Countering Common Claims of Immigration Advocates

illegal children 6

By John Vinson

Over the years I’ve found some useful arguments against the claims and clichés of mass immigration. I’ve field-tested these refutations on a number of occasions, and I can testify that they work. Here are some examples.

Claim: We’re a nation of immigrants.

Reply: Our heritage of immigration is just one facet of our national identity. First and foremost, we’re a nation of Americans. As a free people we have the right to regulate immigration for the benefit of our national interest.

Claim: The descendants of immigrants cannot in good conscience keep out new immigrants.

Reply: This is like saying that a private business, staffed by people who were once job applicants, is morally obligated to hire all new applicants. This is ridiculous because the purpose of a business is to sell products and make money, and it must gear its hiring program to meet those ends. Similarly, a nation exits to serve its national interests—and it should regulate immigration by that standard.

Claim: Immigration has been good for America; we need it to keep benefitting us. Immigrants after all built America.

Reply: Certainly immigration can help America, but to say that it is always good, regardless of quantity or quality, is absurd. It’s like saying that alcohol is always beneficial because a daily glass of red wine will improve a person’s health—and from that observation going on to claim that two bottles of whiskey a day will improve one’s health even more.

The specific question to ask is whether our massive level of immigration today is helpful or harmful. In the past a high level of immigration helped to populate and develop a vast and undeveloped country. But today our nation is populated and built. So why do we need to keep on admitting so many builders?

Claim: We have the moral duty to be a haven for the world’s poor and downtrodden.

Reply: Morality does not require us to do what is impossible and self-destructive. World population now increases at the rate of about 80 million a year, with most of this increase in poor and relatively poor countries.1 Now suppose we decided to admit one-tenth of that number a year, eight million, a total about six times higher than our current annual intake of legal and illegal immigrants. With immigration causing problems now, imagine what stress that increase would cause, one which would add 100 million people in little more than a decade.

For most people in the world, prosperity is something they will have to create at home. If America remains strong, we can provide them with assistance. But if we are overwhelmed, we will lack the capacity to help anyone.

Claim: We live in a global society, so immigration restrictions are outdated and unnecessary.

Reply: To find out if the person making this statement is really willing to stand behind it, pose to him some facts, and then ask a question.

The facts: A Gallup International poll a few years back found that 150 million people would like to move to America.2 Under our immigration law, if they came here, they could petition to bring their spouses, minor children, and other relatives. Immigrants bring in an average of 3.5 relatives.3 Thus if we completely opened our gates, we could expect more than 500 million new arrivals, a number which would swamp our current population of 325 million.

The question: Do you support admission of all these people with no restriction or delay? If the advocate says yes, his lack of practicality and ideological obsession become clear to any sensible person. If he says no, congratulate him for joining the restrictionist side. The argument now is simply over where to set the limits, not whether restriction is necessary.

Claim: Diversity is our strength. All cultures are equal and equally enriching.

Reply: To say diversity is strength is just another version of the fallacy, already noted, that because limited intake of alcohol (wine) can be good that binge drinking whiskey must be even better. With both alcohol and diversity, good cannot be discerned without reference to quantity and quality. Certainly we can enjoy the diversity of having a number of ethnic restaurants in a city. But that hardly means we should welcome profound cultural differences which threaten our national unity. Some diversity is good, but taken too far it is divisive and destructive.

The statement that “all cultures are equal and equally enriching” is one that flatly contradicts reality. In terms of things that nearly all people want, such as freedom and prosperity, it is manifestly clear that some cultures provide them far better than others. Western countries, including the United States, are a case in point. That’s why so many people around the world want to move to them. If all cultures were truly equal, those people could find the satisfactions they want within their own cultures without leaving home.

Claim: This land belongs to the American Indians. Only they have the right to set immigration policy.

Reply: Whoever truly believes this claim, should be the first to call for an end to immigration. Why allow more foreign thieves to come and take Indian land?

Of course, no one really believes this claim. It’s just a rhetorical cheap shot to denigrate immigration control by manipulating guilt about historic injustices done to Indians. Those were unfortunate, but dwelling on past moral failings should not keep us from living in the present and dealing with present realities.

Today American land belongs to Americans of all backgrounds, including American Indians. And as a democratic society, we have the right to decide what our future will be. Allowing guilt to paralyze our will to make necessary decisions about immigration is gross irresponsibility, a patent evil which will jeopardize our country’s future. We can make up what we owe to Indians by treating them justly as citizens today. ■







Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nothing is Accidental, THE WALL

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Astros Win Game 2!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Terrorist Supporting Southern Poverty Law Center Cut Off by DoD

This past week it was confirmed DOD severed all ties with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), scrubbing SPLC training from DOD manuals.

In June of 2016, Understanding the Threat’s Vice President, Chris Gaubatz, testified before the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, headed by Senator Ted Cruz.  Mr. Gaubatz outlined his experience conducting undercover research with Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Hamas is a U.S. state department designated terrorist organization, and the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Mr. Gaubatz testified the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are no different than those of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda- to establish an global Islamic state under sharia.

UTT’s VP Chris Gaubatz testifies at Senate hearing (2016) next to SPLC’s President Richard Cohen

His testimony was factual, citing his own undercover work, and evidence entered into the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history- the US vs Holy Land Foundation trial.

Sitting to Mr. Gaubatz’s right was the President of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen.

Despite having been informed of their ties to the terrorist group Hamas, Cohen and the SPLC continue to support Hamas doing business as CAIR in a number of ways, including working to prevent Understanding the Threat (UTT) from being able to train law enforcement in cities across the nation.

The SPLC represents the “RED” (Marxist Movement) in the Red-Green axis, working hand in hand with jihadi groups, including CAIR, here in the United States to destroy our Constitutional Republic and overthrow our government.

UTT welcomes the Department of Defense’s decision as a long overdue step to cut SPLC completely out of the government.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Insanity of it All

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

UNDERCOVER IN ANTIFA: Their Tactics and Media Support Exposed!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Word To The Criminal Migrant – Pat Condell

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

President Trump Gives Remarks on Tax Reform

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Child Molestation: Cornerstone of Islam

By Dave Gibson 
Volume 25, Number 4 (Summer 2015)
Issue theme: “America Unsecured – Pathway to Another 9/11”

Child molestation is not only widespread throughout the Muslim world, but is completely accepted as a standard practice by Muslim men. In fact, in 2012, Pentagon lawyers, at the request of the Obama Administration, drafted an Army manual, which forbade any criticism of child molestation by troops serving in Muslim countries.

The 75-page handbook stated troops should avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban, advocating women’s rights, any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam,” Judicial Watch reported.1

Of course, when speaking on the topic of pedophilia in Islamic culture, one cannot ignore the original ‘chomo’ (prison slang for child molester)…the prophet himself, Muhammad.

Muhammad married his bride Aisha, at age six, but reportedly waited until she was 9 years old to deflower the youngster.

In 2011, Muslim cleric Dr. Saleh Al-Fawzan tried to rationalize Muhammad’s criminal behavior in the following (rather laughable text):2

The story of the prophet’s marriage to Aisha reveals to us aspects like the prophet’s conduct with Aisha, and more importantly the aspect regarding the relationship between the husband and wife, to show how one should treat his wife, just as the prophet did with Aisha.

We know that Aisha’s mother went to take her down from the swing that she was playing on to fix her hair and prepare her for the prophet so he could enter her [have sex with her], and she did that all on the same day.

It gets even more sickening…

So you see, she was playing with her fellow playmates even though her day of consummation was that very same day, and all that they did was to fix her up for the prophet so he could have sex with her.

Now what do we see when the prophet married Aisha? Did he go to her and say ‘Okay that’s it, you’re married, you’re now a grown up, you’re supposed to be mature, you need to do this and that; you need to forget about your toys and your little friends; you are now a wife of a man, you have to see to my needs, and that’s it?’

No. The prophet allowed her to continue playing with her toy dolls, indeed, the prophet even sometimes gave her such things to play with.

This same Saudi cleric issued a fatwa stating that there should be no minimum requirement age for girls to marry, “even if they are in the cradle,” and simply that “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”3

And, in the tradition of the pedophile prophet, several so-called “moderate Muslim” countries have no minimum age for girls to marry, these include: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Yemen.

Several years ago, the minimum age for marriage in Yemen was 15, but that was abolished in 1999. Unofficially, Yemeni clerics agreed that puberty begins at the age of nine, therefore that is when husbands should begin having sex with their child brides, according to a Human Rights Watch report.4

Considering the fact that President Obama is bringing scores of so-called ‘refugees’ here from Islamic nations, it is a likely assumption that we can expect to see a rise in the number of child sexual assaults where these ‘refugees’ are relocated.







Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment