Some scholars assure us that no one lived in North America much before some 15,000 years ago and that the Clovis culture from shortly after that time represents the continent’s first inhabitants. We don’t know whether 97% of scientists agree that is settled science but we do know that some recent discoveries seem to support earlier people in residence. People whose traces ominously vanished a couple thousand years before the Clovis folk turned up, per some of the evidence.
Those Clovis are attributed to the temporary land bridge between Asia and North America during the last glaciation. That’s from the DNA of old bones dug up with Clovis stone spear and arrow points. Regardless, those Clovis and any predecessors were undeniably the first North American immigrants, unless of course, someone we haven’t noticed preceded them. It seems assumed that American Indians are their descendants, unless they are someone else’s. We’re pretty low on witness testimony.
In any case, they were immigrants, immigrants that came in and appropriated an undefended land. They did not always welcome the later arriving Europeans and we know how that turned out. Today, present inhabitants are told that they have a duty to welcome new hordes of immigrants, immigrants who, just as todays locals’ ancestors did, want to impose their cultures upon that of their hosts. Humans always cling to their cultures, even if only in barrios. When they can impose their cultures at large, they do – it’s sometimes called “conquest.” Apparently, it’s what people do when they can. Before the Europeans came, some of those Indians invaded each other, something that doesn’t seem to come up much in classrooms.
In the Middle East where all that oil lies and in Africa, European and U.S. governments, local bullies such as Iran and Turkey plus ambitious Moslem fundamentalists are producing hordes of refugees desperate to leave their dead relatives and find peace in Europe. In Latin America, hordes of descendants of enslaved Indians are desperate to flee corrupt, quasi feudal societies and find opportunity in North America. One can hardly blame them.
Still the irony persists; upon arrival, they do what they can to impose their failed societies upon the locals, tempting ambitious politicians to help. (Note for instance the Spanish spoken during the recent Democrat U.S. presidential debates.)
Much of the preeminent wealth and advancement in the United States directly reflects the relatively low corruption provided by its post-Reformation Judeo-Christian culture and its nearly universal reliance upon a single language. Nowhere else on the planet comes close to sharing these advantages on a comparable scale. Never the less, Americans have largely abandoned the sources of their minimal corruption and are busily removing the underpinnings of their common speech. Filling schools, streets and commerce with alien languages spoken by people from traditionally more corrupt cultures seems a good way to accelerate the result. Those acquainted with Judeo-Christian culture are referred to the story of the Tower of Babel.
Every modern country has a carefully delineated legal boundary and maintains control of crossings; stability depends upon that. The United States is no exception nor are those European governments presently admitting significant numbers of relatively indigestible Moslem refugees. Both situations reflect post-Christian politicians interested in building supportive government clientele at the expense of others. Businesses in high cost countries searching for lower cost labor are a supportive cast in this. But politicians who face elections and businessmen who sell to the voters cannot afford to speak of it. They must find other plausible explanations. The dismal economic reality that living standards for high cost producers necessarily decline while those of lower cost competitors, rise is politically unacceptable; reality indeed sucks.
That is the reason that Democrats sanctify illegal immigrants and multiculturalism while most Republicans remain circumspect and President Trump bellows about his absent wall while his border authorities dump busloads of newly collected border violators into various American cities. The wall provides a distraction and an excuse while the immigration laws providing the quietly desired access for cheap labor and instant government clients remain unaddressed. Politicians are more concerned with their present power and wealth than with the future of their society. That too is how people act.
If past history is any guide, the next sharp reversal of welcoming immigration policies seems likely to accompany the next significant economic recession affecting the linked Western economies. That may also defund much of the refugee-producing meddling in oil producers, helping more potential refugees to remain at home. Mass deportations have occurred in the United States have followed the return of soldiers from foreign wars and recessions, both situations that tempt politicians to exploit competition for jobs. However, published propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, the general pattern has been that deportations have risen steadily with population and mostly, irrespective of the President’s political party. President Clinton holds the current record, followed by President Bush.
Too much immigration, legal or illegal, is obviously a risk. Too little can be risky too, especially when fertility rates decline as Japan is learning. That suggests that governments should use policy to maintain a balance, but socio-political shifts regularly interfere: You don’t encourage immigration when voters are out of work, nor are immigrants much attracted then. A periodic fuss over the numbers of newcomers seems built into the U.S. system. The only obvious cure seems likely to become available only when the government no longer needs to concern itself overmuch with the voters’ opinions, a point at which border guards usually turn to face the other way.