Immigration policy, then and now

Immigrant policy - meme

The radical (and even some of the less-radical) Left is great on sound-bites, memes, etc., that support (or seem to) their position, but not so good on the facts and logic behind the situation portrayed – ironic, since they often also claim to be on the side of “reasons” and “science,” but I digress!

In any case, they seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the distinction between legal and illegal immigration (and sometimes with legality in general, but again, that’s a digression). I especially liked two of the comments on the original post:

“The left can keep track of 47 genders but the difference between legal immigrant and illegal immigrant escapes them quicker than a greased soap bubble.”

And this:

“Actually those are immigrants that are being herded through Ellis island to be questioned and medically examined to determine if they should be allowed to enter the United States based on whether they would be a benefit or detriment to American society. Those that fail will not be allowed to enter. So, yes let’s look at the past, and see how a real immigration policy works.”

That’s not even to mention the restrictions on who was allowed to immigrate to the United States in the first place, pre-1965: “The Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. Previous laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans.”

One can agree with those policies or disagree with them, but one thing is clear: it wasn’t just any old “Tom, Dick, or Harry” who wanted in, that got in.

Note also: “The first significant federal legislation restricting immigration was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.” Remember that the Chinese were brought in to serve as cheap labour for the railroads; in fact, many of those imported or encouraged to immigrate – from the Irish and Eastern Europeans of the 19th and early 20th centuries to people from Central and South America today – are being brought in by or on behalf of corporations who want, once again, cheap labour.

Ironically, those who support “open” immigration policies are also, whether they know it or not, supporting crony capitalism / corporate plutocracy. To continue:

“Individual states regulated immigration prior to the 1892 opening of Ellis Island, the country’s first federal immigration station.” So it wasn’t just a free-for-all, as some try to claim. “New laws in 1965 ended the quota system that favored European immigrants, and today, the majority of the country’s immigrants hail from Asia and Latin America.” A fact which is altering not only the ethnic makeup of this country, but our culture and society as well – whether for better or for worse being debatable.

Again, the situation is more complex than a simple “immigrants made America great.” Much more!

QOTD: On ancestors and descendants

Major David French Boyd, CSA
Major David French Boyd, 9th Louisiana Infantry, Confederate States Army; First President of Louisiana State University

“He who feels no pride in his ancestors is unworthy to be remembered by his descendants.”

Maj. David French Boyd, CSA; 1st President of LSU

Particularly ironic, in light of current events in Louisiana (New Orleans, in particular)!

History Prof: ‘Cultural Cleansing’ to Tear Down Confederate Monuments | LifeZette

Source: History Prof: ‘Cultural Cleansing’ to Tear Down Confederate Monuments | LifeZette

Many of us have been deeply concerned by what some have called “the purge of Southern culture,” the current version of which began in 2015: ostensibly in reaction to, and certainly enabled by, the mass murder of church members in Charleston, SC, by a despicable psychopath. But the situation may be – indeed, almost certainly is – even worse than it appears on the surface:

“The removal of all things Confederate is complicated,” said Dr. Marshall De Rosa, a political science professor at Florida Atlantic University and expert on the Civil War.

“Some support stems from sheer ignorance about what those monuments represent,” said De Rosa, referring to those who see Confederate monuments as inherently racist. Others, however, are apparently motivated by far more sinister, ideological motives, he said.

“It’s a form of cultural cleansing that will not stop at Confederate memorials,” De Rosa warned. “There are discussions to tear down the Jefferson Memorial, rename Washington, D.C., change the U.S. flag, etc.,” De Rosa noted.

“The purpose is to make Americans, specifically white Christian Americans, ashamed of their ancestors, if not themselves,” De Rosa told LifeZette. “This makes them much more vulnerable to manipulation by and capitulation to the policy demands of the Left and their globalist supporters.”

Many of us thought – or at least hoped – that this sort of thing would end following the defeat and collapse of the atheistic, globalistic Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites. Unfortunately it has sprung up once more, under slightly outward forms, within the United States and Western Europe themselves. I am reminded of J.R.R. Tolkien’s warning,

Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

Or St. Paul’s (Ephesians 6:12): “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

So, sadly, it seems to be.

Let us then heed also St. Peter’s admonition (1 Peter 5:8-9): “Be sober, be watchful; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist, steadfast in the faith.”

New Orleans is Ground Zero | Abbeville Institute

The social justice jihad to eliminate “white supremacy” was spawned by the successful eradication of Confederate memorabilia.

Source: New Orleans is Ground Zero | Abbeville Institute

Americans were not overly concerned about the disparagement of Confederate heroes but when the disparagement was turned against the Founding Fathers and Western Civilization in general, they began to take notice. The public finally realized they weren’t witnessing isolated incidents but a well-coordinated movement, promulgated by national and international forces.

If anything, I fear this statement may be a bit too optimistic: I am not at all sure enough of the American public has begun to awaken to the reality of the situation, at least not yet. I hope and pray they will! This blog is part of my contribution to encouraging that awakening.

At any rate, this essay is an excellent, if sobering, discussion of the situation. New Orleans is indeed “ground zero.” If the forces of violent revisionism, cultural cleansing, and the suppression and removal of anything deemed “offensive” by or to the decidedly illiberal left are successful in NOLA, they will only be emboldened elsewhere.

The camel’s nose is already in the tent. We need to make darned sure the rest of the camel doesn’t get inside!

ANTIFA: Who Are They? An Explainer By Jason Kessler (@TheMadDimension) – GotNews

Recent riots in Berkeley, California and Washington, D.C. by loosely assembled left-wing agitators have drawn attention to the left-wing terror group ANTIFA, an organization which has a violent history in Europe and South America but has been largely unknown in the United States until very recently. They’re the ones responsible for Trump supporters being beaten by gangs of masked men, setting fire to cars, pepper spraying old men, pelting women with eggs and smashing Starbucks windows and ATMs. The term Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a euphemism for communism.

Source: ANTIFA: Who Are They? An Explainer By Jason Kessler (@TheMadDimension) – GotNews

Gentle readers, I apologize. This is supposed to be a civilized blog, and I hesitate to even give such thugs and anti-civilized (anti-civilization!) low-life scum as Antifa a mention here. But sometimes it is necessary to mention a danger, in order to warn against it:

Jason Kessler has done an excellent job of describing this (loose, but surprisingly well-choreographed) organization and the hazards it poses, both in his blog post and video. The only points I would add are these:

First, “communist” or even “anarchist” (anarcho-communist) is not sufficient to describe these people. They hate everything that has made Western civilization great and beautiful. Judging from their words and actions to date, if one were to take the worst excesses of Stalin and Mao, and add in those of Oliver Cromwell and Robespierre, we might have a glimpse of what society would look like if Antifa and their fellow-travelers were ever to achieve dominance.

Second, do not be misled by words like “anti-fascist” and “anti-racist.” They may use terms such as “tolerance” and “coexistence” – when they’re not breaking windows or beating people up – but their very existence is indicative of the shadow side (to put it gently) of such ideas. What they really want is a post-racial, post-cultural society in which difference is obliterated and everyone thinks, acts, and looks pretty much the same, and in place of true diversity, particularity, and distinctiveness, we are reduced to an amorphous, undifferentiated blob.

I leave you with some words from the great J.R.R. Tolkien, who though he eschewed allegory, wrote much that is applicable to our present situation. Antifa has neither the power nor (yet) the terror of the Nazgul, of course, but they are of like kind, being servants of the Dark Lord. In speaking of the Black Riders (“Black Bloc”…?), Tolkien wrote:

“‘Is it not enough to know that they are servants of the Enemy?’ answered Gildor. ‘Flee them! Speak no words to them! They are deadly.'”

Indeed. Although I would say, there may be times – many, perhaps most, times – when fight, rather than flight, is the appropriate response to Antifa violence, lest they grow to the power and terror of Mordor.

Constant vigilance is the price of freedom.

The War against the Confederacy | US Defense Watch

The War against the Confederacy is a War against America. The War against the Confederacy is a war on American history. The War against the Confederacy is a war against all of us and a war on America’s institutions.

Source: The War against the Confederacy | US Defense Watch

This essay comes at a time when New Orleans is in the midst of attempting to remove four monuments pertaining to the Confederacy, in the heart of town. One, which has already been removed, was not directly representing the Confederacy itself; it commemorated a post-War Between the States conflict between Louisianians and a government which they perceived as being beholden to the “scalawags and carpet-baggers” that were busy kicking the South while she was down.

The other three, however, commemorate President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and General P.G.T. Beauregard. Were it not for the efforts of a dedicated band of defenders, these statues would probably also have been dismantled and carted away by now. They may yet be. Yet as this article makes clear, that would be a grievous error, an action more suited to ISIS, Stalin’s goons, or jack-booted storm-troopers than the supposedly freedom-loving United States.

For a long time, after the War Between the States (erroneously called the “Civil War” – a civil war is contention between two or more factions for the control of the central government, which this emphatically was not), what some have called the “Great Truce” or “Great Compromise” was in effect. Continue reading “The War against the Confederacy | US Defense Watch”

The Pacifist Temptation | William Doino Jr. | First Things

“Those who follow the Just War tradition—including many in the military and diplomatic corps—place a premium on clear-eyed negotiations, and see war only as a last resort.”

Source: The Pacifist Temptation | William Doino Jr. | First Things

Pacifism is a recurrent temptation in the Christian tradition; indeed, some radical Protestant denominations – including the Amish, the Quakers, and the Brethren / Mennonites – are especially known for their philosophical pacifism: it is almost a trademark. And there are many others in more “mainstream” churches who pursue peace very seriously.

These frequently compassionate and well-meaning people take the designation of Christ as “the Prince of Peace” further than, perhaps, the evidence will bear: the quote from Isaiah about “of the increase of his Kingdom and of peace there shall be no end” refers to the coming Kingdom, when Christ will reign in triumph – not the age of the Church Militant in which we find ourselves.

Such a view also fails to take into account sayings of Jesus such as “I come not to bring peace, but a sword,” and events such as that captured in a popular internet meme: “What would Jesus do? Turning over tables and whipping people with knotted cords is not out of the question!” In direct and marked contrast,

“Those who follow the Just War tradition—including many in the military and diplomatic corps—place a premium on clear-eyed negotiations, and see war only as a last resort. But they also realize that the existence and maintenance of ‘hard power’ is often crucial in preventing war and bringing about peaceful resolutions; for once you take military force off the table you risk dramatically increasing the possibility for violence. Even a cursory study of history reveals that unilateral disarmament only emboldens warmongers.

“But the Pax Christi statement asserts: ‘Recent academic research, in fact, has confirmed that nonviolent resistance strategies are twice as effective as violent ones.’ There are no footnotes, however, to any academic research showing how pacifists will defeat ISIS or could have brought down the Third Reich if only they’d been given the chance…

“It is one thing to honor individual Christians who cannot in good conscience take up arms and are willing to suffer for their beliefs. It is quite another to encourage movements which call on democratic societies to conform to pacifist demands—in the face of tyrants and mass-murderers—and are blind to the incalculable suffering pacifist policies would lead to.

“The pacifist temptation has long been rejected by the Catholic Church, for abundantly sound reasons, drawn from Christian teachings on mercy, compassion, the common good, and authentic peace. In a world where Christians are being savagely tortured, crucified and decapitated, the Church should not succumb to that temptation now.”