Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Immigration Debate is a Waste of Time

by Alex Kurtagic | For close to half a century now those at the Right end of political conservatism throughout the West have been protesting government immigration policy. [The immigration debate and border control are a waste of time.]

Much has changed during this period, only invariably for the worse: if twenty, thirty, forty years ago it was thought that the governments of the day were letting in too many ‘immigrants’, the governments of today are letting in far more; and if before it was difficult to speak honestly about why the number of ‘immigrants’ was a problem, now it is more difficult than ever.

The campaign against ‘immigration’ has failed.

What is more—and this should have become obvious long ago—it will never succeed.

The problems with the campaign are not cosmetic. They are fundamental—conceptual. They are apparent even in its most basic terminology, though changing it will make zero difference if the reasons for that terminology remain stable and grounded.

Wrong Terminology

Why does the anti-‘immigration’ movement insist in using the word ‘immigration’, when what they are fighting against is something entirely different?

Immigration is not necessarily bad. Many people from Europe immigrated into the United States, and this accounts for much of what is good about this great country.

Admittedly, the type of immigrant may or may not be problematic, depending on whether he / she can be assimilated and make a positive contribution to his / her adopted country. But this does not invalidate immigration, only certain classes of immigrant.

Admittedly also, the number of immigrants may or may not be problematic, depending on whether their destination country has the requisite carrying capacity. This, again, does not invalidate immigration, only the quantity of immigrants.

What the anti-‘immigration’ movement is fighting against is not immigration per se.

What they are fighting against is the influx of a certain class of incomers that arrive ostensibly as immigrants but are, in reality, not so.

In the normal course of events, an immigrant, properly speaking, arrives at a polity as an appellant, and the expectation on both sides is that he will submit to that polity’s established authority. He may or may not assimilate, and he may or may not make the attempt to do so, but in all cases the exogenous incomer submits to the established authority of the indigene.

The class of incomer that has given rise to the anti-‘immigration’ movement we know today does not meet this criterion, even if type and quantity of immigration have been important factors.

This class of incomer does immigrate in the sense that he abandons his native polity in order to establish permanent residence in another. And he does initially behave like an immigrant, in that he arrives as an appellant to the established authority. This is, however, where the similarities end, because this incomer does not, in the long run, remain submissive to the established authority—his submission is only temporary and instrumental, because his prospects remain limited until he has achieved a stable, functional legal status. Once the latter is obtained, a mutation begins, which ends with the former ‘immigrant’, now a full citizen, not only demanding concessions from the established authority, but also pushing for its wholesale transformation and overthrow. The ultimate end is to replace the established authority of the indigene with a new one made in the image of the exogene.

Incomers in this class carry their sovereignty with them. They may arrive as individuals, they may be of diverse origin, and their decision to migrate may be driven by selfish economic motives, in the sense that they are out for themselves and neither loyal nor acting on behalf of a foreign metropole or mother colonizing country. But they are, as bearers of an exogenous sovereignty, colonizing settlers. They arrive as ‘immigrants’, but they in effect carry out a process of settlement, forming enclaves, communities, and, for all practical purposes, colonies, accumulating strength until they are in a position to flex political muscle, at which point begins an overt process of colonization.

The phenomenon that concerns the anti-‘immigration’ movement is not, therefore, immigration, but colonization by exogenous incomers—or, more precisely, given the absence of a mother colonizing country driving the effort, settler colonization.[1]

This is not to say that the solution for debating effectively is to substitute ‘colonization’ for ‘immigration’. Say ‘we are being colonized’ to anyone who is not already active in or supportive of the anti-‘immigration’ movement and they will think you are delusional and paranoid. Few if any will have the patience to listen to the long exposition I have given above.

This is to say, simply, that the anti-‘immigration’ movement has reacted to a problem, but not even begun to understand theoretically the nature of the problem.

Some may have at times used the word ‘colonization’, but their usage has been polemical, for shock value, out of anger, nothing more.

Wrong Focus

Another problem of the anti-‘immigration’ movement is that it focuses on purely surface phenomena.

Their arguments against ‘immigration’ are concerned solely with material costs. Economic arguments against immigration are endlessly reiterated, as are various social and political arguments, all of which are in turn reducible to economic arguments. The sum total of the movement’s message is this:

  • ‘immigration’ is economically and socially harmful;
  • the conservative political parties are ridden with lying cowards, opportunists, and traitors who are giving the country away;
  • Whites will become dispossessed minorities in their own countries;
  • the future is a Third World dystopia.
  • These assertions may all be reasonable and true, but they are insufficiently persuasive beyond a temperamentally congenial core.

    The mission of the anti-‘immigration’ movement is to prove pro-‘immigration’ supporters wrong, rather than evil and beyond the pale.

    Wrong Beliefs

    There is an excess of rationality in the anti-‘immigration’ movement.

    Its supporters believe that if presented with hard facts and water-tight arguments, any reasonable person will pause, reflect, and modify his views accordingly.

    This may happen in some cases, but only when the matter under discussion is in accord with the dominant morality, which in this case is liberal morality.

    When it is in contradiction to the dominant morality, evidence and reason are no longer used to ascertain the truth or find a practical solution. Rather, it is twisted to prove that the dominant morality is correct and anything that challenges it is wrong, evil, and beyond discussion.

    This is why we so often see otherwise highly intelligent individuals undergo all manner of intellectual and rhetorical contortions, not to mention emotional and psychological agitation, when their beliefs are challenged by evidence.

    This is also how, in a society that prides itself on tackling problems through reasoned debate, a ‘no platform’ policy is justified as a method of dealing with political enemies, and why the exclusion on principle of an anti-‘immigration’ politician from a televised discussion programme is considered a legitimate choice in a democratic system.

    This is why no matter what arguments and evidence are thrown in the direction of supporters of immigration, they will always come back with counter-arguments and counter-evidence. The aim is not to find the truth, but to avoid being convinced.

    These beliefs are prior to, not the result of, empirical evidence processed by reason. Empirical evidence is subordinate to these beliefs because all evidence is always evaluated in relation to prior beliefs.

    Wrong Politics

    The anti-‘immigration’ movement stands in opposition to liberalism, since open immigration is justified by a belief in the goodness of human equality, a fundamental tenet of the liberal worldview.

    What seems astonishing is that, although the movement recognizes that the political establishment across the board (irrespective of party) is at bottom liberal or Left liberal, it still assumes this establishment not to be symptomatic of the dominance of a liberal worldview. In other words, the movement assumes that once it is proven to the electorate that the politicians are all liberals, or cowards and traitors surrendering to the liberals, the electorate will withdraw their support and make better choices.

    In reality, politicians in the West are liberal because the dominant worldview in the West is liberal. And conservative politicians survive despite their liberal policies because what they are conserving is liberalism, albeit a form slightly antiquated in relation to the parties on their left—a slight tendency towards classical liberalism. These conservatives are just like the supporters of those left-leaning parties, only they want to go a little slower, stand still, or take a step back.

    Thus, the anti-‘immigration’ movement has geared itself to defeat a political faction, when what they need to defeat is a political philosophy or worldview.

    Wrong, Period

    The liberal worldview is founded on the supremacy of the individual, so a position that places collective entities (such as race, peoplehood, or nationhood) above the individual, particularly the Western individual, is at an immediate disadvantage.

    The idea behind liberalism is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything external or transcendent to him. Conceptually this produces a purely material and mechanistic world, governed my laws and processes the individual can know entirely through the use of empirical evidence and reason. Revealed knowledge is dismissed as unreal and irrational.

    This idea of liberation also tends, ultimately, towards an egalitarian social order, since anything that makes one individual essentially different from another—‘chosen’ or not ‘chosen’ by God, for example; mortal or sacred—is no longer deemed ‘real’ or irremediable. Any differences that exist are reduced to problems that have rational solutions.

    A necessary consequence is universalism, since equality implies that certain principles that apply to an individual can apply to all individuals. Hence, the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which speaks of the ‘equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family’.

    When these liberal a prioris form the foundations of the dominant morality in the West, it becomes impossible to argue against an immigration policy based on, for example, the race of the immigrant—which is what the anti-‘immigration’ movement has been trying to do—without putting one’s own humanity into question. For if a capacity for morality distinguishes us from animals, and belief in the goodness of human equality is moral, then disbelieving in that goodness is necessarily indicative of immorality and therefore of a lesser humanity.

    Is it a wonder, then, that anti-‘immigration’ campaigners are not accorded the same rights and privileges as pro-immigrationists?

    Or that for some it seems righteous and sufficient simply to subject anti-‘immigration’ campaigners to abuse and even violence?

    Discredit Rather Than Disprove

    It becomes clear, then, that a fundamental change in immigration policy cannot be achieved with arguments that aim to prove the anti-‘immigration’ case objectively.

    Of those who are not already temperamentally congenial to the anti-‘immigration’ position, many will, if presented with the evidence, recognize in their minds, or in private, that this position is rational and based on facts.

    However, they will not want to be identified with this position out of fear of being thought ‘bad people’, and in public they will therefore go along—by omission or by commission—with the liberal establishment mantras of ‘diversity is our strength’ and ‘immigration is good for economic growth’, against the evidence of their senses, against the evidence of researchers, and without, in fact, the need for any evidence.

    Moral systems cannot be disproven, because they are founded on absolute values. This makes them impervious to logical argument or objective proof. This imperviousness is an absolute necessity, since otherwise moral systems would not be resilient enough effectively to delimit the border between right and wrong.

    Because the pro-immigration position is justified by core tenets of liberal morality, defeating this position will, therefore, necessitate not disproving it objectively, but discrediting it subjectively—that is, morally; the anti-‘immigration’ movement will not succeed until pro-immigrationists are considered morally defective and their ideas unmentionable.

    Ironically, this will not be done by framing arguments in terms of ‘immigration’, because this thing falsely called ‘immigration’ is merely a consequence, not the cause, of the problem. This can be seen clearly in the fact that the so-called ‘immigrants’ very quickly learn to use the language of liberal morality­—equality, rights, and so forth—to demand concessions, gain entry into the structures of power, obtain influential positions, and begin displacing the indigenous from within.

    Reversing trends begins with discrediting the notion that the individual is ‘liberated’ when severed from the transcendent or from his lineal context; discrediting the notion that equality is a moral good; discrediting the notion that moral principles can be applied universally; and so on. Concepts like ‘human rights’ must be destabilized, doubted, and ridiculed.

    Being Unreasonable

    The sad fact is that we have witnessed in our own lifetimes how these things work, which means that those who think that pro-immigrationists will be defeated by objective reality have not learnt the lessons of the past century, much less those of the past fifty years.

    It has been argued here that the success of certain 20th-century Jewish intellectual movements, which have since long come to inform Western academic curricula and one of which was precisely an immigration ‘reform’ movement, owed not to their having relied on empirical evidence—in fact, it seems they were largely pseudo-scientific—but to their having couched their arguments in moral language, language that accepted the core tenets of liberalism and used reason simply to push their application to their logical extremes.

    Any ‘science’ that was presented in corroboration was in all cases subordinated to the morality of an a priori moral position. The overwhelming thrust of its proponents aimed always at discrediting rather than disproving the opposition. They were not to be reasoned with and their opponents were, through argumentation, and through the irresistible logic of shared liberal values, put in unreasonable positions in order to make them seem unreasoning and force out of them irrational concessions.

    For conservatives, the last half century has been, accordingly, a litany of concessions. Unsurprisingly, therefore, many eventually decided that this was simply the march of ‘progress’ and that their survival depended on adapting as best they could to ‘the inevitable’.

    Thus, it is fair to say that the ‘immigration’ debate as it is conducted today is a complete waste of time, for it seeks to conduct a rational debate on an issue that is entirely beyond reason.

    Being silent on the issue is obviously not an option, but being consciously irrational and unreasonable perhaps is.

    [1] My essay in Radix 1, recently published, sets out the differences between colonization and settler colonization from a theoretical standpoint.

    [Web Editor: Not only is the immigration debate a waste of time, so is border control. It reminds me of the continual talks for peace in the Middle East. There will never be border control nor illegal immigration control in the same way there will never be peace in the Middle East. We will just have more and more non-productive “talks” and “debates.”]

    Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture.

    [tell-a-friend id=”1″ title=”Tell a friend”]

    The American Freedom Party (AFP)–formerly The American Third Position Party (A3P)–supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the anti-Western Democran and Republica parties. Join a Nationalist Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!
    American Freedom Party


    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    Category: American Voice, Establishment News

    Comments (14)

    Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

    1. Jeffrey Brooks says:

      to complete

      We should make it our job to rescue our people from homeless conditions, get them back on their feet and healthy, rebuild their morale, and help them find employment. Let us Not depend on the government to do this for us! This is good policy for our heart, helping our people, and can only strengthen us over the long term.

      We might re invent our version of the old YMCA.. A Hostel with small basic rooms & cots, showers, lockers, gym and lounge, pay phones and internet, and a staff to run things..
      We could call it AHHA, American Hostel and Health Association, nice and innocuous, let our homeless and unemployed rent rooms for nominal rent, and give us a local community center.

      anyway just a few thoughts, thanks for reading

    2. Jeffrey Brooks says:

      to continoue

      We would need a team to scour the laws and regulations of all levels of government to locate areas we are being discriminated against, document it., and maintain a watch for new hostile laws.

      In the current stage of this game I think our focus must be on survival of the party and growth.
      Another issue is the state our people have been reduced to. The homeless I see are mostly our people, ethnic Americans. Last to be employed. Even new foreign companies building plants in the USA, have adopted and advertised policies of hiring "Women and Minorities".

    3. Jeffrey Brooks says:

      I agree entirely on the immigration issue, Excellent piece of work. I have a few ideas along some of the lines you mentioned .

      It's my belief we need to get to grass roots and do our own type of community building from the ground up.
      First
      There are real issues in the discriminatory laws and regulations. We can organize a campaign to fight for equal treatment.

      This will be a very red hot battle from the get go, our numerous enemies will never want to relent on the laws suppressing us.

      But we get publicity, as they blast us to ribbons in the Media.. This could be our Banner Issue, equal rights and fair treatment, for a very long time, something we can use to work up and rally all the guys around., and very difficult for our enemies to argue against, though they will with all their heart.

    4. Anonymous says:

      Europeans and Canadians who try to immigrate here have the screws put to them. No one can get a green card without a substantial amount of money behind them to support them, unless they win one in the lottery or have an embassy that gives them one… most of the south of the border immigrants get help from their church and embassy and so do other cultures but NOT WHITE EUROPEANS or European derived peoples.

    5. Mstr Rick says:

      Mr. Kurtagic has previously advocated this same approach of generational re-education as a means to disable the irrational moral superiority of liberalism as a solution for white survival. His reasoning presupposes that we as a nation still contain a plurality of citizens with the mental capacity to understand and have interest in, the mechanisms that support individualism while still maintaining a group affinity for those of like minds with which to trade and exchange shared resources.

      Cognitive Dissonance. Mr. Kurtagic rightly identifies that the question of immigration no longer exists, that the nation has already been “incomers” and colonized by usurpers. But to suggest that the state will not (has not) fracture is to believe a baseball hit into the air possibly might not hit the ground if we just somehow now begin to calculate it’s trajectory, suspend its existence for the next 30 years, and prepare to explore and activate our experiment on anti-gravity, now before it’s too late?

      My faith in the capacity of those even within my own cultural and social background to have a multi-generational “awakening” to their own dispossession is so unrealistic it borders on fantasy. Only under conditions of dire need of immediate survival will even a few rouse to the task.

      I reject any possible viable solution from within and suggest that the only lamentable answer lies THROUGH the rabbit hole and rebirth on the other side.

      Our near term future IS world dystopia, but their can still exist enclaves, small nation states, that can begin again with rational men of goodwill to initiate the long and arduous process of self-governance based on the rule of law and equally virtuous interests.

    6. Guest says:

      Alex:
      The reason everyone is using the word, "immigration" is simply because the promoters use that word. "Immigration reform" is nothing more than eroding the laws that keep people from coming here and ruining our lands. They are nothing more than squatters but the real problem, of course, is the people who not only promote this, but actually have let them in.
      The problem is with most Whites who are too complacent and soft, and are happy with their beer and football and shopping malls. Mass consumption appears to be a form of security. When there was a window of opportunity, no one did anything, and now, so many laws are enacted to expedite illegals into the system.
      I get the point that it is a waste of time, if you don't go after the real problem, but let's face it…we aren't going to get anyone on board by ranting about being pro-White.
      What will bring people around is alliance through the issues. Whites who have been kept out of jobs, Whites who are victims of crime, Whites affected by illegals, etc.
      So many Whites are mixing, or have a nonwhite member in the family, or have grandchildren who are mixed. And they just shrug and accept it and think this is "the way the world is now".
      As long as the majority of Americans do not care about race/ethnicity/culture, they will be absorbed more and more into the decay. As long as people have money and can "escape", they will not open their eyes to what is going on around them, because it does NOT affect them. Only when it affects them, will they wake up. Unfortunate for us who care about the kind of nation we live in.

      • American3P says:

        This is what I notice, during the 1980 Mariel Boatlift, Cuba emptied their prisons and sent them on their way to Florida all the while laughing!

        Many immigrants today are of the same character. They don\’t contribute to America.

        However, the immigration and citizenship policy of Mexico requires that one be a productive contributing member of society, otherwise Mexico does not want them!

        Editor.

    7. JamesinUSA says:

      Whether one wishes to argue the pro and cons of Collectivism and Individualism from a political or historical point of view, we must gain our ultimate nationalist goal through political solidarity.

      We see how extreme individualism has destroyed whatever merits the Libertarian Party may have, and we've see the Collective nature of Communist Party's throughtout the world and in world history, but I don't think we should mistake socialist/collectivist ideologies with the necessity of the sort of 'solidarity' that American citizens need today in order to restore some semblance of sanity back to our country.

    8. @ A Real Nationalist

      Individualism is indeed a Western trait and this is why it is a central tenet of liberalism. This makes perfect sense, since a people will tend to invent ideologies that reflect their innate predispositions.

      In his effort to establish the parameters for a post-liberal political theory, Alexander Dugin suggested attacking the concept of the individual. I don't think this will work in the West because Western individualism goes much deeper than liberalism.

      What needs to be targeted is the idea that equality is an absolute moral good. Equality is an evil. Not only is it profoundly unfair, but it is also the mechanism for stripping life of meaning. Meaning comes from difference, be it qualitative (specialness) or quantitative (superiority). Equality is the negation of all the things that make life worth living.

      • Native American says:

        Alex Kurtagic,

        The West’s individualism is only a result of historical ethnic homogeneity and present-day economic well-being, as well as opposition to the horrors of WWII, for which nationalism is wrongly blamed. You don’t mention it but: Religion might be attributed as encouraging individualism, but clearly Christianity tolerates ethnic identity as well.

        Perhaps the intended meaning of “individualism” there is different from mine. Hermann wasn’t likely acting as an individual when he defeated the Romans at Teutoburg Forest; the Irish didn’t free themselves for individualism either.

        Liberalism, rather than a manifestation of Western being, is a disease of mankind, one which man simply needs to adapt/become immune to. All civilisations end. Extreme individualism, in the form of Liberalism, is simply our suicide.

        The more recent Anti-Immigration Movement of the late 1990s has been a great success considering the environment. Before that, patriots were simply too lazy. Solzhenitsyn wrote: “Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism.” It isn’t that they couldn’t win. The economy was good, and WWII was still fresh – then new wars arose which diverted attention. It isn’t until a crisis arises that most heroes stand up, and the US economy is now declining.

        A majority of Americans, of all segments, continue to oppose illegal immigration; and it’s hoped they come to oppose legal.

        Political parties have a role to play, and other activities can be pursued outside them (I mean nothing surreptitious or immoral). Political parties should fight immigration, and cultural activists should do as Chesterton recommended for Imperial England in 1904: “[I]t must return, as it did in the adoption of Christianity, to intensity and humility, to a devotion to particular things.”

        I’ve enjoyed reading your article. You understand Liberalism very well.

    9. A Real Nationalist says:

      The idea of the individual being supreme is not a liberal notion, but a Western one. It is what separates us from the Easterner. Indeed, the most loathesome arguments of the Liberal are that the indiividual is a member of a centralized, government-run state. It is the (original, now disowned) conservative movement that recognizes the supremacy of an individual, and that the *common bonds* of the individual are those of culture–and thus, Nation–not government.

      There are several reasons why the militant Nationalist movements of the 1930s and 40s failed. One of them is that they embraced a Socialist,and therefore Liberal, viewpoint. in doing so, they became like the Soviets and Communist Chinese. Easterners can, with some difficulty, abide these top down centralized systems for a time. The heirs of Rome cannot.

      If the American Freedom Party–or any other western Nationalsit movement within the United States or Western Europe–is to achieve anything more than a temporary victory, we must recognize that part of the culture we are defending is, yes, an individualist one. The individuals we are trying to defend happen to be of a Western European, Anglo-Saxon based culture. (The Golden Dawn, while Nationalist, is Eastern and Collectivist in nature, and thus doomed to fail. The Greeks, in as much as they are partly responsible for our heritage, were long ago absorbed by the East. A fate we are in danger of sharing).

      The immigration debate is indeed a waste of time, and was lost before any of us were born. The old US borders will not and cannot be secured. Therefore those borders must be redrawn where white people are still a 90% majority or better. And they must be drawn by white individuals with their arms, before it is too late.

    10. A Swain says:

      The Left Liberal brigade and their likeminded adherents got where they are presently through irrationality, ie, using emotional blackmail regardless of the consequences for the victims of alien invasion and colonisation.

      Ultimately, colonisation whether by non-similar aliens or similar aliens with regards to race and culture, is still colonisation. Both identities have an interest in undermining the host race and culture for the purpose of the continuous proliferation of their alien genes as a pathway to the ultimate takeover of the host territory along with the political/judicial/academic/fiscal institutions whilst, at the same time, striving to decrease and dilute the genetic lineage of the host indigenous populace as well.

      Indigenous enablers must be attacked and shown to be mentally deranged and thus only worthy of eradication when the tide turns.

      In the meantime, the host identity should engage in encouraging alien breeds to attack their host enablers by demanding the host enablers practice what they preach which means stepping down from their privileged positions across the employment field and handing them over to the alien coloniser themseves.

    11. mikebushman says:

      I found your comments on incomers particularly interesting, distinguishing between immigrants who come to be part of America and those who come to remake America into their home country. Throughout history, nations in which the people share a common language and some elements of common culture have been more likely to survive. While I disagree that we should not have a discussion on the proper role of immigration and border security, I agree with you that we have been having the wrong discussion. What we need to discuss is what immigration policies and enforcements are necessary to our national survival and prosperity, while preventing the "colonization" of our nation. When nations fail to integrate, they often end up in civil war. I'm linking to a blog post of mine you may find worth reviewing on this aspect of the immigration discussion that is largely being ignored. http://www.mbushman.com/2012/09/laitin-language-a

    Top