Ruth and Naomi Leave Moab, 1860, by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872).
Good immigration articles are hard to find. In my experience, just about everything written about immigration in the mainstream press is at best misleading. In many cases, it’s hard not to view it more as fake news than actual reporting, the main purpose of which is not to encourage informed thought on this challenging subject, but to reinforce establishment memes in the mind of John Q. Public.
One such piece is a recent article by Jerry Schwartz titled “US: A nation of immigrants, but ambivalent about immigration.” The piece was published by the very mainstream Associated Press (AP) and found its way to the February 10, 2017 edition of my local newspaper the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Schwartz’ article is remarkable if for no other reason than that it is so typical of what is wrong with the mainstream media in general and its treatment of immigration in particular. Rather than acting to shed light on the topic of immigration, the mainstream media tends to behave more as the ministry of propaganda for establishment interests.
Below are my comments refuting some of the significant the most common errors found in this and many other such bits of establishment immigration propaganda.
A Nation of Immigrants, Not
As mentioned above, the title of the article as it appears on the AP website is “US: A nation of immigrants, but ambivalent about immigration.” This title calls to mind something John Robbins said in one of his recorded lectures. He commented that philosophical systems tend to go wrong right from the start.
It would seem that Robbins’ observation can be applied with equal force to the discussion of immigration. For it is simply not true that the US is a nation of immigrants.
According to the US Census Bureau’s 2013 population survey, the total US population, including non-citizens, was approx. 311 MM, of which approx 271 MM were native-born American citizens. This works out to about 87% of the total population of the US.
On the other hand, naturalized US citizens numbered about 18 MM, or approx. 5.7% of the population.
With this in mind, it would be far more accurate to say, as did the late Julian Simon, that the US is a nation of the descendents of immigrants, rather than a nation of immigrants.
E Pluribus Unum
Schwartz begins his article with the following immigration boilerplate,
America’s self-image is forever intertwined with the melting pot. It’s a nation that welcomes the world’s wretched refuse, a nation built by immigrants, a nation whose very motto is “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of Many, One.
There are at least two major blunders in this first paragraph. First, the official motto of the United States is not E Pluribus Unum, but In God We Trust, which was established by a 1956 law passed by Congress and approved by President Eisenhower.
Second, E Pluribus Unum is not a hymn to immigration, as today’s immigration enthusiasts like to claim, but appeared on the Great Seal of the United States and is a reference to the founding of the US as a nation.
The Great Seal of the United States
According to the document The Great Seal of the United States found on the State Department’s website, “The motto E Pluribus Unum, emblazoned across the scroll clenched in the eagle’s beak, expresses the union of the 13 States.”
It may seem like nit picking to point out the misapplication of E Pluribus Unum by supporters of the current taxpayer-subsidized system of mass immigration, but there’s an important point here. Defenders of the current system like to throw the motto in the faces of their critics as a way of making immigration reformers appear unpatriotic. And for that reason alone, it is important to point out the proper use of the term.
Our Most Important Values
“Many of us – politicians, people who are speaking out against the impact of the [Trump] administration’s actions – are saying, ‘We are a nation of immigrants. This goes against our most important values.’ And that is absolutely true.” This according to a quote in the article attributed to Erika Lee, the director of the Immigration History Research Center at the University of Minnesota.
What our most important values are, Erika Lee does not say. But it seems to me that the rule of law is certainly an important American value. And current US immigration law is a shambles. And much of the cost of that shambles is born by the American people. This must change.
The Know Nothings
One way to tell that the establishment types are starting to sweat a little is their invocation of the Know Nothings. And right on cue, Schwartz does his duty.
The rise of the Know Nothings, a nativist and populist movement of the 1840s and ’50s, was spurred by t eh rise in German and Irish immigration and by fears that the Catholic newcomers were loyal to a foreign entity – the pope – and incompatible with American values.
“If you substitute ‘Muslim’ for “Catholic,” they would sound very similar to what you hear today,” Lee said.
The conclusion were intended to draw from this statement is that, just as the bigoted, nativist Know Nothings of the nineteenth clearly were wrong about the Catholics in the 1840s and -50s, so too are those concerned about Muslim immigration today. So when it comes to Sharia law, burkas, honor killings and terrorism, just chill out already. Nothing to see here folks, just move along.
But here’s a question to rattle the cage of the complacent establishment: What if the Know Nothings were right about Roman Catholic immigration? What if political Romanism really was incompatible with republican values?
It is the view of this author that the Know Nothings were right, and their critics wrong, about the effects of Roman Catholic immigration, Further, it is my opinion that subsequent history has substantially validated their concerns.
For example, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is a treasonous organization, untiring in its efforts to undermine the rule of law in, and sovereignty of, the United States of America, with the ultimate aim of folding the nation into the papacy’s proposed system of world government.
Lord willing, I hope to write an installment of Immigration Citizenship and the Bible specifically on the Know Nothings. But for now, I would simply say that those who are so quick to dismiss the concerns of the Know Nothings themselves know nothing about the political and economic thought of the Roman Church-State or its long history of tyrannical oppression of those who dare disagree with its pronouncements.
So to flip the establishments argument on its head, if the Know Nothings were right to be concerned about Roman Catholic immigration, is it not possible that those who raise concerns about Islamist immigration may also have a point?
WW II Era Jewish Refugees
Another favorite argument by proponents of the immigration status quo is the plight of the WW II era Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis.
On this favorite establishment meme, Schwartz quotes Rebecca Kobrin, assistant professor of history at Columbia, saying, “History doesn’t look too kindly on this [the US turning away Jewish refugees] because we know how preposterous this [charges that the Jews either were German sympathizers or closet Marxists] was.”
For the sake of argument, let’s accept that the US was wrong to turn away the refugees. Does it then logically follow that there are no circumstances under which the US or another nation may refuse refugees? I think not.
For example, let’s apply this principle in other areas of the law. Many people have been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned by the government for crimes they didn’t commit. Does it follow that there should be no criminal justice system, and that no one, no matter how obviously guilty, should ever be punished? Clearly it does not.
And just as clearly, simply because mistakes have been made in the past concerning the treatment of refugees, it does not follow that there should be no vetting of refugees today.
We’re All Immigrants
The article closes with what could be called the “we’re all immigrants” argument.
“It’s fundamental,” said William Thiesen, 37, a New Yorker visiting the city’s Tenement Museum on Tuesday. “I think being an American is being an immigrant. It’s the American fabric. We’re all immigrants.”
To which anyone with a basic grasp of the English language and logic ought to reply, “no, we’re not.”
An immigrant is a person who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence. As mentioned above, about 87% of the population of the US is native born, so it’s simply not true that “we’re all immigrants.”
To suggest we are is evidence of sloppy thinking. And if taken literally would render impossible any coherent discussion about how the US should address the issues concerning immigrants, refugees and asylees.
Conclusion
The Americana establishment, with its globalist leanings, is very clearly concerned about Donald Trump’s stance on immigrants and refugees. As such, it has pulled out all the stops over the past few months in an attempt to put the genie of public outcry permanently back in the bottle.
As part of that campaign, various establishment mouthpieces have put out a constant stream of pro-immigration propaganda that, when examined in light of Scripture and logic, simply does not hold up. The article that is the subject of today’s post is one such example.
In the experience of this author, few, if any, subjects elicit nonsense from intelligent people more quickly than the topic of immigration.
As Christians, we must have respect for logic, history and sound language and reject arguments such as those presented in Schwartz’ article.
Lux Lucet 
You sound very much like a lawyer who argues one viewpoint out of one side of his mouth on Monday only to argue the direct opposite viewpoint on Friday for a different client. In short you are only half right since those of the white, black, Asian races among others living today are descended from immigrants who were not the original inhabitants of his land. Making the good ole US of A who speaks like a dragon a nation of immigrants.
Hmmm…not quite sure I follow. I’ve used the term “immigrant” in its proper sense. And using this definition, it does not apply to the vast majority of Americans.
Actually you have used it in the most legalistic way possible while ignoring the salient fact that modern day Americans are not native to this country and are indeed descended from immigrants. Your argument being only half right makes your Premise bogus for America is indeed a nation of immigrants.
I’m glad to see you agree with me that America is a nation descended from immigrants. As who has lived here my entire life, I am also native born, for that’s what the word “native” means.
If you wish to argue the case that no one belongs in North America besides the American Indians, you’ll need to argue that elsewhere. It is beyond the scope of this post.
Steve, just wanted to compliment you on your excellent podcast – particularly the episodes covering the immigration issue. I look forward to listening to them on my evening walk, so I guess I should also thank you for helping contribute to my health 🙂
I was particularly interested in something you mentioned in a recent episode about the “Kantian” way in which the immigration debate is framed. I wasn’t to familiar with Kant’s thought but I’m beginning to see it’s deep influence on modern politics. It reminded me of something I heard someone say recently -it was along the lines of “For as libertine as the Left claims to be, they sure get off on sermonizing and burdening other’s consciences.”
I also can’t help but shake my head at the fact that many of the opponents the biblical view of immigration not only come from Rome but from evangelicalism. Over the past couple years I’ve noticed a real trend in evangelicals (particularly confessionals) taking up RCC style social justice views. Have you noticed the same?
Matt, thank you for your kind words and for the encouragement concerning the podcasts.
When I use the term “Kantian,” I’m describing a system of ethics developed by Immanuel Kant. In his system, duty is the sole basis for ethical behavior. According to Kant, acting in one’s self-interest is immoral. To act ethically, one must act altruistically, that is to say, one must act without considering one’s own interests.
You see Kantian ethics quite a bit in discussions of immigration, where very often you will hear exchanges that run something like this: “You Americans/EU members must take these immigrants/refugees” say the immigration advocates “you have a duty to do so.” “But it’s bankrupting the country” say those who wish to reform immigration. “That doesn’t matter” say the immigration advocates “you must take these people into your country, and if you don’t you’re a bigot and failing in your responsibility to further the common good of the human race.” What is in the best interests of Americans or Europeans is of little interest to such people, only the plight of the immigrants/refugees is of concern to them. Unsurprisingly, the pope is probably the worst offender in this regard, constantly lecturing entire nations on their duty to take in refugees at taxpayer expense, regardless of the cost in money or physical danger it poses to the citizens.
It’s the hectoring of the “libertine left” as you put it, that pharisaical desire to burden others by declaring they have a duty to do this or that.
As far as your observation on Evangelicals sounding like Romanists, you’re spot on. In one of the installments of Immigration, Citizenship and the Bible, I detailed how so-called Evangelicals have really become an echo chamber for Rome’s immigration swindle.
This, of course, if part of a larger, decades long Romeward trend among Evangelicals, many of whom no longer seem to believe in Justification by Faith Alone, let alone understand that Rome, as Satan’s masterpiece, is the last place they should be looking for guidance on immigration or any other topic.
BTW, for more on Kantian ethics, you may want to listen to this lecture by John Robbins http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/Ethics.mp3
That was an excellent lecture and as usual, Dr. Robbins brought his clear commentary to bear on the subject. I also found this web page from an obscure university very helpful…
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm
In other reading, I found out that Kant’s ethics had great influence on the other “K” philosopher, Kierkegaard, who’s existentialism begat postmodern which has given way to an almost pure nihilism that pervades today’s thought. After all, what’s more nihilistic than “duty” without consequences
Thanks, Matt. I’ll check out the link.
Thanks for the article. Unlike most summaries, that on actually made sense.