Support for open borders spans the Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right. So it’s no surprise that Jewish “conservatives” are urging support for Obama’s upcoming “comprehensive immigration reform.”

A former Jewish speechwriter for President George W. Bush, Noam Neusner, urges Obama to push for one more “big legislative ambition: immigration reform.” Neusner, writing in the Forward, makes the following bizarre argument: “Here’s hoping that Jewish conservatives contribute to that debate. After all, we are uniquely qualified to do so. Not because we’re Jews, but because we are immigrants from our own people.”

Let’s see. American Jews have always been liberal. So Jews like Neusner “immigrated” to the world of neoconservatism and that means they should support real immigration.

Rather than relying on an argument that is really nothing more than a bad pun, how about this simpler interpretation: Like other Jewish neocons, Neusner is a liberal who will make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to support his very unconservative desire to see America transformed in a way that conforms to Jewish interests. Jewish Republicans like Neusner are also noteworthy for supporting that other current big liberal initiative, gay marriage. As Sam Francis wrote some time ago,

What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it. See here, p. 26.

Bizarre argument #2: Neusner writes that conservatives should support immigration reform because conservatives don’t like bureaucracy. He says we should streamline the bureaucratic process, the “legal Maze facing immigrants,” so that the “process” doesn’t make “a mockery of Emma Lazarus’s famous poem.”

Right. Why inconvenience these newcomers? Let’s speed up the transformation of America. Let’s undermine what’s left of America, those safe White enclaves in the exurbs, and put them on a fast-track to more ethnic strife and political alienation.

Neusner also says that conservatives should support immigration because “ immigrants naturally renew American faith in opportunity.” He’s certainly right that there is a lot of opportunity for immigrants. They can apply for housing assistance, food stamps, AFDC subsidies, federal tuition assistance—the possibilities are countless! Immigration also offers local law enforcement renewed opportunities to create more “violent gang task forces.” Let’s spend more public resources in trying to figure out why formerly safe communities now struggle to combat gang-related violence. What are we waiting for?

Neusner concludes, “Jewish conservatives make the case that nothing is predetermined by birth. The unschooled can raise geniuses. The untalented can nurture artists. And Jewish liberals can see their children become conservatives. That’s our gift to America, and to our own people as well.”

In the real world, conservatives have been far more likely to believe in race realism—that differences in intelligence and achievement are intractable and influenced by biology. But for Neusner, the ideology of infinite human possibility somehow becomes a marker of conservatism. In other words, Neusner buys into mantras typically associated with the left—that there are no biological differences between races in intelligence or other traits necessary for success in contemporary society. It reinforces the fallacy of America as a proposition nation devoid of the flesh-and-blood of our European founders. America, from this vantage point, is nothing but a limitless, borderless, multiethnic, multicultural commune.

Neusner’s little essay is nothing more than yet another example of how Jewish faux conservatives have managed to get a very large foothold in the Republican Party.

Jews have been at the forefront of liberalizing America’s immigration laws. Our unrecognizable country is an unmeltable conglomeration of ethnic cultures and peoples due in large part to Jewish activists who remain busy transforming a predominantly European nation into a “diverse” non-White disaster.

When it comes to assimilation, the Israeli experience for some strange reason differs from the American “tradition” of embracing foreigners. Rather than welcoming illegal immigrants from Africa, Israel is sending them home (“Israel African Immigration Deportations to Send Thousands Back Home“).

Even Jews from the former USSR are suspect in Israel. A recent NPR segment on Russian Jews notes that “There are no civil marriages in Israel. Russian-speaking Israelis defined as non-Jews who wish to marry must go abroad, or convert” (according to Orthodox ritual). According to Galili, “They find it offensive. They feel Jewish. They were raised Jewish. They have Jewish names. They once suffered for being Jewish in the Soviet Union. Now they suffer for being Russians in Israel.”

Why can’t Western nations adopt the Israeli approach to immigration: getting rid of illegals and requiring assimilation based on stringent nationalist criteria for citizenship?

Patriotic grassroots activists face a difficult hurdle in halting yet another “comprehensive immigration reform” measure. It means stopping a well-organized, widespread Jewish-led push across the political spectrum for mass immigration. Neoconservative, liberal and radical Left activists, hostile to the interests of America’s European majority, are working to ensure that America resembles the type of country Theodore Roosevelt warned against: “a polyglot boarding house!”