Observation on notion of unregulated and Illegal Immigration - "our future rulers" - Granite Grok

Observation on notion of unregulated and Illegal Immigration – “our future rulers”

I’ve been blogging about Dover, NH and the concerns and eventual outcomes that injecting (either by resettlement or the later chain migration that will happen) up to 3,000 Congolese refugees into a city with merely 30,000 residents.  An Obama “fundamental transformation” to be sure.  I caught this over at Instapundit who quoted Eugene Volokh (law professor and blogger) on the nature of open borders / and a “no constraints” immigration:

I think, though, that the “Pilgrims = Illegal Aliens” equation illustrates the exact opposite. The whites immigrated to America — and took over the place. (I’m glad they did, but I can surely understand why the Indians might have disagreed.) Likewise, Jews immigrated to Palestine (adding vastly to the numbers already present), sometimes illegally — and eventually there were more Jews in some parts than Arabs, so Jews started running the place. Now Israelis are sensibly objecting to Palestinians’ asserted “right of return” to their and their parents’ homes, because if enough Palestinians are allowed to immigrate into Israel, they’ll start running the place.

The bottom line is that for all the good that immigration can do (and I’m an immigrant to the U.S., who is very glad that America let me in, and who generally supports immigration), unregulated immigration can dramatically change the nature of the target society.

It makes a lot of sense for those who live there to think hard about how those changes can be managed, and in some situations to restrict the flow of immigrants — who, after all, will soon be entitled to affect their new countrymen’s rights and lives, through the vote if not through force.

I sometimes pose for my liberal friends a stylized thought experiment. Say that they live in a country of 3 million people (the size of New Zealand) where 55% of the citizens are pro-choice and 45% are pro-life (1.65 million vs. 1.35 million). Now the country is facing an influx of 1 million devoutly Catholic immigrants, who are 90% pro-life. If these immigrants are let in and become citizens, the balance will flip to 2.25 million pro-life to 1.75 million pro-choice (56% to 44% pro-choice); and what my friends might see as their fundamental human right to abortion may well vanish, perfectly peacefully and democratically.

It’s unlikely that any constitutional protection will stand in the way: Even constitutions can be amended, and new judges can be appointed. Nor can one rely on “education” or “assimilation” — what if the immigrants simply conclude that their views on abortion are just better than the domestic majority’s? I think many of the current residents may rightly say “We have nothing against Catholics; but we don’t want our rights changed by the arrival of people who have a different perspective on the world than we do.”

Letting in immigrants means letting in your future rulers.

It all comes down to true assimilation to American ideals and values; it is one thing if someone comes here to BE an American (like Grokster Mike), but it is another to just have a job and send money home or as merely a safe haven.  It doesn’t help when those in charge and running our immigration policies unilaterally generaly disdain those traditional ideals in the first place.  After all, here in NH, the Live Free or Die state, we do have a meme in that we don’t want people moving in from high tax / big government states. Why?  They come for the low taxes and relative freedom, but then start voting for people that wish to make NH a higher tax / bigger government place and we don’t want those attitudes here.

Please, just stay home if that is the case.

>