the other way and thinking this really isn’t a problem, or that ignoring it will ‘make it go away’…
Don’t let anybody tell you that America is a nation of immigrants as an excuse to do nothing about massive ILLEGAL immigration perpetrated by people who for the most part (regardless of how hard or not they might or might not work…) want nothing to do with becoming a citizen of our great land. Those that are already here must be held accountable; diseased, mentally unfit (yes, believe it or not, even the nice folks at Ellis Island who processed thousands upon thousands of would-be immigrants were required to evaluate each for physical as well as mental illness! Don’t let ‘political correctness’ cripple your good judgment and practical thinking!), gang members & otherwise criminally inclined must be penalized for breaking our laws, and deported. Others with very special circumstances may stay if and only if they get on a carefully manicured path to citizenship, and to becoming an American.
That means learning English, learning our History, our laws, CUSTOMS, norms, and fully assimilating into our culture, American culture. This process would undoubtedly take months if not years- so until it can be sorted out, until we can take a reasonably accurate and complete ‘inventory’ of our citizenry and various other ‘population components’ there needs to be a moratorium on immigration, both illegal and legal. Make that for two full years at least- and just to begin with- so we can truly see where we stand. Then- and only then- can new, intelligent, clear-headed decisions be made about how/ if immigration policy should change and be managed.
Americanization:
Being a citizen is a privilege but it cannot be an option. The foreign-born population of this country must be an Americanized population. No other kind can or would fight the battles, or handle the challenges of America either in war or peace. It must speak and communicate in the language of its fellow citizens it must respect and assume American ideals. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in word and deed and must show it has renounced allegiance to any/ every prince, king, foreign leader or government from anywhere else in the world. It must be maintained on, and made to sustain an American standard of living.
None of these can be secured as long as we have major U.S. cities providing safe haven for those who have snuck in without permission! Cities with massive immigrant colonies, apartheid ghettos, and a multi-cultural mentality of ‘my nation of birth was not only as good as America, but if it hadn’t been pushed around by all those mean American explorers, entrepreneurs & Capitalists 200 and 300 hundred years ago, it could have, might have been even better…” cannot be allowed to prevail.
Above all, the important ideals/ measures mentioned above cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant only as a ‘permanent visitor’, a ‘migrant worker’ or an agricultural or industrial asset. The immigrant must not be allowed to drift in and out of America, or to be put at the mercy of those who would exploit him or her at the expense of the health of our country. The object of the immigrant cannot be to imitate/ expand or further pronounce some idealized version of archetypical ethnic or racial notions from his country of origin, but to pursue, maintain and even ADD TO a new American self concept, and then develop & secure loyalty to it!
We cannot hope to secure such loyalty unless we make this a country where men feel that justice will be served and the rule of law will be upheld, and respected, even admired. Where they also feel they’re required to perform certain civic duties, and to advocate the societal constructs of our beloved civilization.
The policy of "Leave it alone…/ Look the other way…/ It’s not their fault…" which we have hitherto pursued is thoroughly, viciously self-destructive. By this ‘open-border-free-for-all’ policy, we have permitted this massive illegal immigration and by default we have encouraged it, many times leaving the immigrant-participants, and often their ‘native-born’ offspring to suffer certain undeniable injustices; discrimination/ inequality, low pay, squalid living conditions– that could easily be minimized if not eliminated. IF there were a thorough, well-thought-out, consistently enforced plan for ‘getting-in’ legally (and in reasonable numbers) and the promotion of being desirous of not just what America has to give, but of coming here TO GIVE… Being desirous of becoming part of America and contributing to it’s ongoing health as a nation, its freedom, strength, independence and it’s sovereignty.
Without such a plan we fail to impress upon the immigrant (and upon our native-born citizenry as well) that they are expected to do justice as well as to receive it. That they are to become Americans; expected to follow heartily & actively a loyalty that is single-mindedly faithful to our flag, The American Flag, to our country, The United States of America; to become dependable contributors to the well-being and maintenance of THIS nation's foundation & future.
Comment by Paul Carver | July 5, 2006
Something funny happened to me yesterday. While I was celebrating the Independence of this nation and lit fireworks, I came across a patriotic one which was supposed to emit red, white, and blue sparks. Once it got going though, I saw that the sparks were in fact red, white, and green: The colors of the Mexican flag! I am sick of seeing Mexicans come here and not learning our language, customs, and culture. As a new resident to Arizona I am shocked to see them everyday. In some places I am the outsider and the minority. I have even been told that I need to learn how to speak Spanish because it will be important to know in the future. Are you kidding me? Why should I sacrifice so that criminals can tear down my country.
Comment by Josh Satterfield | July 5, 2006
Lost in all this discussion is the salient point of the real difference between Latin America and the United States.
Mexico, Central and South America, and parts of Canada, were colonized by either Spain, Portugal, France, or Holland. Thus, the legal, political and economic systems established in these countries was based on the European model–bloodlines, privelege and centralized, authorative government. Mexico happened to be conquered by Spain, then colonized by France, getting the worst of the Old World, and thus to this day is governed by French Napoleonic law.
The United States were colonized by England, and from their beginning has been governed by English common law. (The difference being that under common law the outcome of a case is decided by precedent, what a previous court in a similar case found. Under Napoleonic law, the outcome of a case is decided by whatever Napoleon wants the outcome to be.) It goes to the genius of our Founding Fathers that after the American Revolution they established a system that is based on the anti-European model–equality, individual rights and de-centralized, representative government, the best of the New World.
The difference between the two could not be more stark. But it clarifies why Santa Ana, after he became President of Mexico, could proclaim himself the "Napoleon of the West," shred the Constitution of 1824 and embark on a campaign of murder, rape and plunder throughout the states of Mexico. Napoleon is as Napoleon does. Howbeit, Santa Ana, like Napoleon before him, met his Waterloo–at San Jacinto, where he was found hiding dressed as a woman after his army was routed by the Texas militia. (It also clarifies why Hugo Chavez, after he became President of Venezuela, could proclaim himself "Dictator for Life," build up his army and start exporting his revolution throughout Latin America, albeit as yet without much success. He too will soon meet his Waterloo.)
There is a reason why Europe, Latin America and parts of Canada hate the United States with a vengeance. Because our system works, and theirs doesn't. Because our system creates jobs, and theirs doesn't. Because our system makes money, and theirs doesn't. Nothing could be more clear.
The crucial war fought in the 21st century will not be with Europe, Asia or the Middle East, but within ourselves. It will be fought over whether the United States will allow Latin America to impose onto this country what Europe has never been able to impose–the failed European model.
Our children and grandchildren will either bless or curse us, depending on the outcome of this war.
Comment by GawainsGhost | July 8, 2006
ILLEGAL ALIENS should be prosecuted for felony trespassing !! 6 months HARD LABOR for a 1st offense and five years HARD LABOR for a 2nd offense!!
Illegal alien LABOR CAMPS could then be tapped to build the border WALL!!
At a minimum, labor camps would mean the border patrol doesn't end up arresting the SAME mexican 2-3 times in an eight hour shift.
Comment by J Brown | July 8, 2006
This is a good article, but the mexicans are a far cry from the Germans, who courageously and successfully defended Europe against the onslaught of Asiatic and Islamic invaders and eventually took Western Civilization to its greatest heights. If the destructive creed of racial equality and tolerance existed during those times, then most of us wouldn't be here today; we simply would have been killed off or absorbed into the invading populations much like what is happening to us today in America.
The "Romans" of the fifth century beared little racial resemblance to the Romans of Republican times. By the time of the fall, the blood of the old Roman stock had been lost in countless civil wars, plague, and low birth rates. I'm afraid by the time of our fall the population will look much different than it does today, and is likely to look more like Brazil than the America of 1965, or even 1980.
Americanization of non-Europeans has, by and large, been an abyssmal failure mainly because we've grossly underestimated the value most foreigners place on race, ethnicity and religion. This crazy American notion that you can make an American out of a Chinamen and African Bushmen is killing this country. Look around you folks, non-whites produce very different societies than do whites and we're not going to make flag waving Americans out of these immigrants now or ever.
For those of you still confused I will provide a quote by John Jay:
“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”
The foregoing statement isn't exactly a clarion call to multiculturalism and mass immigration from the third world. It's time to wake up.
Comment by Dave T. | July 10, 2006
I believe it is important to recognize that America succeeded at the time it did because those who came here arrived with two things that no where else on earth today you can have.
1. They came with the attitude that “old school wasn’t working” and needed comprehensive change. Their minds were made up.
There is no way that kind of change could ever have happened under the existing social structure. Some people didn’t have a problem with their lives. But those who did knew a dramatic change had to occur and they were not only open to that, they were searching for the answer. They prayed about it daily.
2. They started with a clean government slate on arrival. Strong moral convictions kept early settlers in a close social group. But they knew they had to develop a government if they were to continue along the lines of freedom.
They used their strong minds and backs to construct not only a new world, but also a new method of government- self government.
Because honor and integrity meant something in those days (they were related to ones spiritual commitment and social acceptance) they were able to construct a cohesive and coherent product.
Unlike today, where spiritual commitment is an abstract consideration in attempts to make everyone happy with varying levels of spiritual and cultural relativism designed to make everyone feel good about life.
Living in cities, social groups, it is required to be some what liberal. We have to make trade offs in our liberties to live in such close proximity to one another. More so than say if you lived 30 miles from town and your nearest neighbor was several miles from you.
Immigrants come to America from around the world. They have a mindset that reflects their recent culture and law. Coming here is a huge change and is quite a shock to most. It is a difficult transition for most in the early days.
That is why in 230 years of this constitutional republic there has not been another closely similar form of government established any where in the world. Nor will there ever be another one.
As you read this note, America is being un-sewn. The stitches that hold together our seams are carefully being removed by seekers of expanded commerce (people who want more money). And congress has been charged with the administration of commerce in the U.S.A. it is clearly their purview.
So, the very people we elect to maintain and care for our constitutional republic are at odds with their duty and their pocketbooks. Rocket science doesn’t need to be your forte to see the paradox and the direction that would be chosen when honor and integrity have retreated to the realm of relativism. Once that has happened, those words exist but only in rhetorical terms as euphemistic references. Relativism guts the meat out of them.
Unless Americans can come to some sort of collective understanding of cultural norms the decay of our great experiment in self government will be over before another 100 years passes.
What a shame. We have been such poor stewards of such a noble attempt to place freedom above all else. And today, it is as much at risk of dissolving because we have lost track of the point of the whole thing as it was in development.
For those not of a secular mind: Pray.
Comment by Chris | July 13, 2006
Thank you Dave T.! Thank you Chris!
How many people do you know- who are NOT currrently readers/ viewers of this site- that each of you can recruit so that they ARE?
Must we spoon feed them until they too recognize our great nation's peril? Perhaps… If so, then have spoon-will-travel.
It is imperative and, our obligation.
Might they take a suggestion to look at any of the following*? We must be versed in some of the statistical realities of the immigration flood, able to make interesting if not compelling arguments (effective) to those who might otherwise continue to ignore the problem (however complex) until they've been completely displaced, enslaved or both.
*http://www.capsweb.org
http://www.susps.org/
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.txt
http://www.amren.com/
http://www.borderrescue.com/arizona.htm
http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/index.htm
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/immigration/index.shtml
http://www.npg.org/
Comment by Paul Carver | July 17, 2006
Great article. The shame of it is that those Americans who NEED to read it – and understand both the column and the comments that follow will not bother to read such things!
I find it so frustrating when I talk with people, trying to make them understand the urgency of the moment. They are complacent. The assume, I suppose, that government is taken care of. Those who bother to even vote any more feel they have done their duty as citizens and just don't want to be bothered thinking about "all that stuff" (direct quote from one acquaintance) – let alone take the time to write letters, or call their Congressman.
We need to have a Second Revolution in this country. And I don't mean with guns and ammo. I mean we need to Revolutionize the way that Americans deal with their own nation. We need, somehow, to make them understand that this government is up to THEM! This is supposed to be a government OF THE PEOPLE – NOT of career politicians whose only concern is that they keep that position of power.
We need to find some way to change this electoral process…..to get away from this election of the richest, with the help of the very richest. And instead find sincere, hard-working citizens of intelligence who are willing to serve their nation for a very LIMITED period of time. It is urgent that we enact and enforce Strict Term Limits, which, I believe, will help to cut down on this power grab that is Washington today.
But the most urgent matter on our National Agenda is this: We MUST wake up Americans to what is happening here. We MUST impeach or otherwise unseat those activist judges who are throwing our Constitution out the window and imposing their own brand of lawLESSNESS on this nation.
And we MUST, without fail, return this nation to her foundation, which is built upon strong Judeo-Christian values – and not debauchery and carelessness which has so infected us.
God Bless America! Can we each wake up just a few citizens each? And have each of them wake up a few more, etc. etc. – until we have successfully returned this nation to a nation of Laws – based firmly on our brilliant Constitution!
Those
Comment by Litl Bits | July 20, 2006