We Actually Do Not Need Immigration

Americans need to be the beneficiaries of American policies

Just over a week ago, the world was treated to the spectacle of an “assimilated immigrant” from Saudi Arabia plowing a car through the Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, killing six and injuring more than 200 people. Naturally, because the perpetrator was a Saudi named Taleb al-Abdulmohsen, the assumption was that he is a Muslim, which served to confirm to most commentors the mistaken policy of allowing in Muslim “refugees” into European countries. Regime outlets tried to counter this with the somewhat risible claim that Abdulmohsen was really an AfD-supporting anti-Islamist who had escaped religious oppression in Saudi Arabia to find asylum in secular Germany, and who nevertheless…decided to attack an overtly Christian tradition in the same way Islamists have been for years?

Nevertheless, while these outlets probably thought that this would be a cheap and easy way to shame all those Islamophobic chuds out there on the internet into silence (since that’s what they really care about, not the people who died), it ended up having an unintended effect. Rather than thinking, “Oh my! Shame on us for making assumptions about this guy!” people started to think, “Uh, so even the non-Muslim ones are mass murderers?” The obvious conclusion to any thinking person was that the problem with unassimilable aliens in our societies isn’t their religion, but the fact that they’re aliens.

Two days later, a Guatemalan national by the name of Sebastian Zapeta-Calil, apparently on a whim, set a sleeping woman on fire on the New York City subway’s F train. Zapeta-Calil had been removed from the country back in 2018 but had illegally reentered the United States at some point. Witness reports indicated that after lighting the sleeping woman on fire, he fanned the flames with his shirt before disappearing, seemingly showing no remorse for his actions (which is, in fact, classic low-IQ sociopathic behaviour).

These two seemingly unconnected events would superficially seem to have nothing in common. The first involved a highly educated doctor who by all appearances was well-fitted into his host society and contributing to it in a way most people would not be able to. The second featured the stereotypical “hard-workin’ immurgrunt” that BoomerCons are always telling us do the jobs that Americans won’t do. Two very different people, two very different types of immigrants, yet two very similar (if in these particular examples very extreme) detrimental effects in their host countries.

As I noted, these two individuals are extreme examples, but they are certainly not the only ones of how immigration detriments its host societies. This observation seems especially relevant after the past few days of the “H1-B debate” that has raged across social media between Elon Musk, the “tech bros,” and libertardian types on one side and Trump’s base of American nationalists and immigration restrictionists on the other. It has brought out into the open some realities about H1-B visa holders (especially Indians) that many Americans had not considered and caused a lot of people to question how necessary these folks really are.

The standard line for two decades has been that we need ever increasing numbers of H1-B (and certain other related types of visas) holders to “propel America forward” by filling critical roles in various technology-related sectors. This mirrors the longer-term arguments that we’ve heard for decades to justify mass low skill, low education immigration, that whole “jobs Americans won’t do” thing again. The assumption being made (mostly by big government and big corporate folks) is that masses of either type are unquestionably a net benefit to America. I mean, who can argue against letting in millions of hard-wurkin’ future patriots who love Amurica more than the people who were born here??

Yet, it was exactly this kind of argument that dive-bombed the tech bro polemics this time around. To make their defence of increasing H1-B visas, they essentially fell back onto telling native born Americans that they are a bunch of lazy retards who can’t handle their industries. Vivek Ramaswamy weighed in to complain about American jock culture and to suggest that American kids should spend more time memorising lists of words so they can win spelling bees. More than a few random Indians piped up to brag about replacing Americans and how all was lost for us. Not exactly the kind of arguments that many would find persuasive, to be sure.

Again, these are essentially the same kind of polemic that pro-immigrationists have made for decades, every time they talk about Julio being willing to work for $5 an hour in that hot, hot sun while Americans expect employers to provide a bit higher pay and grade of working environment. We need immigrants, doncha see, because you dumb, lazy Americans just cost business owners too much money.

And this ultimately gets to the crux of the matter. Pro-immigrationists don’t care about America, they care about “maximising profits.” They’re the epitome of the late-stage collapse mentality that values the personal over the good of the nation, ultimately the same type of mindset that is used by progressives to justify soft-on-crime and many other harmful policies.

But the thing is, all of the “hard-workin’ immurgrunt” and “elite human capital” stuff is not even accurate. I’ve recounted before some of my previous industry experience with foreign visa workers and working for an Indian-owned biotech company. After over two decades of working in an H1-B heavy industry, I can count on one finger the number of foreign workers that I believe were really competent and understood the science behind the projects we were working on. The rest were just button pushers and spreadsheet jockeys. The only reason Americans aren’t doing those jobs is because they (and especially white Americans) are cut out systematically by government diversity mandates (among other things). And most of the blue-collar jobs that “Americans won’t do” are jobs that can either be automated or else could and would be done by Americans, just not for third world wage scales.

Indeed, if H1-Bs were vital to American tech, then why does Space-X - a very successful tech firm, I think we can all agree, but which is forbidden by federal law from hire non-Americans - employ a workforce that is made up almost 100% of white American males?

Overall, there is simply no credible argument that mass immigration is a benefit to our society. Instead, importing hordes of third worlders has brought more crime and corruption, everything from petty infractions to system wide malfeasance and misuse of public resources that were designed to help the legitimately poor and needy. This is an endemic problem in other western countries as well - witness the case of Indian college students in Canada creating guides to help themselves and their co-ethnics game the food banking system. They do this, ultimately, because they come from a foreign culture which simply does not have the same taboos against cheating and corruption and nepotism that Anglo nations have.

Even more starkly, one only needs to see Latin American gangs like Tren de Aragua taking over entire blocks of apartments in our cities to begin to wonder if something might not be amiss with how we handle who we let in. And of course, who can forget the fact that, per the free-market apparatus that libertardians and tech bros love so much, housing costs have risen steeply directly in response to more and more immigrants coming into America and other western countries. Supply, demand, you know the drill. Many Americans are priced out, or at least strongly delayed from entering into, our own housing market because of this.

Indeed, even the “high end” (not really) H1-B immigrants are a detriment. I believe there is a strong case to be made that America’s tech boom, which began in the 1990s and 2000s, was actually stultified by the entry of large numbers of Indian and other H1-B visa holders which started during the Bush administration. The lack of innovation and creativity on the part of these folks, who are there because they work more cheaply and thus undercut more innovative and intelligent Americans, actually had the opposite effect from what we were told so as to justify their presence here. I’ve seen this firsthand in the biotech/biopharmaceutical industry.

So while these folks may not be driving cars through Christmas crowds or setting sleeping women on fire on a subway, the vast majority of immigrants are still detrimenting us more than they are benefiting us, in a hundred less obvious but still tangible ways.

So is there a case to be made at all for any kind of immigration? Well yes, I believe there is, but it must necessarily involve careful selection and regulation to ensure that dislocations and distortions are not introduced into our social structure. Understanding this should go a long way towards seeing through one of the more common “smoke and mirrors” arguments that pro-immigrationists use. They’ll argue that we need to expand immigration and visas because we need to tap into the pool of that 0.1% right end of the bell curve supergeniuses who are all floating around out there somewhere. Ok fine, go after the supergeniuses, but it doesn’t follow from this that we have to import tens of millions of global southerners along with them. A Nikola Tesla here, an Elon Musk there, or a few hundred German rocket scientists are a very different bird from importing a full 7% of Haiti’s entire population, for example. Immigrants should be relatively few, demonstrate proven or provable needed talents, and also should be cultural compatible with our own society. Europeans and Euro-derived peoples already share similar cultures to our own and are a lot less likely to lie, cheat, and steal (among other things) than even the high-income third world entrants are prone to doing.

This, coupled with the more wide-open, frontier society we had back then, explains why we could handle large numbers of European immigrants in the 19th century, whereas similar levels of post-1965 non-Euro immigration is now dynamiting our social structure and cohesion.

In the long-term, what DO we need to do to keep our global competitiveness? As should be obvious from what has been said above, continuing to import masses of foreign workers is not the answer. Indeed, that is, and always has been, the low IQ, high time preference “solution” to the perceived problem of not enough workers. Instead, we need to pursue a longer-term, but ultimately more durable and sustainable program of encouraging our own people to get back into the requisite fields of study. That will, of course, require businesses in those fields to make themselves attractive to prospective workers, which means they’re going to have to bite the bullet and provide an actual American wage and benefits scale, rather than boomerpoasting about how Americans are just spoiled and lazy for wanting to get paid enough to live the American dream in their own country. You want to do business in America? Then make yourself attractive to Americans. There’s nothing immoral or unreasonable about our having this expectation for you.

This needs to be coupled with the destruction of DEI and other “diversity” programs which have been used for at least two decades now (and the underlying ideology has been there going all the way back to the Civil Rights Act), to systematically disadvantage White Americans (especially White men, who are at the bottom of the intersectionality totem pole). Tech bros and libertardians always say they want “meritocracy.” Well then, let’s actually have meritocracy, even though it will mean that our core, Heritage American population returns to their place of primacy that they had back when our country was rising to its place of economic and technological prowess. In short, you can either let White kids do the things that White kids have historically done when left alone to pursue their interests, or you can hobble them artificially while trying to stamp out the hydra of “disparate impact.” You can’t do both, however.

In summary, we need an immigration (and a domestic!) policy that advantages Americans first, not self-interested businesses who want to reduce everyone to fungible cogs in a profit-grinding machine. Americans should benefit from American laws and policies, rather than foreign economic mercenaries who only “love America” because they get lots of money to send back home and out of our own economy. If the tech bros and “classical liberals” can’t understand this simple concept, then they need to step out of the way of those who do.