Their crusade to destroy the immigration reform movement.
by Elizabeth Wright
Who started the lie that the Founders of this nation expended theirenergies, in order to create a haven for the rescue of the world’sdisplaced populations? Did it come about chiefly from cynical 19thcentury industrialists eager only for cheap labor, who sought to softentheir true motives by wrapping them in sentimental bombast?
Wasthe lie then perpetuated through the fantasies of some early luckyrefugees who found their way to these shores, and who desired to makethe path to the Golden Door easier for their family and kin left behind?
Orwas the lie deliberately concocted by those who despised the country’spowerful and entrenched establishment, with the expectation that makingmass immigration a national religious mandate might eventually ungluesaid establishment?
When restrictive immigration laws werechanged in the 1960s, who expected to benefit most from the mass influxthat inevitably would begin to stream from around the world?
I ask these questions in light of the New York Times’ recent editorials [here and here and here,]denigrating those Americans who campaign, through organizations andmodest media outlets, to regain control over our borders, in order topreserve the traditional cultural integrity of the United States. The Timesand its comrades share the presumptuous notion that the US is therightful destination of every conceivable population on earth. Theysend the word far and wide that, if you’re hurting in the land of yourbirth, then you have a right to alleviate that hurt by transportingyourself to the USA, no matter what stress is put upon the resources ofAmerican citizens.
Thanks to our education system and acentury of media propaganda, it has become a fixed notion that thiscountry, unlike every other on earth, was put together for the benefitof the world’s faceless masses. He who desires entrance must merelyclaim to share certain ideals, that is, the “propositions” contained inthe founding documents, with a couple of modern axioms thrown in forgood measure. Because of America’s “special” status, there need be noregard for prevailing social and economic conditions, since the welfareof the existing population is not as important as that of theprospective immigrant. After all, America was founded on nothing morethan a bundle of universalist ideas based around themes of freedom; ithas no borders and no heritage.
In an earlier post on this blog, “Farewell to Thomas Jefferson,” I ask what the likelihood is that any group would form a nation for a people other than their own kind.