Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (4 page)

If our government were in the international charity business, they’d be doing a fantastic job. America takes in half the refugees of the entire world.

In fact, however, taking in refugees is not even in the top hundred jobs we want the government doing. At what point will Americans remind their government that it has a responsibility to us, not to every sad person in the world? We can’t solve everyone’s problems—and that’s not what we’re paying taxes for our government to do. Catholic Charities may enjoy taking in immigrant families, so they can feel like the Harriet Tubman of Uganda, but they don’t have a right to do it on the taxpayers’ dime.
⁴
It’s not “charity” if we have to pay for “their” good works. It’s charity if
they
pay. But I notice that we always end up paying, while they go to all the awards dinners at the Ugandan-American Society.

Try calling another country’s embassy and asking to immigrate there.

          
Consulate:
What do you do?

          
You: Well, I can’t read or write, I have no skills, and I’ve got nine kids. Oh and by the way, if I can’t make it in your country, would you mind cutting my family a check once a month?

          
Consulate:
Click.

Other countries must be laughing their heads off at us. Our “family reunification” policies mean that being related to a recent immigrant from Pakistan trumps being a surgeon from Denmark. That’s how we got gems like the “Octomom,” the unemployed single mother on welfare who had
fourteen children in the United States via in vitro fertilization; Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring hundreds, a few years after slitting the throats of three American Jews; and all those “homegrown” terrorists flying from Minnesota to fight with ISIS. Family reunification isn’t about admitting the spouses and minor children of immigrants we’re dying to get. We’re bringing in grandparents, second cousins, and brothers-in-law of Afghan pushcart operators—who then bring in their grandparents, second cousins, and brothers-in-law until we have entire tribes of people, illiterate in their own language, never mind ours, collecting welfare in America. We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, unskilled,
and
lonesome.

LIVING IN THE SHADOWS—COLLECTING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

We’re told—as if it’s good news—that immigrants use welfare only at 18 percent above the native-born rate.
⁵
No, the fact that any immigrants are on welfare proves we’re not taking the right immigrants. It’s like saying,
Only 18 percent of our cars burst into flames when you start them
. We don’t want
any
cars bursting into flames. These aren’t native-born citizens who are poor. Aren’t immigrants who immediately go on government assistance, by definition, immigrants we don’t want? We can’t pay for our own poor people, but now we have to be the welfare ward of the world?

Our government does such a terrific job at choosing who gets to immigrate to America that 52 percent of
legal
immigrant households with children are on government assistance. In all, nearly 60 percent of immigrants—legal and illegal—are on government assistance, compared with 39 percent of native households.
⁶
Why would any country voluntarily bring in people who have to be supported by the taxpayer?

Immigrants from nineteen of the top twenty-five source countries are more likely to be in poverty than native white Americans, generally far more likely.
⁷
Immigrants from Mexico and Honduras, for example, have
a poverty rate three times higher than white Americans.
⁸
The only immigrants
less
likely to be in poverty than white Americans are those from Canada, Poland, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, and the Philippines.
⁹
Needless to say, we take fewer immigrants from these countries than from the neediest immigrant countries. Poland and Germany aren’t even in the top ten source countries, and Canada and the United Kingdom
combined
send us fewer immigrants than Mexico does.

Business lobbyists have an irritating habit of dismissing the massive welfare use of immigrants by saying,
Yes, of course, we have to get rid of welfare.
First of all, their cheap labor wouldn’t be so cheap if not for all the goodies provided by the U.S. taxpayer, so this is a ruse. The immigrants get a taxpayer subsidy to work for the rich, and the rich get a break on the maid. This cozy deal is funded by the long-suffering middle class.

Second, it would be easier to repeal the law of gravity than to prevent immigrants from accessing welfare. The Republicans’ 1996 welfare reform bill barred immigrants from receiving direct welfare payments for a mere five years. That turned out to be the single biggest cost savings of the entire welfare reform. Most people said,
THAT’S NOT ALREADY THE LAW?
But at the
New York Times
, needy immigrants are the most desirable immigrants. The
Times
hysterically attacked the immigration provisions as one of the “cruelest aspects” of welfare reform. Congress immediately restored welfare for immigrants who arrived before the law passed on the grounds that it would be unfair to take welfare away from immigrants who came here
expecting
to live off the American taxpayer. Subsequent Congresses restored welfare for elderly immigrants, immigrants with children, refugees, and immigrants who are hungry, get pregnant, or brought a wife-beater with them.
¹⁰

America should be choosing immigrants like the New England Patriots choose players. They don’t have a lottery system for their draft picks. No one guilts them into taking a blind kid with one leg over an All American—much less the blind kid’s cousin, to keep him company. But that’s America’s immigration policy. We’re in a seller’s market, but instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit cripples, illiterates, and
the desperately poor. A strange idea has taken hold that it’s unfair to get the best immigrants we can. Why should that top model be allowed to date only rich, good-looking guys? She should be forced to date poor, balding losers. Maybe Kate Upton should have a lottery system to decide whom she goes out with.

Proposing an immigration policy that serves America’s interests should not require an apology.

THIS IS ON THE KENNEDY HIGHLIGHTS REEL, RIGHT AFTER THE PART WHERE HE KILLS THAT GIRL

It’s our current immigration laws that demand an apology. It was Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act that snuffed out the generous quotas for immigrants from the countries that had traditionally populated America—England, Ireland, and Germany
¹¹
—and added “family reunification” policies, allowing recent immigrants to bring in their relatives, and those relatives to bring in
their
relatives, until entire Somali villages have relocated to Minneapolis and Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol.
¹²
America has to take in all the poor people of the world, so that Ted Kennedy could get his face on commemorative plates. I’m sorry the Kennedy family felt awkward in Brahmin Boston, but that isn’t enough of a reason to wreck our country.

Kennedy’s immigration law was enacted during the magical post-1964 period, when Congress had free rein to push through the craziest left-wing legislation since the New Deal. It was the most destructive period in American history. Anything the Left had ever dreamed of became law, in such profusion that it could have been a test to see if members of Congress were actually reading the bills. The premise of the 1965 immigration act sounds like the bizarre belief of a weird hippie cult: The poor of the world have the right to come to America, and we have to take care of them!

Liberals had tried convincing Americans to vote for them, but that kept ending badly. Except for Lyndon Johnson’s aberrational 1964 landslide,
Democrats have not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them in any presidential election since 1948.
¹³
Their only hope was to bring in new voters.
Okay, fine. You won’t vote for us, America? We tried this the easy way, but you give us no choice. We’re going to overwhelm you with new voters from the Third World.
As Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote for the Roper Center in 1998: “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”
¹⁴

Since then, the Democrats’ insatiable need for more voters has continued unabated. A year before the 1996 presidential election, the Clinton administration undertook a major initiative to make 1 million immigrants citizens in time to vote. The White House demanded that applications be processed twelve hours a day, seven days a week. Criminal background checks were jettisoned for hundreds of thousands of applicants, resulting in citizenship being granted to at least seventy thousand immigrants with FBI criminal records and ten thousand with felony records.
¹⁵
Murderers, robbers, and rapists were all made citizens so that the Democrats would have a million foreign voters on the rolls by Election Day.
¹⁶
The
Washington Post
reported—after Clinton was safely reelected—that the citizenship initiative was intended to create “a potent new bloc of Democratic voters.” Even the INS had objected to “running a pro-Democrat voter mill.”
¹⁷
Democrats didn’t care. Clinton’s reelection was more important than the country.

The mass migration of the poorest of the poor to America is bad for the whole country, but it’s fantastic for Democrats. Ask yourself: Which party benefits from illiterate non-English speakers who have absolutely no idea what they’re voting for, but can be instructed to learn certain symbols? The foreign poor are prime Democratic constituents because they’re easily demagogued into tribal voting. A white person can vote Republican or
Democratic without anyone saying to him, “HOW CAN YOU VOTE AGAINST YOUR RACE?” By contrast, every nonwhite person is required to vote Democrat.
¹⁸
Republicans’ whispering sweet nothings in Hispanic ears isn’t going to change that. Voting Democratic is part of their cultural identity. Race loyalty trumps the melting pot.

Moreover, poor people are never opposed to big government because they’re exempt from all the annoying things that government does. They’re not worried about taxes: The government is not going to raise any taxes that they pay. They drive unlicensed cars, have no insurance, flee accidents, and couldn’t pay a court judgment anyway. The government doesn’t want to get in touch with the poor for any reason other than to give them things. So it’s lucky, in a way, that Democrats are the party of government workers. Unending immigration means we need rafts of government workers to educate non-English speakers, teach cultural sensitivity classes, arrest criminals, man prisons, clean up parks, distribute food stamps, arrange subsidized housing, and work in hospital emergency rooms to deliver all those premature babies.

MSNBC is constantly crowing about Democrats sweeping every ethnic group. Could we see the party preferences of voters whose great-great-grandparents were born in America? Republicans would win that demographic in a landslide. The American electorate isn’t moving to the left—it’s shrinking. Democrats figured out they’d never win with Americans, so they implemented an evil, genius plan to change this country by restocking it with voters more favorably disposed to left-wing policies than Americans ever would be. Unfortunately, this scheme was implemented long before I was able to object.

But that’s not how the story of the end of America will be written. Rather, it will be: THEN, FINALLY, PROGRESSIVE POLITICS SWEPT THE NATION! THERE WAS RESISTANCE, BUT, IN THE END, THE LEFT’S ARGUMENTS WON. No minds have been changed. Democrats just brought in a new group of voters whose minds don’t need to be changed. It’s as if the Democrats switched teams at halftime, from the worst
team in the NBA to the best.
We’ve got five NBA All-Stars guarding LeBron—Woo hoo! We won!
Don’t pat yourselves on the back, Democrats. The country isn’t changing—you changed the voters.

Occasionally, Democrats speak openly about what they’re doing. In 2002, liberal journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira wrote a book boasting that immigrants, combined with the Democrats’ usual disgruntled voters—divorcées and college professors—would give Democrats an insuperable majority within a few decades. Third World immigration, they said, would consummate “George McGovern’s revenge”—which up to that point I thought was a particularly nasty lower intestinal condition. A decade later, when Obama won his 2012 reelection, Teixeira gloated that—as he had predicted—ethnic minorities were voting 8
–
2 for the Democrats, and had grown to nearly one-third of the electorate. “McGovern’s revenge only seems sweeter,” Teixeira said.
¹⁹

McGovern’s revenge also represents the Democrats’ switch from a party of blue-collar workers to a party of urban elites—feminists, vegans, drug legalizers, untaxed hedge fund operators, and transgender-rights activists. Back when Democrats still claimed to represent working Americans, they opposed illegal immigration. Since being taken over by the Far Left, all that matters to them is changing the electorate to one that doesn’t mind liberal insanity.

PROUD TO BE UN-AMERICAN