Opinion

Open-Borders Republicans And Democrats Agree: Mass Immigration Weakens Democracy, And That’s The Point

Ian Smith Immigration Reform Law Institute

Republican voters stunned by the House leadership’s apparent reneging on their pre-election promise to defund Obamnesty, must turn to the insights of Mexican national, Fredo Arias-King to understand the true, treasonous nature of our modern political elite. While representing former Mexican president Vincente Fox’s foreign affairs team in the early 2000s, Arias-King met and discussed immigration policy with over 80 members of the U.S. Congress, a level of access your average political scientist could only dream of.

Most congressional members who spoke to Arias-King were shockingly candid not only about their full support for open-borders but also about their active use and abuse of immigration policy. “Often laughingly,” they told Arias-King, when forced to consider anti-immigration bills and measures, they would simply ‘defang’ or ‘gut’ them “by neglecting to fund this program or tabling that provision” or simply deleting the measure entirely. Like the fate of the 2006 Secure Fences Act (defunded) or the policy recommendations of the 1995 Jordan Commission (largely ignored), we may be seeing such treatment now with the House’s measure to fund amnesty. Arias-King would say, most definitely.

According to the findings, “Republicans and Democrats were similar” in their reasons for supporting open-borders. Although Democrats were conscious of Hispanics’ left-leaning voting patterns, so were Republicans and neither in any case considered it a major motivating factor. What was most important to both was that Hispanic immigrants were “more malleable than the existing Americans.”

“New Americans,” Arias-King was told, “would be more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs.” Surveys measuring Hispanic opinion on big government bear this out. Legislators wanted to see a Latin-style “patron-client system,” in other words.

“New Americans,” being more pliant and dependent than traditional Americans, would in Arias-King’s words, remove from Congress the “straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers.” This was more important than ideology, we’re told, as Republicans “seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did.”

In the “new” America envisioned by both legislators, “political uncertainty,” “demanding constituents,” “difficult elections and accountability in general would ‘go away’ after tinkering with the People.” Hispanics, says Arias-King by contrast, “would acquiesce and assist” these legislators “to remain in power and increase the scope of that power.”

Although the veracity of these congressional members may seem stunning, given that Arias-King was not American and was also high up in Mexico’s political structure, it is believable they would feel more open to candidly discuss their abuse of immigration law and policy. And such abuse is itself believable. UC Davis professor Darrell Hamamoto recently made similar conclusions, calling mass immigration and amnesty tools to transform the middle class, while China has used migration as a demographic weapon for decades, specifically by inundating its restive Turkic province of Xinjiang with Han Chinese from other regions.

Perhaps most troubling was many of the legislators’ treatment of their white constituents, says Arias-King. He remembers “few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents … [o]ne even called them ‘rednecks’ and apologized…on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration.” He says further, “[m]ost of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself [his emphasis].” It was revealed last year that the UK’s Labor Party had followed such a policy for years in order to reduce the political power of conservative, Tory-voting whites.

But Arias-King warns against legislators following such perceived “rational short-termisms.” This kind of extreme cynicism he says is like a “diet rich in fats and sugar” that “brings a jolt of energy and pleasure in the short run but causes health problems in the longer term.” Interestingly, of the few members who actually understood these longer term problems and who told Arias-King we needed a dramatic cut to our current immigration levels, all were from border states.

Arias-King quotes Federalist Paper 57, which rhetorically asks, “what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discrimination in favour of themselves and a particular class of society?” Two of the three restraints it offers are “the nature of just and constitutional laws” and “the genius of the whole system” of checks and balances. As we’ve seen, both have been grossly violated by Obama’s lawless amnesties. Of the third restraint, “the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America”, it will be destroyed if mass immigration persists long term. And if it goes, the other restraints on corrupt and abusive government may become meaningless.