October 6, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – In a recent posting on his website, Dr. Daniel Pipes [President of the Middle East Forum] cautioned against the ramifications of continuing the current [50 year old] immigration policy which controls [among many other aspects of the matter] the number and ethnic composition of foreigners who are permitted to legally immigrate to the United States.
Critiquing the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 Pipes writes:
“As multiculturalism takes hold, I wonder if classic American culture, with its stress on individualism and freedom, will survive…” [source, Daniel Pipes PhD, 50 Years Of Dangerous Immigration Policy]
This iteration of “immigration reform” was passed during the heady days of President Johnson’s “Great Society” and the American public was strongly assured by prominent politicians that the legislation would have little or no impact on America’s ethnic mix and hence no discernible effect on the culture.
For example Senator Ted Kennedy, a prime mover of the bill, stated:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." [U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pg. 1-3, for additional discussion of the way the bill was sold please see, Three Decades Of Mass Immigration: The Legacy Of The 1965 Immigration Act, Center For Immigration Studies, 1995]
Similarly, members of both parties argued, against all logic, what should have been apparent to all on the Immigration Act’s face, that allowing people to legally stream into the United States from markedly non-democratic, often despotic cultures, could only harm the continued promise of liberty and freedom that American traditionalism represents.
Other important members of the administration, for example Secretary of State, Dean Rusk as well as Attorney General Robert Kennedy served up the same Pabulum, that America would remain as it had been pre the legislation, which proved to be so deceitful it ranks along with Johnson’s concocted Gulf of Tonkin affair, as one of the most egregious fabrications of the latter half of the 20th century.
Albeit, now with 50 years of hindsight, even at the time it’s difficult comprehend how anyone could honestly have claimed that opening the immigrant floodgates to America would have anything but a deleterious effect
Perhaps the secondary question is more vital; why, when viewing the pernicious effect [evidence in hand] that our culturally blind immigration system is having - the destruction of the engine which had heretofore produced a commonizing, ethical culture based upon a Reformational Judeo-Christian blueprint - is the process allowed to continue unabated?
As Dr. Pipes makes clear in his posting, there is a natural irreducible tension between the ideas represented by Western Civilization and those of the multiculturalists, as a matter of fact the two are natural polar opposites.
Before the mid 1960s, multiculturalism was unheard of because it was a contradiction in terms in the America of that time - one which operated under the motto of E Pluribus Unum. However as sizable numbers of migrants who refused to acculturate became citizens, leftist academics saw in the theory a powerful wedge issue to fan the flames of the Marxist cultural warfare in which they were already fully engaged, pumped by the issues surrounding the war in Vietnam.
The trend lines presented in the study to which Pipes refers, the Pew Research findings, are alarming, in that over the next 50 years, the indigenous American population will increase by 14 million people [low birth rates being the primary cause, as it is in Europe, to an even greater degree] while the immigrant population will grow 7 times as rapidly - a mind-boggling 103 million. [to access the full set of statistics developed by Pew please refer to Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065 , Pew Research Center]
With the corrosive theory of a perverse multiculturalism now driving the ideology of the West's cultural elite, the challenge will be to require the new arrivals [who have landed or are in the pipeline] to embrace the culture while at the same time severely limiting [or better, yet stopping entirely for the present] immigration into the United States.
If we want the United States to continue to prosper and remain the beacon of hope it has historically represented, the Balkanization of America must end. This can only happen through a concerted effort to re-educate the populace so that it fully understands the death-spiral effect of hyphenated citizenship.
This we fear will be a very difficult undertaking as the Democrat party, now and as was the plan in 1965, are intent upon building through unrestrained immigration a voting bloc which will guarantee them electoral victory in perpetuity. What the Democrats - and unwittingly their dunce accomplices in the GOP’s old boy network and funding structure [to whit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce] are seeking is absolute, one-party rule which will in short order end the American dream, perhaps forever.
©2015 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law