Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

[Benvolio]

Anti-immigrant has always meant racism. The burden of proof is on those against immigration to show evidence that they are not racist. So far, it's mostly been a fail.

That is very silly. The country owes it to our people, including the poor and unemployed to make an intelligent decision based on what is good for Americans.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That is very silly. The country owes it to our people, including the poor and unemployed to make an intelligent decision based on what is good for Americans.

Going by the historical record what's good for Americans is to continue to have immigration as we have had for all of our history, and to not have the discriminatory immigration exclusions we've experimented with in the past.

 

[Rolyo85]

Going by the historical record what's good for Americans is to continue to have immigration as we have had for all of our history, and to not have the discriminatory immigration exclusions we've experimented with in the past.

Well, he doesn't do history. Next argument.

 

[Rolyo85]

What's fascinating to me is that Benvolio's responses never actually address the points made by the people he responds to. He just keeps repeating his tired ass speculations and fear mongering. For example, did we learn from his response to buzzer why he is NOT in fact the 21st century counterpart of the people who feared and hated Italians and Irish? No, we did not. Has he addressed the fact that he opposes any sort of help for minorities and the poor? No, he has not. Has he ever provided an argument as to how immigration is a threat NOW, though it somehow wasn't when his grand-parents were coming into the States? No, he has not.

I can make a list of tens of points made in response to his absurd claims about immigration, yet not a single one has ever been addressed by this anti-immigration crusader.

 

[opinterph]

opinterph, … Surely you realize that an attack on the motives of opponents is not a logical reason to continue. And you can see the illogic of arguments such as "we are a nation of immigrants."

When the root philosophy engaged by “opponents” includes admission of overt racism as a primary component of its motivation, attack of that philosophy is justified.

Do you doubt that democrats want much higher taxes on Americans, or that immigrants, voting democrat will further that end?

Would it make a difference if undocumented aliens currently residing in the country “could live legally and without fear in the U.S.,” but not be offered a special path to citizenship? (NOTE: Absence of citizenship would prevent them from voting.)

Standards for Immigration Reform (Speaker of the House, John Boehner; January 28, 2014)​

You cannot doubt that the ethnicity, culture, values will be substantially changed. Why is it wrong for Americans to wish to protect those?

American citizens are free to exercise their respective variety of ethnicity, culture, and values. If other varieties of those elements are subsequently incorporated into the citizen population, American citizens will continue to be free to exercise their respective variety of those elements. There is no reasonable expectation that all Americans are, or should be, homogeneous.

No immigrant has a right to come except insofar as the laws give them a right.

And the laws currently grant that right to a million or so individuals per year, which is generally understood to be beneficial to the wellbeing of the nation.

 

[Benvolio]

When the root philosophy engaged by “opponents” includes admission of overt racism as a primary component of its motivation, attack of that philosophy is justified.




Would it make a difference if undocumented aliens currently residing in the country “could live legally and without fear in the U.S.,” but not be offered a special path to citizenship? (NOTE: Absence of citizenship would prevent them from voting.)

Standards for Immigration Reform (Speaker of the House, John Boehner; January 28, 2014)​

American citizens are free to exercise their respective variety of ethnicity, culture, and values. If other varieties of those elements are subsequently incorporated into the citizen population, American citizens will continue to be free to exercise their respective variety of those elements. There is no reasonable expectation that all Americans are, or should be, homogeneous.




And the laws currently grant that right to a million or so individuals per year, which is generally understood to be beneficial to the wellbeing of the nation.

You may attack the underlying motive,but logically that should not be decisive. The decision should be a weighing of benefits, if any,to Americans versus the detrimental effect on wages, poverty, unemployment. Tax burdens, crime, education, health care etc. remember, the proponents of immigration have their own ulterior motives, including low wages and democrat voting.
It would certainly be better if first generation immigrants did not have the right to vote burdens on Americans and benefits for themselves.
For the first two hundred and fifty years of our history, Americans had a general consensus that the goal was assimilation into one culture, I.e. the melting pot. E Pluribus Unum. That consensus included meaningful democracy, the free enterprise economy, and Judeo Christian values. it made us strong and enormously sucessful. It was embodied in the law in various forms. But, the majority vited Republican. So, Without a vote of the people or an announcement of change of purpose, the democrats decided that diversity and multiculturalism would be imposed in place of unity, socialism instead of free enterprise and immigration designed to erode the majority

 

[Benvolio]

You may attack the underlying motive,but logically that should not be decisive. The decision should be a weighing of benefits, if any,to Americans versus the detrimental effect on wages, poverty, unemployment. Tax burdens, crime, education, health care etc. remember, the proponents of immigration have their own ulterior motives, including low wages and democrat voting.
It would certainly be better if first generation immigrants did not have the right to vote burdens on Americans and benefits for themselves.
For the first two hundred and fifty years of our history, Americans had a general consensus that the goal was assimilation into one culture, I.e. the melting pot. E Pluribus Unum. That consensus included meaningful democracy, the free enterprise economy, and Judeo Christian values. it made us strong and enormously sucessful. It was embodied in the law in various forms. But, the majority vited Republican. So, Without a vote of the people or an announcement of change of purpose, the democrats decided that diversity and multiculturalism would be imposed in place of unity, socialism instead of free enterprise and immigration designed to erode the majority

Continuing. Liberals do not even like to think that there IS an American culture but there is and it has been one of the great cultures of history. Divisiveness and disunity are the inevitable result of diversity and multiculturalism. The empowers the democrat party but destroy the consensus and weaken the country and economy.
Yes, the law allows a million or so legal immigrants a year and is now specifically designed to erode the majority and consensus. The law winks at the invasion of hundreds of thousands more. The laws should be changed.
Allowing immigrants without the vote does not solve the deleterious effect on wages, poverty, unemployment, the environment, tax burdens, health care, education, crime, and every problem that America has.

 

[Benvolio]

opinterph, I have given several lengthy responses to your posts. I think you should make some attempt to explain why you think the benefits of large scale immigration exceed the negative effects on poverty, wages, employment, crime, housing, the environment, education, health care etc. Surely you realize that an attack on the motives of opponents is not a logical reason to continue. And you can see the illogic of arguments such as "we are a nation of immigrants."

I renew my request that you attempt to show that benefits of immigration exceed the detriments.

 

[Benvolio]

Continuing. Liberals do not even like to think that there IS an American culture but there is and it has been one of the great cultures of history. Divisiveness and disunity are the inevitable result of diversity and multiculturalism. The empowers the democrat party but destroy the consensus and weaken the country and economy.
Yes, the law allows a million or so legal immigrants a year and is now specifically designed to erode the majority and consensus. The law winks at the invasion of hundreds of thousands more. The laws should be changed.
Allowing immigrants without the vote does not solve the deleterious effect on wages, poverty, unemployment, the environment, tax burdens, health care, education, crime, and every problem that America has.

Excuse the glitches. Using an iPad is a constant struggle. Fine print, aggressive spell check getting it wrong and premature finishes starting the 10 minute limit to end and correct.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Continuing. Liberals do not even like to think that there IS an American culture but there is and it has been one of the great cultures of history. Divisiveness and disunity are the inevitable result of diversity and multiculturalism. The empowers the democrat party but destroy the consensus and weaken the country and economy.

That is because melting pot is and always has been largely myth or wishful thinking, and the process by which newcomer immigrants to a different host culture assimilate follows virtually scientifically observable trends that are consistent across groups and anyone educated in Sociology could tell you this. It will vary only in cases where the host country or events and circumstances within it are unusually repressive or unusually punitive towards difference, such as in the case of Koreans born in Japan but who have to go so far as to legally change their name to an adopted Japanese name to avoid the most overt types of prejudice against them in the working and business worlds, where a Korean name will cause doors to slam. Aside from cases like that (and your potential wish or desire for America to be as unwelcoming notwithstanding) nearly every group follows the same pattern: first generation immigrants never lose their native tongue as their primary language, and will most often only use the newly acquired language outside of the home and "as necessary." Second generation children of immigrants will most frequently possess some bilingual ability, even if that is in the form of they can completely understand their parents' language in the home setting but are uncomfortable speaking it aloud, and will frequently be translators or cultural brokers for their parents. Third generation has nearly always lost the original language spoken by their grandparents outside of a few words and phrases, and their strongest and most enduring attachment to the original culture will be cuisine.

The degree of intolerance a society displays towards other cultures or other languages may cause a variance in how often you will encounter other languages spoken aloud in public in society, but it doesn't change these basic characteristics of the process of cultural assimilation. Excepting people who immigrate as relatively younger children ("1.5th generation immigrants") who grow up primarily in the new culture despite having first learned another language, first generation immigrants rarely become truly fluent in the adopted language, and rarely give up their first language at home. And they almost never speak the new language without an accent strong enough for others to be able to tell immediately that it is an acquired language.

These same arguments, by the way-- that immigrants "used" to do things a certain, better way, and were of a better stock who tried harder to be good Americans, and that this has given way to a less desirable stock of immigrants, with worse customs and less desirable culture, who are behaving as worse Americans with less desire to assimilate, was also made, very very widely, in the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. This rhetoric is utterly nothing new whatsoever.

 

[Vitamin]

These same arguments, by the way-- that immigrants "used" to do things a certain, better way, and were of a better stock who tried harder to be good Americans, and that this has given way to a less desirable stock of immigrants, with worse customs and less desirable culture, who are behaving as worse Americans with less desire to assimilate, was also made, very very widely, in the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. This rhetoric is utterly nothing new whatsoever.

But you forget that Ben doesn't like the late 19th/early 20th century immigrants either. For him, the only good immigrants were the ones that came on the Mayflower, not anyone after and certainly not any before...

 

[Benvolio]

But you forget that Ben doesn't like the late 19th/early 20th century immigrants either. For him, the only good immigrants were the ones that came on the Mayflower, not anyone after and certainly not any before...

When did I say anything like that?

 

[xbuzzerx]

When did I say anything like that?

You made the argument that the Irish/Italian/Etc. immigration of the early 20th century was bad because it hurt domestic American workers and especially hurt blacks.

 

[Rolyo85]

What's fascinating to me is that Benvolio's responses never actually address the points made by the people he responds to. He just keeps repeating his tired ass speculations and fear mongering. For example, did we learn from his response to buzzer why he is NOT in fact the 21st century counterpart of the people who feared and hated Italians and Irish? No, we did not. Has he addressed the fact that he opposes any sort of help for minorities and the poor? No, he has not. Has he ever provided an argument as to how immigration is a threat NOW, though it somehow wasn't when his grand-parents were coming into the States? No, he has not. I can make a list of tens of points made in response to his absurd claims about immigration, yet not a single one has ever been addressed by this anti-immigration crusader.

My post continues to be factual.

 

[Kulindahr]

No immigrant has a right to come except insofar as the laws give them a right.

And the laws currently grant that right to a million or so individuals per year, which is generally understood to be beneficial to the wellbeing of the nation.

Governments cannot grant rights -- they can only either defend and aid them, or impede and penalize them.

 

[Kulindahr]

For the first two hundred and fifty years of our history, Americans had a general consensus that the goal was assimilation into one culture, I.e. the melting pot. E Pluribus Unum. That consensus included meaningful democracy, the free enterprise economy, and Judeo Christian values. it made us strong and enormously sucessful. It was embodied in the law in various forms. But, the majority vited Republican. So, Without a vote of the people or an announcement of change of purpose, the democrats decided that diversity and multiculturalism would be imposed in place of unity, socialism instead of free enterprise and immigration designed to erode the majority

You don't advocate E Pluribus Unum, you advocate Reductio Ad Unum.

The "melting pot" has always been a false image of the U.S., and the way you present it, it's actually un-American. We've been a stew pot at best, many groups keeping many aspects of their unique heritage while lending their flavor to a shared identity.

Your words in bold are just fantasy. No one had to decide we would have diversity or "multiculturalism", we've always had it. People have always been free to keep their own language, their own religion, their own customs -- that's part of what the country was founded on! What bound us together was agreement on the principle that that was how it should be, that every person has the right of self-determination.

"One culture" has always been the cry of racism and inequality. It's directly contrary to the Declaration of Independence and the principles of the US Constitution. "Dual culture" would actually describe better what made the country strong: the belief and conviction that while we share a certain heritage, part of that heritage is the insistence that we can all be different in whatever ways we wish. Irish- and German- and Italian-Americans didn't fight beside each other in World War II because they'd been reduced to one culture, but because they were all equally part of a single country and dream that embraced their different cultures.

 

[opinterph]

[Attacking] the underlying motive … should not be decisive.

For the first two hundred and fifty years of our history, Americans had a general consensus that the goal was assimilation into one culture … meaningful democracy, the free enterprise economy, and Judeo Christian values. it made us strong and enormously sucessful.

I seem to recall some expressions of discordant conflict along the way.

democrats decided that diversity and multiculturalism would be imposed in place of unity

Maybe a better word is coalition.

I renew my request that you attempt to show that benefits of immigration exceed the detriments.

I will keep that in mind.

The challenge I perceive is that you have never successfully demonstrated how immigration harms America. You’ve added numerous anecdotal, unsubstantiated, or perhaps speculative observations to a variety of discussions. But the evidence to support those “slogans” is lacking.

I have been watching and researching this concept for quite some time and the closest match to any formal exposition of the viewpoints you express relative to immigration is that of Steve Sailer. Indeed, as I noted above his argument / moral theory / concept / political philosophy appears to have found its way into the lexicon of a number of contemporary political leaders and media operatives. I would enjoy learning what you consider to be the source of your view, though I suppose you can argue that it is your own.

If you are inclined to suggest the latter, then you owe the forum more than another recital of the unsubstantiated. An absence of factual substance directs attribution to the originator of the philosophy – the guy who first published and made it “famous.”

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" (September 2012)

Ann Coulter Rips Marco Rubio Over Inmigration Reform. (January 2013)

Native American PWNS immigration protest (February 2013)

Raise the minimum wage now (February 2013)

Income Inequality Flash Video (March 2013)

Republican Congressman Uses Racial Slurs Against Mexicans (March 2013)

Give us your tired your poor, yearning for welfare and bombs. (April 2013)

"Low-IQ Hispanics" Scholar at Heritage Foundation Resigns (May 2013)

It is Now Politically Correct for Liberals to Think Logically about Immigration (June 2013)[SUP]*[/SUP]

Effects of Immigration Reform and Demographics in US Presidential Elections (June 2013)

Immigration and Crime (October 2013)

On Gay Republicans . . . (November 2013)

Will unemployment benefits be extended? (January 2014)

What Happens When You Just Hand Out Money to Poor People? (January 2014)​

[SUP]*[/SUP]Echoes of Separation

 

[Benvolio]

You seem to be saying we should continue to allow massive importation of poor and unemployed until someone absolutely proves we should not. Logically, the reverse should be true. We should not import poverty and unemployment unless we have a good reason, unless, of course, you think poverty and unemployment are good things. It is increasingly clear that you thinking is entirely based on the logical fallacy of ad hominem reasoning. It must be good because the opponents are all bad people. Beyond that you are afraid to deviate from the dogmas of political correctness.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You seem to be saying we should continue to allow massive importation of poor and unemployed until someone absolutely proves we should not. Logically, the reverse should be true. We should not import poverty and unemployment unless we have a good reason

If this had always been standard operating procedure, would you be here?

Are you acknowledging that your presence in the U.S., and that of your family, has been a net negative and a drain on the country?

Given your views about minimum wage workers and about lower income people in this country in general, it seems fairly safe to assume you do not compete with them for jobs or resources, and will never be in the position of having your job threatened by newly arrived "poor, unemployed" immigrants. So if you claim that your motive here is not xenophobic or racist, what is your motivation in all of this?

You have demonstrated more than amply that you are no particular friend to the lower working class or the urban poor or to poor minorities in the country in absolutely any other regard, you haven't even denied that this is the case, yet you expect us to believe that your sole and driving motivation for wanting to keep immigrants out is to help these same people you do not seem to believe deserve or warrant any help in any other discussion.

 

[Kulindahr]

You seem to be saying we should continue to allow massive importation of poor and unemployed until someone absolutely proves we should not. Logically, the reverse should be true. We should not import poverty and unemployment unless we have a good reason, unless, of course, you think poverty and unemployment are good things. It is increasingly clear that you thinking is entirely based on the logical fallacy of ad hominem reasoning. It must be good because the opponents are all bad people. Beyond that you are afraid to deviate from the dogmas of political correctness.

If my ancestors had followed this, maybe we could have kept out the Puritans and the racists.

As for allowing immigrants, you've never actually even addressed the root issues, or rather root issue, because it comes down to self-ownership. Instead you turn to pragmatism -- the very approach you reject in favor of ideology when it comes to economics.