Timothy Birdnow

I have been arguing against unrestrained immigration - both legal and especially illegal - for some time now. I am hardly a nativist; I think immigration can be and once was a great boon for this country. I argue on cultural grounds; America is at the point where she cannot absorb the huge numbers of people coming in and make them Americans. Oh, we can absorb the people themselves - feed, house, clothe, and whatnot - but what we cannot do in this age of multiculturalism, low information voters, and the moral and spiritual crises that envelopes us is ENCULTURATE them. We are turning the U.S. from a melting pot into a salad, as it were, and this particular salad will, as all such geographical salads do, turn into the Balkans. You cannot have different cultures coexisting in the same space peacefully - at least not over a long time period.

So either the U.S. will break into separate pieces, each with it's own culture and identity, or it will see civil war.

We didn't used to have to worry about this problem, because there was always an acceptance of American Exceptionalism on the part of the public and of the ruling elites as well. People who came here were expected to become Americans. There was never any doubt of that in bygone years, but now it is different. As citizens of the world, the left has systematically undermined our belief in our own cultural and traditions. We now look to the horizon, to a broader "world community". And, if we do not accept our own culture as superior or at the very least adequate, we will not demand others join in when they live among us.

It has gone from "when in Rome do as the Romans" to "when in Rome do as the Persians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Israelites, Germans, oh hell, do what ever you like!" A nation-state exists because of reasonable cultural homogeneity.

And America has always had a tough balancing act, as we have always welcomed immigrants. Two distinct cultures formed in the U.S., one in the north based on industry and commerce and the other in the south based on agriculture. These two "separated brethren" held a common distaste for the other and eventually went to war in what was the bloodiest conflict (pound for pound of flesh) we have ever known. The Civil War/War Between the States was ostensibly over slavery and government, but it was ultimately rooted in a dislike of the other culture. Tens of thousands of men enlisted on both sides, men who had no philosophical reason to join the conflict. Some did it for patriotic reasons - the southerners wanted to defend their homes, the northerners to protect the Union, but many did it just because they wanted to stick it to "those bastards". Those bastards had been their fellow citizens just a short time before, but they weren't the same People. There were two distinct cultures competing for dominance. One won, the other lost.

If a nation so close in terms of culture could wage so bloody a war, how much worse when a nation has a number of them?

Look at the Balkans if you want to see where this sort of thing is heading. Or Africa; the African continent has been in a state of continuous war since the end of the colonial empires and prior to their formations. There are too many people fighting over who will rule.

There is a scene in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" in which Omar Shariff murders another Arab for drinking from his well. When Peter O'Toole asks why he is told "he was not welcome. He knew that" and when asked why he didn't kill Lawrence he said "you are welcome". Why? Lawrence's guide was an Arab, but from a competing tribe. Lawrence was merely a visitor.

I have been a lone voice crying in the wilderness over this. But people are starting to wake up to my concern. See here:

From the article:

"The argument promoted by the guys who meet in Davos, Switzerland, each year—or for that matter, by proponents of multicultural and universal values on the left—is that globalization has created One World and a Global Community in which individuals should be able to change their national citizenship in the same way American citizens can change their state residency.

At the end of the day, moving from Mexico or Egypt (or Dagestan) to the United States is supposed to be not very different than relocating from Chevy Chase, Maryland, to Peoria, Illinois and should be made equally easy. It’s all about searching for better economic opportunities, a new job perhaps, more space to develop oneself. No big deal!

Eventually you’ll adjust to your new surroundings, which are, after all, just another geographical-administrative locale that welcomes the global you with the multiple identities that you have with other kinds of communities worldwide. From that perspective, having an American passport is not so different from having a Maryland driver’s license. It’s certainly good to have around, but the American citizenship is only one component, and perhaps not even the central one, to defining your identity. For example, being a Muslim of Chechen extraction may trump the significance of being an American.

So I find amazing that in all the recent debate over immigration in the United States there is an almost complete absence of any serious discussion of what it means to be an American citizen today in terms of what it really means to be an American, period."


"But then, is there is someone out there who is volunteering to kick hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children out of their homes, force them into buses, and deport them to Mexico? Well? I didn’t think so. So some sort kind of a system that would allow some foreign citizens who have lived and worked in this country for years to apply for American citizenship makes sense to me.

Yet it sounds to me like a lot of wishful thinking on the part of some pro-immigration advocates to dismiss the concerns raised by critics about the difficulties in integrating Mexican and other Hispanic illegal and legal immigrants into the national-cultural fabric of American life. You have to be deaf (“For English press 1″) or a bit deluded to dismiss the growing signs of an evolving bilingual America—represented by a split between “Anglos” and “Latinos”—by arguing that, well, it wasn’t so different with the early waves of Italian immigrants.

But there were not millions of Italians living across our border, and the immigrants from Italy were not exposed to 24/7 Italian-language cable television channels and other means of communication that would have helped create or strengthen a sense of cultural separatism. And unlike in the multicultural America of the early 21st century, America during the early 20th century still maintained a strong sense of a national identity that helped assimilate foreign immigrants into the American cultural milieu to which they ended up making their own contributions."

End excerpts.

In point of fact turn of the century Italy (the 20th, not 21st) had a policy to export her unemployment problem by encouraging and aiding immigration to America, ostensibly for the citizens to make a lot of money then return home. Italians were slow to integrate into the American culture as a result. My father's best friend was a third generation Italian American and HIS mother spoke broken English, despite having been born and raised in the U.S. And that was without cultural reinforcements. With the flood of Hispanic peoples into the U.S., with multicultural programs like Spanish language schools and bilingual instructions everywhere there is nothing to compel integration.

It is a very serious long-term issue, and one we are destined to lose if we do not restore our belief in ourselves.

And just behind the Hispanic immigrants are the Chinese, who are starting to flood in. Many of them are no doubt working for the Middle Marxist Kingdom, I might add.

This is not racial in the slightest, but cultural. I welcome both groups, but only as long as they actually become AMERICANS. If you want to join us then do so. But too few really want to join us; they want what they can get from us. The Tsarnaev family, with their $100,000 in government assistance while plotting to murder our citizens, is a prime example of that. Or Obama's illegal alien aunt, who lives off the dole and responded with a defiant "so?" when asked about taking from our nation and not contributing.

That cannot continue. You must either be in or out.

And to be in means more than just paying taxes and having some legal status; it means actually becoming one of us, joining us, loving these United States.

Love; hard to do when you don't spend time with your betrothed. Immigration should be like marriage and not like taking a job; you should woo the other, spend time together, eventually reach the point where you cannot stand to be apart. Only then should you marry, and this holds true for immigration. You should love your new land.

But how can that happen when liberal Americans are repulsed by her? They not only tell immigrants that they should not love America but promote the disdain for our country. It's much like being set up on a date by someone who continually badmouths the person he or she is setting you up with. It's not likely to lead anywhere.

And so we must remember our first love. People used to say "America - love it or leave it!" I propose a paraphrase "America - love it or stay out!"

Views: 591


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Judy Lyford on May 3, 2013 at 4:50pm

I wouldn't mind moving to Ireland or Scotland. These are countries I'm descended from. Wish I had enough money.

Comment by Cynthia Catsman on May 3, 2013 at 6:57am

John G. - Thanks. Have a family friend who has spent three years "shopping" other countries and is determined to leave at some point (she was a child in Hitler's Germany and this is getting too close for comfort). Have another friend who lived all over the world and she maintains there is nowhere to go. Have another friend who spent nine years in the mid-east and she believes we are on track to be the "best of the third-world countries," and is making plans to return to her native Australia. Guess it depends on one's perspective.

Comment by John Gaver on May 2, 2013 at 11:34pm

Cynthia Catsman, It may appear to be a shrinking world. But interestingly, there are always those countries whose leaders will see opportunity for their country, in the self-destruction of another. Within the last 8 or 9 months, Ireland, Spain and Panama have passed laws or issues executive orders aimed specifically at disenchanted wealthy or skilled US citizens, who may be thinking of moving offshore. Both Panama and Ireland are using their laws to aggressively incentivize high-income Americans to choose their country, when those wealth Americans do eventually decide to move.

Our laws are incentivizing poor law-breakers to move here, to take our jobs, while incentivizing our job-creators to move elsewhere. At the same time, those other countries are passing laws to incentivize our job-creators to move to their country.

As long as there are people who seek freedom and liberty, I believe that there will be countries that will cater to them. That's because those leaders know that the more wealthy citizens you have, the more jobs and the better economy you will have. It follows that if you have a good economy more people will be happy and will want to re-elect the government that gave them that good economy. Too bad our elected representatives are so self-centered that they can't see that simple truism.

Comment by John R. Lancellotti on May 2, 2013 at 5:54pm

ABOUT IMMIGRATION ... Google says:  2.5 million Irish immigrated to US during 1800s. AND 3 million Germans. That's five and a half million and we didn't even bother to count my people, the Eubrulians.  Of course, it was tougher for the Irish and the Germans to sneak across the border.   Their terrorists hadn't yet developed the technique of hiding in covered boats, etc.  But all  joking aside, there was a mass migration of folks into our country a hundred or so years ago.  We managed it.  But those people wanted to work and stay here.  Our current immigrant wants to take a job away from American natives, make a buck and run home. All he/she has to do is sneak across on some dark night, pick some fruits, collect his pay and walk back to Meh he go... Yes?  No?  Is anybody out there???? John R.  

Comment by Herb Irish on May 2, 2013 at 4:21pm

Close the borders. THEN, discuss amnesty. Amnesty should be considered ONLY for those who can prove they need no public financial assistance, have a skill that for which there is a demand, presently have gainful employment, speak ENGLISH, and pledge TOTAL loyalty to the Constitution of the USA. Those granted amnesty should not be able to chain-link every relative they have to come in with them - only wives and immediate children. Those passing the initial litmus test must be excluded from any public financial assistance, public health care assistance, and be totally self-supporting for a period of 5-years. All others should be barred from employment in the US so they can self-deport. That's the way my ancestors had to make it, so why are current illegal aliens treated so royally. 

Comment by Vern Shotwell on May 2, 2013 at 3:36pm

I fully agree, John Gaver!

I was not nearly so patriotic before becoming a world traveler and learning how others must survive. One became both sympathetic towards others, and more proud of their heritage!

But I have left intercontinental travel largely behind me in the past decade. This is a good thing: I am not so proud of our country's actions in the past last few years.

Comment by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on May 2, 2013 at 3:31pm

You are right.

Comment by sharon ostwinch on May 2, 2013 at 3:22pm

I so agree with the above information.  Americans were glad to take people in - they were in turn glad to change and strive for greatness.  It is true the new illegals just want money and no change at all.  Islam is a major problem because they are coming by the millions and using our laws against us.  It is easy to see Obama is an Islam supporter and will stand with them and not us.  He has said this in this own book.  So the take over is upon us.  Immigration must be dealt with and only the ones that plan on growing and assimilating need apply.

Comment by Judy Lyford on May 2, 2013 at 2:35pm

My maternal grandparents came from Nova Scotia during the early 20th century. They found each other, married, worked and raised children who were expected to be Americans. Although French was spoken at home, the children were expected to speak English, do well in school and (males)  join the military.

My paternal grandparents were second generation Irish and Scotish. They were farmers, raised children and were Americans, through and through. Their children did well in school, spoke English and (males) joined the military.

My  problem with the present day ILLEGAL immigrants are that they don't speak our language or insist their children do so. They live off the dole, getting free money, food stamps, medical and education. Joining gangs instead of the military is the norm; rampant theft, murder and drug use has literally destroyed our cities.

Our government continually use the excuse that America was built by immigrants. I can't see any resemblence between the past and present.

Comment by MK Jordan on May 2, 2013 at 1:27pm

John, Sorry about the mispelling of your name.

Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service