In light of the Manchester bombing, it is necessary to say it once and for all: The media and the powers that be are attempting to gaslight us. They want us to believe that our position, one grounded in history and good sense, is radical. Common descriptors for anyone who opposes increased immigration and admission for large groups of refugees are “far right,” “radical right,” “nationalist,” “nativist,” and so forth. I can only wonder why it is our position that is considered radical and not theirs.
First, I will discuss how our position should not be considered radical. This is because our position is grounded in historical practice, human nature, and simple reason. Their stance should be considered radical because it arises from a perversion of history which defies human nature, that gives up a lot for nothing in return, and is blindly destructive.
In the past, it was uncontroversial to look out for the interests of your own nation and countrymen before others. The philosophy of “Realism,” which proposes that there is an anarchic international structure that forces nations (like individuals in the state of nature) to pursue their own interests has, until recently, dominated the policy discussions of both governments and academics in the field.
Throughout history, maintaining a common sentiment and culture through immigration policy has been uncontroversial. It was the founders who proudly proclaimed in the Federalist Papers (no. 2) that “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, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” In light of this, it is hard to see how our position is radical at all. We are backed by history, the wisdom of the founding fathers, and human nature. The National Review asked the same question when they argued that a hard-line immigration policy does not violate American ideals. I will discuss this more below.
The pro-refugee and immigration stance is, by any reasonable measure, “radical.” It always seeks to radically alter the status quo, it comes from an ahistorical position, defies human nature, and subjects the natives of a country to great injury with very few benefits in return. The status quo will always be altered by immigration from foreign countries. The people from these countries have different values than the native population and will bring these values to their new country and attempt to change it. They will not assimilate, especially when there is no good faith attempt by those in charge to do so. This means that the pro-immigration proponents will always be out to radically alter the status quo, meaning they are radicals.
Second, while we argue from a position grounded in history and the wisdom of the founders, they come from an ahistorical one. The idea that the United States has always been a multicultural “melting pot” is, to put it bluntly, a lie. Up until the last 150 years, we were ethnically homogeneous, and when immigration began from places like Ireland, Italy, and East/South Asia, there was ethnic conflict and persecution. Hamilton predicted this outcome when he said “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.” It’s clear that their stance is an ahistorical one.
Finally, while there aren’t minor wars in our streets, we feel the pain of immigration and refugee intake through terrorism. It also results in a loss of culture, as I have discussed above. Immigration from foreign countries leaves the immigrant’s loyalties divided between his home country and its culture/religion, and his new country. In the case of terrorists, they almost always decide to commit an act of terrorism because they feel alienated from their new country and cling to their religion to look for comfort, often causing them to lash out when they feel persecuted. This is the effect of immigration and failed assimilation. This has become pervasive among the left, from the Mayor of London who infamously claiming that terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city” to a BBC reporter yesterday who said Europe must “get used to terrorism as a way of life.” They seem to believe that the slaughter of their own people is an acceptable cost of multiculturalism and immigration. I feel its important to ask… what are the benefits that are being weighed against the costs? If it has been proven that peaceful coexistence between cultures is impossible what benefits does immigration bring us? It seems as if the answer is, at best, cheap labor. I find it doubtful that people will tolerate the injuries they have continued to endure for much longer, solely because it brings us cheap labor.
I will leave the reader to decide if, based on all of this, it is our position that is radical, or theirs.