Restrictionists Own the Moral High Ground

                                                 By John Vinson                      

Mass immigrationists claim that they have an unshakable claim to superior goodness and virtue. One is Janet Murguia, CEO of the National Council of La Raza (The Race). She strongly suggests that all opposition to her viewpoint is “hate,” an accusation most commonly flung from her side. Stung by such “righteous” hostility, immigration restrictionists sometimes recoil and allow their opponents to seize the moral high ground in debate. They shouldn’t, and here’s why:

People have many different ideas of right and wrong, but most can agree that the following, properly defined, are virtues: loyalty, moderation, honesty, and responsibility.

Let’s consider loyalty. It’s not always a good thing, especially to a bad person or a bad cause. But most agree that a special affection for the land of one’s birth, patriotism as called by many, is a virtue. If love doesn’t begin at home, for home, it is not likely to develop and extend anywhere else. In the absence of patriotism, selfish ambition usually fills the vacuum.

Are open-border advocates loyal Americans? To answer, let’s consider two other questions. How can you have a country without a secure border and meaningful citizenship? And, if you can’t, can anyone who is at best indifferent to secure borders and citizenship honestly call himself a loyal American? Maybe the open-border people can come up with some explanation as to how they are not disloyal, but the burden of proof is on them. And until they offer it, they merit the suspicion of treason.

Next is moderation. It is not always a virtue either, especially in pursuit of justice and truth. Even so, more often than not, it is a necessary restraint on extreme and destructive radicalism. Extreme and radical are perfect descriptions of our immigration policy for the past forty years. That policy has given us unprecedented numbers and unprecedented diversity. It threatens to rip us from our past and carry us to some overcrowded, balkanized, Third World future.

Are the architects of this radical scheme balanced and honorable men? Or are they people pursuing twisted agendas for personal gain and power with no regard for the wishes of their countrymen? If they are not scoundrels, the burden of proof is on them to show it.

Now let’s go to honesty, almost always a virtue except in some cases when not tempered by compassion. And from the immigrationists what we see is endless dishonesty. Before passage of the pivotal 1965 immigration act, they promised that it would not lead to massive numbers and ethnic and cultural transformation. But it happened anyway. Before the first amnesty of illegal aliens in 1986, they promised no more amnesties and strict border control. Neither promise was kept.

Today they keep repeating the Big Lie that “diversity is our strength.” Interestingly, one partisan of diversity is Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam—this despite the fact that his own research shows that diversity is a disaster for social cohesion and loyalty. Let the immigrationists try to explain the inconsistencies. Most likely their  forked tongues will betray them. They can hiss about “hate” all they like. Moral superiority is not theirs to claim.

Finally let’s consider responsibility, a virtue like honesty which may need some tempering with compassion (when holding people responsible). It is compassion, indeed, that immigrationists claim as their primary virtue, one that entitles them to high moral status. But, we must note, if responsibility without compassion is a problem, compassion without regard for consequences (irresponsibility) is an utter disaster, the pathway to anarchy. Do immigrationists, as they revel in their “compassion,” care about what it does to the cohesion of our country, the rule of law, or the wages and job prospects of poor Americans? Does it occur to them that endless immigration eventually will pull down immigrants (so beloved by the immigrationists) to the level of squalor they fled?

Such “compassion” seems suspiciously similar to the self-indulgence of drug addicts—those who care nothing about the consequences to their future, families and communities when, with the stab of a needle, they can enjoy the warm inner glow of a passing high.

Patriotism, moderation, honesty and responsibility give immigration restrictionists  title deed to the moral high ground. People who are disloyal, extreme, dishonest, and irresponsible have no ground to stand on at all.