Principles
The citizens of any nation have the right and duty to create laws to suit their own collective needs and desires. Among the most fundamental laws are those that control immigration and naturalization.
When a nation’s laws are violated there are incalculable costs to the health, wealth, and security of its citizens. The larger or more frequent the transgression, the larger the costs.
If and when a civil government proves itself incapable of enforcing its own laws, for example by failing to police its borders and defend its citizens from invasion, then the citizens have every right to replace that civil government and its laws.
Laws
No legal immigration. Set all quotas and limits to zero.
No naturalization. When your visa expires it’s time to go home.
No birthright citizenship. If neither of your parents is a citizen then you are not a citizen.
No dual citizenship. Choose your country. If it isn’t this one then go home.
No chain migration. Your relatives are not welcome.
No refugee relocation. They’ll have to go some place else.
Enforcement
No sanctuary. Secure the interior. Otherwise enforcement is toothless.
No holes. Secure all points of entry. Otherwise securing the interior is more difficult.
No doubt. It is the government’s responsibility to maintain citizenship and visitor records; and to provide cheap, efficient, and error-free verification of these records to any citizen upon demand.
No forgery. Record the biometric information of all visitors. ID cards are inherently insecure.
No amnesty. Deport and ban from future entry any alien who violates any law. This includes those who are already here illegally or attempt to enter illegally, regardless of origin or length of residence.
No abetting. Deport and ban from future entry the parents, children, spouses, and living partners of any alien who violates any law.
No profit. Severely punish businesses caught employing illegal aliens. This will include fines, revocation of licenses, cancellation of government contracts, and personal liability for its officers and owners.
No treason. Government officers found guilty of subverting immigration laws or derelict in their duty to uphold them will be tried for treason. The penalty is death.
Criticism
The tone of these policies is too negative.
This is unavoidable. Criminal law primarily concerns forbidding behavior society deems undesirable. Ignoring the behavior will not make it go away.
These policies would produce a police state.
Massive and flagrant violation of our laws and the tremendous social and economic burdens brought by those lawbreakers threaten the exact opposite: anarchy. The status quo and our current course seem in fact to promise the worst of both: what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny.
These policies would produce riots.
This is an argument against immigration. Why should any society accept aliens with a predilection to riot?
These policies are xenophobic, racist, or bigoted.
This argument is hypocritical. It presumes that citizens are irrational, inhumane, or otherwise inferior to immigrants.
These policies would ruin the economy.
Poppycock. First, “the economy” is only a subset of citizen interests, and their concerns for it are thus already incorporated into their laws. Second, there is another, more honest name for a money-making idea that requires a constant influx of ever more resources to work. It’s called a “pyramid scheme”. Such schemes inevitably collapse and the only people who ever get wealthy are those at the top.
My family/friend/worker needs to immigrate.
No, they don’t. Any citizen is free to leave at any time for any reason. For example, you may leave to meet or stay with your family/friend/worker somewhere where the immigration laws are more permissive.
You’re living in a fantasy world.
I’m reacting perfectly rationally to the awful reality I see. Those who believe that nationhood is a proposition, that everyone is an immigrant, that there are jobs citizens won’t do, or that we make our country better by admitting poor, uneducated, hostile people – they are the ones living in a fantasy world.
You just don’t like brown people.
The fact is there are plenty of nations where brown people are the majority and can expect to remain so for the forseeable future. The same cannot be said for white people. So it makes more sense to turn the accusation around: Those who advocate open borders for majority white countries do so because they just don’t like white people, or because they just like brown people more.
You’re a coward/xenophobe/anti-semite. You don’t understand history/government/power/people.
This is ad hominem, as are the previous two criticisms. Please criticize the ideas, not the admittedly ignorant and flawed nobody who puts them forth.
Great manifesto, sign me up.
I had not seen your portion on public officials, but I take it as metaphoric. As a practical solution I would suggest:
Loss of bonus potential at first offense, rising to higher pay loss and eventually lose of job for several offenses.
All elected and high level appointed officials should have an annual bonus which is determined by annual direct vote of the people. Officials who don’t uphold immigration laws would have that noted on the annual ballot for their bonus. The annual bonus might be half their pay.
I’m reading your blog for the first time now, so maybe you’ve written about this before, but I have to ask. Why no legal immigration? Would you want this permanently? I can see how a country may not be able to accommodate even legal immigrants for a time, but how about when it is strong economically and in enforcing its laws? Some people might argue that we’re a nation of immigrants, so we must always allow legal immigration, but this is like comparing the beginnings of the United States to our current invasion of illegal aliens. I’m not asking from such out-of-context reasoning, just curious. Thanks for being a sensible, strong voice.
old atlantic: the problem with simple fines (or loss of bonus) for govt officials is that they can make more money than they stand to lose by accepting bribes to subvert immigration laws. Look at our current crop of pro-invasion Senators for example. Even though they know it will likely cost them their job they continue to attach bits of stealth amnesty they know the public opposes to every piece of legislation they can. They are obviously motivated by a higher calling than lawful responsibility, and in most cases at least it isn’t God either.
chell, welcome. The problem with the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is that there is hardly a difference. Legal immigration brings whole extended families from the most primitive and alien places on Earth and inserts them (with subsidies) into small-town middle America. The invader babies clogging our schools are perfectly legal. As the Senate has demonstrated for two years in a row a wave of their magic wands can transform illegal into legal. Many here illegally originally came legally and simply overstayed their visas. By blurring the distinction between legal and illegal invasion supporters have distracted and misled the public. I am no longer blinded by their games. Zero means zero.
If at some future date the people decide to change the laws again and reopen immigration that is their concern. For the moment I’m concerned about the here and now because that is all I can really affect. Our children and grandchildren can’t act for themselves yet, the responsibility to safeguard their future is ours.
chell, see Old Atlantic Lighthouse for an argument against immigration based on mathematics and genetics:
As an example, this is why we have to show that the Wright Island Model requires zero immigration to avoid genetic replacement. Reformers who don’t know that have suggested 250,000 per year as legal immigration. Lou Dobbs and many others say legal immigration is ok. If you know the theorem that legal immigration causes genetic replacement, then you won’t say these things.
Here is a post describing the Wright Island Model.
Some people might argue that we’re a nation of immigrants, so we must always allow legal immigration….
Here’s the problem with that argument. It’s based on a notion that it’s not fair to immigrate and then close the door behind you.
Not fair? Not fair to whom?
The argument is that it’s not fair to the people the immigrants left behind. But the whole point of legal immigration is that the destination nation accepts you as one of them, with reciprocal duties and rights. The people you need to be fair to are your new fellow citizens, the ones who were generous enough to allow you to immigrate. Ignoring their wishes regarding immigration policy is wrong.
Anyone who makes the argument quoted above should never have been let into the country and needs to leave immediately.
It is a very bad idea for public officials to receive bonuses under any circumstances. Rather they should be paid fixed salaries and have strict, short, term limits. It is highly detrimental to have “professional” politicians. We need to return to the idea of short term government service as it was conceived by the founding fathers. Misbehavior by high officials, failure to carry out their jobs, needs to be severely punished by prison time or worse.
Here’s a good post on legal vs illegal from Vanishing American.
This is an excellent manifesto. I only have two points to make: first, I would not oppose legal immigration, provided the immigrants were white. Second, even if these stringent laws were enacted, it may be too late. Due to the higher birth rates of Mestizos and other non-whites, they will become majorities in certain states (e.g Texas). I assume people with Mexican ancestry will not be keen on enforcing restrictive immigration laws aimed at keeping Mexicans out. As the non-white population grows and gains political power, it will either vote for pro-immigration policies or refuse to enforce immigration laws. Thus, without repatriation, in the long run, we will still have “the complete genetic extinction of the target population”.
Tanstaafl,
I understand your point on fines. But its a start. Its very difficult to have any type of accountability within government.
Thanks also for plugging the Wright Island Model. The more we can get that out, the more it shuts down the idea that legal immigration doesn’t matter.
Dr D.,
We do have to have a way to motivate the permanent staff of the government who are distinct from elected officials or appointees.
Why do you object to bonuses for officials determined by voters?
Tanstaafl,
You’ve set forth the essentials without getting into debatable side issues or meaningless symbolic gestures. Great job. I hope this is passed around the blogosphere and becomes a rallying point.
Your manifesto should honor the status of any person LEGALLY in the country today. There are enough good, hardworking immigrants who are loyal to the country and are appalled by the current situation as well.
Then close the doors, do not pass go and do not collect any documents.
Im also not a supporter of the death penalty. Hard labor (preferably soemthing Americans refuse to do) would be adequate.
hran, my personal preference would be for a special exception for Whites, but I believe zero immigration with no exceptions has the best chance of surviving the critcism that is sure to come from every quarter. I’d like first to focus on shutting down immigration and birthright citizenship, then we can face the race issues.
Thanks Rick.
FF, I agree entirely with Ben Tillman’s statements above. Immigrants have been honored and praised more than enough. After all the abuse if anyone should be accorded special honors it should be our good, hardworking citizens.
The consequences of immigration-related treason are severe. At best the short-term costs are spread thin and shared by many citizens, some of whom choose not to reproduce because of the crowding and general societal decline. At worst the illegal aliens commit crimes and certain citizens suffer even larger costs. The long-term cost is societal suicide, as described by the Wright Island Model. None of these costs should be tolerated, and the penalty for immigration-related treason should be severe. I prefer death but would be willing to substitute life imprisonment with kin-liability.
This comment has been removed by the author.
OA asked why I object to bonuses for the permanent staff of the government as a way to motivate them. Let me tell you why.
I spent my last seven working years (I am now retired) in a civil service position for the US Navy, and there were some bonuses available. I saw how they were distributed, and I saw what little they did to promote any benefit to the government. They were used to reward cronies. The entire civil service system is corrupt and unredeemable because as it is structured, a person cannot be dismissed. If you pass the initial probationary period, then you are in for life, no matter how badly you screw up or how lazy and unproductive you are. With a complete reform, to include a complete merit system with dismissal for cause, then I might be willing to see small bonuses. I don’t think this will ever happen because the government is seen as the employer of last resort.
Some will say if it was so bad, why did you not leave. Let me just say, when you start at job at age 59, it is not easy to find the next job. I found that I had no choice but to ride it out to retirement at 65.
Dr, D,
Youre not gonna find it much better in private industry. Nepotism central.
The only way to fix it is through leadership.
We’re not going to get anything substantial changed for any length of time without a complete overhaul. That’s pretty clear.
Leadership, that’s an interesting proposition. Man is losing his faith in leaders, both religious and political. They have all become mere administrators. Is this the cause of our problems, or yet another symptom?
What would your manifesto add about white Americans adopting children from other countries such as Guatemala, China, or Russia?
What about the adoption of non-white children who have been taken away from their parents, some of whom may be here illegally?
No alien adoption. Citizens can emigrate if they want to adopt alien kids.
I’m sure there is literally a special case to be made for every potential immigrant. To enact anything like what this manifesto spells out we have to turn our creativity and compassion around. The rationale is both simple and ethical: stop thinking first of what’s best for aliens or citizens who would profit in some way from aliens, and instead consider first the majority of citizens would don’t desire or deserve the burden of those aliens.
Katrina, I’ve never understood why children aren’t considered citizens of the same country as their parents. It’s too easy to have “anchor babies” in order to gain legal residency or citizenship in the US, and we even pay the related bills and then some. To the last part of your question, where children of illegal aliens are removed from their parents, I think the parent’s country ought to decide how they will best care for the children.
Leadership becoming administrators is symptomatic of globalization. The political leadership has yielded so much power on behalf of a corporatist manifesto and globalization they have been relegated to administrators.
As much as I used to believe globalization was an achievable goal, it is obvious the hurdles and land mines will undo any significant strides. We’ve become a nation of outsourcing and in-sourcing to reduce labor costs – all rubber-stamped by a failing, short-sighted leadership.
“… fix it through leadership” was an understatement (gross understatement).
I wish it were funny — but do you know the “obverse” of anchor babies? Children of American citizens born overseas (as was a friend whose parents were civil servants working for the military in Germany). She had to file paperwork to “become” a legal American citizen when she reached age 18. Her parents moved her back to *their* country (America) when she was 6 or so; and her status as a citizen was not ‘clear’ until/unless she filled out the paperwork (and maybe take an oath of loyatly, I don’t remember)..
(Dunno if that is still the case, but it was years ago.)
Avalanche
That’s one of many outrageous inversions in the status quo. But in keeping with the spirit of this manifesto we can add:
The children of citizens born outside our borders are not citizens. If your country and citizenship are important to you then live and have your children here.
Your manifesto is too simple because it ignores legal residents who are becoming citizens through military service. If they’ve shed their blood or risked it – and anyone who joins has made the decision to risk it – you have an obligation to go through with your side of the deal.
http://www.ptsdsupport.net/becoming_american.html
There is a much weaker obligation towards those in the legal immigration pipeline and who in many cases have been jumping through hoops for the government for years.
You can certainly say, nobody not already in the pipeline can get in.
You can ignore the weak obligation.
You can’t ignore the strong obligation.
– Daybreaker