Zmirak is right; of course it should.
The most urgent issue facing our nation is immigration. And this should be no surprise. Demography makes nations. It also unmakes them. One of the key reasons that British, not French settlers conquered North America was simple: French women didn’t want to come to North America, while English women would. So apart from one or two cities, New France was scattered with bachelors, collecting beaver pelts and trading with the Indians. New England, Virginia and other colonial settlements instead filled up with families. Land-hungry, devout, independent-minded settlers suspicious of centralized state authority.
And the numbers of Englishmen grew, relative to the Indians, till a tipping point was reached. Whatever we think of the ethics of conquering a continent, these are the mechanics. It’s how these things happen.
Yep.
America wasn’t founded on generic Christianity. It was founded on decentralized Protestantism. Our defining political principles come from that, from suspicion of central authority. And cussed independence of government. Those principles flowed from doctrinal sources, to be sure. Mainly from a Christian love for liberty, and suspicion of fallen man. They’re not direct implications of the strictly dogmatic questions Schmitz mentions. And behold, the nations from which so many immigrants are desperate to escape? They were dominated completely by the Catholic Church for 500 years. It upheld all those dogmas, doggedly. What it didn’t produce in a single Latin American country? The kind of ordered liberty and prosperity we value as Americans.
Yep.
Nor have Latino Catholics with leftist economic views pushed the Democratic party to be more pro-life. In the past 20 years, as immigrants made an ever larger part of the Democratic base, that party has become more dogmatically pro-choice, not less. Where are up-and-coming Latino “Catholic” politicians? If they’re California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, they’re trying to put pro-life journalists like David Daleiden in prison.
Funny how that goes, eh?
In other words, if we accept more Latino immigrants, we will flip more states from red to blue. Abortion will be legal in America forever. Democratic presidents elected with those extra Latino votes will stack the Supreme Court with leftists who attack religious liberty. And gun rights. And property rights. Then the U.S. will become a lot more like Mexico or Venezeula.
I don’t want that. Conservatives (Catholic or Protestant) shouldn’t want that. So we shouldn’t put up with it. We should make the test we impose, going forward, on future immigrants neither racial, cultural nor religious. It should be nakedly political. Given how migrants of a given nationality tend to vote in the U.S. today, how do future migrants from that nation seem likely to vote? Will they vote for bigger government? For more abortion and fewer religious liberties? Then we don’t want them here. Period. We can say this plainly: Don’t import more Democrats.
Exactly.
Patriactionary 
c matt
November 14, 2019 at 10:51 am
To be fair, Spain also ruled California, Texas and Florida for generations and it worked OK. Like the French, I think the problem with Latin America is that the Spanish did not want to settle there as much – simply milk it for resources using indigenous labor. The Euro/native ratio never really hit the tipping point it did in the Anglo settled areas. Heavy European settlement didn’t kick in until the mid-to-late 19th century. And even today, most LA countries are comprised of a relatively (to US) smaller Euro ruling class over a large indigenous lower class, with a small mixed middle-class.
Regardless, immigration should be like spices on steak – used sparingly to enhance the natural flavors of the beef, not overpower it.
Will S.
November 15, 2019 at 12:46 am
It’s weird to me that some Spanish colonies ended up with many white women arriving and marrying the white men there – e.g. Argentina, Uruguay – whereas in the rest, there weren’t so many white women, and so intermarried with mostly Indios (thus Mexico, central America, Chile) but occasionally others like blacks as well; thus Colombia, Venezuela, and in others, very little European colonization took root, e.g. Paraguay.
c matt
November 15, 2019 at 10:37 am
It may have a lot to do with the climate/geography. Uruguay was part of Argentina until it separated. While Uruguay is more “tropical” being closer to the equator, Argentina in general is much more like the US with vast plains for agricultural use and actual winter climates. Lots of Germans and Italians, and a great wine making region. Chile is largely mountainous with a sliver of a coast and would have required a longer trek (whether by sea or across the Andes) to get there, so why do Chile when Argentina is already there? My guess is Argentina did not have as dense indigenous population, so it was easier for Euros to take root.
Unfortunately, Argentina has fallen prey to its progressives and so is in a perpetual boom/bust cycle (mostly bust). If expats need a “bugout” country, could be an option, but it would need to be cured of its progressives tendencies first. Canucks can settle in Ushuaia, feel right at home.
Will S.
November 15, 2019 at 11:29 pm
Ah.
c matt
November 15, 2019 at 10:45 am
On the main topic, for now most immigrants vote Dem, no question. But I largely see that as a front against a common enemy. Once the Coalition of the Ascendant achieves it goal of displacing whitey, the infighting will begin (and is some sense has already begun – AOC v Pelosi). The Dem party is destined for breakup at some point (the GOP is more destined for simple oblivion), and then you will see more of the EGTOW (Ethnics Going Their Own Way). What that portends for the good ol’ US of A, who knows.
Will S.
November 15, 2019 at 11:29 pm
Well, it surely won’t be good…
feeriker
November 16, 2019 at 1:51 pm
As far as Zmirak’s original quote is concerned, at this point it could only apply to some future entity carved out of the smoking ruins of today’s USA and/or Canada. Both countries right now seem beyond salvaging in terms of reasserting the political and social culture of the White Anglo natives. I’d love to be proven wrong here, but it doesn’t seem likely.
Will S.
November 16, 2019 at 2:44 pm
Alas…
feeriker
November 16, 2019 at 2:01 pm
Then the U.S. will become a lot more like Mexico or Venezeula.
For all of Anglo North America’s faults, at least we’ve been able to maintain functional, cohesive civil government up until now. I constantly have to remind both my Venezuelan wife and my many Mexican friends when they complain about some aspect of having to be a minimally responsible American citizen that this is something that Latin America has NEVER been able to accomplish in 200-plus years of independence, that the prospects of this ever happening don’t appear promising, and that all of the longstanding sociopolitical and economic dysfunction in the region is directly attributable to the entire region (Costa Rica being the one possible exception) consisting of chronically failed states (the sustained failure being indigenous even without the USA’s toxic interventions). None of them have been able to offer a persuasive counter-argument.
Will S.
November 16, 2019 at 2:46 pm
I remember, a few years back, witnessing some African folks mocking Trump’s comments about “shithole countries”, and I thought, so why did they come here then, if not to escape their shithole homelands? Some folks can’t handle the truth…