Almost everybody in the past week has seen some video going around social media with some form of the following: a young, aspiring and relatively successful “dreamer” (i.e., unauthorized immigrants who qualified for the deferred action initiative under former President Obama) begins to express their tearful response to receiving news that they will be deported upon the nullification of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
These responses have not been few, and the emotional sentiment behind them are reasonable to those being deported. After all, the undocumented immigrants in the United States, specifically the dreamers (being brought into U.S. territory as children) have considered the United States to be their home growing up. Nobody wants to be shipped to a country where the culture, mannerisms, religious customs, and language are inherently foreign to them.
Yet, blind sentiment cannot dictate legislation. To tolerate the presence of undocumented immigrants in the United States, regardless of their background, is to excuse and overlook the many legal ramifications concerning such presences. According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 8% of children born in 2008 were the offspring of undocumented immigrants. Although these children are legally American citizens from birth, studies show that many of the offspring of illegal immigrants fail to graduate from high school and have two fewer years of education than the children of legal immigrants. This is likely due to the stress, pressure to work at a younger age, and economic instability that befalls those who migrate to the United States illegally.
To enforce presently instituted legislation concerning illegal immigration, which DACA postponed for 1.7 million illegal immigrants in the name of “improving border security” (you can’t make this up), is not “racist.” To claim that the American population should have the right to close its borders to any given population is a nationalist tenant, and does not inherently possess racial undertones.
Thorough immigration reform, which is currently being carried out under the Trump Administration, is not in itself an innovative and bigoted step towards Nazism, despite the cries from the regressive left. Japan outspokenly prefers a racially specific and homogeneous society, and foreign nationals comprise less than 2% of its total population. Russia has extremely strict policies concerning illegal immigrants, and many such immigrants have received prison terms before being expelled to their country of nationality.
However, let us look at the alternative.
Voices against illegal immigration do not detest the phenomenon because of what it is in and of itself, but because of it is a part of. Illegal immigration, especially without proper assimilation, leads to the disgruntlement of national identity, as multiculturalism inevitably leads to cultural decline. All countries recognize this. It is why nations have borders and why there are specific processes whereby one can become a citizen. Freedom of movement is only complacent with this ideology insofar that it is not interpreted as the freedom to migrate. Nobody has the right to migrate. For foreigners, citizenship is a privilege that must be earned rather than a right that is indebted to them.
There is another way to ensure the safety of national identity, however, and that is the method employed by Nazi Germany. Dr. Frank Ellis, an author and former lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies at the University of Leeds, writes,
“What we call ‘political correctness’ actually dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s (politicheskaya pravil’nost’ in Russian), and was the extension of political control to education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy – which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianisms. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness even meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, for which the only treatment was incarceration.”
Ellis goes on to provide his opinion on the matter, writing that,
“A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony. This is why we see a huge growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race. This is why there is so much talk of the ‘multicultural’ rather than the more precise ‘multiracial.’ Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society ever more congenial to racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the idea of the West.”
To this form of so-called “multiculturalism,” Nazi Germany transformed itself into what some scholars have characterized as a “genocidal state.” In an attempt to eradicate any influences of political correctness, which came with the eradication of identity and war between classes, Nazi Germany turned to exterminating the Bolsheviks within their own borders, many of which, according to the Jewish Chronicle, were Jews.
Thus, there are two options for a nation to choose from when faced with the cancer of illegal immigration and multiculturalism. There is the development of a genocidal state, quintessentially manifested in the charisma of the Third Reich, and there is the federal enforcement of pre-existing immigration policies that require the deportation of undocumented foreigners.
Clearly, deportation is a much more compassionate alternative to genocide, and the preservation of a nation’s identity can be done non-violently, provided that the nation is not prodded by its political opponents to resort to other, more brutalizing means.