As the crisis on America’s southern border intensifies and worsens, it is highly appropriate to revisit the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. This is a controversial topic and the socialist Democrat Party and its megaphones in the mainstream media wish to silence any rational discussion of this subject with a single pejorative: “racist.” Yet, immigration is an issue that is inevitably linked to the greater issues of national sovereignty and national identity. It is really a matter of the survival of the nation-state itself.
On the eve of Patrick Buchanan’s challenge to President Bush in the 1992 Republican primaries, he did an interview on David Brinkley’s Sunday program on ABC. He asked an interesting question. What if tomorrow, Virginia was suddenly flooded with a million Englishmen or a million Zulus from Africa. Which group would be easier to assimilate and create fewer problems for the people of Virginia? Of course, the left predictably said this was a racist query. But, was it really? Or was it a reasonable question?
The simple answer to Buchanan’s question, one that almost any person would offer, is that it would be easier for Virginia to assimilate one million Englishmen. After all, the United States of America were originally 13 colonies of England. The colonists were ruled by the English king. They spoke the English language and followed English common law. The first settlers to America came from England. Yes, the Pilgrims were indeed from England, not El Salvador!
Of course, to the open borders crowd, the mere suggestion that some people might be easier to assimilate than others is indicative of a “racist” mentality. Globalists — like the billionaire elitist, Nazi collaborator and currency manipulator George Soros — who reject the very idea of the nation-state and national sovereignty envision a borderless world with uncontrolled mass migration of peoples and cultures. After all, in what pathetically passes as the mind of the left, that is their “right.” Nations are just artificial constructs; they are as easily erased as created. A person in Uganda or Sri Lanka has just as much right to be a citizen of Germany or France as an individual born and raised in those countries.
The European Union itself is a ham-handed attempt to abolish the nation-state and it has resulted in the once-Christian nations of Europe being overwhelmed by Muslim migrants from North Africa. With increasing speed, the nations of the Old World are seeing their national identities and cultures subordinated to the European superstate. Churches are replaced by mosques. Mohammed becomes the most popular name for newborn boys in Great Britain. A Tower of Babel of languages overtakes London, Paris and Rome. Cardinal Robert Sarah — an African — warns that the West will soon disappear and Islam will reign in the nations that produced Shakespeare, Dante, Michelangelo, Chopin and Vincent Van Gogh.
Now, what if the shoe were on the other foot? What if tens of millions of Britons, French, Germans and Italians invaded the Islamic nations of the Middle East? What if these European nationals engaged in a recolonization of the lands they largely abandoned after World War II: Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, Tunisia, Egypt. Would the inhabitants of those lands welcome their former conquerors back, to tear down their mosques and shrines and replace them with Catholic cathedrals and Protestant churches? Would they welcome them back to impose their European languages and Christian holidays? Would they applaud having their systems of law and government dismantled and replaced with Western representative democracies? Our former nation-building President George W. Bush tried to do something along those lines a decade ago in Iraq and it didn’t turn out too well.
It seems as if it is perfectly acceptable to abolish the language, religion, culture, and history of the West but it would be an appalling violation of the rights and self-determination of the Muslim peoples of the Middle East to impose Western values and systems upon them. Sounds like a double-standard to me.
We face the same situation in America with the problem of illegal immigration and the convoys of migrant caravans that continue to invade our nation. The Democrats in Congress refuse to change the crazy asylum laws that are permitting this invasion. They refuse to give the President the resources to secure the border. Some of them are even calling for tearing down existing barriers and deep-sixing ICE.
Why? Are they not Americans too? The unfortunate answer is that they, too, are globalists. They don’t believe in the nation-state. That means they reject America as a unique Constitutional republic based on the systems of language, government and law we inherited from our British ancestors. No, to them, America is merely a slab of land separated by two oceans. It is a land born of white male privilege, slavery, inequality and colonialism. Those who achieved financial or economic success here did it not because of skill or sweat but because they stole the wealth of someone else.
Therefore, why is America worth fighting for? Why defend its borders? Let everyone in and let them bring their poverty, crime, gangs, and foreign languages and traditions with them. There is no need to assimilate them. We will just let the American taxpayers pay for education in their native tongue and their health care, while ensuring they have access to welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing. We will guarantee that road signs and ballots will be written in Spanish and that they have driver's licenses. We will let greedy employers hire them over native-born Americans without penalty.
They will have all the perks and privileges of citizenship by simply crossing the border. After all, what is American citizenship if we are all “citizens of the world?” Let’s just turn the United States into the “polyglot boarding-house for the world” that President Theodore Roosevelt condemned more than a century ago.
Of course, we go back to the double-standard. If Catholic Mexico were tomorrow flooded by tens of millions of blond, blue-eyed Protestant Scandinavians, would Mexico still be Mexico? Would the Mexican government permit its religion, language, culture and history to be abolished in favor of a new cultural paradigm imposed by Swedes, Norwegians and Danes? Would the Mexican government rewrite its laws to accommodate the newly arrived immigrants? Would they be taught in Mexican schools the language of Eric the Red and the history of the Vikings? Would aebelskiver take the place of flan? Would they receive “free” public services?
There is nothing “racist” about respecting the unique, God-given differences among the many peoples of the world. That is the diversity that the liberals are always shouting about. There is nothing “racist” about believing in the nation-state and the preservation of national identity. Religion, language, culture and history define who we are, where we came from, and what we believe. They are what we see in the faces of our children and grandchildren and in the photographs of our parents and grandparents. We have a right and obligation to protect and defend our heritage from the globalist destroyers who are the true racists — the would-be world controllers who would abolish all races, religions and cultures to create their godless New World Order.
Dr. James Veltmeyer is a prominent La Jolla physician voted “Top Doctor” in San Diego County in 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017. Dr. Veltmeyer can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.