Info: YDA.org Page
I have spent some time reading your history statement, and there were a few things worth responding to. For instance, about the American Revolution, "Our ancestors wisely decided that this new nation under God with liberty and justice for all, would have no king and no privileged class!" What about the slaves? What about women? What about those who were laborers? That's right -- it wasn't until the end of the Civil War, when African-Americans received the right to vote, that the vast majority of the working-class also received the same right. A little something called "the property requirement."
The only American forefather who disagreed with all of these policies was Thomas Paine -- and he was a Socialist. (See his essay "Agrarian Justice.") Thomas Jefferson, who you seem to quote often, was also in favor of an economy with small property-holders. (CooperativeIndividualism.org) How can you have an economy today, with capital as complex as mining enterprises and factories, while also having an economy of small property-holders? The only clear way is to socialize the economy, and to give each worker the right to property over the tools and equipment that they make a living through.
But you don't seem to focus on the economic, social, or political ideas of these thinkers. The abolishment of the Capitalist system, we'll just keep that in the background while you talk about how "America's culture, customs, language, and laws are under assault from foreigners..." This is curious. What "culture" do you mean?
Do mean the culture of slavery, sexism, racism, oppression, and exploitation that was inherent in the property-owning class of the US colonies? Is that the "culture" that is under assault by foreigners? Take another instance of slavery: "...our country's sparsely populated Western states over to domination by Asian people, language, customs, and political thought, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882." Domination by Asian people? That's like saying the southern slave-holding states were "dominated by Black people." Numbers aside, "domination" often implies some type of social control, as opposed to reality, which was complete social powerlessness.
In defense of the Immigration-Control acts, you quote the New York Times, "The country has a right to say who shall and who shall not come in . .. the basis of restriction must be chosen with a view not to the interest of any group or groups in this country, . . . but rather with a view to the country's best interests as a whole." The country's best interests as a whole, according to Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, would to be deport all of the wealthy Capitalists to the middle of the ocean so that we can seize their property. Of course, this seizure of property must be for everyone and all. They did deport all Capitalists during the American Revolution -- except new Capitalists, like the Roosevelts, had enough political control to seize the "liberated lands."
Everywhere, you discuss the awful horrible effects of immigration. "The unscrupulous advertised for immigrant workers, not to fill waiting jobs, but to depress wages of American workers," and "Americans began to question how many of the teeming impoverished millions the United States could accept." Low-wages? Unemployment and under-employment? Recessions and depressions? Underproduction and inflation? Those are not problems inherent in immigrants or natives, as they occur everywhere in the world, whether people are coming or going.
The working-class holds responsibility only insomuch as they have not risen up against their feudal masters in favor of a collectively-organized society. Immigrants and non-immigrants alike hold this responsibility. It's quite clear that all of the social problems you're discussing are from Capitalism, not immigration. Just imagine taking your train of thought just a few steps further. "Immigrants, by coming here, take our jobs, and make workers compete even harder for employment." You mean, it makes things harder for the working class, the way poverty and lack of opportunity does? The way cartels and trusts do? The way everything done by the capitalist class has always done?
Just imagine your economic system. "There are too many workers, so now we are all poor!" Wait, don't workers produce wealth? Yes, they do. So how is it that too many workers, producing too much wealth, results in... too much poverty? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If we are overproducing, shouldn't wealth be spread around? The problem is with the Capitalist system, that keeps the laborers separated from the products of their labor.
It's simple supply-and-demand. Immigration is just one of the tiny blocks that can be moved from one side to the other. What a meaningless victory to achieve -- "We got unemployment up by 2.5%, by kicking out all of those people who our ancestors originally used as slaves!" Why don't you listen to Thomas Paine and Jefferson, and kick down an economic system that dispossess the masses?
Crime, poverty, hunger, slavery, disease, war, exploitation, famine -- these are the real social evils. But immigrants have only been the victims, and Capitalism has always been the victimizer. Why not listen to those two "important forefathers," Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and create a worker-managed economy? Whatever social evils you think you suffer from immigration would disappear, along with all those produced by Capitalism.