Dual Allegiance and the Politics of Immigration Reform

Posted by onetwothree on November 21, 2005, 09:46 PM | #

contribute to the ongoing rapid spread of dual allegiance among U.S. citizens

You say this like it’s a bad thing, but Balkanization is better than Braziliation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 22, 2005, 01:36 AM | #

“Balkanization is better than Brazilianization”  (—onetwothree)

If I didn’t already have my signature slogan that’s the phrase I’d use for it.  Good work, Onetwothree!
______
Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

Posted by Guessedworker on November 22, 2005, 08:26 AM | #

Dual allegiance challenges our core foundation as a civic nation (built on political loyalty) by promoting an ethnic and racial basis for allegiance and, thus, subverts our “nation of (assimilated) immigrants” ethic.

John Fonte’s stock was pretty high with me after his writings on transnationalism and cultural Marxism.  But he is a CP man wedded, like all Establishment figures, to the myth of CP America.

Human nature surpasses being American in all significant respects.  One is the bedrock of ethnicity and ethnic interest.  Long after the memory of CP America has disappeared the human race will fracture along ethnic lines.  All that we are seeing today and all that Fonte protests is the slow, ineluctable victory of nature over the feeble hand of Man.

It is fortuitous for European Americans that dual allegiance is developing.  It will propel them to an understanding of who they really are and maybe even to the understanding that Balkanisation is indeed vastly preferable to Brazilianisation.  Well said, onetwothree!

I don’t think it matters what happens to the united states of America.  The future of Europeans there is the paramount consideration.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 22, 2005, 11:34 AM | #

GW, quite so.  For a Brit such as myself, dual allegiance is simply reversing the Crime of 1776!

Posted by James Bowery on November 22, 2005, 01:10 PM | #

Speaking as an American of fairly “pure” heritage (all my identified ancestors were here before the revolutionary war and most have been identified back that far), I can’t disagree with Guessedworker.  It is more important that territories be preserved for their native peoples than for colonies to be preserved.  Nevertheless it does matter what happens to the USA for a very important reason:

The post WW II USA influence is what caused Europe to open its borders.

This begs the question:  Why was the USA so influential?  I think the answer boils down to the fact that it was a frontier within which original native European values of freedom could survive the encroachment of bureaucracy.  But this strength was captured and perverted as so many of us are painfully aware now.

As to Martin’s assertion that the Declaration of Independence was a crime—I would submit that any regime that refuses the secession a minority of its territory comparable in value relative to its total territory, of a disaffected minority of comparable size relative to the total population, is criminal.

We can argue over what the minimum legal or “confederal” legal infrastructure must be to enable such devolution but it is not negotiable.  This, of course, would have permitted the African slaves to establish their own nation out from under the Confederate States just as it would have allowed the Confederate States to establish their own nation out from under the United States.

Moreover, if there is a single crime to which I would point responsible for all the rest of the crimes it would be the crime of 1655.

Posted by DissidentMan on November 22, 2005, 04:39 PM | #

As to Martin’s assertion that the Declaration of Independence was a crime—I would submit that any regime that refuses the secession a minority of its territory comparable in value relative to its total territory, of a disaffected minority of comparable size relative to the total population, is criminal.
In any event, Thomas Jefferson and the others were insincere. As soon as the colonies gained their independence they were yoked to the washington federal government, within which, the leaders of the revolution (suprise, suprise) occupied central roles. That these men were perfidious should have been clear to anyone hearing the declaration of independence, with its flowery Marxist equality rhetoric. The revolutionaries weren’t even content to be the top dogs of the thirteen colonies since they openly talked about expanding the union.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 22, 2005, 05:13 PM | #

The difference is that the South had damn good reasons for seceding in 1861, whereas the 13 Colonies didn’t in 1776—as DissidentMan says, it was just a bunch of nasty radical demagogues stirring up the colonists for their own ends. The “No Taxation without Representation” line was particularly atrocious—British North America was the lowest taxed nation in the history of mankind.

Having said that, British politicians were not blameless in the matter—Chatham making raving loony speeches about the blood of tyrants because he thought it was his turn to profit from the fruits of office, Sandwich deluding North into thinking the Colonies could be reconquered quickly and easily, Howe and various other generals being basically Quislings and nobody having the sense to create 26 new MPs for the 13 colonies to shut the blighters up.

There’s plenty of blame to go around—but it was in the end a Crime, and has made modern history immeasurably less happy than it could have been (think the Civil War, WWI and WWII would have happeneed if 1776 hadn’t?)

Posted by James Bowery on November 22, 2005, 09:32 PM | #

I think the Civil War was an inevitable result of the conflict between southern slave-owning plantations and northern technocrats—regardless of whether the Crown still ruled.  The poison seed had been planted long before by the slave traders just as surely as opium dealers plant poison seeds with their customers.

I strongly disagree that the South was legitimately seceding in 1861 given the fact that they had not themselves allowed their slaves to secede.  Likewise, the US federal governments legitimacy was lost once it won freedom for the slaves but then proceeded to impose accession on the Confederate States.  In other words, the moment the slaves were freed, the secession of the Confederate whites became legitimate.

The perfidity of the founders of the US Federal government is obvious by virtue of the fact that they permitted the institution of slavery to continue within their “all men are created equal” rhetoric.  However, their perfidity must be compared to the perfidity of the rest of the world of the time.  Some of them come out reasonably well—in particular Jefferson’s support of the Yeoman farmer paradigm was the real source of his legitimacy.  The revolutionary war in the US was fundamentally a result of the move to urbanize the leadership of the Scottish clans and tax the kindly tenants for the subsistence acreages—rather than making them a Yeoman class.  Viewed in this light the relationship with France during the revolutionary war was simply a renewal of the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France against England—but with the Scotch-Irish of the new world forming the new Scots.

Posted by The Other Guy on November 22, 2005, 11:46 PM | #

The 26 MPs business might have worked for awhile, but the smarter idea was how to separate amicably.  Something as big as the 13 colonies could not have been held for long no matter how many MPs wer allowed.

The Brits learned the lesson and dominion status (essentially amicable independence) was the right way to go.