Regular readers can skip over most of this entry; nothing here that I haven’t said before.
Ilana Mercer writes (WorldNetDaily: Immolation by immigration):
Thanks to immigration policy, he [Bill Clinton] told a cheering high-school audience, “In little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.”
Implied in Clinton’s jubilation, and in that of “the permanent government of bureaucrats, mediacrats, educrats, assorted policy wonks and intellectuals,” is the following: 1) The American European historical majority was a bad thing; it needed to be cut back through state intervention and centralized oversight. 2) Immigration to the U.S is a universal right.
The historical majority never got to debate these empty assumptions.
Unfortunately, the nearest Mercer comes to debating them is to remind us that
the nation was never founded as a multicultural nation, at least not in the manner in which the term is enforced nowadays.
Neither was it founded on ethnicity or culture; the Constitution does not say “new States may be admitted into this union if their inhabitants are mostly Christians of British descent.” The defining traits of Americans, in my humble opinion, are not so much cultural as ethical.
There are Americans in prison now for doing what Americans do naturally: extending casual charity (e.g. picking up hitchhikers) without asking for credentials. And they tell us this is necessary to protect our culture?! What damage can aliens do that is worse than compelling Americans to treat every stranger with suspicion of carrying contagious bureaucratic cooties?
Mercer goes on:
While illegal immigration is logistically vexing, it should pose no problem of principle. Every sane individual agrees that the roughly 12 million illegals have no right to be here, and that repelling invaders who endanger the lives and property of nationals [!!] is an uncontested function of government.
It’s as obvious as the pope is Catholic to all except loony liberals, willfully misinformed utilitarians at the Wall Street Journal, and utopian libertarians, who get hopelessly lost somewhere between what “is” and what “ought to be.”
As in, between “Pablo is here” and “Pablo ought to be on the other side of that line”?
The Constitution calls for Congress to establish “an uniform rule of naturalization”, but it contains nothing to authorize Washington to decide for us whom we may hire. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment there can be no such authority. Mercer seems to invoke the principle that where the Constitution is silent the US government ought to behave as others do; I don’t think that’s what my ancestors fought for, and Article V removes the excuse of necessity.
I see by her website that Mercer grew up in Israel, and so might not have been admitted under the old ‘sane’ policy.