The Rational View on Immigration?

Dear readers, if you are more of a visual learner, scroll to the bottom for a political cartoon.

This is a critique of RationalWiki’s page on “Immigration myths and facts," although it redirects to an article called "Myths and facts about immigration to the United States," and the article flips between discussing generic immigration and illegal immigration several times. This response is part of TRS's ongoing efforts to build a culture of critique about dominant beliefs in society and to challenge the status quo. We too are fellow travelers interested in discussing white supremacist patriarchal society and want to deconstruct your narrative. See also: The Rational View on Race.

RationalWiki also prefaces by saying a lot of arguments against [illegal] immigration are appeals to emotion. Arguments for illegal immigration or amnesty would of course, never appeal to emotion. That would just be hypocritical.

As will soon become obvious, the operational paradigm for this entire RationalWiki article is economic efficiency and egalitarianism. So we won't agree on most things. Economic efficiency isn't inherently wrong, but as we will hopefully see, shouldn't be the most important consideration when regarding things as important as the demographic fate of countries and civilizations. The RationalWiki article is completely silent on the European origins of the United States and its population, which is instructive. Egalitarianism also produces lots of hilarious distortions like British police refusing to investigate South Asian rape suspects and the FBI recording all Hispanics as white. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're racist for noticing differences right? Hey! That's a slippery slope you irrational Faux News bigot!

Buckle your seatbelts, shitlords, we've got 13 myths, reasons why we can't deport immigrants, and their snarky underpinnings to put through the TRS cleaners. I hope you enjoy the ride more than I did.

I. Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes.

I guess someone must have said this at a Tea Party rally or on Fox or something. Sure, a lot of illegals don't pay income tax because they're working off the books, but they get hit with plenty of indirect ones like sales tax. But colloquially, when most people talk about paying taxes, they mean income since that's the most direct and therefore the most despised.

Anyway, just because immigrants pay taxes doesn't mean we should have open immigration policies. By that logic, we should import as many people as possible to increase our tax base. More taxes mean more money for muh programs, am I right? Progress!

II. Immigrants come here to get "welfare."

According to the concept of relative poverty, you are way better off being poor in a Western country than anywhere in the world. It's a case of improving one's economic well-being by relocating. That is an indisputable pull factor for immigration and always has been. It's why Africans drown themselves by the thousands trying to get to Europe, and I don't mean Turkey. At the same time, the United States is considered to have relatively low social mobility compared to our civilizational peers across the Atlantic. Even if you get here and don't make it big, no one is going to let you starve to death, even if you are unable to find work better than low-skilled labor. New York is rolling out a program to give illegals "NYC IDs" so they can make use of city services despite not being citizens. You can live more comfortably in poverty here than in Latin America or Africa.

And just because immigrants are working doesn't mean they and their families aren't on welfare. Unemployment insurance is not the only kind of welfare this country doles out. You can prove that they have a higher labor force participation rate all you want; it doesn't mean they don't receive welfare or affirmative action or other kinds of rent-seeking rewards from the native government. Furthermore, the white population is older in terms of median age than immigrants so we probably have more retired persons as a percentage than the predominately non-white immigrant population, i.e. a lower labor force participation rate.

III. Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries.

Does anyone literally believe this? How would they pay rent or buy food? Immigrants do send money out of our country to their families abroad, something the average American-born citizen or nth generation white person is not going to do, because he probably doesn't have impoverished family members in another country who need his money to survive. Again, RationalWiki is assuming that readers only care about money and I don't care how much tax revenue immigrants create. Let's just let everyone in so that the whole world may be taxed. If you're trying to argue that taxes paid outweigh remittances sent abroad, that only justifies immigration so long as your only concern is economics. The author literally calls remittances "foreign direct investment."

The author also brings up something about rich people using tax havens, which I do think is an issue but clearly one that has nothing to do with immigration.

IV. Immigrants take jobs and opportunity away from Americans.

Oh, look. The entrepreneur trope is being used to defend immigration. I mean by that logic, if a small fraction of immigrants are violent criminals that should justify getting rid of all of them, since a small fraction being entrepreneurs is enough to justify all immigrants being here. I guess we'll agree to disagree?

The same point is back about them creating wealth too. You know what else creates wealth? Investing in the human capital of our native population. I'll bet that's cheaper and more efficient than importing millions of human beings and teaching them English and to act like white Anglo-Americans. Probably less racist too or something. Enforcing white standards is colonialism and all that jazz.

V. Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy.

So again we have the economic efficiency argument as to why we should just bend over to displacement level immigration. I can't wait for our enriching future as a minority. You know what will be a drain on the economy then? A multi-ethnic majority rent-seeking against a white minority. That already happens on a large enough scale right now. Forget going to Mars; we need more money for muh programs.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if we could come up with a pile of sources both defending and castigating the impact of immigration on the American economy; it's that much of a divisive issue and a lot of people stand to make money from government policies like immigration. Meanwhile, people against immigration probably aren't involved in the C-level of industries that make money off immigrant labor, and aren't involved in sponsoring as many studies.

VI. Immigrants don’t want to learn English or become Americans.

Oh no, they do learn about enough English to do service/retail jobs. If you have any complicated questions though you'll need to see a manager. There is no greater example of the native dispossession of the United States at the hands of immigrants than the service and retail industries. Then there's the issue of monoglot immigrant children being sent to public schools unable to speak any English. I'll bet having to teach a growing proportion of Americans the English language before they can even get into subject learning will help us compete with education systems in countries like Finland, Germany, South Korea, Japan and urban China. Oh wait, we already import adult Asians (both East Asian and Indian) to do highly skilled labor in our tech and medical fields and outsource linguistics-based support jobs to their countries (such as call-centers, word processing, etc.). I guess we don't have to worry about America's native education after all as long as we have both cheap foreign labor and cheap imported labor.

As for becoming "American," that term is virtually meaningless in 2015 because we've fulfilled our Constitutional destiny in becoming a "proposition nation." Literally anyone who lives here and has legal citizenship is American. Republicans and Democrats agree. There's no blood or soil involved. The United States is a labor market and not a nation. I don't agree with it but that's my observation. Ultimately, I don't care if immigrants want to be an American or not. If we let in everyone who wanted to live here we'd be outnumbered, which is exactly what is going to happen in a few decades.

VII. Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago [Reminder: this is listed as a myth].

Okay, unless you're one of those colorblind people who thinks all human beings are palette swaps, this is complete and utter bullshit and you know it. You know that the majority of today's immigrants are non-white, that we used to discriminate based on country of origin, and that prior to the 1960s nearly all immigration to the United States was European, resulting in a society that was almost 90% white. And there's nothing wrong with that any more than there's something wrong with China being 90% Han, or Japan being >90% Japanese. Then we decided that having a white majority United States was racist, and repealed those evil laws that kept out people of color. In 2013, we actually had more immigrants arrive from Africa than Europe while 80% were from Asia or the Americas. Find me a non-Western country other than Singapore that could care less about whether or not its native population wants to be replaced by immigrants.

Reminder that it wasn't considered racist for European countries to decolonize Africa and Asia and turn them over to majority rule. Those countries are entitled to self-rule without foreign settler-colonists living among them. It's only white countries that are racist for objecting to an influx of foreigners.

Oh and then there was this gem:

If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.

Mhmmm. Objectively. I mean sure, you left out the part about the majority of immigrants being European and the majority of people in the host country being European, but sure, why not. We'll vindicate and salute everyone who comes in after precisely 2.5 generations whether we want to or not.

VIII. Most immigrants cross the border illegally.

I wish. Do you know how easy it would be to get tougher immigration laws passed if that were the case? Alright, it is a myth that most immigrants come here illegally.1- in-4 immigrants being illegal is still a very high percentage, however. That just says something about our government's interest in increasing the non-white population more than anything else.

IX. Weak U.S. border enforcement has led to high levels of illegal immigration.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a proper response. Just google "Operation Wetback."

X. The war on terrorism can be won through immigration restrictions.

Do you care to explain how Saudi hijackers flew planes into targets on U.S. soil based on plans created by a terror cell in Hamburg, Germany if not because of an immigration system that doesn't restrict Muslims from entering the United States (or the European Union)? What about all those Western-born Muslims from immigrant communities who go to Somalia and the Islamic State to fight for their prophet? I fucking wonder how all that happened. Do think it had something to do with leaving our backdoor open to them?

XI. Illegal immigrants are the source of many communicable diseases.

Yeah, I'm sure all those bathed, healthy, properly vaccinated and documented people crossing the border after traversing through Mexico from Central America have a clean bill of health. I'm sure they won't require medical attention. RationalWiki's lone point against this "myth" is that former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs's claim that Mexican border-crossers have spread leprosy isn't supported by the CDC. I'm not convinced, RationalWiki, that immigrants don't spread disease. That's literally one example. Sorry.

Also, you do realize that HIV/AIDS was not indigenous to the United States, I hope. But that's for another article I suppose. Just kidding, I'm not going to write an article about STDs.

XII. Illegal immigrants cause crime.

So crime is down in Arizona and the only variable was an increase in immigration? Are we supposed to extrapolate that to Mexican cartels operating out of Oklahoma? How did they get there? Petty criminals and gangs of immigrant background in New York and Los Angeles? Any immigrant that commits a crime is someone who does not need to be here. If he wasn't here, he'd couldn't have committed that crime. Immigration is the direct cause. Illegal immigrants are responsible for any and all crimes they commit. End of story. Also illegal immigration in a crime in and of itself, assuming you have any respect for immigration law at all, RationalWiki. They literally cause crime. Literally literally.

XIII. The government is not enforcing existing immigration laws.

So Obama deported more illegals than Bush? Great! Hah, I'll bet you weren't expecting that answer. Or maybe you were this deep into my article. That just means the law is being enforced to a greater extent under Obama than the last administration. Thanks Obama! What about that plan to bus and resettle tens of thousands of young people who illegally immigrated from Central America in the United States? Why not send them home? Some enforcement, huh? We wouldn't be debating illegal immigration in the first place if the law was being totally enforced you know.

Problems that arise when blanket deportation is attempted:

The first problem given is that industries dependent on immigrant labor would collapse. But hey, it's not like unemployed people or automation could cover those jobs. They must be done by vibrant enrichers because no one else will do them right? It's not like millions of people are unemployed and millions of people are here illegally. How do markets work?

The second problem is cost, which is a huge joke given how much money the United States has. If we're going to LARP about blanket deportation, let's just say we'd use the military budget for it or something. And we would need to use force to deport people. Problem solved. Or, if that's too cruel, we could do what Israel did and pay migrants $3500 to get out. I wonder if the market price for a boat ride to Europe will reach equilibrium at that rate....

The third problem is anchor babies and the 14th Amendment. Do you know why that amendment even exists, RationalWiki? It was passed to give citizenship to freed black slaves after the Civil War. The framers didn't want to outright say "blacks are citizens" for whatever reason, so they went with "all persons born and naturalized." This was never intended to cover illegal immigrants. I personally don't like the 14th Amendment for that very reason; let's amend it while we're on the subject of immigration overhaul. Your parents must be citizens for you to be a citizen. Both? Yes, both.

Closing Remarks

Almost done. Well, anyway, I imagine it's understood by most of the TRS commentariat that white-majority America wasn't a bad thing, nations have the right to border control, and if you want to keep a white majority you need to restrict immigration from non-European populations. Even immigrants should be able to grasp the idea that what made this country worth moving to in the first place as opposed to somewhere else is whiteness and Anglo-American civilization. Why aren't China, Nigeria, Russia, and Indonesia the immigration magnets that Western countries are, I wonder. They're all huge population-wise and economically; surely they're doing something right?

If the Japanese and the Israelis and numerous other nations have the right to control entry into their national communities, why wouldn't white Americans? Why don't we have a right to gate-keeping? It's a double standard. Combating the ideology of white dispossession and leftist policies is a regular theme on TRS. On the other hand, RationalWiki probably considers itself to be in the "reality has a liberal bias camp," hence their smugness. When it comes to immigration, I'd rather be right than rational.

I'll leave you all with an excerpt from Wikipedia's article on "Immigration to the United States":

A 2008 report from the Pew Research Center projects that by 2050, non-Hispanic whites will account for 47% of the population, down from the 2005 figure of 67%. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. It also foresees the Hispanic population rising from 14% in 2005 to 29% by 2050. The Asian population is expected to more than triple by 2050... In 35 of the country's 50 largest cities, non-Hispanic whites were at the last census or are predicted to be in the minority. In California, non-Hispanic whites slipped from 80% of the state's population in 1970 to 42.3% in 2001 and 39% in 2013.

I wish they'd call us Anglo whites or something, not non-Hispanic, but I digress; California was eighty percent white in 1970. And that was diverse then.

As promised, here's your political cartoon.

Author image
Another voice on the Alt-Right and a White nationalist. Macroaggression Consultant at Bagelbaum & Associates LLC. Like my effortposting? Gib e-shekels: 14HZJbFs3YL5oXVnxFpduXv5G3uqP85xoC
Amerikaner Free State Website