You can tell it’s an election year, because the Republicans are all of a sudden talking about the Constitution again. Not that I mind, of course, but it seems that they only start paying attention to it when the generally more conservative and constitutionalist Republican primary voters start paying attention to them. So suddenly, the political realm is filled with talk about what the Constitution says about every issue, from abortion to xylophone maintenance.
The problem that I see with this, however, is that at the same time as they are claiming their love and devotion to our founding document, most of these same politicians are pursuing policies relating to demographics and national sovereignty which are completely at odds with the perpetuation of the diluted remains of constitutional government. Put simply, the mainstream Republican pursuit of amnesty, open borders, and massive immigration (both legal and illegal) works to destroy the very Constitution they profess to be so concerned about.
We must consider the following as a truism: There is no such thing as magic soil. What I mean is that a person’s culture and upbringing do not change simply because that person occupies a new geographical location. An immigrant (regardless of their legality) will not automatically possess a new set of fundamental political, social, cultural, and moral attitudes, simply because they occupy a place on American soil, or even have gone through the extended process of formally attaining American citizenship. To see them acquire an American outlook to go along with their American residency requires time-consuming, extensive, and (in an ideal world) mandatory acculturation to our society and mores. In days gone by, our society and government both worked to try to make that happen (with a fairly good success rate). Unfortunately, our government has completely absconded (and is, in fact, hostile to) its responsibility to assimilate immigrants, and political correctness is increasingly tying the hands of anyone else who would seek to encourage immigrants to become genuine Americans in more than just a formal sense. Diversity–the death-knell of any advanced civilization–is becoming the norm, rather than just an unfortunate but temporary exception.
That, of course, greatly affects our political climate, which in turn affects the reverence for (and consequent adherence to) our Constitution. I believe that we can look at American history and see a steady erosion of our founding principles and constitutional government that goes hand in hand with our absorption of more and more immigrants from abroad.
Broadly speaking, there are three general “peak periods” of immigration to the United States. The first occurred roughly between 1830-1860, and was primarily made up of British and Irish workers and German political refugees, most of them fleeing the crackdowns after the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848. The second wave occurred between approximately 1880 and 1920, and was made up of large number of workers from southern and eastern Europe, though its early years also had a large Scandinavian component as well. This is the immigration that most people have in mind when they fetishize Ellis Island and “coming from the old country”. The third wave began with the liberalization of our laws in the early 1960s, and continues to this day. This wave is characterized by a much greater proportion of immigrants coming from non-European nations, primarily south and east Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and especially Mexico and Central America.
The first two waves of immigration were markedly different from the third. In those waves, the immigrants were largely from Europe, and came from cultures that were at least distantly related to America’s prevailing Anglo-Saxon culture. At the same time, there was pronounced encouragement of these immigrants to become Americans. From official government entry policy down to the social assumptions of the man on the street, our attitude towards immigrants was guardedly welcoming, but on the supposition that they would make the effort to fit into our culture, rather than expecting us to cater to theirs. There were no ballots printed in 75 different languages in those days. Immigrants learned English (if they didn’t know it already) or they starved. They were expected to be patriotic and to operate within our political and social norms. No “honor killings” or shari’a law would have been tolerated back then.
Despite this, we still see that these waves of immigration had a profound (and negative) impact on our political culture and constitutional fidelity. In the decades closely following each wave of immigration, massive changes were made to our government and political realm as the immigrants began to take their places in the pool of available voters.
The first wave brought with it a combination of unprecedented political corruption combined with German radicalism. It was on the heels of this wave that Tammany Hall really broke wide open as a political machine cultivating and controlling the votes of Irish immigrants in New York. It was also in this time period that the newly-formed Republican party adopted its radical turn at the behest of the many Germans in America, during whose dominance America essentially was changed from the federal representative Republic she was founded to be to the sort of increasingly majoritarian and unitary democratic state that bodes so poorly for individual liberties and states’ rights.
The second wave saw large numbers of immigrants come in from countries with authoritarian traditions–especially those from various areas in the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. Almost none of them came from countries with genuine traditions of individual liberty or some form of constitutional rule of law. As a result, these immigrants brought in with them the cultural preconception that government should both be obsequiously deferred to and looked to as a paternalistic provider. It was this wave of immigrants who provided fertile grounds for advancing and then cementing the so-called “progressive” movement that looked to technocratic government for all the answers to our problems, and which eventually culminated in Roosevelt’s New Deal.
In spite of the damage done by these waves, America still retained some of its original pristine constitutional purity in the 1950s and into the 1960s. Free speech, freedom of religion, and the rest of the Bill of Rights were still largely in place. Notwithstanding the rampant abuses of that document, the average citizen was still largely free to live as they pleased.
And then came the third wave of immigration to America.
This wave has featured, and continues to feature, huge numbers of immigrants who have absolutely no connection to limited government, no understanding of constitutional restrains on government, and no concern for natural rights and individual liberties. Indeed, in many cases, these immigrants come from places completely outside of any definition of Western civilization, and cannot be expected in any way, shape, or form to understand what American culture and society are really all about.
What’s worse, there is now (official or unofficially) no effort to assimilate these immigrants to American culture and civilization. In many cases, there is not even the expectation that these immigrants will contribute positively to American society even in a purely economic sense. Witness the many who come to America solely to partake of our “entitlements” largesse. Because no effort is made to assimilate them, the American polity continues to balkanize, the “melting pot” model giving way rapidly to the “rocky road ice cream” model where in the underlying substrate must make room for increasingly large and undissolved chunks of foreign objects.
It is coincident with this third wave that we have really seen the rise of undiluted, raw socialism in America. “Progressive” politicians have realized that it is advantageous to themselves to discourage the Americanization of immigrants, since this makes them less likely to reject the politicians’ offer of “free” goodies in exchange for votes. Because these immigrants largely have no understanding of or care for things like individual liberties or constitutional government, they are not in the least concerned that the giving of these goodies will require the loss of liberty and the destruction of constitutionalism. In other words, when you bring in millions of foreigners from socialistic countries with no real tradition of limited, constitutional government, you’ll eventually end up with a socialistic country with no more limited, constitutional government. When that happens, the government is free to take away every liberty you have, regardless of what that dusty ol’ Constitution has to say about the matter.
And that’s what the Democrats (as well as the establishment Republicans) want – a government that they can use to milk the hard-working people of this country for money and power.
This is why it is vitally important that the flow of immigrants into this country be halted, and those who are here be required to Americanize and assimilate, or else be asked to return to where they came from. America is not simply a geographical or political entity. It is a nation with its own unique culture, traditions, mores, and history. Like every other nation on Earth, America deserves to be able to defend and preserve her own traditions–one of which was limited constitutional government designed to safeguard liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny. If immigration presents a threat to that, then that immigration needs to be stopped until such a time as the “indigestible nugget” can be absorbed.
In other words, if you want to preserve (and maybe even restore) the Constitution, you need to make sure that you have a population that understands and believes in its principles to go along with it.
18 thoughts on “You Can’t Have a Constitution Without a Nation to Go With It”
well written. will use the rocky road ice cream meme. thanks.
Exactly why Trump is going to be the next President. I disliked the Elitist ProgreSSive Chamberpot Repubs before Trump began, but since the mad dog attacks by the Repub Estab I hate them with as much cold fury as their DemocRat cousins.
Start by ending the progressive narrative indoctrination our children are given via the Education Industrial Complex. That’s been the largest coup, letting the narrative be told that liberty was quaint and selfish, for a different era that tolerated…. slavery!
And Obama was even quoting the Constitution verbatim to support his power to nominate a SCOTUS judge, but ironically, any judge he would appoint would making rulings outside of or contrary to the actual verbatim fords of the Constitution.
Such an ending must be personal. This is where the commitment to homeschooling and alternative education must begin. Talking about an ending is fine, It’s the actual doing that’s hard.
One of the prerequisites is that homeschooling requires an at home parent. This then requires a traditional household division of labor and 1 income family. It flows that progressive ideas such as feminism should be quashed.
In short, the users of public education really cannot be saved. The meme of magic dirt is strong in schools, and may only be fought by withdrawing your children. The US citizens (not the same as Americans) that use the schools simply perpetuate un-american ideas. It is not going to change its course, and there is no time or opportunity to “infiltrate” the systems to counter the indoctrination.
This is why there must (and will be) radical and disruptive change. At the moment, this can be nonviolent through opting out. This will likely not be possible in the future.
You gotta figure at some point in time & between the space occupying apathy, complacency, ignorance & indolence some Americans figure out the DC Corporation was formed in 1871 Organic Act that actually runs the country. The fraud vitiates all of it but apparently tha minor detail hasn’t sunk in just yet.
Bring in more clowns….
Panem et Circenses
I keep reading these collectivist “stop the Mexicans” rants, but what are you going to do? People move from places where life is hard, to where it is easy. How are you going to stop that? What other compromises with our liberties are you willing to make to (attempt to) get it? Internal passports? Government permission to work? Constant raids on businesses, destroying the business climate? Road blocks?
The problem is welfare. Get rid of it and the immigration will go way down, and those who do come will want to work. These rants seem to be more along the line of, “How do we keep our socialism and welfare, while keeping immigrants from getting any?”
As to the Constitution, Lincoln killed it, if not the founders themselves with their ALIEN & Sedition Acts. I guess some people haven’t got the news yet. Today it functions only as a fig leaf covering the machinations of the oligarchy.
We haven’t had “limited constitutional government” since 1861. Sadly, people act like Obama’s the only President who has suddenly “violated” it.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Good summary. And to add a little to that, we must homeschool our children with a vision and a purpose. In my home, the entire system we live in is taught against, and preparation for my 9 children (and counting) to live independently from the system and build their own communities. We might not make all the ground we want to in the first generation, but we will at least take huge steps toward it.
“As to the Constitution,….Today it functions only as a fig leaf covering the machinations of the oligarchy.” Excellent statement there, Paul X!
We see that recently by Obama quoting the Constitution verbatim to support his power to nominate a SCOTUS judge. That is the only time they cite the actual wording, just to support the nuts and bolts of the government operations in which they work to usurp powers and attack our rights.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” –Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
True, he’s just the latest in a long line. People think they voted “change” from Bush, but all they is more!
Could someone please clarify which part of constitution is being destroyed by the pursuit of amnesty, open borders, and massive immigration? Not that I agree with it, I don’t see the connection. Educate please!
The whole Constitution. Those actions destroy the nation the Constitution is supposed to govern.
“I keep reading these collectivist “stop the Mexicans” rants, but what are you going to do? People move from places where life is hard, to where it is easy. How are you going to stop that? What other compromises with our liberties are you willing to make to (attempt to) get it? Internal passports? Government permission to work? Constant raids on businesses, destroying the business climate? Road blocks?”
This is a ridiculous argument. There’s not a single thing in border protection and guaranteeing our national sovereignty that “compromises our liberty.”
Guess what? Sure, people move from where life is hard to where life is easy. But it’s not our job to provide open seating for them to do so here in America. Likewise, it is no infringement upon liberty whatsoever for us to refuse to do so. Nobody who is not already a citizen has a “right” to be here. They don’t. No citizen of a foreign country has any inhering, natural, or even statutory right to come to or remain in the United States of America. There is a sharp delineation between someone who is an American citizen who is here, and someone who is not. No amount of libertarian puddlefuddery about “free people cross borders freely” will change this.
The whole thing, ChaJ. The point is that when you bring in millions of new eventual voters from socialistic and authoritarian countries – and then positively refuse to assimilate them to our culture and civic understanding – you will end up with a huge pool of voters who will vote for socialism and authoritarianism, and who won’t give two hoots about the Constitution. Since “guns are bad,” they’ll vote for the Dems. Since economic liberty is unfair, they’ll vote to do away with it. Since this whole “divided government” thing keeps El Caudillo from “getting things done,” they’ll support getting rid of it.
When you import a whole new pool of voters who not only don’t care about the Constitution, but may even be hostile to various parts of it, you’ll end up with the Party in power which (overtly) caters to those predilections.
‘There’s not a single thing in border protection and guaranteeing our national sovereignty that “compromises our liberty.” ‘
So, you’re saying internal passports and government permission to work does not compromise liberty? Seriously? Because that’s what is needed to do the job you want, if you are not going to get rid of welfare. People will find ways to get across the border for it, no matter what.
I agree it is not our job to provide “open seating” for immigrants (whatever that euphemism is supposed to mean – please speak plainly). I don’t advocate providing welfare to them. It is also not our job to provide welfare to “real” Americans either. What difference is there when government steals money from me to hand out to an immigrant, or to a “real” American? None whatsoever.
Get rid of government handouts. Then the immigrant problem goes away.
I think the dirty secret is that people who write these anti-immigrant diatribes, don’t want to get rid of welfare. They are socialists without admitting it. National socialists…
Nope, you are right, ChaJ. We went a hundred years without immigrant controls by the founding generation, after they rejected the tyranny of the Alien and Sedition Acts. But don’t be surprised. Everybody cherry-picks the Constitution, not just the leftists.
“So, you’re saying internal passports and government permission to work does not compromise liberty? Seriously? Because that’s what is needed to do the job you want, if you are not going to get rid of welfare. People will find ways to get across the border for it, no matter what.”
No, what I’m saying is that the argument that “internal passports and government permission to work” are necessary for establishing border security is outright bilious nonsense. It never was before the previous times we restricted immigration and deported illegal immigrants, and there’s no reason to think it would be the next time.
If those things are ever to happen, it won’t be because we did something about illegal immigration. The argument is just nonsense on its face.
“I agree it is not our job to provide “open seating” for immigrants (whatever that euphemism is supposed to mean – please speak plainly).”
If you don’t know what it means, then why were you agreeing with it? Are you in the habit of agreeing with things you don’t understand? What do you think I meant? It’s not our job to allow anyone and everyone who wants to to come here. They come in at our sufferance, niot because they “deserve” a spot. We set the rules, not them.
“I don’t advocate providing welfare to them. It is also not our job to provide welfare to “real” Americans either. What difference is there when government steals money from me to hand out to an immigrant, or to a “real” American? None whatsoever.
“Get rid of government handouts. Then the immigrant problem goes away.”
Problem with this argument is that not all immigrants receive welfare. Millions of them actually are here “gainfully” employed in jobs that Americans no longer have. I’m perfectly fine with ending welfare for the illegals, as well as for anyone else, but thinking that this is some magic bullet cure-all to the illegal immigration issue shows a remarkable naivete, at best.
“I think the dirty secret is that people who write these anti-immigrant diatribes, don’t want to get rid of welfare. They are socialists without admitting it. National socialists…”
If this is your impression, then I think you have no idea what you’re actually talking about.