How immigration leads to open borders
A Jewish member of the Pennsylvania National Guard, Brian Kresge, has publicly stated he will refuse to obey any order to guard the Mexican-U.S. border. “I cannot point a gun at folks crossing a border when I am a scion of the same thing,” he wrote at his blog and then elaborated in an interview with the Forward. [Of course the Guardsmen would not be holding guns and would not even be at the border, but would only be doing meaningless support services for the Border Patrol.] “Life was hard in the Pale of Settlement, and though today’s illegals aren’t necessarily fleeing pogroms, they likely have the same fears…. The president’s speech [last week on immigration] got me thinking about my own ancestry. My family came to this country in the bottom of a ship—without papers, without records. I can’t conscience being a hypocrite.”
Folks, I ask again the question that I first asked in Huddled Clichés in 1997, and more recently at VFR, in response to the extraordinary statements coming from Jews and Jewish organizations that Jews are required by their Jewishness and their immigration history to believe in open borders:
If America had known when admitting Jewish immigrants between 1880 and 1920 that the descendants of those immigrants would oppose America’s right to have any future control over immigration, would America have admitted those immigrants in the first place?
As a descendant of Eastern Europe Jews, I never would have imagined that to be descended from immigrants requires a person to have more allegiance to future prospective immigrants than to America; nor would most European-Americans who are descended from 19th and early 20th century immigrants imagine such a thing. But many Jews, as well as many Catholics, think otherwise. They think that because they come from immigrants, their sacred mission in the universe is to crusade for open borders and deny any ability on America’s part to have any say about who comes into this country.
I say that this is a legitimate point to make to the open-borders Jews and Catholics. “Was this part of the deal when your grandparents were admitted into America? That the fact that America let your grandparents into this country requires you to subvert America’s national existence? In that case, your grandparents shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place.” If people started saying these things to the open-borders Jews and Catholics, it would shock at least some of them into realizing how offensive their position is to other Americans, and they would shut up.
Paul T. writes:
You wrote: “If America had known when admitting Jewish immigrants between 1880 and 1920 that the descendants of those immigrants would oppose America’s right to have any future control over immigration, would America have admitted those immigrants in the first place?”LA repies:
Thanks. However, the way I’ve put it is not that America would have been better off without the 1880-1920 immigration, but that the 1921 and 1924 legislation cutting back the immigration was beneficial. this is a statement that there is such a thing as too many. (I’ve also said that while I’m happy that my parents were born and that I was born, America did not require our existence; unlike many Jewish open-borders proponents, I don’t act as though America revolves around myself or is defined by Ellis Island.) But for the open-borders Jews, any statement implying that there is any negative (or even less than great) aspect of Jewish immigration is tantamount to saying that they themselves don’t belong here. So there’s just no middle ground with these people. And that fact has really risen to the fore in the last couple of months with the debate on the Senate immigration bill. It turns out, and I gave examples, that many Jews are not just in favor of very large-scale immigration; they’re literally in favor of open borders. Their belief in a generous immigration policy has no internal limiting principle.Paul T. replies:
I don’t doubt that, but it doesn’t deal with the problem of those who were already here. Folks like my cousin J.B. Salsberg, the only Communist member of the Ontario legislature, elected time and again in the (overwhelmingly Jewish) Spadina riding. As late as 1955 (not a typo) J.B. was openly praising Stalin in his speeches. I was brought up to believe that the mostly genteel anti-Semitism of non-Jews in Toronto was nothing more than pure, spontaneous malice. Some of it undoubtedly was, but I can see the other side of it now.LA continues:
Also, at his blog, Kresge writes:KE, a secular, pro-Western Turk, writes:
I’m reading your comment “How immigration leads to open borders,” and I’m going through a painful moment again regarding my mixed sentiments about Jews.LA replies:
Well, I wouldn’t put the Jews in a separate class from the rest of the population. Liberal (and “conservative”) Americans across the board are rooting for their own destruction, as well as Europeans, in countries such as Sweden that have no Jews to speak of. Is that any less of a mystery than the attitudes of Jews? In this context it’s useful to remember the saying, “Jews are just like everyone else, only more so.” So, yes, Jews are even more suicidal and anti-national than others, but it’s a difference in degree, not in kind.Gintas writes:
My parents’ families came over, quite legally. They had relatives here in the States who could sponsor them. The alternative was repatriation to Lithuania—rather, the Gulag. As a result, my grandmother loved America. She said I was American, and should marry an American girl. So, it’s my homeland, and I want it defended. But there are too many deracinated people in America in general. The jew’s unwillingness to defend America is true of so many people born and raised here, whose blood runs back for many generations.Shrewsbury writes:
Shrewsbury is in despair over the brain-dead and apparently all-but unanimous Jewish response to the Mexican invasion. So, because Hengist and Horsa landed on the shores of Britain with their bands of Anglo-Saxons in the fifth century, thus in the eleventh century their descendants were morally obligated to welcome William the Conqueror with open arms? Because Australia began as a penal colony, are the Aussies obliged to solicit shipments of criminals from all nations of the earth? (I refrain from considering the touchy question of immigration to Israel and certain obvious contradictions.)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 27, 2006 12:08 PM | Send