Monday, August 7, 2017

Interview: Does America need mass immigration? The Remembrance Project does not think so

This is the second of four articles spanning my discussion with Maria Espinoza and Tim Lyng. Read the first article here.

Story by Joseph Ford Cotto
After several years on the back burner, serious talk about enforcing immigration law finally returned – thanks to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. With his election, executive-level action was at long last taken. (Read more here)

Joseph Ford Cotto: Some believe that America needs mass immigration now more than ever. They say that such a thing will reinvigorate the economy. What would you say to left-leaners who hold this view?

Maria Espinoza and Tim LyngFirst, Mass immigration is never good for a country that is experiencing high unemployment, as is the U.S., where there are over 92 million Americans out of work. These are Americans who are so discouraged with the low prospects of employment that they have given up on looking. In today's climate of mass migration into Europe and mass invasion into the U.S. by illegal aliens, assimilation is not attained, directly giving rise to divisiveness within communities that’s running rampantly out of control.  So, based upon the evidence, mass immigration is bad for any country, and its citizens.

Second, what America needs is not mass migration, rather a massive reduction in entitlements to Americans that discourages employment, independent thinking and self dependence of its citizens.  And, of course, no one illegally in the US should have access to social benefits.

Third, over the last 50 years, girls and boys alike have been taught that women cannot gain self-respect and self-fulfillment while also bearing and raising children.  This has led to a dramatic decrease in reproductive rates in the native-born U.S. population.  I, too, believe that you cannot make America great by birthing immigrants into the U.S.  Solving the population crisis, if there is one, can only be solved through a serious discussion of how men and women, husbands and wives, can best fulfill God’s  plan to go forth and multiply.  

Fourth, the oppressive behavior that many immigrants wish to escape is brought to their new countries, only to have their ill-fated politics, mores and beliefs clash with western civilized culture.  It is unwise for a nation to invite this level of diversity into its society.  It breeds divisiveness.

Cotto: What would you tell right-leaners who hold the aforementioned view?

Espinoza and LyngI would tell them the same thing.

Cotto: To what extent was Trump's victory a repudiation of post-1965 American immigration policy, which has been embraced by both major parties?

Espinoza and LyngIs there a “post-1965 American immigration policy, which has been embraced by both major parties”?  I would rank that only partially true.  Here is what I think:
  • Democrat Party in its entirety answer: YES.  
  • Republican Party answer for RINO’s, YES.  But its origin is quite “Democrat”.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was introduced by Democrats in a fully Democrat controlled Congress and Presidency, and passage was based upon perceived prejudices in the 1924 immigration act, amended in 1952, which heavily favored a few European countries.  This 1965 act opened immigration to many other countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.  And it also was specifically designed to re-unite immigrants with their family members “left behind” in previous years.  Congressional proponents and President Johnson, at the time, touted that the bill “would not significantly affect our American culture” and would “not affect the lives of millions”.  In the 50 plus years that followed, the result has been quite the opposite. (Sound familiar?)

In my opinion, very few Americans know what the 1965 immigration act did, so to suggest that the election was a conscious repudiation of the act is probably not true.  However, many do understand that the H1B was supposed to be for foreign “geniuses” and never lived up to its name.  Americans also understand that the law has been used to import lower waged, mostly college educated foreigners, resulting in millions of qualified Americans being locked-out, often thrown-out, of jobs they will do, want and need.  Under one program, (OPT), there is no requirement for U.S. employers to pay the prevailing wage and no requirement to protect domestic workers, directly resulting in millions of fewer jobs for Americans.  And Americans understand when Donald Trump says “American jobs for American workers.”  I stand with President Trump and the American worker.

But there is also what the 1965 immigration law DID NOT do.  The 1965 bill certainly DID NOT open the door to illegal aliens to invade our nation, DID NOT invite Mexican and other foreign gangs to sneak in millions of pounds of illegal drugs each year. It DID NOT invite the abduction of young girls and boys, taken from their native homes, to become sex slaves in America.  And it certainly DID NOT invite illegal aliens across to take over industries that were worked by millions of blue-collar Americans, or to kill Americans, our Stolen Lives victims.  Stopping this was one of, if not the primary element, in Donald Trump’s victory.  One does not have to look further than this see and understand why the voters clearly and resoundingly repudiated the left and its suicidal addiction to open borders.   

No comments:

Post a Comment