I agree, and it's tough when you see this kind of thinking infecting your own family. My family is roughly 50% or so team blue, and it's difficult to talk to them about these things because they're so deeply bought into the regime narrative. It's laughable the things they say, but they're family so you don't want to humiliate or mock too much, even though that is tempting. I suspect the regime uses that against us; gotta be nice! But then being nice allows their narrative to sustain itself. It's tough.
I agree with every point but one, that present day immigrants don't understand or agree with our founding principles because they don't come from countries like the U.S.
Since our country is unique in its idea-based founding, this could be said to be true of any immigrants at any time. Additionally, some of the staunchest and most appreciative defenders of American ideals are recent immigrants from former or current totalitarian countries.
Surely you are correct - in the nation's history, foreigners have been some of the best (though not THE best) commentators on American virtues. Alexis De Tocqueville foremost among them. And I don't claim that there are NO immigrants who understand these values. There may be hundreds or perhaps even thousands. But there are not millions who understand, while there are tens of millions who are HERE. That is the point. That there are exceptions is irrelevant. We weaken ourselves by spending a single minute debating whether 1 or 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 of the 30,000,000 foreign-born people in this country understand the Declaration of Independence. Let us not weaken ourselves with logical niceties like this, even if they are technically correct.
Point well taken. My interest was in strengthening your points with my first point about every other country being unlike ours. I would also comment that your summary: 'Without these ideals there is no America, without America... there is no civilization ' is wonderfully succinct and undeniably true. Thank you.
A door 🚪 is a hinged or otherwise movable barrier that allows ingress (entry) into &/or egress(exit) from an enclosure. The created opening in the wall is a doorway or portal. A door's 🚪essential & primary purpose is to provide security🔐 by controlling access to the doorway (portal).”
That very definition of a “door” 🚪 is an obvious, simple, logical, & easy to understand meaning of *why* we have doors 🚪 on our homes 🏡 . If you are unfortunate enough to be homeless, a “door” 🚪 would probably be more important to you than a roof over your head. It is not only what it represents, 🛡️but what it *literally* does; it, the door 🚪, protects you. It is a barrier that says “STOP”🛑 - you must *ask* permission from *me* before you are allowed to enter the portal into *my* private 🏡 .” It is *not* a suggestion *or* an option. I have the right to protect *my* property, my family & myself — PERIOD.
It is incredulous that I am writing about a door 🚪 & what it means. There is a criminal element that knows *exactly* what it means but could care less. We put locks 🔐 on our doors 🚪 hoping that it will, at a minimum, make their illegal act at least more difficult. The thief *knows* what the door means. He *knows* what the lock means; && he does *not* care. But what he *also* knows is the fact that he illegally broke in & is now standing in your living room, does *not* mean he is welcome in your home. He *knows* that. He does *not* think this was some kind of game that he “won” by beating your security barrier & his prize is to now be welcome in your home. He *is* a thief & possibly worse. He *is* scum; he *is* now a threat to you & your family. & how do you react? Did you decide he really did “win the game” & now you have no choice but to welcome him? Can you imagine or think of anyone who could think or react that way? Of course you do. Name a politician that has a (D) after their name. Biden. Harris. Obama. Clinton. Schumer. Pelosi. etc. etc.etc.
The United States 🇺🇸 🚪Borders🚪🇺🇸 are our “doors.” They are *no* different than the door of your house 🏡; your home 🏡.
They serve the same *exact* purpose. If someone knocks on the door & you allow them in, then they are welcome. If someone breaks in, they are *not*. That is what a normal, sane, at least partially intelligent person would think. We are a sovereign🇺🇸 nation. Your citizenship🇺🇸🪪 gives *you* legal status within the sovereignty of 🇺🇸*your*🇺🇸 country along with rights & duties from & to *your* 🇺🇸country. && if you were lucky enough to be born here, you are “granted” citizenship. If you were not born here, you must “knock” at the door & be granted permission to pass through 🇺🇸our🇺🇸 “portal.” You may then be given an opportunity to earn 🪪🇺🇸. But first you must be given permission to enter. Not so, according to those people with the (D) after their name. The border “door” is nothing more than a road bump⛔️ to “winning 🗳️ the 🗳️game.” 🪪🏡🇺🇸 They *broke* the law, they *ignored* the door 🚪 & now they are sitting on the couch 🛋️ 🏝️🏖️ of this country’s 🇺🇸 living room. The (D) people will tell you that *now* they, border breaking thieves, are part of ➡️your 👨👩👧👦 family⬅️. You have
N🚫choice.
But perhaps the (D) people are sending out a subtle but generous message. One that is full of kindness & brotherly love. One that is telling those unfortunate homeless people I spoke of at the beginning of this story, “Come to my house 🏡 .” “You will be welcome.” “Be part of my 👨👩👧👦family.”
“My ‘door’ 🚪is open to you”. “Don’t even bother to knock.” “& no, I do not mean this country🇺🇸, I mean my 🏡 house .” “Literally, my home 🏡 ”.
Yes. That *is* probably what they mean…. not!
_________
I wrote this not too long ago & it’s not my best work & I should have rewritten the part about homeless people- I believe the one I put on my substack I massaged the double edged sword wrt homelessness- nonetheless thought it seemed relevant. I like your RR approach; need coffee ☕️
"Since 1776 (as perfected in 1865), there have been no racial, ethnic, or religious criteria to be an American."
That's not exactly true. The constitution itself says:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY being the pertinent part.
Merrian-Webster defines posterity as follows:
posterity
noun
pos·ter·i·ty pä-ˈster-ə-tē
Synonyms of posterity
1: the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2: all future generations
Progenitor is defined as:
progenitor
noun
pro·gen·i·tor prō-ˈje-nə-tər prə-
Synonyms of progenitor
1
a: an ancestor in the direct line : forefather
b: a biologically ancestral form
2: precursor, originator
The Constitution was written and ratified by white Christians from England who were selected for the purpose of creating a government by white Christian settlers from England primarily with a few other assorted white men from other European countries. As the Constitution clearly states, it was created for these people and their posterity. It was not written by or for people from Africa, Asia, Central or South America. It was not written by or for Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. The government was created for the benefit white Christians descended from England, or more generally from Europe, and it was made solely for them and their direct line ancestors.
People can argue but that's what it says. Everyone else should GTFO.
Please enlighten me on the "founding philosophy" and how it differs from the specific words actually selected to be included in the Constitution itself. Also would like to hear about George Washington fighting a revolution so that Somalians would be free to run amuk in Dearbornistan, America.
Sadly, granting citizenship to many people - especially in numbers large enough that they could sidestep assimilation by forming their own insular communities - was a terrible mistake. It should be ended immediately. In this repspect, “legal immigration” can be just as bad as illegal immigration. There was no good reason for granting citizenship to these people and certainly no requirement in the constitution or the Declaration to do so. But I think these issues are separate from the main thrust of the essay which is about illegal immigration.
True, my point is a narrow one in this context but I think an important one nonetheless and one I felt fair to make as the statement I'm referencing was right at the beginning of the essay. I disagree that there never was any "racial, ethnic, or religious criteria to be an American." There most certainly was, so much so it didn't really need to be said at the time and yet they did specifically say that this country was to be for their ancestors. No one at the time could possibly conceive of a time in the future when white people would let muslim infidels into the country to become citizens. The same with any other ethnic, racial or religious group. I don't think letting this claim that America was always some multi-national, multi-racial, multi-religious melting pot from the get go is helpful to a position in favor of returning to the original notion of this country.
Of course, I agree that legal immigration has been just as bad as illegal immigration. My preferred solution would be mass deportation of all those not of the founding fathers specific characteristics. We'll see if we have the gumption to do so.
Big Ugly, you chose the definition from the dictionary that pertains to biological ancestry while excluding the definition that more broadly includes all generations that follow us, whether genetically related or not. I think the founders have earned the benefit of ascribing the broader definition.
Firstly, the assertion that the principles of the American founding are the sole basis for America's identity and success overlooks the dynamic and evolving nature of societies. Throughout history, nations have thrived by adapting their foundational principles to incorporate diverse perspectives and ideas. The strength of a nation lies not only in its original ideals but also in its ability to grow and learn from its citizens, including those from different backgrounds who bring new insights and experiences. Diversity can enhance moral agency and self-governance rather than diminish it, as it fosters a more inclusive dialogue about what those principles mean in a modern context.
Secondly, the claim that an influx of foreigners will lead to a loss of understanding of these principles implies a narrow view of citizenship and belonging. Many immigrants actively embrace and contribute to the core values of America, often seeking them out as part of their journey. Their participation in the democratic process can invigorate civic engagement and a sense of community, rather than erode it. History shows that waves of immigration have often led to cultural revitalization and innovation, rather than the decline of foundational principles.
Moreover, the idea that questioning or critiquing the founding principles equates to a rejection of them is overly simplistic. Healthy societies grapple with their histories, acknowledging both achievements and failures. This critical engagement can lead to a more robust understanding of what it means to be part of a democratic society, fostering resilience rather than weakness.
Lastly, the framing of current societal debates as a battle between "woke nonsense" and foundational truths ignores the complexity of contemporary discourse. Engaging with new ideas does not inherently threaten the principles of the founding but can enrich them. A thriving democracy is characterized by its capacity for dialogue, dissent, and evolution, ensuring that it remains relevant to all its citizens.
In conclusion, the future of America does not hinge solely on a strict adherence to its founding principles but rather on its ability to adapt, include diverse voices, and engage in meaningful conversations about its identity and values. Embracing change and diversity can strengthen the nation and its foundational ideals, rather than lead to its demise.
Agreed. Illegal immigration may be the final nail in America’s coffin.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lizlasorte/p/borders-and-boundaries-and-freedom?r=76q58&utm_medium=ios
Good and thorough article.
Thanks!
I agree, and it's tough when you see this kind of thinking infecting your own family. My family is roughly 50% or so team blue, and it's difficult to talk to them about these things because they're so deeply bought into the regime narrative. It's laughable the things they say, but they're family so you don't want to humiliate or mock too much, even though that is tempting. I suspect the regime uses that against us; gotta be nice! But then being nice allows their narrative to sustain itself. It's tough.
I agree with every point but one, that present day immigrants don't understand or agree with our founding principles because they don't come from countries like the U.S.
Since our country is unique in its idea-based founding, this could be said to be true of any immigrants at any time. Additionally, some of the staunchest and most appreciative defenders of American ideals are recent immigrants from former or current totalitarian countries.
Surely you are correct - in the nation's history, foreigners have been some of the best (though not THE best) commentators on American virtues. Alexis De Tocqueville foremost among them. And I don't claim that there are NO immigrants who understand these values. There may be hundreds or perhaps even thousands. But there are not millions who understand, while there are tens of millions who are HERE. That is the point. That there are exceptions is irrelevant. We weaken ourselves by spending a single minute debating whether 1 or 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 of the 30,000,000 foreign-born people in this country understand the Declaration of Independence. Let us not weaken ourselves with logical niceties like this, even if they are technically correct.
Point well taken. My interest was in strengthening your points with my first point about every other country being unlike ours. I would also comment that your summary: 'Without these ideals there is no America, without America... there is no civilization ' is wonderfully succinct and undeniably true. Thank you.
A door 🚪 is a hinged or otherwise movable barrier that allows ingress (entry) into &/or egress(exit) from an enclosure. The created opening in the wall is a doorway or portal. A door's 🚪essential & primary purpose is to provide security🔐 by controlling access to the doorway (portal).”
That very definition of a “door” 🚪 is an obvious, simple, logical, & easy to understand meaning of *why* we have doors 🚪 on our homes 🏡 . If you are unfortunate enough to be homeless, a “door” 🚪 would probably be more important to you than a roof over your head. It is not only what it represents, 🛡️but what it *literally* does; it, the door 🚪, protects you. It is a barrier that says “STOP”🛑 - you must *ask* permission from *me* before you are allowed to enter the portal into *my* private 🏡 .” It is *not* a suggestion *or* an option. I have the right to protect *my* property, my family & myself — PERIOD.
It is incredulous that I am writing about a door 🚪 & what it means. There is a criminal element that knows *exactly* what it means but could care less. We put locks 🔐 on our doors 🚪 hoping that it will, at a minimum, make their illegal act at least more difficult. The thief *knows* what the door means. He *knows* what the lock means; && he does *not* care. But what he *also* knows is the fact that he illegally broke in & is now standing in your living room, does *not* mean he is welcome in your home. He *knows* that. He does *not* think this was some kind of game that he “won” by beating your security barrier & his prize is to now be welcome in your home. He *is* a thief & possibly worse. He *is* scum; he *is* now a threat to you & your family. & how do you react? Did you decide he really did “win the game” & now you have no choice but to welcome him? Can you imagine or think of anyone who could think or react that way? Of course you do. Name a politician that has a (D) after their name. Biden. Harris. Obama. Clinton. Schumer. Pelosi. etc. etc.etc.
The United States 🇺🇸 🚪Borders🚪🇺🇸 are our “doors.” They are *no* different than the door of your house 🏡; your home 🏡.
They serve the same *exact* purpose. If someone knocks on the door & you allow them in, then they are welcome. If someone breaks in, they are *not*. That is what a normal, sane, at least partially intelligent person would think. We are a sovereign🇺🇸 nation. Your citizenship🇺🇸🪪 gives *you* legal status within the sovereignty of 🇺🇸*your*🇺🇸 country along with rights & duties from & to *your* 🇺🇸country. && if you were lucky enough to be born here, you are “granted” citizenship. If you were not born here, you must “knock” at the door & be granted permission to pass through 🇺🇸our🇺🇸 “portal.” You may then be given an opportunity to earn 🪪🇺🇸. But first you must be given permission to enter. Not so, according to those people with the (D) after their name. The border “door” is nothing more than a road bump⛔️ to “winning 🗳️ the 🗳️game.” 🪪🏡🇺🇸 They *broke* the law, they *ignored* the door 🚪 & now they are sitting on the couch 🛋️ 🏝️🏖️ of this country’s 🇺🇸 living room. The (D) people will tell you that *now* they, border breaking thieves, are part of ➡️your 👨👩👧👦 family⬅️. You have
N🚫choice.
But perhaps the (D) people are sending out a subtle but generous message. One that is full of kindness & brotherly love. One that is telling those unfortunate homeless people I spoke of at the beginning of this story, “Come to my house 🏡 .” “You will be welcome.” “Be part of my 👨👩👧👦family.”
“My ‘door’ 🚪is open to you”. “Don’t even bother to knock.” “& no, I do not mean this country🇺🇸, I mean my 🏡 house .” “Literally, my home 🏡 ”.
Yes. That *is* probably what they mean…. not!
_________
I wrote this not too long ago & it’s not my best work & I should have rewritten the part about homeless people- I believe the one I put on my substack I massaged the double edged sword wrt homelessness- nonetheless thought it seemed relevant. I like your RR approach; need coffee ☕️
Thoughtful, well written essay. Now, let's figure out how to get the word spread to a wider audience.
Thanks. I'm all ears on how to spread to a wider audience.
"Since 1776 (as perfected in 1865), there have been no racial, ethnic, or religious criteria to be an American."
That's not exactly true. The constitution itself says:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY being the pertinent part.
Merrian-Webster defines posterity as follows:
posterity
noun
pos·ter·i·ty pä-ˈster-ə-tē
Synonyms of posterity
1: the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2: all future generations
Progenitor is defined as:
progenitor
noun
pro·gen·i·tor prō-ˈje-nə-tər prə-
Synonyms of progenitor
1
a: an ancestor in the direct line : forefather
b: a biologically ancestral form
2: precursor, originator
The Constitution was written and ratified by white Christians from England who were selected for the purpose of creating a government by white Christian settlers from England primarily with a few other assorted white men from other European countries. As the Constitution clearly states, it was created for these people and their posterity. It was not written by or for people from Africa, Asia, Central or South America. It was not written by or for Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists. The government was created for the benefit white Christians descended from England, or more generally from Europe, and it was made solely for them and their direct line ancestors.
People can argue but that's what it says. Everyone else should GTFO.
Obviously missed the entire point of the article or of the founding philosophy.
Please enlighten me on the "founding philosophy" and how it differs from the specific words actually selected to be included in the Constitution itself. Also would like to hear about George Washington fighting a revolution so that Somalians would be free to run amuk in Dearbornistan, America.
Sadly, granting citizenship to many people - especially in numbers large enough that they could sidestep assimilation by forming their own insular communities - was a terrible mistake. It should be ended immediately. In this repspect, “legal immigration” can be just as bad as illegal immigration. There was no good reason for granting citizenship to these people and certainly no requirement in the constitution or the Declaration to do so. But I think these issues are separate from the main thrust of the essay which is about illegal immigration.
True, my point is a narrow one in this context but I think an important one nonetheless and one I felt fair to make as the statement I'm referencing was right at the beginning of the essay. I disagree that there never was any "racial, ethnic, or religious criteria to be an American." There most certainly was, so much so it didn't really need to be said at the time and yet they did specifically say that this country was to be for their ancestors. No one at the time could possibly conceive of a time in the future when white people would let muslim infidels into the country to become citizens. The same with any other ethnic, racial or religious group. I don't think letting this claim that America was always some multi-national, multi-racial, multi-religious melting pot from the get go is helpful to a position in favor of returning to the original notion of this country.
Of course, I agree that legal immigration has been just as bad as illegal immigration. My preferred solution would be mass deportation of all those not of the founding fathers specific characteristics. We'll see if we have the gumption to do so.
Big Ugly, you chose the definition from the dictionary that pertains to biological ancestry while excluding the definition that more broadly includes all generations that follow us, whether genetically related or not. I think the founders have earned the benefit of ascribing the broader definition.
You just got bumped up to the first boat out, Ted.
Cute comeback but historically unsupported.
So, its exactly like your historically unsupported contention that the Founding Fathers created America for anyone in the world. Amazeballs.
Firstly, the assertion that the principles of the American founding are the sole basis for America's identity and success overlooks the dynamic and evolving nature of societies. Throughout history, nations have thrived by adapting their foundational principles to incorporate diverse perspectives and ideas. The strength of a nation lies not only in its original ideals but also in its ability to grow and learn from its citizens, including those from different backgrounds who bring new insights and experiences. Diversity can enhance moral agency and self-governance rather than diminish it, as it fosters a more inclusive dialogue about what those principles mean in a modern context.
Secondly, the claim that an influx of foreigners will lead to a loss of understanding of these principles implies a narrow view of citizenship and belonging. Many immigrants actively embrace and contribute to the core values of America, often seeking them out as part of their journey. Their participation in the democratic process can invigorate civic engagement and a sense of community, rather than erode it. History shows that waves of immigration have often led to cultural revitalization and innovation, rather than the decline of foundational principles.
Moreover, the idea that questioning or critiquing the founding principles equates to a rejection of them is overly simplistic. Healthy societies grapple with their histories, acknowledging both achievements and failures. This critical engagement can lead to a more robust understanding of what it means to be part of a democratic society, fostering resilience rather than weakness.
Lastly, the framing of current societal debates as a battle between "woke nonsense" and foundational truths ignores the complexity of contemporary discourse. Engaging with new ideas does not inherently threaten the principles of the founding but can enrich them. A thriving democracy is characterized by its capacity for dialogue, dissent, and evolution, ensuring that it remains relevant to all its citizens.
In conclusion, the future of America does not hinge solely on a strict adherence to its founding principles but rather on its ability to adapt, include diverse voices, and engage in meaningful conversations about its identity and values. Embracing change and diversity can strengthen the nation and its foundational ideals, rather than lead to its demise.