"Give me your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..."
Of course, the Irish were taken into the country anyway and, in time, successfully integrated into the American fabric. Because of this - and because the Irish are a proud, self-reflective demographic - they may be targeted by open borders advocates to "debunk" the idea that mass immigration does not work. In other words, they will get to enjoy a rare moment of ethnic recognition and a hat tip to their ancestors in exchange for affirming a belief in Lazarus' vision. But it is a trap. Aside from the basic idea that the "Irish were successful", the image of Irish immigration that the open borders lobby tries to present insults the Irish by downplaying their toil and sacrifice as immigrants. For example, it is a fact that the Irish had to become self-sustaining upon their arrival in America because no social welfare program awaited them. And, while some Irish were at an advantage, having been exposed to the English language in Ireland, others lacked these skills and worked to acquire them. Both factors translated into the long-term employability and cultural integration of the Irish. Yet those quoting Lazarus, and pointing to the Irish to justify mass immigration, often fail to note this. Could it be because the very immigration that the open borders lobby now wants comes with language barriers and welfare burdens for the taxpayer?
Another aspect of Irish mass immigration was its occurrence amid a critical manpower shortage in America. At the time, there was a frontier to settle and a shortage of workers to connect it, which was crucial for Irish employability and America's trajectory as an Industrial Age powerhouse. To nobody's surprise, the pro-migrant lobby of today is happy to explain that this was the case, drawing a parallel to a supposed need for vegetable pickers and lawn trimmers in the present (a claim of immigrationist propaganda that has been in use for decades). But, for the Irish in the 19th century, their arrival filled demand in another sense: as bodies filling the front lines in the U.S. Civil War, which many Irish did not survive. That is also what the Irish endured in connection with this topic - which, incidentally, reduced the Irish in number by the tens of thousands. Not surprisingly, this part is what no open borders advocate wishes to cover, perhaps because it creates an obvious disconnect between immigration in the present and the past. At the same time, the suffering endured - used as fodder by both sides in the war - is a bad look for explaining why immigrants should be taken in and arguably gives the Irish a pass. At the very least, through their pain, the Irish have earned the right to have a freely-formed opinion about immigration and disagree with Lazarus' message.
Of course, that is not what the open border lobbyists want at all; the Irish are not supposed to think about the sacrifices they made to become part of the country. The Irish are not supposed to think about the shortages that contributed or how their integration closed an Old World gap between Northern European peoples and the schism of Christendom. They are to again be "system fodder" - this time, to speak up for those being denied quarter not just in America, but in Ireland as well, because "after all, the Irish were once immigrants too", and cheer on a new mass migration that is foreign in every sense of the word at a time of mass unemployment and deindustrialization both in the U.S. and Ireland.
Yes, there are many warning flags that, this time, things are different. And yet, unfettered immigration continues to be promoted as what has worked and still works. Preserving the fabric of the national community is also severely frowned upon - so much, that legislators flirt with political suicide if they challenge the status quo and spirit of Lazarus' message, even as the ethno-religious foundation of their countries gets washed away in a sea of ambiguity.
In the meantime, it is becoming clear that a different set of principles would be greatly beneficial to the country. A secure border would for example push back the foreign gangs, cartels and age-old, rare diseases incubating in squalor and crossing the border. Human and drug trafficking across the border would come to an end, as would the burden on the taxpayer to fund the health care, welfare services, housing and supplemental income available for illegals and the dependent children they bear so the aid continues. Cases like these, which burden the courts and detention centers, would plummet with a new set of immigration priorities. So would the exploitation of those working here illegally, along with the threat of demographic and linguistic takeover and a rising Hispanic race state in the U.S.. Is there really a reason, besides whitewashed tales of the Irish and a poem written by Lazarus, that we cannot rethink the border? What about the fact that immigrants built this nation?
With different ideas about immigration, there are other benefits, too. We could keep out those from a part of the world that supposedly hates us so much, they would use their access to hijack planes and fly them into our buildings. After all, that is the conventional understanding of what happened on 9/11, is it not? Arguably, judging by the Israelis cheering this event, and the aftermath of this event, one might think the whole thing was instead a setup to get Americans to storm the Middle East and destabilize it to Israel's benefit. After all, there are people in the U.S. who do in fact wish to utilize America's resources and economic base to push Israel's agenda. Either way, and Zionist or jihadist, the nation has been hijacked. We need to therefore be aware that America is housing people who may not have America's best interests at heart. Interestingly enough, this brings us back to Emma Lazarus..
Based on the quote on the plaque at the Statue of Liberty, one might assume that Lazarus just really loved America and simply wanted everyone and anyone to come discover a better life there as she had. But who exactly? After all, there was only one demographic that, throughout a great deal of the world, would have been universally seen as "wretched refuse". And Lazarus' message would have resonated particularly well with this demographic, considering she belonged to it. Yes, Lazarus was a Jew, and she abandoned her focus on bringing people to America to shill in favor of a state for her people in the Middle East. Accordingly, it is patently false to portray Lazarus as either a U.S. patriot or multicultural icon. If anything, Lazarus could serve as a warning about any number of things, including lingering ethnic allegiances. This is especially important because, thanks to America's faith in Lazarus' poem, border policy is practically non-existent, as are assimilation pressures. Accordingly, "hyphenated-Americans" of whatever sort, who identify with their own national group-collective rather than the American nation, are becoming an increasingly larger part of the U.S. population. And, while this sounds like the Irish, this is nothing we have seen before, because the demographics of these "hyphenated-Americans" span both sides of the U.S. border and, if things continue, groups therein like the Mexicans will become a majority across the American southwest. One theory, aligned with the ideas of sociologist Robert D. Putnam, suggests that anything tighter than a 60/40 balance between the prevailing majority and rising minority populations can topple the apple cart. The reason being, it upsets the default roles of give-and-take in a society, where the larger sect normally made concessions to the smaller to preserve social order, but the smaller sect did not challenge the larger sect because it was happy with the concessions and did not wish for a rollback. Anyone familiar with the situation in the U.S. and specifically in the southwest can comment on how close the country is to this.
In the meantime, Lazarus can also serve as a warning about false intent; after all, nobody can prove she ever actually strived to do with America anything other than open up its borders to accept and advance her own people. Pertaining to this theme, America should be wary of those who cross the border to further any agenda. Just as the official story of 9/11 should remind us, that includes the goal of spreading terror. How something like the official 9/11 narrative could become so culturally-ingrained, but somehow not inspire policy to prevent the trauma from repeating, is truly mind-boggling. But here we are, in a world where, thanks to open borders mass migration, Wahhabism, a good starting point for indoctrination towards an anti-Western jihad, is a growing Muslim religion in the U.S. around the Great Lakes and Great Plains regions.
On the other side of the Semitic coin, Lazarus' legacy is a reminder about the loyalties of Israel-firsters in America. With AIPAC, the Israelis have a strong foothold in American politics that, since the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, has never been challenged. It has resisted the demands to register as a foreign lobby and even managed to change American law so Israelis can become U.S. citizens without renouncing their Israeli loyalty. No other demographic in the U.S. enjoys such privileges.
So what can be done to preserve America and prevent the dangers that Lazarus represents? At one time, the solution would have been to simply push for "Americanization" and integration, as was done with the Irish. But, due to the assault on the meaning and identity behind that term, it is no longer clear what an "American" is or what "integrate" suggests, especially as the people who traditionally fit that archetype lose the majority. At this news, the naive lib-left is probably high-fiving and fist-pumping. Promoting Lazarus' message, they see themselves helping to eliminate prejudices, ethnicities and religions to create a tolerant world by allowing anyone or anything to become American. The lib-left see nothing wrong with the undermining of a majority culture vis-a-vis immigration; to them, majority cultures are potential oppressors who obstruct free will or discriminate. Unfortunately, by undermining the national fabric of a majority community, the lib-left are destroying the bond of communal familiarity and mutual values that enabled individuals to relate to and trust one another and see each other as part of a connected whole. Eliminating the community-based fabric of the nation also makes it harder to detect who belongs and who does not, and those who, as we have seen, act maliciously towards and usurp the community.
As a thought experiment, try to imagine a scenario where, with the old fabric and familiarity of community intact, the alleged 9/11 plane hijackers had trained for and worked towards committing terror acts in the U.S in a previous century. Their mere presence in the country would have immediately signaled the likelihood that something was awry, simply because they look foreign - and that red flag, based on appearance, is pretty much your main alert historically, and works not only for a Muslim jihadist group, but also for members of foreign drug cartels over the border and Sephardic or Khazarian Israel-firsters like Lazarus. Across the board, none of these people would have anything doing in any of our countries before the time of Lazarus. Now I don't know about you but, given the choice, I prefer the "shackles" of a national identity. In a state with a common language, common identity and civil cohesion, it is clear who belongs and who does not. One is among their people, who are a reflection of the same cultural customs and culturally-reinforced behaviors. The people are you in mirror image - literally, too. Point by point, that is the entire point of a community forming its own state - to carve out a society that reflects common values, language and spiritual interest. It is also why, in the real world, Lazarus sought a Jewish homeland in the first place. She wanted a utopia for her people.
