United we stand...as what?

"Give me your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore..."
This well-known inscription lies at the base of the Statue of Liberty. The words, written by Emma Lazarus, appear in history textbooks across the United States. Often, Lazarus' words are played up as the epitome of what being American means and what this country is about. But, historically, neither the American population nor its leaders believed that we could and should grant citizenship to whatever happened to wash ashore; instead, our ancestors adhered to an immigration policy to protect the governing principles, prevailing language and general wealth and cohesion of the nation. For that very reason, the Irish were quite unwelcome when they came to the country in the early 19th century. Ruined by the Great Famine, the Irish arrived upon American shores in such numbers and in such a destitute condition that they threatened the status quo.  Because the Irish nevertheless integrated into the American fabric, the lib-left suggests that anti-immigrant sentiment is just fear and old rhetoric. But there is more here than meets the eye here.

Upon arrival in the U.S., Irish immigrants immediately had to be productive or they would die - no social welfare system was waiting for them. Many had had exposure to English back in Ireland - a tremendous advantage in terms of employability and cultural integration. Finally, the "assimilation" of the Irish in the U.S. was actually a bridging of the gap between Christianized descendants of Northern Europe. The differences within the Christian and European communities, large as they may be, are minuscule when one steps back to look at those differences in comparison to the differences with other cultures and peoples of the world. Nonetheless, these facts fall on deaf ears, and Emma Lazarus' assertions are heralded as the model for what has worked and will continue to work for this country. Preserving the fabric of the national community is even broadly regarded as "Un-American." Since the 1960s, legislators flirt with political suicide if they so much as object to this assertion, even as the ethno-religious foundation of the country washes away in a sea of ambiguity.


With a different policy, Mexican drug gangs like MS-13 would be stopped from expanding across the border. Exploitative employers would no longer have access to illegals to cheat ordinary young Americans out of jobs. There would be no disease epidemics brought into the country by illegals who have not had proper health care. There would be no demand for public funds and resources to be diverted in an attempt to educate and integrate a foreign population. The English language would be safely secured in this country and the movement for a Hispanic race state in the U.S. would be stopped. People would not come here simply to have children so they can take from the welfare line, and our children would not be disadvantaged because of quotas designed to put other people's children and their descendants into higher positions at the expense of our own. Just as importantly, we could reduce the number of individuals arriving from a part of the world that apparently hates us so much, they would like to fly planes into our buildings. We could also limit those who, with their radical Zionist ties, wish to utilize America's resources and economic base to push Israel's agenda in the Middle East. Surprisingly, this brings us back to Emma Lazarus...

Based on the quote on the plaque at the Statue of Liberty, one might assume that Lazarus loved America and simply wanted others to discover a better life there as she had. But who were these others? After all, there was only one demographic that was, throughout a great deal of the world, seen as "wretched refuse". And Lazarus' message would have come across particularly well to this demographic, considering she belonged to it. Furthermore, Lazarus eventually abandoned the pro-America talk in favor of a state for just these people in the demographic - her people.

Yes, Lazarus was a Jew and, regardless how she initially felt about America, she became an advocate for her people to have their own state, called Israel. Thus, it is a terrible mistake to portray Lazarus as either a U.S. patriot or multicultural icon. If anything, Lazarus should serve as a warning about ethnic alliances, particularly if hyphenated-Americans become an increasingly larger and self-identifying demographic. If history tells us anything, without a ruling majority in the country, self-interested demographic groups end up competing for the same podium to push their own interests. One socio-political theory holds that anything less than a 60/40 balance between the majority and minority groups of a country is a potential threat to the social order because it upsets the default roles of give-and-take, where the larger sect makes concessions to the smaller to preserve social order, but the smaller sect does not challenge the larger sect's authority so as to not topple the apple cart and put itself in danger.

Lazarus can also serve as a warning about underhandedness. Pertaining to this theme, America should be wary of those who cross the border to live off the social system or bring trouble by running drugs. Similarly, we must be vigilant in weeding out the immigrants who wish to "settle" in America but, in reality, are planning to attack us.

Finally, Lazarus' legacy is a stern reminder about Israel-firsters in America. With AIPAC, they have a strong foothold in American politics and have 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. is entitled to such a privilege.

So what can be done? 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 of our nation, it is no longer clear what an "American" is or what "integrate" means, especially as the number of people who fit the traditional "American" model slowly lose their majority footing.

Part of the problem is the lib-left. Promoting Lazarus' message, the lib-left believe they are helping to eliminate prejudices between states, ethnicities and religions and creating 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 an individual's free will.

Unfortunately, by undermining the national fabric of a majority community, the lib-left are also destroying the bond of communal familiarity and mutual values that makes it easier for individuals to relate to and trust one another and see themselves 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 wish to act in ill will towards the community.

By contrast, try to imagine a scenario where, with the community-based fabric in tact, the alleged 9/11 plane hijackers had trained for and committed their terror acts in the U.S. Their mere presence would have immediately signaled the likelihood that something was awry. And that is pretty much the case regardless whether we are talking about minions of foreign drug lords, separatists, terrorist foreigners or Israel-firsters.

Now I don't know about you, but 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. You are among your people, who are literally a reflection of you and your customs. That is the entire point of a community forming its own state and why, in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world of your McGraw Hill history textbook, Lazarus sought a Jewish homeland - a utopia just for HER people.