Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration | Imprimis

Related image

Historically, constitutional government has been found only in the nation-state, where the people share a common good and are dedicated to the same principles and purposes.

Source: Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration – Imprimis

What we are up against, continued – in the words of Dr. Edward J. Erler (whose bio lends him considerable credibility on this issue):

“In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump appealed to the importance of citizens and borders. In other words, Trump took his stand on behalf of the nation-state and citizenship against the idea of a homogeneous world-state populated by ‘universal persons.’ In appealing directly to the people, Trump succeeded in defeating both political parties, the media, political professionals, pollsters, academics, and the bureaucratic class. All these groups formed part of the bi-partisan cartel that had represented the entrenched interests of the Washington establishment for many years. Although defeated in the election, the cartel has not given up. It is fighting a desperate battle to maintain its power.

“Historically, constitutional government has been found only in the nation-state, where the people share a common good and are dedicated to the same principles and purposes. The homogeneous world-state—the European Union on a global scale—will not be a constitutional democracy; it will be the administration of ‘universal personhood’ without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed. It will be government by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, much like the burgeoning administrative state that is today expanding its reach and magnifying its power in the United States. ‘Universal persons’ will not be citizens; they will be clients or subjects. Rights will be superfluous because the collective welfare of the community—determined by the bureaucrats—will have superseded the rights of individuals…

“In support of all this, we are asked to believe something incredible: that the American character is defined only by its unlimited acceptance of diversity. A defined American character—devotion to republican principles, republican virtue, the habits and manners of free citizens, self-reliance—would in that case be impermissibly exclusive, and thus impermissibly American. The homogeneous world-state recognizes only openness, devotion to diversity, and acceptance as virtues. It must therefore condemn exclusivity as its greatest vice. It is the nation-state that insists on exclusive citizenship and immigration policies that impose various kinds of restrictions.”

It will be no mystery to any reader of this blog upon which side of this divide I have pitched my tent! Furthermore, Dr. Erler asks, Continue reading “Does Diversity Really Unite Us? Citizenship and Immigration | Imprimis”

Advertisements

George Washington Mural, and America’s Past & Present | National Review

We’ve seen something like this fight before, in 1861 — and it didn’t end well.

Source: George Washington Mural & America’s Past & Present | National Review

“If progressives and socialists can at last convince the American public that their country was always hopelessly flawed, they can gain power to remake it based on their own interests. These elites see Americans not as unique individuals but as race, class, and gender collectives, with shared grievances from the past that must be paid out in the present and the future.”

Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. This is what we’re up against. Dark times!

 

“Megan Rapinoe’s antics spell out exactly the type of civil war we are up against” | TheBlaze

Megan Rapinoe: The Un-American Superstar

Source: Megan Rapinoe’s antics spell out exactly the type of civil war we are up against – TheBlaze

From commentator Jesse Kelly, quoted in this essay:

“For too long the people on the Right (myself included) have called the American Left ‘socialists’ or some brand of that. But it’s dawned on me they’re something else entirely and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Even the commies loved their country. This is something worse.

“The commies didn’t want to flood their countries with illegal aliens and deport nobody. The commies would never have allowed government schools to encourage young children to question their gender. Or allowed a young boy to dress in drag and dance for men. I can’t stop thinking about that Gallup poll showing only 22 percent of Democrats are proud of their country.

“Something has really shifted. It’s not UN-American. It is ANTI-American. That’s not communism. That’s an insurgency.”

For those who may not recognize the name of Rapinoe, she’s the captain of the American soccer team that just won the World Cup – which should be an opportunity for celebration of American national pride and success, right?

Except that she’s refused to sing the National Anthem, made derogatory comments about the nation she represents, refused to attend the traditional White House congratulatory visit (before she was even invited!), and danced on the American Flag after a teammate dropped it to the ground following the victory.

(Accounts differ as to whether this was intentional or “accidental” – I find it difficult to conceive of “accidentally” dropping and stepping on Old Glory, but then I’m an old fogey about such matters. Major kudos to a third teammate, Kelley O’Hara, for rescuing the flag.)

In other words, Rapinoe actively and/or casually disrespects the country she represents, the country that has made her (in the eyes of some, at least) a superstar. That, coupled with the fact that she’s also a very active proponent of LGBTQ issues (being the sort of lesbian that used to be called a “butch dyke” back in a less politically correct age), makes her an icon of contemporary “SJW” Leftism.

The kind of Leftism, in other words, that Steve Deace (author of the linked essay) is referring to when he comments,

“If conservatism is actually going to be capable of being an effective movement going forward, its adherents need to realize that its foes aren’t primarily driven by a political ideology. No, they are devout knee-benders to a spirit of the age cult, whose iconoclastic goal is the dismantling of Western Civilization, or Judeo-Christendom, for the purposes of installing a totally different culture.”

These people don’t just have different political views from the rest of us, the kind that used to enable Senators and Representatives from the Democratic and Republican parties to debate issues passionately on the floor of Congress, and then go out for a beer or bowling afterwards. No, they have a radically different worldview, an alien and foreign ideology compared to those of us who still have a God-and-country, mom-and-apple-pie view of the world.

Like it or not, this is a war – a cultural civil war, though so far fought mostly with words rather than weapons – and the outcome is still very much in doubt.

As to the linked essay, as I’ve said so many times: read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. It may be eye-opening for you, or it may be further confirmation of what you already knew or sensed, but either way, we need to know what we’re up against.

Fareed Zakaria: “It Pains Me To Say This,” But Trump Was Right About Asylum System | RealClearPolitics

Asylum is meant to be granted to a very small number of people in extreme circumstances, not as a substitute for the process of immigration itself. Yet, the two have gotten mixed up. It’s also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax and being gamed.

Source: Fareed Zakaria: “It Pains Me To Say This,” But Trump Was Right About Asylum System

Fareed Zakaria is no fan of President Trump. Far from it! In fact, his knee-jerk negativity when it comes to the President has caused me to have to revise my former appreciation for him as that rare bird: a thoughtful, objective, and reasonable political commentator. He is, however, square on in this; and his antipathy to the President makes his comments all the more arresting.

I think a lot of our chaos where immigration is concerned has to do with a lack of understanding (or in some cases, I fear, intentional misrepresentation) of what “asylum” actually is. As originally conceptualized and expressed in international law, in the aftermath of WW II and the Holocaust, it was intended “to protect those who are fleeing regimes where they would be killed our imprisoned because of their identity or beliefs.” However, Zakaria notes, “This standard has gotten broader and broader over the years”:

“Since 2014, the flow of asylum seekers into the United States has skyrocketed. Last year, immigration courts received 162,000 asylum claims. A 240 percent increase from 2014. The result is a staggering backlog with more than 300,000 asylum cases pending and the average immigration case has been pending for more than 700 days.

“It’s also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax and being gamed… Some applicants for asylum have suspiciously similar stories using identical phrases. Many simply use the system to enter the U.S. and then melt into the shadows or gain a work permit while their application is pending.”

The asylum system was never intended to be a work-around for “the ordinary process of immigration itself,” for people who may be having a fairly rough life in their home countries, and who think the US is the land of milk and honey, where all their problems will be solved. News flash: there are a lot of people living, and in many cases born, in the United States (some to families who have been here for generations, others who have emigrated legally in more recent years), who are having a fairly rough life here.

If this ever was the land of milk and honey, it is so no more; and it is not unreasonable that we should want to take care of our own people first, before importing additional people, and additional problems, into the mix. (And if it ever was the land of milk and honey, it was so because we enjoyed a population that was relatively small, compared to our resource base. That is certainly not the case, any more!)

People may, arguably, have a right to asylum if they are in imminent danger to life and limb due to their ethnicity or beliefs – at least, the UN says they do, and the US is signatory to the relevant documents. But they do not have a right to emigrate into a country – any country – simply to improve their lot in life, or to treat the asylum system in the U.S. as what Zakaria accurately calls “a backdoor, bypassing the normal immigration process.”

Or rather, people may seek to migrate with the intention of bettering themselves, but the countries they wish to enter have a right to decline, to protect their own people, economy, ecology, standard of living, and the customs, culture, and traditions of their existing society. No one has the right to simply impose themselves on someone else, unwanted, and expect them to simply take it, as a matter of course.

As the old saying goes, “your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.”

Zakaria is absolute correct: the system is broken, and in need of correction and reconfiguration, with clear standards of what constitutes a legitimate asylum request, and clear lines of demarcation between asylum and immigration – and, I would argue, with the clearly expressed premise that asylum will be granted to relatively few, and only those most clearly at risk; while immigration will be controlled on the basis of our needs, and what the would-be immigrants can offer us, not the other way ’round.

[Many countries require of would-be immigrants that they be able to support themselves economically, for instance, so that they are a benefit to and not a drain on the host society. That seems far from unreasonable.]

“Diversity,” in and of itself, should in any case not be a criteria for admission, in the absence of specific skills, abilities, knowledge, resources, or other clear and positive benefits of admitting that particular person. We are more than diverse enough, as a culture, already, even if one accepts the premise that diversity is an inherent good on its own; we don’t need more of it, and certainly not for its own sake.

[If anything – given the history of the last few decades, when we have seen ever-increasing diversity, and also ever-increasing societal fragmentation and social chaos – a bit more homogeneity, unity, and stability might be beneficial!]

At any rate, those who claim that there is no crisis are certainly wrong; and Zakaria is certainly right that “a much larger fix is needed.” The President and his administration are at least trying to fix the problem. All the Democrats can do is vow to open the borders still further, increasing rather than decreasing the crisis.

We need better than that, or I greatly fear what the next few years or decades may bring: either complete chaos as we are overrun, or a violent backlash that must be laid solely at the feet of the Democrats and their Left-wing fellow-travelers, who seek to exploit the immigration crisis for their own political benefit.

“It’s Time to Let Classical Music Die” | NewMusicBox

This is what we’re up against, folks!

https://2104310a1da50059d9c5-d1823d6f516b5299e7df5375e9cf45d2.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/2019/06/15-skeleton_mathew-schwartz-718956-unsplash.jpg

“There comes a point in some abusive relationships where the victim wakes up out of their Stockholm syndrome and learns that they need to plan an escape. My fellow musicians of color: it is time to accept that we are in an abusive relationship with classical music.”

Source: It’s Time to Let Classical Music Die | NewMusicBox

 

A Witch-Hunt on Instagram – Quillette

“Knitting is just so white. Let’s hope it gets better.”

Source: A Witch-Hunt on Instagram – Quillette

Insanity.

Even the peaceful, innocuous hobby (and for some, livelihood) of knitting cannot escape the social justice warriors, political posturers, and virtue signalers of cultural Marxism.

But any pendulum can only swing so far, before it begins to swing back. There is already a backlash building, though for now it’s relatively subtle and even “underground.” But it’s there.

I hope I am alive when the wave crests. I really do. I want to watch.

“In an age in which freedom of speech seems to be under attack in many different spheres of society, heretics to the progressive creed find themselves persecuted ad nauseam by a choir of the self-righteous. This kind of vindictive activism has been described by Jordan Peterson as a hunt for people who dare to disagree.

What is this but totalitarianism masquerading as tolerance?

‘What’s happening on the radical end of the political spectrum is not good. But the conservatives are too afraid. They’re afraid they will be targeted as individuals, mobbed by the social justice warriors, and taken out,’ he said in an interview with the Epoch Times.

The writer and activist James Lindsay, meanwhile, told me that campaigns like these are simply ‘a power grab thinly clothed as a civil rights movement.'”

A power grab thinly clothed as a civil rights movement.

Yes. Well said.

Read, and remember: all that is necessary for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing. Appeasing these @$$holes only encourages them: they smell weakness and, like vicious dogs, pounce.

PRAGER: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out | Daily Wire

Assault rifles hang on the wall for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, on October 6, 2017.

America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower.

Source: PRAGER: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out | Daily Wire

“America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower… Given the same ubiquity of guns, wouldn’t the most productive question be what, if anything, has changed since the 1960s and ’70s? Of course it would. And a great deal has changed. America is much more ethnically diverse, much less religious. Boys have far fewer male role models in their lives. Fewer men marry, and normal boy behavior is largely held in contempt by their feminist teachers, principals and therapists. Do any or all of those factors matter more than the availability of guns?”

I suspect most regular readers can guess my response to this question. And it will probably not surprise you, either, that I agree with Dennis Prager when he comments,

“When you don’t ask intelligent questions, you cannot come up with intelligent answers. So, then, with regard to murder in America, until Americans stop allowing the left to ask the questions, we will have no intelligent answers.”

Indeed.