US immigrants – some with love and some with hate for our way of life
From the history books:
America’s first settlers came in search of freedom to practice their faith. In 1620, a group of roughly 100 people later known as the Pilgrims fled religious persecution in Europe and arrived at present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts, where they established a colony. They were soon followed by a larger group seeking religious freedom, the Puritans, who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony. By some estimates, 20,000 Puritans migrated to the region between 1630 and 1640.
A larger share of immigrants came to America seeking economic opportunities. However, almost all of them were from Europe were the Judeo-Christian morality was the foundation of social fabric of the society– therefore, they were easily assimilated into new unique American democracy based on Judeo-Christian spirituality and free-market economy.
From the very beginning and probably until the 1960th, US immigrants were coming to this country with love that is with deep appreciation for the opportunity to live freely, without fear of persecution, along the lines of Judeo-Christian morality that includes individual-freedom-based opportunities and responsibilities. It was possible because the government was small and not intrusive into the lives of ordinary citizens letting them build their own individual spiritual and economic domains. The immigrants who were coming to this country were finding here the opportunities for religious, economic, social and political freedoms constrained mostly not by government controls and regulations but rather by their Judeo-Christian moral principles.
From the contemporary immigration statistics:
By the end of the 20th century, the policies put into effect by the Immigration Act of 1965 had greatly changed the face of the American population. Whereas in the 1950s, more than half of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians, by the 1990s only 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were of Asian descent, while the percentages of Latino and African immigrants had also jumped significantly. Between 1965 and 2000, the highest number of immigrants (4.3 million) to the U.S. came from Mexico, in addition to some 1.4 million from the Philippines. Korea, the Dominican Republic, India, Cuba and Vietnam were also leading sources of immigrants, each sending between 700,000 and 800,000 over this period.
Indeed, that is a dangerous time for the Western Judeo-Christian democracies and the mostly clear evidence of it is its immigration policy, which is based not on the Judeo-Christian moral principles but rather on the political “politically correct” principles.
Thus, for the last half-century, the guiding incentives for immigration have been changing and changing rapidly in the direction of replacing the newcomers with European-variety Judeo-Christian moral principles and therefore with no assimilation problems.
The completely different incentives for immigrating to the US were created – not to obtain individual freedoms and be responsible for your own destiny but to get government goodies. Some of the new immigrants are indifferent to our Judeo-Christian values – they do not hate but rather dilute the traditional American Judeo-Christian governing morals, and some of them, mainly those who are Islamized, hate our values and are aimed at replacing or diluting them by their own Sharia-based values. That is a very spiritually unhealthy trend in the country.
This trend can be seen in the immigration from Russia. Among Russian immigrants, two different brands of immigrants are easily recognized.
One brand consists of those who, although were born and some of them even educated in Russia (the old Soviet Russia or a contemporary Putin’s Russia), are true Americans in love with the American way of life – they cherish American Judeo-Christian tradition and individual freedoms. They may love Russian music and poetry but they cherish American individual freedoms that let them build their own destiny without relying on the big government. They are true patriotic Americans who are defending and strengthening the Judeo-Christian fundamentals of this country even if they call themselves atheists. The great majority of them were and still are in the Donald-Trump anti-establishment camp.
The other brand is different – they cherish Russian way of life and, although they have well paid jobs and upscale homes here in the USA, they spiritually live in Russia. They immigrated to the US for purely economic reasons. Here in the US, they are missing a strong government hand in everything that they love in Russia. In Russia, they may have criticized the government but criticized it not for the lack of individual freedoms but rather for the lack of abundant government goodies and strong hand. They are not patriotic Americans in the true Judeo-Christian sense of this idea and they support everything that empowers the government. They may not like America but at least they do not hate it as many form the Islamic countries (so-called Islamists) do. The great majority of them were and still are in the Hilary-Clinton establishment camp.
From the news media:
During an interview on Friday’s “Alan Colmes Show” on Fox News Radio, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) characterized President-Elect Donald Trump as “a threat to me, my country, my grandson, my daughters, my wife, to all the important people in my life, and to America.”
Gutierrez said, “I never thought of a President of the United States as a threat to me, my country, my grandson, my daughters, my wife, to all the important people in my life, and to America. I was never — this one is different.”
Unfortunately, many like Luis Gutierrez hate this country. They hate not a political establishment called the US. They hate the American-brand Judeo-Christian governing morality of the country where people themselves are shaping their own life (as created in the image and likeness of All-powerful God). They are fighting to replace this morality by the governing morality of all-powerful human government, which is taking care ideally of its subordinates but practically of itself.