Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us
Yet another civil conflict is brewing this week as the Supreme Court tackles a number of foreign citizenship debates, including Temporary Protection Status (TPS) and Birthright Citizenship. The court has ruled that hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants residing in the US under TPS are no longer safe from mass deportations (a win). But, they have also ruled in favor of migrant anchor babies (a big loss).
Both issues deal with changing American perceptions on what is “constitutional” when it comes to foreign access to citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decisions aside, I find it mind boggling that this debate has been ongoing for so many decades. Frankly, foreigners should not have any citizenship rights under the constitution until they have demonstrated assimilation. Until that time, there should be a separate set of rules handling newcomers (and invaders).
When it comes to TPS and the Haitians, the leftists are raging. Despite this status supposedly being “temporary” (the Obama Administration originally claimed these people would only be in the US for 18 months), many of these foreign transplants have been enjoying the benefits of unearned American citizenship for 16 years or more. Yet, when Haitians protest the TPS decision, what flag do you see them flying? That’s right – They fly the Haitian flag, not the American flag. This tells us everything we need to know.
The liberal position on this issue is crystal clear: They believe that the constitution protects foreign migrants and their cultures from overt scrutiny. Meaning, foreigners don’t have to prove themselves worthy of citizenship, they get access regardless. Liberals also believe that it should be extremely difficult to remove migrants once they enter the country.
Keep in mind, this is the LIBERAL position. The woke position is much worse.
The radical left argues that western borders should not exist at all. For other countries, borders are fine. For the US and Europe, borders must be erased. Furthermore, they assert that the American economy must be treated as an open marketplace rather than a closed system. In other words, foreigners should be allowed to feed on the system whenever they please, transfer that wealth back to their third world hovels, and then come back for more.
The “empathetic” liberal position creates the foundation for the militant woke position. It’s rooted in a propaganda narrative created in the early 20th century: The claim that America’s entire identity is a “melting pot” of cultures and nationalities and that there is no original source identity. This false origin story was produced by New York socialists and it’s been spread by Hollywood for decades.
The famous poem called “The Colossus” imprinted on the Statue of Liberty is often used to elevate the melting pot myth. It was added in 1903, over 20 years after the statue was built. It’s author, Emma Lazarus, was a Zionist feminist with ties to numerous socialist movements. The fantasy of the melting pot of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” was then popularized heavily in the 1960s and 1970s by far-left activist groups and the establishment media.
The melting pot is not our identity and never was. Historically speaking, America has always had a guarded relationship to immigration and we operated on “origin-based rules”. Meaning, Europeans from the north and west were welcomed, everyone else was limited. There was nothing wrong with this model.
America’s source identity is western civilization and European influence. There is no cultural melting pot.
The notion that the US is somehow legally required to accept everyone from everywhere regardless of their beliefs or background was not a thing until after the liberal era of the 1960s – 1990s. Until this time period, America had numerous regulations on who was allowed in. After the 1990s, the melting pot ideal became sacrosanct, as if it had always been a part of our constitutional legacy.
George Washington instituted the Naturalization Act of 1790 which restricted immigration to people mostly from European nations. John Adams instituted the Alien Friends Act 1798 which allowed the quick deportation of migrants found to be initiating civil disruption and sedition. He also enforced an extended probation period of 14 years before any migrant gained citizenship rights (instead of the original five year period).
Even Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the Alien Friends Act and had a highly liberal (and I would argue naive) ideal of America as an “open asylum for the oppressed”, supported some restrictions and regulations to immigration. It was a different time, but the rules still make sense today.
Teddy Roosevelt enforced the Immigrant Act of 1907, which banned the citizenship of any foreigners from cultures that practiced polygamy (which included Muslims) and focused on migration among groups that could easily assimilate into American society. Once again, this is perfectly acceptable and rational. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing logical standards.
Now, more than ever, we need such rules in place. Just because they were overturned once does not mean they can’t be brought back again as the conditions demand.
As far as the 1st Amendment is concerned, we’ve had exceptions to these protections when it comes to dangerous ideologies. For example, the US banned communist organization for decades, right up until the 1990s.
Why? Because the proliferation of communism will inevitably lead to the destruction of the same 1st Amendment rights that liberals claim to be protecting. Even in a republic, there are certain groups who cannot be allowed to exist because they represent a clear and present danger to the very framework that our country is built on. They are at war with our culture. To give citizenship to the barbarians at the gate is suicide.
By extension, one could argue that Muslim ideology is much like communism in that Muslims have a tendency to seek dominance and authoritarianism rather than integration. Their presence in the US is an obvious threat to the Bill of Rights. Therefore, we may have to make exceptions for them, just as we made exceptions for communism (globalism is also another important target for removal).
We can argue over the bureaucratic labyrinth that has been created to make expulsion of these groups difficult, but it doesn’t matter. Again, regardless of what the courts say, these people are not entitled to the same rights as natural born citizens, and we need to stop pretending as if they are owed something.
It is true that under current liberal precedents the constitution restricts the Federal Government from taking action to remove people based on identity, but this does not apply to the American public. If the government isn’t allowed to remove these threats, then make no mistake, the American people will eventually do it themselves. The film “Citizen Vigilante” is not fiction, it’s a warning. It’s wildly popular for a reason.
At the very least, the TPS decision shows that the Supreme Court is beginning to realize that it’s better to allow managed deportations than it is to drive the population to adopt vigilantism.
America has NEVER been a country of equal treatment for everyone all the time, and that’s because this is a foolish concept. The closer the Overton Window moves us towards multicultural equality the worse things get for everyone. As we’ve witnessed over the past decade, some groups tend to sabotage everything they touch. They don’t view American life as a privilege, they see it as something that can be pillaged, and liberal movements are enabling this behavior.
There are two key pillars to the liberal argument that need to be abandoned before it’s too late:
First, that immigration is some kind of sacred duty of the American people. It is our “historical identity” and a tradition that must not be forsaken. They suggest that migrants, as if by magic, become Americans as soon as they cross the border or drop a newborn child on the soil, and thus they must be given all the opportunities and legal protections afforded to true citizens.
Second, the constitutional laws in place are liberal in the application of rights, even for foreigners fresh off the boat. In other words, we’re violating the constitution by making exceptions.
This is simply not so. History shows us that logical exceptions have always been made. Why, for example, is a migrant allowed to slip across our border illegally, squeeze out a kid on this side of the line and by default that kid becomes a citizen? It makes no sense and almost no other country in the world allows it.
The absolutist vision of the constitutional shield might be sacred for people who are born and raised in America under American ideals and by American parents. This does not, however, apply to foreign invaders with intentions of exploiting loopholes and ransacking the nation while maintaining loyalties to their home countries.
Hell, I would even argue that exceptions can and should be made for radical communists. We had it right in the 1950s. And the answer is simple: Deport them all.
Is a group of people seeking to sabotage western civilization? Deport them. Are they acting like parasites feeding off subsidies while giving nothing in return? Deport them. Does a group have a religion or ideology that is clearly antithetical to western values? Deport them.
And what about the argument that we must accommodate refugees from war-torn regions; that we must provide safe haven? No, we don’t.
Since when are we not allowed to be selective in who we help? No other country in the world is treated with the same expectations as the US when it comes to immigration. When did it become our responsibility to fix every problem in the world? This is a role that was foisted on us by a century of progressive propaganda.
Maybe Haitian refugees need to be sent back home to fix their own problems in their own country? Maybe the only way these places will ever be reformed is if the US stops acting as a steam valve for the discontented? Maybe anchor babies need to be shipped off with their illegal migrant parents, instead of letting them all stay in the country on a technicality?
Is it a slippery slope? Could these same rules be turned back on American conservatives and patriots? No, because who would be left to use them against us? This is not a call for an end to constitutional rights. Nor is it a call for an end to all immigration. Rather, it is plea for nuance, sanity and selectivity.
We used to have more practical rules for these problems, and I guarantee, the Founding Fathers would be FAR more aggressive in enforcing those rules than we are today. Some people do not deserve the same rights as US citizens and some people do not deserve the same access as US citizens.
It’s okay to admit it. This is a fact that we need to accept as a society. We need to stop the benevolent liberal charade which is designed to make us feel obliged to the rest of the world.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
