Column: Many attitudes on immigration are tainted by false premises

The Radical Left never tires of making bogus immigration arguments, all based on a major false premise and many false sub-premises as well. The major false premise is that the purpose of immigration is to help those in other countries who are popularly referred to as “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.”


Note to the open-borders crowd: These words do not constitute a law – or even an official government policy. They are nothing more than a couple of lines in a poem that appear on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty.

The author of these words – in the sonnet The New Colossus – was a woman named Emma Lazarus. As one would suspect, she was a poet, not a legislator.

It’s not just that her words have no legal meaning. They do not even express the feelings of millions of American citizens regarding immigration. On the contrary, they are the subjective feelings of one woman. Thus, those who imply that they represent some sort of official U.S. policy on immigration are either uninformed or intent on misleading low-information people.

The reality is that no one has a right to become a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. So-called progressives love to scream and yell about the rights of those who want to come to America and those who already are here illegally. However, such “rights” are based on the false premise that noncitizens have constitutional rights. They do not. The Constitution specifically protects the rights of American citizens and no one else.

Notwithstanding the phony and pathetic pleas of Barack Obama – “This is not who we are as a nation” – the simple fact is that Americans do not have a moral obligation to welcome anyone into their country. One can be sympathetic to the plight of hundreds of millions people around the globe who are living lives of quiet desperation, but that doesn’t mean he has to favor unrestricted immigration.

If we opened the doors to all those who are living in poverty and oppression in other countries, the United States population would quickly exceed 1 billion and the country would collapse into economic and social chaos. Why would any who is concerned about the quality of life of Americans want that for their country?

One time, loud and clear: The purpose of immigration is not to help people in other countries. The one and only purpose of immigration is to benefit America and Americans by bringing in men and women who can add value to the country and thereby improve the lives of its citizens.

The immigration policies of countries such as Australia and New Zealand make it clear that they do not want the tired, the poor, or the huddled masses. What they want are doctors, scientists and engineers – and then only if they have a shortage of those professionals in their country. Wealthy people who can contribute financially to the economy are, of course, also welcome.

Of course, the worst excuse of all for ignoring merit-based immigration is the desire to make America “more diverse.” Sorry, but immigration was never intended to be a social experiment – and certainly not a lottery.


The “diversity lottery” is a very bad joke, a symbol of America’s decline into the depths of depravity and insanity. And, as we saw with the recent terrorist attack in New York, it can have deadly consequences.

The claim that “diversity is America’s greatest strength” is the biggest of all lies. The truth is that diversity is America’s greatest weakness. We see this not only in America, but in countries such as Germany, France and Belgium, where far-left leaders have destroyed their once-proud cultures with immigration policies that ignore the wants and needs of their own citizens.

Understand that when I use the term “diversity,” I am referring only to a person’s cultural beliefs and practices.

The hard truth is that culturalism, which has been around since the dawn of civilization, is the underpinning of a civilized society. The reality that those on the Radical Left (and many in the Republican-In-Name-Only camp) refuse to accept is that people prefer to be around others who are culturally most like them and – the corollary – they have little desire to be in proximity to those who are culturally different.

Using myself as an example, I wouldn’t mind at all if I never had contact with anyone in the Radical Left. Why would I want to be in proximity to uncouth cultural zombies who are prone to violence?

Then there’s the DREAMers scam. That argument – that people who qualify under the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act are innocent because their parents brought them here when they were small children – is nothing but a diversion from the real issue that they did, in fact, come here illegally.

It may not be their fault that their parents broke the law, but it’s also not a justifiable reason to reward them. To be rewarded for being brought to America illegally would give other non-citizen parents an incentive to continue breaking the law.


Finally, there’s the issue of illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes. The Radical Left’s argument is that illegal immigrants do not commit any more crimes than legal citizens, which is really a non-argument. Just because we have criminals in the United States is no reason to bring in more criminals.

As painful as it may be for Trump haters to hear, the final word on immigration comes from the president. He alone, has the authority to ban foreigners from entering the country, so long as he has a “rational basis” for believing they pose a threat to the nation’s security. If challenged, of course, it’s up to the courts to judge whether his basis is rational.

One last time for the benefit of liberals: People who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States have no constitutional rights, and pretending like they do is beyond annoying.

That said why don’t we stop tiptoeing and tell it like it really is: Bringing in immigrants who are low-skilled, do not speak our language and have different cultural values really is nothing more than a political scheme to add Democratic voters to the registration rolls. And, at least until recently, most Republicans have seemed to be just fine with that. It will be interesting to see if their monumental sellout continues.

The writer is an author, motivational speaker and entrepreneur.



Sun, 02/25/2018 - 00:25

Letter: How to provide for officers

Sun, 02/25/2018 - 00:25

Rick McKee Editorial Cartoon

Sun, 02/25/2018 - 00:25

Editorial: Christianity a soft target