Immigration or invasion?
Writing from England, Paul W. raises an interesting question:
At what point does immigration become invasion, and if accepted that it is indeed invasion, at what point do our respective governments’ acceptance/appeasement of this become treasonable?
I believe immigration to mean a manageable number of foreigners arriving in a host country, learning the native language whilst accepting and integrating into the native culture.
If they arrive in such numbers that portions of the native population are displaced, if they refuse to accept our language, culture and traditions and if they murder and maim the native population as a means of ultimately imposing their oft stated ambition of subjugating and governing us – this is no longer immigration, it is invasion.
In 1939 Great Britain was faced with the imminent threat of foreign peoples entering our country who wished to overthrow our elected government, murder all the Jews and enforce an utterly foreign culture upon us. That they were intent on using military force to achieve this aim is largely irrelevant as this was merely a means to an end. Faced with such a threat we went to war.
In 2006 the West finds itself in a similar position with regard to foreign peoples who wish to enter our countries, overthrow our elected governments, murder the Jews and enforce an utterly foreign culture upon us, yet our governments behave in a wholly different manner.
I believe the duty of a government is to act in the best interests of its electorate. Mass immigration, or if I may now call it, invasion, was never thrown open to a referendum and never mentioned in electoral manifestos. As it is clearly not in the best interest of its electorate, I believe that a government that imposes such invasion upon its own people to be guilty of an act of treason. Furthermore, any government that passes laws in an attempt to intimidate the native population from protesting the invasion whilst actively seeking to attract a larger invasion is further guilty of treason.
If what is happening in the West today is not invasion then what is it? If our governments are not guilty of treason then what exactly does treason mean?
LA replies:
Unfortunately, it does not fit the legal meaning of treason, which requires actual aid and comfort to a foreign power with which one’s own government is at war. But in the real sense it certainly is treason. I argued last spring at FrontPage Magazine that the Mexican immigration is really part of a war being waged against the U.S. If that’s true, then support for Mexican war is treason.
However, Before we can persuade people that the government is committing treason by allowing the immigration, we first have to persuade them that the immigration is as bad as we say it is.
Mark J. writes:
Regarding Paul W.’s question about when immigration becomes invasion: I’d say what we’re undergoing is not invasion, but colonization. Portions of our territory are being colonized by foreigners looking for economic opportunity or fleeing persecution, which is exactly what motivated whites to colonize North America. Colonists, as opposed to immigrants, have no interest in assimilating into the native culture; they like their culture and way of life just fine. In addition, colonists don’t particularly care to use violence to get their way if they can avoid it, while I think of an invasion as something done militarily. What we’re dealing with are Third World colonists.
David H. writes:
I must disagree to an extent with Mark J. Both islamic and Mexican “immigrants” have proven that, while they remain in the minority, they may refrain from overt and continuous violence against natives. They certainly show little or no hesitation [to use violence] if an opportunity should present itself.
Mark J. writes:
Certainly David H. is correct that some Mexicans and Muslims use violence when they think they can get away with it. But if you are trying to characterize the overall tone of what is going on with these groups, I’d say that at present “colonists” fits the bill better than “immigrants” or “invaders.” Colonists are relatively peaceful when first arriving because they are conscious of their weakness in relation to the natives. Again, consider the way whites colonized North America: the Pilgrims generally tried to get on with the natives, realizing there was no way they could survive without being accomodating. But by Custer’s time, whites had such a decisive military advantage that they could engage in what, at times, amounted to genocide. I think we might possibly experience the same sort of thing down the line at the hands of the Mexicans, Muslims, or any of the other alien peoples being allowed to colonize parts of our country.
I think of an immigrant as someone who wants to become part of his new country, to subsume his identity in the identity of his new land, as someone who says “Hey I like that way of life better, I want to be part of that culture and people.” I think of an invader as someone who comes bearing arms with an open intent to seize control. But a colonist is someone who has no interest in giving up his native cultural identity, and isn’t necessarily interested in a war with the natives. He wants to plant his culture and people in the fertile soil we’ve created with our culture and people. A more grotesque analogy might be those insects that lay their eggs in the body of a host, who then blithely goes about its business until the young hatch and devour it from within.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 14, 2006 01:31 PM | Send