Immigration is not sacred. It’s a tool.

Sometimes the tool is precisely what we need. Often, it isn’t. Sometimes it can be good. Sometimes bad. And anything taken to extremes is usually bad. And have you noticed that every debate on immigration always starts from the point that immigration is always a good thing? This “belief” that it is always a good thing or that it’s always sacred became this way for a lot of reasons — namely, marketing and a misunderstanding of America’s history and the history of immigration in America and in general, not to mention Academia and the media entertainment complex’s obsession with pushing progressive open borders propaganda.

Homework

Get into an argument with a liberal or even a conservative on immigration. Whether they think illegal immigration is bad, and it needs to stop or if they take the liberal position — open borders — you will notice a pattern if you argue for, say, a complete moratorium until we get things under control. Liberals will falsely play the race card and or say “the system is broken.” Conservatives will often say, “well I want illegal immigration stopped, but we need to make legal immigration easier.” If you pay close enough attention, they will often say a lot of things that presupposes immigration is always a good thing.

The starting point is always immigration is inherently good. It’s always a good thing. IT can never be questioned.

To which is never asked: According to who?

When you really ask “According to Who?” on the question of immigration always being a good thing, you start to notice that they haven’t really thought about immigration at all or really understand the negative aspects. There are certainly positive aspects, but they know those. The funny thing about “BELIEFS” is that once formed, they become shortcuts of sorts in the mind for not thinking. A belief is already formed. The thinking is done. Thus no thinking is required. Beliefs are basically shortcuts to not thinking. Questioning a belief is what is challenging, especially an ill formed belief, perhaps a result of cultural programming that hasn’t been examined. Take the following conversation that I’ve pieced together from numerous interactions I’ve had with people on twitter:

Example: Immigration is out of control. We need to scale back! Response: But Ellis Island! Nation of Immigrants! Challenge of their weak assumption: We took 14 million immigrant’s total through Ellis Isalnds total duration. So, from 1892 to 1954, we took in 14 million immigrants. Period. That’s a healthy period for assimilation and not too big of a number. Currently, we are taking in 3 million immigrants in every year. 1 million legal, and 1 million illegal and another 1 million through family reunification and visa lottery laws. Further, we have anywhere from 20 to 40 million illegal aliens in the country right now. Don’t you think that a moratorium is in order so we can assimilate those that are here, and work toward a more cohesive America? You know, the melting pot? Their response: We need to fix the immigration system to make it easier for them to come legally! My response: But isn’t the problem that we have too many too fast? Shouldn’t we fix the issue? Their response: What are you racist? Who is going to do these jobs? American’s won’t do these jobs! My response: Americans will do those jobs and used to do them. As wages rise, this will correct itself. Their response: Give me your tired, your poor, your … My response: That was a poem, not law.

I’ve probably had hundreds of these types of interactions with people online and in real life. Usually it is democrats. Sometimes it is conservatives. Everytime, I notice that both are debating me from fundamental premise that immigration cannot be a bad thing, only a good thing. It’s bad enough many will try to conflate legal and illegal immigration, but why is it that we can never ask, how much is too much? Is this really benefiting us right now?

Starting Points for The Immigration Debate

Immigration is always good is a belief.

As such, let’s unpack this belief. It has always been a good thing? According to who? Who gets to decide this? The voters in 2016 certainly decided against this notion. There were never any harmful effects to it? Lack of assimilation isn’t a bad thing? Lack of unity? Overpopulation? Cultural erosion? Strained resources. Always good? Why can’t it be questioned? Who made it sacred? Isn’t a country supposed to put the interests of it’s citizens first?

Some might say immigration can be very bad. But I would say that we should look at it like this:

Immigration is a TOOL

This should always be the starting point of all debates.

Immigration is a tool to serve the national interest. Sometimes it can be good. Sometimes it can be bad. We should only use it when it is benefiting us and draw it back when it doesn’t benefit us. Immigration certainly ISN’T SACRED. We should carefully weight the concerns of our citizens and the national interest. We should never ever go against the wishes of our voters and we should only increase it with the permission of our voters.

Immigration Debate Spectrum (iDS)

You will note the following:

Immigration can go from Bad to Invasion Immigration can go from Good to Suicidal Altrusim The end result on both is harm to the national interest Immigration can either be good thing or a bad thing The debate isn’t how we can make it easier or we can “fix the system” or “reform” the system. Its either, is is good or is it bad at the current moment?

The most important Point:

Taken to extremes, you will end up with the same result, even if the debate or policy starts from the assumption that immigration is good or is fundamentally good.

What happen’s when you cross the line on either side of the debate spectrum?

This is what I call The Immigration Invasion Loop or iiL. Here is my official definition:

When immigration gets out of control or starts to harm the national interest, if not put in check, it will lead to invasion. Invasion can be anything ranging from immigration without assimilation, to migrant armies storming the border with the intent to take over the country. This concept also notes that immigration can start as a good thing, but then become bad through reckless altruism. In this case, the reckless altruism will lead to the same end result as an army invading: Invasion. Two things are clear: When we acknowledge reality, we can do things to change it. When we don’t, we become blind to the disaster that is upon us. This is a simple model for explaining that we should fix immigration related problems before they become a disaster, and that, a disaster can come from the best of intentions when it comes to immigration. Either way, a disaster awaits if we allow bad to become terrible, and the good to become bad, as the bad will then, too, become terrible.

Why name this phenomenon?

Put simply, naming it allows us to categorize the debate. Being able to categorize it will allow us to recognize it when it is happening, and thus prevent it. When you really sit down and think about this — in the context of world history — it all seems common sense, doesn’t it? Moderation! Don’t take something to excess. One would think so. But we don’t live in a time of common sense. Even speaking of putting the American People first is blasphemy in certain quarters of the country. Applying a label to this phenomenon is certainly a product of the politically correct times we live in. I thought about the following Baltasar Gracian as I wrote this:

Do not become Bad from sheer Goodness. That is, by never getting into a temper. Such men without feeling are scarcely to be considered men. It does not always arise from laziness, but from sheer inability. To feel strongly on occasion is something personal: birds soon mock at the mawkin. It is a sign of good taste to combine bitter and sweet. All sweets is diet for children and fools. It is very bad to sink into such insensibility out of very goodness.

How did we get to this point where we couldn’t even question the validity of open borders? How did we get to a point where mere moderation of our immigration policy is blasphemy? How did it get so bad?

This would probably take a book to explain, but I’ll save that for another time. What’s important now is getting the public debate back on to a proper path.

Recognition of Reality

Some will say legal immigration is great. Some will say illegal immigration is bad. Some will say there is no such thing as a illegal immigration. Some will cry for open borders. Some will say all immigration is bad.

I am saying immigration is merely a tool. It isn’t sacred. It’s a tool. Sometimes the hammer is just what is needed; sometimes it isn’t. So it goes for immigration. The impetus for me writing this was to help people realize that we can have a debate on immigration without defaulting to the default starting position of so many: immigration is either good or sacred. When you assume that start position, even when the prescription is a moratorium, it will be far harder to argue.

It is neither. It CAN be good. It CAN be bad. Recognition of this reality is step 1. If you constantly debate people on their turf, you will lose. Many people who want a moratorium, and by all objective evidence, a moratorium is what is needed, will cede the ground simply because there haven’t recognized the reality, are afraid to recognize reality, or afraid to state the reality.

Shift the frame

Undoubtedly the next time you get in a debate with somebody on this issue, the most important thing you can do when somebody starting claiming immigration cannot be questioned is to SHIFT THE FRAME. Ex:

Person: We are a nation of immigrants. We have to fix our “broken system” to make it easier to come here legally. You: We are actually a nation of citizens. Immigrant’s come to our country, when we allow them, as guests. They have the opportunity to become citizens should we allow them. Our system isn’t broken, our laws simply haven’t been enforced. It is disservice to our citizen’s that our laws aren’t enforced. When immigration is good, it can be very beneficial. Sometimes like right now, it can be very bad. Here’s X, Y, Z proposal…. and we need to do this BECAUSE x,y and z.

Hold the frame. Never, ever accept their language. Never use “undocumented” or “unauthorized” or “act of love” or any of their language. When you use their language, you accept their terms for the debate; thus you lose ground.

Internalize It.

The key with all this is you have to internalize this notion. This won’t be easy, as you’ve probably been subject to brainwashing your entire life regarding this topic. The good news is, you are reading this right now. You know something is wrong. You know illegal immigration is bad. You know even legal immigration is out of control. Deep down, you can feel it. How is it that our own government seems to care more about the citizens of foreign nations than those of their own?

Say it: Immigration is a tool. It isn’t sacred. It’s a tool.

Internalize the belief.

The scary thing is, when you begin to believe that immigration is a tool even more, you start to realize that even tools can become weapons.

Immigration a weapon? Used by who? And against who?

Can you IMAGINE anybody who is using immigration as a weapon against a country?