One of the positive things to come out of the Trump presidency and the associated America First/MAGA movement was that the Overton Window was shifted on the issue of migration.
Although voices such as that of the John Birch Society have long been ringing the alarm bell on the disastrous effects that mass migration — both legal and illegal — have had on the American polity, for so long, it was something of a taboo topic even within the Republican Party. Most Republicans prior to 2016 constantly felt the compulsion to qualify their support for immigration enforcement with a call for a “compassionate” path to citizenship.
Now, the party, and the conservative movement as a whole, have become much more “hardline” on immigration. Conversations about crime, drugs, welfare spending, degradation of the quality of our schools and public services, and demographic changes resulting from unchecked migration are all now issues that we can talk about in the mainstream without beating around the bush.
Although definitive action has not yet followed, at least the national conversation has shifted in the right direction. But this raises the question: Even if we elect a new generation of immigration hawks to the relevant public offices, can the disastrous effects of decades of migration realistically be reversed? Or, even if we were to finally create a border wall to stop the current invasion, are we stuck with the consequences of the failures of yesterday?
Obviously, effectively securing the border and reforming our immigration system to drastically reduce the number of legal migrants into the country every year are crucial first steps.
But just as the Republican Party finally came to understand the absolute necessity of a wall, it must also accept — no matter how unsavory it might seem to some sensibilities — that the long-term consequences of years and years of illegal immigration cannot be undone without a major repatriation program.
People are going to have to be deported in droves. There’s no getting around it. No one knows exactly how many illegal aliens are in the country, but organizations such as FAIR calculate it’s around 15 million. That’s probably a conservative estimate.
Naturally, birthright citizenship must be eliminated, as Trump has advocated for doing. But policymakers should ensure there are protocols in place so that “anchor babies” accompany their illegal-alien parents back to their country of origin. The last thing we need is the public scandal and crisis, played up by the Left, of “tearing families apart.” We will keep the families together — by sending the entire family back.
There’s no getting around the need for massive deportation; otherwise, the presence of millions of poor third world migrants will make assimilation nigh-impossible and overwhelm our nation’s demographics, weakening American culture even more.
After all, the chief issue at hand is one of culture. Mass migration is problematic because it introduces an alien culture that is incompatible with our republican notions of liberty, personal responsibility, individualism, and limited government. Democrats understand this fully; it’s why they encourage mass migration. They know that the politics of unassimilated Latin American migrants align more with the Democratic Party’s agenda.
I previously wrote about the culture of Mexico and how it contributes to the entrenchment of the drug cartels:
In a sense, Mexican culture still has traits of feudalism in it, of a social order built around powerful warlords who are supported by their subjects. This is further compounded by Latin culture’s propensity to produce and favor the leadership of strongman figures who govern by the might of their personality and charisma.
Historically, this can partially be explained by Mexico’s history, prior to populist reforms, as a hierarchical one based around the feudalistic hacienda-agrarian model brought over by the Spanish. What we see today is that same model playing out, with the heads of the cartels taking the place of the hacendados, or landlords. Narcos even call their bosses by the same term, patrón, which the peones, or workers, would call the landlords on the hacienda.
This explains why Latin American migrants are inclined toward a big brother-style government that will “take care” of them.
All of this is to say that a massive deportation effort is the next logical step after completing the wall. Self-deportation is part of the equation. By eliminating welfare, public schooling, and other services for illegal aliens and ensuring they cannot acquire housing and work, many will leave of their own volition.
Finally, in line with the cultural component of migration, there must be a concerted effort to assimilate the migrants who remain and their descendants. Strict English curriculum and school history courses that instill pride in our country — like what Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has promoted in his state — are key to inculcating our culture in these migrant communities.
In closing, while there is much that must be done, the situation is not impossible. The effects of mass migration can be reversed, but it will take real resolve and character among citizens and elected officials.
