ONE more time! We are NOT a Nation of Immigrants

The politically correct groupies who push yet another amnesty love to tell us,
"We are a nation of Immigrants! Immigrants built this country".

YES, we have been a nation welcoming to immigrants unlike any other in history. But did they 'build this nation', fight our wars?

The answer is a resounding NO! Did they help...YES! Many did and the USA has helped them...plenty. We can no longer afford to help all who demand it.

Now, it's the conservative standard bearer, Sarah Palin, who is pushing this revision of history. It was bad enough for her to jump on the PC wagon when she went ballistic over Rahm Emanuels use of the word 'retard'.

PALIN: Let me address legal immigration and we need to continue to be so welcoming and inviting of those who are represented there by our Statue of Liberty. The immigrants, of course, built this country. And I think republicans, conservatives are at fault when we allow the other side to capture this immigration issue and try to turn this issue into something negative for republicans. I think we need to recognize that again, immigrants built this great country."

I was reminded of a particularly good article by Lawrence Auster , 'Are We Really a Nation of Immigrants? ' from FrontPageMagazine.com in 2006. Below is most of that article and keep in mind this fact. "Fifty-six men from each of the original 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Nine of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers and two were cousins. One was an orphan."

It used to be that only open-borders activists said it. Now the entire political leadership of the United States is saying it. President Bush is saying it. Sen. Specter is saying it. Even Sen. Bill “enforcement-only” Frist is saying it:

“We are a nation of immigrants built upon the rule of law.”

Of course, that cute little addition about “rule of law” is nothing but boob bait for the Bubbas (a category of persons that, in the minds of our leaders, seems to constitute about three-quarters of the country); our leaders have as much intention to enforce the immigration laws as I have to fly to Mars next week. The part of the statement that counts is the business about “nation of immigrants.” To see the entire political leadership of our country pronouncing in unison this slogan, all as a part of an effort to push through the most catastrophic open-borders scheme in our history, is an Orwellian experience. If we’re a “nation of immigrants,” how can we be a nation of Americans?

This friendly-sounding, inclusive sentiment—like so many others of its kind—turns out to be profoundly exclusive. For one thing, it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a “real” American. It also suggests that newly arrived immigrants are more American than people whose ancestors have been here for generations. The public television essayist Richard Rodriguez spelled out these assumptions back in the 1990s when he declared, in his enervated, ominous tone: “Those of us who live in this country are not the point of America. The newcomers are the point of America.” Certainly the illegal-alien demonstrators in Los Angeles last week agreed with him; America, they kept telling us, belongs to them, not to us.

In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America “a nation of immigrants” is to suggest that America, prior to the late nineteenth century wave of European immigration, was not America. It is to imply that George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant (descended from the original colonists) were not “real” Americans, but that Richard Rodriguez (descended from 20th century immigrants) and the anti-American demonstrators last week in Los Angeles, are.

The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants,” gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? Willingness to work for a lower wage than Americans work for? The “nation of immigrants” slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.

To see the uselessness of the “nation of immigrants” formula as a source of political guidance, , imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. “Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!”

Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.

It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that “we are all descended from immigrants” our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian (and mainly Protestant Christian), in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we’re all “descended from immigrants?” But immigrant advocates are incapable of debating such questions, because there is no rational benefit for America that they seek through open immigration. Their aim is not to strengthen and preserve America; their aim is to demonstrate themselves to be good, non-racist people—by surrendering America to the immigrant invasion.

To say that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to imply that there has never been an actual American people apart from immigration. It is to put America out of existence as a historically existing nation that immigrants and their children joined by coming here, a country with its own right to exist and to determine its own sovereign destiny—a right that includes the right to permit immigration or not. No patriot, no decent person who loves this country, as distinct from loving some whacked-out, anti-national, leftist idea of this country, would call it a “nation of immigrants.” Any elected official who utters the subversive canard that America is a “nation of immigrants” should, at the least, find his phone lines tied up with calls from irate constituents.

Michelle Malkin addresses the issue and the PC impulse to scream 'racist' with every immigration discussion in her article, "What did the Founding Fathers say about immigration?"

What this does tell us, however, is that these concerns—about crime, reciprocity, loyalty, assimilation, politics—predate current immigration trends. Shoot, look at a map of America in 1790: they predate the U.S.-Mexican border. Actually, they predate Mexico. This debate was not about race: the Founders were fighting about these issues back when, sadly, only immigrants who were white were eligible for American citizenship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thomas Jefferson saw the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. He was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government might undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers. "Yet," he said prophetically, "from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants..... He added, "In proportion to their numbers, they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent mass." "

Terry Anderson tells it like it is on immigration!
http://www.theterryandersonshow.com/

Time to speak up, Sarah Palin, what's it going to be???

NOT BY SUPPORTING AMNESTY!

The shameless media and country club republican attacks on Sarah Palin during the 2008 election were, well, shameless.....and TheTownCrier came to her defense many times!

But like most politicians, Sarah has a group of worshipers who just don't care about facts or her position on vital issues. One she has avoided like the plague is illegal immigration. We found that Sarah and McCain had little in common during the election, a good thing, and HOPE the immigration issue isn't what they found common ground on. We have a few clues, but nothing definitive from Palin. During the election, conservatives worried about border security relied on this:

"That sells a lot more than “my friends” and comprehensive immigration reform. And she’s not for comprehensive reform, I can tell you that right now. She’s sick to death of this immigration nonsense in the United States."Source: Laura Ingraham radio show Mar 10, 2008

That's what we hung our hat on when we voted for Palin. The problem is those are Laura Ingraham's opinions, she had no quotes from Palin. But we do have quotes from later interviews:

PALIN: “. We - our policy - John McCain has been so clear with his policy and it makes a lot of sense too. We secure our borders first. But then with a comprehensive approach we must deal humanely with those who are here, and we must allow the steps to be taken to protect the families of those who are here, maybe as illegal immigrants today....."

UNIVISION: “Talking about - still with immigration - ICE has arrested and deported almost five thousand undocumented immigrants in the last year, separated many Hispanic families. Would you support stopping these raids until comprehensive immigration reform could be passed in Congress?”

Palin: “Well, the unfortunate thing of course about the raids is that it does affect the families involved here. Parents and children are separated and that’s tragic.” (No, that is by choice of the alien, Sarah - they can take their kids and we pay for it!)

“Univision: To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?
Sarah Palin: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America.”
Univision: As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?
Sarah Palin: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant - there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants - not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration."

Now we find out that SarahPac has donated only to candidates who are for amnesty....like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, etc. Sarah came out strongly against Obamacare, but never objected to the fact that illegal aliens would get the benefits.

Is Sarah actually the 'people's' candidate as she contributes to the biggest open border RINO's in congress? If she so politically savy, as her followers contend, she ought to think about, in poll after poll, the fact that 75% of this country does NOT favor abandoning enforcement of the law or 'comprehensive immigration reform'.....a misleading phrase which means AMNESTY.

Ted Kennedy proved the only thing amnesty promotes is more illegal immigration.
May he rest in peace, and may Palin get on the right side of this issue and speak up!
Many of us would like to support you, but first you must support the sovereignty of this nation.

NOTE: Fox news: One final point comes from the real cost of amnesty. The Heritage Foundation has estimated amnesty would cost the taxpayer more than $2.6 trillion.
Until American laws are enforced, it remains clear the American people do not want any form of Amnesty.

So what's it going to be, Sarah? The votes of illegal aliens or the votes of conservative USA citizens who supported you?

__________________

Headline, Mon Aug 31, 2009

Federal Government Will Borrow 40 Percent of the Money It Spends Next Year, Says White House Report

...39.9 percent of all federal income will be borrowed, making borrowing the single largest share of revenue in 2010. The next largest component of federal revenue is the personal income tax, which accounts for only 27.3 percent of federal funds. This is only slightly lower than in 2009, when the federal government borrowed 43.3 percent of the money it has spent so far...

"39.9 per cent isn't 40 per cent, no matter how much you want to make it so, you right wing militant xenophobes!" source