Once upon a time immigrants didn’t come to America for handouts, because there wasn’t any. From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:
In the 18th century, America was made up primarily of people who, of necessity, had had to work hard. Had they not taken full responsibility for their own welfare, there was no one else to do it for them and they would have starved. As this was the case, anyone who did arrive on American shores who was unwilling to work and wanted others to provide for him, could expect to find no sympathy and might well starve.
In the 19th century, the former colonies had become the United States. Expansion was underway and the young people of the 18th century became the entrepreneurs of the 19th century. In order to continue to get the menial tasks accomplished, millions of immigrants were needed. Those who were welcomed were those who were prepared to start at the bottom, often live in poor conditions, receive no entitlements and compete for even menial jobs. If they accepted these terms, they received the opportunity to immigrate and work.
Also, in the 19th century, the US expanded to the West coast, covered the nation with railroads and created the industrial revolution – the greatest period of expansion in US history.
In the 20th century, income tax was implemented, the Federal Reserve took over the dollar and the “New Deal” Introduced the concept of entitlement. It was a mixed century of wealth generated by the industrial revolution, fighting against the new concept of entitlement.
In the 21st century, immigrants in large numbers were again encouraged to come in. However, unlike in the 19th century, they were not encouraged on the basis of starting at the bottom, often living in poor conditions, receiving no entitlements and competing for even menial jobs.
Quite the contrary. They not only were guaranteed welfare, schooling and housing, they would not be required to work at all and, if they committed crimes, they were likely to be released without prosecution. They, in fact, were afforded privileges above that of American citizens.
Today, American conservatives are stating that immigration must be curtailed, as immigrants are inherently usurious. Conversely, liberals are stating that America was built on immigration and the way forward is to open the doors to all who wish to enter.
Both these assumptions are incorrect.
The debate should instead be over which people are chosen to immigrate.
In every country, in every era, there are always some people who understand work ethic and responsibility. They are the producers. There are also always some who have no desire to work or otherwise take responsibility for themselves. They are the parasites.
In the 19th century, this simple principle was understood, and every single immigrant recognised that, if he wasn’t prepared to work and take responsibility for himself, he might well starve. That being the case, those who left their home countries to migrate to America were, of course, producers. (The parasites never even got on the boat.)
But in the 21st century, the US government supports the collectivist concept that potential immigrants must be offered more entitlements than they ever had at home, even to the point that they’ll have rights that Americans don’t have. Of course, the people who come will not be the producers. They will be the parasites.
So, let’s do a comparison:
- Prepared to start at the bottom
- Prepared to work hard enough to better themselves
- Prepared to take responsibility for their own well-being
- Prepared to respect the laws of the host country
- Prepared to have gratitude for the opportunity to better themselves
- Reluctant to accept low-level jobs
- Not prepared to work to better themselves
- Expect others (the host government) to take responsibility for their well-being
- Not prepared to respect the laws of the host country
- Expect to never be satisfied, no matter what level of privilege they’re afforded
Once the above is put in perspective, the reader must then accept that his government is not only not doing what’s good for his country, he’s doing the exact opposite of what’s good for his country.
And, then, of course, he must ask, “Why?”
There are two possible answers. It may be that the political leaders of the US are quite delusional – to the point that, whilst they may be patriotic, they fail to understand the simple equation of worker mentality.
Or it may be that the political leaders thoroughly understand that the mass immigration of parasites is destructive for their country, but also realise that such immigration increases their power level.
In Europe, this question is more easily answered. The same trend is taking place there, and the people of literally every country in the EU are calling loudly to stop the mass wave of parasite immigration, yet the EU itself is stubbornly insisting that the immigration not only continue, but expand.
Brussels knows full well that, if enough parasites enter the system and eventually receive the right to vote, they will always vote in favour of a central government that provides them with entitlements. Once their numbers substantially exceed 50% of all voters, the collectivist oligarchy in Brussels will become autonomous. Elections will become meaningless and power will remain with the Brussels elite permanently.
In America, of course, the veil has not fallen away from the government’s objective, to the degree that it has in Europe. Roughly half of Americans see the government programme of parasite immigration as a moral imperative.
And, of course, both the government and the media are doing all they can to enforce this propaganda. They present parasite immigration supporters as “good people” and objectors as “bad people.”
History is rife with examples of populations that were hoodwinked into believing that they were “good people” because they supported an idiotic precept that was, in fact, only intended to increase their government’s power over the people.
In all cases, this has ended badly and there can be little doubt that, when this one hits the history books, it will also be looked back on as a grave error in judgement.