Let’s do a thought experiment.

Let’s say you own a 200 acre piece of property, a small farm even, and you wake up one day to see a strange sight.  A family has set up a tent through the night over in one of your fields and they’re cooking breakfast over a fire.  You say to yourself…what?  We don’t cuss on here, so perhaps you say, “golly, who are those people”.

What do you do?  Go check them out yourself or call the cops?  Regardless, you do find out that the family felt “entitled” to set up shop on your property.  Naturally you don’t agree so you attempt to have them removed.

However, as it turns out the mother of the family was pregnant and near delivery when they arrived and sometime in the night she had dropped a baby.  Unbeknownst to you, the police inform you that since she had a baby on your property, you are now responsible for it and their entire family.  You are shocked, how can this be.

“What exactly do you mean by responsible”? you ask the deputy who had come out.

“Well, it’s a law, if any family makes it onto your property and has a baby, that baby is now part of your family entitled to all of the privileges and benefits that you show your own children”, responds the deputy.

“That’s insane, and what’s that about the entire family”?

“Umm, well, sorry, but they’re entitled now to stay here also, it’s the law.  Technically, they have to fill out an application to stay with the baby and be approved, but generally we just allow them to stay, why do all that paperwork and even if they did do the paperwork they’re all approved anyway”.

“Well….how long has that been a law”?

“Since the democrats passed the 1965 Immigration Act.”

You are speechless, “this is insane, this is my property!!!”…. And the United States is our country.

——————————————————————————

“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”  So said, Lyndon Johnson as he signed the new immigration Act.

“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.” Ted Kennedy, the architect of the bill.

The new law replaced the old, which gave preferential treatment to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany.  Now the floodgates were opened to the whole world.  A key component of the new law was “family reunification”,  a migrant that made it could ultimately bring in a dozen.  Legal immigration now is at over a million a year, illegal immigration is limited to how many simply want to walk across our border.  That legal million allows for the future legal import of multiples more.  The United States now has a fourth of Mexico’s population.

While the above exercise deals more with the illegal aspects of the migrant flood that is pouring into our country, especially under Obama, the questions it raises apply to all immigration.  This is our country and what do we want it to look like, what do we want it to become?

Whether you want to admit it or not, liberalism has won, it has toppled the culture of traditional America.  All because liberals never sleep and half of America does nothing but.  It has happened over the past half century or more,   liberalism finally tipped the scales in its favor just over the past two decades.  The result is the rapid decay we see of the nation.  Every trend is headed in the wrong direction.  I simply define “wrong” here as forces at work in our country that work against our peace, prosperity and happiness.   Detroit became Detroit, a great number of our major cities, democrat strongholds, are racing to catch up.  Chicago may be the next city to fall.  America itself is becoming Detroit.

I really don’t care what your race is, the divide here isn’t racial, although liberals keep it that way, it is actually cultural.  The 10% of blacks, the 30% of Hispanics and Muslims have embraced traditional American culture (most of it anyway) AND understand the cultural and political war that is raging inside our country and side with the traditionalists, have become traditionalists.  What good does it do to aspire to claim the liberties and opportunities of America if you vote for a party, a philosophy, which is working tirelessly to destroy them?  Many of them see that.

One of the lies liberals love to spout is that Hispanics (which dominate immigration into this country) are here to do the “jobs Americans refuse to do”.  Most Americans tend to buy that argument which actually has little basis in fact.

From the Center for Immigration Studies we find the following, a 2007 report entitled “Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response”.

For several years stories in the media have reported a farm labor shortage. This study examines this question and finds little evidence to support this conclusion. First, fruit and vegetable production is actually rising. Second, wages for farm workers have not risen dramatically. Third, household expenditure on fresh fruits and vegetables has remain relatively constant, averaging about $1 a day for the past decade. 

Among the findings:

• Production of fruits and vegetables has been increasing. In particular, plantings of very-labor intensive crops such as cherries and strawberries have grown by more than 20 percent in just five years.

• The average farm worker makes $9.06 an hour, compared to $16.75 for non-farm production workers.

• Real wages for farm workers increased one-half of one percent (.5 percent) a year on average between 2000 and 2006. If there were a shortage, wages would be rising much more rapidly.

• Farm worker earnings have risen more slowly in California and Florida (the states with the most fruit and vegetable production) than in the United States as a whole.

• The average household spends only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables.

• Labor costs comprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, if farm wages were allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costs were passed on to consumers, the cost to the average household would be only about $8 a year.

• Mechanization could offset higher labor costs. After the “Bracero” Mexican guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose relatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity.

 

So, what does this really tell us?  The info from CIS is about 8 years old, currently farm workers make about $12 dollars per hour, which now constitutes about 7 percent of the retail price of fresh produce.  In other words, the field workers making 12 dollars per hour still contributes a very small amount to the price of the product.  We wouldn’t even have to be “bleeding heart liberals” (which they’re not) to be willing to pay an additional seven percent for produce which would or could double the pay of the farm workers.

If we are concerned about the stagnant wages in America, could it be caused primarily due to an endless flood of illegal and legal immigrants who enter our country, primarily from nations south of the border?  Talk about living wages, if immigration was frozen, reduced to zero, the border sealed, how long would it be that farm workers could double their pay to 24 dollars an hour?

There are 92 million Americans, able bodied and of working age who are out of work.  Do you understand that?  They exist as dead weight for the 150 million or so who do work (many at part time jobs created by the listless Obama economy) to pull as the 92 million sit in the wagon.  These 92 million do not look for work, that is why the “unemployment rate” if now at “5 percent” (what a joke).  These 92 million subsist on our dime.  If we started cutting the dimes off or reduced them to nickels, might it be that they would begin taking these “desperately needed” jobs that liberals claim only Hispanics can fill?

Liberals and too many conservatives believe we must import the highly educated to fill certain job openings that America does not have citizens trained for.  These would be the STEM jobs, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.  Would you believe that 75 percent our STEM graduates overall do not work in STEM occupations?  Of the hottest of the STEM fields, in engineering, computers, math and statistics, only half those educated in those fields hold a STEM job.  Do we really need Indian, Chinese and other foreigners when half to three quarters of our own citizens educated in those fields can’t find work in them?  This importation of the these foreigners at the expense of our own people, just as with the lower end, contributes to wage stagnation.  And we wonder why Silicon Valley supports mostly democrats and a few establishment republicans.

Appealing to your sense of logic, discernment and wisdom, ask yourself some basic questions.

Am I a citizen of this country?

Doesn’t what I believe count, don’t I have a say?

What kind of America do I want, do I want my traditional America based on liberty and Judeo-Christian values to remain intact?

Do we need any immigrants to enter this country at all?

If I actually wanted immigrants, which ones would I prefer?  It is our country, it is our culture (or what’s left of it).  What sort of immigrant could actually assimilate?  Understand that liberals do not want assimilation as they claim there is no superior culture, in fact, liberals are actively warring against traditional American culture, “white” culture as they call it.

If they can’t assimilate, can they even accommodate?

There’s an interesting British website named learningandteaching.info that gives us a brief introductory definition of these two terms as they deal with how a person interacts with the outside world.  Regarding our terms the author states,

Assimilation and Accommodation are the two complementary processes of Adaptation … through which awareness of the outside world is internalized. Although one may predominate at any one moment, they are inseparable and exist in a dialectical relationship.  The terms are also used to describe forms of knowledge in Kolb’s elaboration of the cycle of experiential learning. 

In Assimilation, what is perceived in the outside world is incorporated into the internal world without changing the structure of that internal world, but potentially at the cost of “squeezing” the external perceptions to fit — hence pigeon-holing and stereotyping.  

 If you are familiar with databases, you can think of it this way: your mind has its database already built, with its fields and categories already defined. If it comes across new information which fits into those fields, it can assimilate it without any trouble.  

In Accommodation, the internal world has to accommodate itself to the evidence with which it is confronted and thus adapt to it, which can be a more difficult and painful process.  In the database analogy, it is like what happens when you try to put in information which does not fit the pre-existent fields and categories. You have to develop new ones to accommodate the new information. 

In reality, both are going on at the same time, so that—just as the mower blade cuts the grass, the grass gradually blunts the blade—although most of the time we are assimilating familiar material in the world around us, nevertheless, our minds are also having to adjust to accommodate it.  

In other words, an immigrant from another country that is culturally very similar to its new host nation fairly easily “assimilates”.  This immigrant’s mind already has identical “fields” and “categories” into which cultural norms of the new host country can be processed as “normal” and familiar.  For instance, a Roman Catholic from Ireland should find great familiarity in New York.  A protestant from Switzerland would find the mountains of Appalachia rather familiar.  The immigrant would see that unless he opened his mouth revealing a foreign accent he would look the same.  The food would be virtually identical, the freedoms would be nearly the same, even better in America.  Various jobs would be similar.  People would be similar and he would be readily accepted.

A muslim from Syria or virtually any other muslim majority nation would find America very odd.  Dress, language, diet, religion, work, laws, etc, would all seem very alien.  Painful accommodation must come first, then the assimilation process might begin to occur. The muslim would have to create in his or her mind entirely new fields and categories of thought.

Outside of muslim ghettos, there would be no blaring of the Adhan- the muslim call to prayer, no Arabic would be spoken, foods would be strange and he must study and spend time to ensure it met the demands of the halal diet.  Symbols of Christianity would abound with a church on every street corner, bibles lying about in many business establishments, Christian religious broadcasts on radio and television.  He would have to learn that in America it is not perfectly acceptable to kill or burn your neighbor out out simply because he is a Christian or Jew.

Regarding Cultural Assimilation, specifically, is America adequately integrating immigrants into its culture.  We may further ask, is it even possible to assimilate islam into Western Culture?  How do we actually define this cultural assimilation?

Two Harvard sociologists, Mary C. Waters and Tomas R. Jimenez, have identified four “benchmarks” to consider and these are socioeconomic status, spatial concentration, language attainment and intermarriage.

Socioeconomic status deals with education, employment and income.  We consider whether or not a certain class or group of immigrants, whether European, African, Hispanic or Muslim have reached parity with the primary culture in these terms.  Obviously it will be difficult if not impossible for most first generation immigrants to completely integrate or assimilate here.  This generation will mostly be adults who are past their prime years for class room learning and typically will take the lower income jobs that, as liberals put it, “Americans refuse to do”.

“Spatial concentration” considers the dispersal of a migrant group within the host nation.  Are they concentrated only in certain states and cities, or even sections of a city or is often the case, ghettos?  Have they become so “normalized” that they have entered the general population so as to be largely indistinct from the general population.  Up until recently, Americans were “white” and “black” with some smatterings of hispanics almost exclusively located in the American southwest and Cubans in the southeast, particularly in Florida.  Blacks were descendants of slaves and multi-generational whites were simply of western European extraction, though broadly called WASPs, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants as most whites had merged into the founding culture of America whether from England, Germany or Italy.

Then democrats pulled a fast one in 1965 discussed above to radically alter the racial and cultural mix of America.  The democrats  realized that traditional Americans, white and black would not give them a majority of votes in order to attain the power they crave.  There were only two ways to build a ruling majority, either with a superior political and social product to win traditional American “converts” to liberalism or simply import more foreigners, almost exclusively third worlders who would be amazed at indebted to the democrats’ socialist “generosities”.

All the liberals asked in exchange from them for a radical improvement in the material things of life, was their votes.  A faustian bargain was reached.  The immigrants were to put secondary their own religious and moral views to the hedonism and decadence of the host liberal benefactors and the liberals in return would more than meet their material needs.

Liberal “intelligentsia” would be in the driver’s seat of the democrat party.  Arguably the most important branch of this group are the educators. Somebody had to have the time and money to “think stuff up”.  A century ago, liberals knew they had to totally capture the education system.  Our colleges and universities became the well-spring of liberal ideas, especially those ideas that divided peoples, hence, multi-culturalism in every conceivable sphere, especially race, gender, religion, sex, sexuality and its latest group, islam.

Liberals understood that they would build a coalition of those who they could convince were disenfranchised, discriminated against, constrained by traditional religious views and morality, floods of import voters who would naturally embrace socialism and as many traditional Americans they could brainwash in the public education system.

We can see the stark shift of how the democrat party viewed America between the election of John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.  One might say that Carter himself was of the pre-radical conventional democrat mold, but he either was a complete fraud or a very weak man who embraced nearly all of the radical leftist agenda by the time he finished his only term in 1980.  Liberals like to maintain that Carter was and still is an “evangelical” Christian, it somehow lends some “religious” legitimacy to their assault on Biblical Christianity and its past sway over our culture.

It’s important to be educated about liberals, their plans and understand how their minds work, how devious they are.  Remember last year, the nation was in an uproar about the tens of thousands of hispanic children (and the adults they bring with them) who were pouring in.  The flood stopped, not because of Obama, but because the Mexican government put a stop to it.  Then our attention was drawn to the islamist invasion planned by Obama.  Muslims have occupied our attention for a great deal of this past year.

A misdirection has occurred either by design or by coincidence that is most fortuitous for Obama and his ilk.  While our attention is focused on muslims, the Hispanic flood resumed with, again, about ten thousand per month walking across over the past two months.  Not a peep by the media.  Why did the Mexican government allow it to restart?  A call from Obama?  By the way, remember all the talk about the invaders given an appointment for court hearings and the possibility of being returned to their country of origin?  90 percent never show up and 98 percent of those that do get to stay.

Liberals really don’t care where they get them as long as the majority of immigrants will eventually make reliable democrat voters.

Daniel Greenfield, writing on his site, “Sultanknish.blogspot.com” on October 12, 2014 writes the following in an article entitled “Liberal Islamophiles” –

“…Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse… Now critics of Islam are denounced as racists even though Islam is not a race…

… the leading members of the golden family of liberalism were serial abusers of women and Bill, Hillary and Obama were against gay marriage before they were for it. Islam is sexist, bigoted and totalitarian, but so was the Soviet Union. Their liberal defenders are utterly unconcerned, no matter how much they run their mouths about Republican racism and sexism…

… Gays, feminists and Muslims are a means to the left. They are not the reason why the left does things. The left builds coalitions of disruption with interest groups. It doesn’t care about those groups. It’s just using them to get what it really wants which is a totalitarian state in which the consensus can implement all of its horrible ideas without any interference.

Muslims are the newest coalition member and their disruption skills are impressive. Just look at how they managed to turn the Bush Administration around. That doesn’t mean that the left cares about Muslims. It would toss them under the bus before they could shout “Allah Akhbar” if it suited the consensus. The liberal defenders of Islam have chosen not to read the Koran. They know next to nothing about Islam except that it’s a minority group. And that’s how they like it.

That way they can shout down any criticism with cries of “Racism” because they’re too lazy to even bother stringing enough letters together to shout “Islamophobe”. That’s how little they care. All of this has as much to do with liberalism as Obama has to do with Andrew Jackson. There’s nothing liberal about the honor killing and the hijab, but there’s also nothing liberal about trying to turn America into a totalitarian state…

… liberals who defend Islam do so because they share its totalitarian mindset. Lenin wasn’t fighting so that the peasants would have land, bread and peace. Today’s liberals aren’t fighting for equality of income, gender, race or any other kind. They are fighting to suppress any and all opposition to their policies by disrupting and destroying the existing American system at every level. That’s exactly what Islam is doing. Leftists don’t value equality, they value disruption. If they can disrupt by promoting equality, they will do it.

If they can disrupt by promoting inequality, they will do that. If they can disrupt by promoting gay marriage, promoting Islamists, promoting the environment, promoting unregulated industry, promoting freedom of speech or promoting hate speech laws, they will do those things in order of opportunism. Their underlying goal is to replace existing ideas and systems with their own. Anything that serves that purpose is good. Anything that maintains the existing order is bad.

… This isn’t liberalism. It’s a leftist Jihad that has displaced and hijacked liberalism. The modern liberal has nothing to do with liberalism and it’s useless to expect him to be upset by Islamic illiberalism.”

America makes up about 4 percent of the total world population.  We simply cannot be a dumping ground for every disabused or disadvantaged human on the planet.  There is no benefit whatsoever to allowing millions of the poor and desperate, as well as those who intend to do us harm, radical islamists, into our country.  Unlike liberals, the majority of America still values America.  We have no desire to “transform” it.  Americans of all races do appreciate what America is and represents.  Don’t be ashamed of our nation, there’s never been one like it.  Some things, once broken, can never be fixed.