If there were a sovereign nation that would be the world’s most sought after refuge for those wanting more economic opportunities, freedom to practice their faith without government-sanctioned oppression, escape from war or overwhelming criminal activity and protection of basic human rights as enumerated in that nation’s founding documents, it would be like this. Anyone who wanted to leave that nation, other than to flee a crime or debts they have accumulated, would be free to do so without interference from the authorities, yet very few would choose to leave. In fact, I assert that more people would want to live in this country and fewer want to leave it than any other. I am thinking of such a place.
This country is relatively young compared to most other nations of Western Europe or Asia, yet has the longest lived and best enforced constitution in the world, a constitution which is the envy of freedom seeking people everywhere, and the model for other successful constitutions, which are all too few. Even though young, this nation has both the most powerful military and most robust national economy (for GNP) that ever existed, by wide margins, yet does not generally conquer or overthrow other nations, except in self defense, though it easily could. This nation’s currency and language are the default standards of the entire business world, and it leads all other nations in innovation and creativity, as evidenced by patents issued.
While far from perfect, this nation’s legal system has the most effective contract enforcement and criminal prosecution in the world, and it’s citizens and residents are more protected from crime and oppression than anywhere else. Though access could be more well distributed, no one is turned away from the health care system, which performs many procedures done only there, attracting patients from everywhere in the world. No one is consigned to die because a life-saving treatment is being deliberately withheld due to rationing, as recently happened in another country whose socialised medical system is held up as a model–except by those who are seriously ill.
Politically, this nation continues to function at a higher level than most, without major upheavals, revolutions, nor interruption of vital services and with admirable continuity, despite partisanship, rancor and arguments–the human condition. The country’s most vociferous and violent protests today are against lack of perfection rather than government repression. This country’s past, like all others, had some ugly legacies, like slavery and unjust treatment of native peoples. Slavery was abolished after a war which claimed the lives of more citizens than any other. Most of those who died were not even directly affected by slavery.
It is vital to understand that the national constitution of this nation is different than others. It primarily tells the government what it cannot do, and codifies the political rights of it’s citizens. The Bill of Rights, with one exception (trial by jury), is a list of rights of individuals against the State, unlike the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a list of rights to services provided by the State. This is the biggest difference between this nation and others: When the individual’s rights are protected the function of the state is to allow individuals to pursue freedom and opportunity, while in most other nations the individual has a claim on services for the state to provide. The rights of the individual are enumerated and inviolate in this nation, whereas in most others, including Canada, individual rights may be abrogated to the extent that fashion changes and a “new consensus” is adopted. Therefore, this nation’s citizens are better protected from government coercion and are better able to pursue their lives under a set of rules that are slow to change with shifting philosophies and fashion.
Of course, this nation I am describing is the United States of America. What has “preserved us a nation?” What could destroy us as a nation? The answer to the latter question can be clearly seen in Europe. To simplify, I am going to contrast a few historical trends in the U.S. which preserved us with post-modern ideas that can destroy us.
Preserve: “melting pot” concept = assimilation of immigrants = E Pluribus Unum, from the many, one, that is all Americans. While it is often said that “immigrants built this country” and “we are all immigrants”, those immigrants who did help preserve the nation wanted to be AmericansDestroy: “Multiculturalism”, the opposite of E Pluribus Unum = from the one-Americans-to the many. There is nothing wrong with immigrants celebrating their own culture and traditions after coming to the U.S., at their own expense (without government money), as long as they acknowledge the primacy of our language, our history, our traditions, our laws. The foolishness of the multicultural idea–that every culture is equal and should be equally supported and celebrated by our institutions–is that the culture and mores of the countries that created the
mess from which the immigrants fled, will be brought here. It doesn’t take a genius to see that such a trend will produce here what they fled from!
Preserve: Controlled immigration, background and health checks, and border sovereignty. Destroy: sanctuary cities, immigration policy by emotion, the idea that immigration to the U.S. is a right.
Controlled immigration currently includes 4 methods: family unification, employment-based (valuable skills), per-country ceilings, refugees/asylees, including the diversity VISA program. To better understand U.S. immigration policy, use this link. us immigration
  • The Declaration of Independence expresses the ideals on which the United States was founded and the reasons for separation from Great Britain.
  • The Constitution defines the framework of the Federal Government of the United States.
  • The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It defines citizens’ and states’ rights in relation to the Government.

The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration establishes the creed on which the USA was founded. That creed did not simply spring up from nowhere, nor is it some intellectual’s dream of what should be. Our creed was inspired by the Bible! The founders prefaced the 2nd paragraph with “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle themWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

Therefore, since this nation was NOT founded by fiat, nor whim, nor partition, but rather by a prevailing and enduring philosophy derived from belief in a Creator who endows humanity with rights, we must consider the wisdom of inviting or admitting those who do not believe in nor care about such a philosophy, let alone those who are actively hostile to it! Right now if some leftist/liberal/multiculturalist (pick your label) is having a hissy fit over what I just said, and is hurling imprecations of “racist” or “Islamophobe” at their computer, note I did not say which religions, countries, races or philosophies are inimicable to our culture, beliefs and way of life. Your problem, not mine.

The last thing I want to address are some ideas that some people have about immigration to the United States: (you will want to notice how inconsistent these are with each other)

  1. Immigration is a right and is the essence of the U.S. Where does that come from? There have been criteria and limits on immigration imposed since the 19th century. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 replaced the “national-origin quota” system with a new system emphasizing reuniting families and attracting skilled labor. There have been other changes, and fortunately for us, policy is debated and set by our representatives in Congress, NOT the media!
  2. The U.S. has always been racist and oppressive–just look at slavery and treatment of indigenous people–and so we need to redress those injustices by letting in more immigrants regardless of what white current residents want.  Slavery and oppression was wrong, we corrected most of it, and it certainly NOT the exclusive province of white anglo-saxons. In fact, far more slavery is still practiced today by non-white people predominantly from countries that advocates of this idea want more immigration from!  This position is the voice of revenge and hypocrisy!
  3. More low-skilled immigrants are good for the labor market and the economy in general. Totally wrong!! Read the book The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray if you want to see  how a similar position in Europe was falsely presented by the media and cowardly politicians, and what the real results were.
  4. The U.S. only prospered by stealing the resources and labor of other countries and owes the world by giving back in the form of immigration. This argument is not only false, it shows complete lack of understanding of both history and economics. Name one modern nation that achieved over 200 years of stability and prosperity by theft?