A Truly Alien Nation

We usually don’t think of the first wave of European immigrants as ‘immigration’; we call it ‘colonization’. But this wave of immigrants relates to the surge of immigration which we can expect several decades in the future.

In his book, The Next 100 Years, George Friedman paints a rather believable picture of immigration and the baby boomers in 2030: There will be a disproportionate population of aged, non-working citizens in the US, and the rising generation will not be enough to replace them in the workforce. Americans have been having fewer offspring, and they are living longer after retiring. This is not anomalous to the US; governments of all industrialized countries will work to induce foreign workers to immigrate.

With respect to waves of US immigration, we tend to reflect on the Irish, Eastern Europeans, and Chinese, on whom the natural-born Americans heaped considerable persecution. Said persecution was unbecoming of a decent people, but it had the effect of inducing the immigrants to become American-ized, at least. After all, when countries are divided into divergent cultures, we end up with Yugoslavia, a short-lived nation, ready to tear itself apart and unprepared or unwilling to unite for its own defense.

Treatment of immigrants is currently vastly different from what it was in olden days, and so shall it differ in future. Treatment of illegal immigrants, if given so heartlessly as to the legal immigrants of yesteryear, is popularly condemned, unenlightened, we would say.

Speaking again of the first wave of European immigrants to the present-day US, the Native Americans (Amerindians) did not require the first immigrating English and Scots to adopt the native culture or language. Doubtless they did not have the might to force the Europeans to assimilate, but regardless, as a consequence of their failure to do so, the Native Americans became outnumbered in remarkably short time. Their culture, languages, and race were in short order nearly wiped from the land.

Ere the reader insist that the Europeans only effaced the Native Americans because of the former’s superior arsenal, recall that our immigrants will have access to the only weapons they’ll need: the candidate’s soapbox and the voting booth. (Recall furthermore, the US’s history of disseminating its military technology, witness Iran in the 80’s.)

Now I am a native American. I already pay my government to print its documents in a foreign language. I have lived in neighbourhoods where my language was scarcely spoken. I have seen the disparity of culture. I have seen firsthand that immigration does not lead to integration, not without a sizeable population of natives to immerse the immigrants and, furthermore, strong social incentives (such as persecution).

When the immigrants come to replace the baby boomers in the workforce, the face of the American population will change dramatically. When the baby boomers die out, it will change again. And then we may find ourselves in a foreign land.

on Thanksgiving: Not to be grateful for whatever you please

Californians from both camps will rally to the cry of protecting marriage rights, but when the man issuing the call has the power to redefine “marriage” at his will, no legal action on the people’s part can ensure their protection. It is in the name of protecting marriage rights that California Attorney General Jerry Brown pushes for the repeal of the latest constitutional amendment, which defines marriage to be between man and woman.

With marriage defined as a heterosexual union (legally now, and erstwhile tacitly), nullifying the amendment does not protect marriage rights. Brown’s rationale only stands if he is allowed to redefine words whenever he pleases—a practice former President Clinton raised to a high art in his peculiar use of the word “is.” If we sanction this exercise of doublespeak, a marriage law applies just as correctly to congress with a dog in the park—provided that the dog be consenting and of age. Whether that age be considered in dog years or human years must vary from court to court, however, because under Jerry Brown’s authority, words do not have meanings in legal settings.

Today’s paper quotes Brown to say that he now finds the latest amendment at variance with the declaration of basic freedoms in Article I of the Constitution. He refers to the clause, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Does this constitute legal grounds for him to exercise his will in affairs of marriage? The fact is that marriage mentioned only two places in the Article I: in the context of property possession …and in the Prop. 8 amendment. There is no legal ground to impute Prop. 8 with violation of the Constitution.

Equality of rights has been called into question, nevermind that from a legal standpoint, homosexuals have and always will have equal marriage rights with heterosexuals: to wit, any man may marry a woman, and any woman may marry a man. Say it’s not fair, a person cannot choose the object of his or her attraction? If I am a pedophile, bestialist, polygamist, or practicer of incest will you make legal recognition of the morality of my union?