The human terrain of immigration makes domestic conflict more likely

One of the cases I’ve attempted to make on Forward Observer Radio over the past several days is that immigration is more than race. Yes, skin color and race are the easiest, cheapest, and most obvious difference to identify, so the Left’s criticism of strict immigration policies quickly devolves into claims of racism. But underneath skin color, race, and ethnicity are a bunch of human factors that aren’t readily apparent. They’re overlooking the differences of language, cultural norms, family values, social mores, political views, opinions of rightful authority, work ethic, attitudes and biases, and these things count when it comes time to vote. In my view, conservatives and those who favor strict immigration aren’t peddling white supremacy, they believe in cultural supremacy.

And that’s very apparent when I see data coming out of Pew Research, which shows that citizens who live under more authoritarian regimes tend to give higher marks on “respect for personal freedoms” for countries like Russia and China. In research published earlier this month, Pew found that citizens of countries like Vietnam, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Tunisia, Ghana, Kenya, and others were more likely to say that Russia and China respected the personal freedoms of its citizens. [source] One could state the case that the United States is more likely to draw immigrants who want more freedom, but we don’t screen immigrants for those kinds of factors, meaning that we are likely allowing some immigrants who don’t understand, respect, and ultimately assimilate into the values of liberty and freedom described by our founding documents. We certainly can’t expect the public education system to teach these values to second generation immigrants, and the rate of immigration as it is combined with political beliefs that more frequently create Democrat voters means that immigration is absolutely shifting the political landscape. Frankly, this is something conservatives can’t deny, and I believe they’ll ultimately have to choose between losing their country at the national level (i.e., no more Republican presidents within 10-20 years) or creating a new country (or countries) more aligned with their political beliefs. Because of amnesty, which has a better than average chance at passing within the next 5-10 years, there’s not much middle ground here.

This brief, along with additional information, will appear in today’s National Intelligence Bulletin, under PIR2: What are new indicators of potentially disruptive social, cultural, or political conditions or events? Subscribe here for the full report.




Samuel Culper is a former military intelligence NCO and contract Intelligence analyst. After 39 months of deployment time to Iraq and Afghanistan, he's now the conflict and warfare researcher at Forward Observer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *