The future of the Republican party — this is what they say of you, dear Hispanics; but for better or for worse has yet to be seen.
My suspicion has nothing to do with your capabilities, nor with your civility — for I know many work hard, and still more behave respectably. But looking beyond these two lies another issue far deeper than the ability to labor and abide by law, and that issue concerns the problem of lower faction.
What we mustn’t do is craft a moral system like Kant’s, and say that if a rule can be universally considered “good,” then we must guide ourselves by it. That kind of thinking led him to write an abominable essay about how, if a serial killer comes looking for our friend, and we have the option of lying, we should tell the killer the truth.
What we must consider instead, is something far more along the lines of Jonathan Edwards or Tocqueville: the realization that the good of the faction itself is subordinate to something higher; something tapping not simply into our sense of belonging to groups, but into our sense of what it is to be man. In short, we must as Tocqueville wrote adopt a platform of higher faction, a faction for the promotion of true ideals, and not conform to lesser factions, which exist for the sole purpose of self-progagation.
If we consider what it means to do otherwise, we find ourselves an example very quickly. For there exist two kinds of aim in the world: the first, for the betterment of mankind — universal benevolence. But the moment we step away from that universal goodness, the laws of nature — of Scripture, of conscience — we begin to say that what’s good for my group, however that group is defined, is good simply because it benefits my group. The larger the faction is, of course, the more noble the behavior appears; but in reality, the behavior still violates the silent but irrepressible fact that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And when the factions become so small, that the factitious nature becomes obvious — be it simply for company, family, or most obvious of all, the self — it is then humanity recognizes the behaviors most easily as entirely immoral. For this is the difference between moral and immoral behaviors: morality encompasses the rights of others, and most importantly the will of God; immorality values the self or faction above all else. Small faction is the spirit of Pontius Pilate — terrified of his own demise, and caring little for the rights of an innocent Jew — sending Jesus Christ to be crucified. Small faction is the
This isn’t necessarily to say that man must in all circumstances grant everyone exactly the same rights of citizenship: obviously, for society to function harmoniously, certain rights and privileges must be extremely lopsided in the pursuit of government. The policeman and the legislator and the citizen may be permitted far different actions, but all necessarily; and certain of these privileges and licenses require the habitual examination known as the election season, to determine whether or not the trustees have used their licenses for the public good or for personal gain. As well, the citizen and the non-citizen must be afforded different rights; not simply because one is a man and another isn’t — that is to say, one has unalienable rights and the other doesn’t — but rather because if the higher faction is to exist for the defense and propagation of higher principles (ie, those pertaining to the true justice toward mankind), then it must have some way of defending itself against the world. For if the world had already proven itself capable of harmonious integration, then no smaller governments would be necessary.
The problem with Hispanics — and I speak this gently, noting very well that my Hispanic family is likely to read this — is that Hispanics do not necessarily want what’s good for mankind. They don’t speak in high ideals, or protest for the laws of nature, or rally for America’s founding principles. Rather, through decades of shouting and bullying and government pandering, what Americans — who are mostly white — have seen is an invading people advancing for the sole sake of the invaders. And there is no such moral aim as the advancement of black, or brown, or white; nothing that we know of God says anything of the sort. But there is a such thing as the advancement of universal justice — the Laws of God — unalienable rights — Christian brotherhood not for the sake of unity itself, but within unity of purpose. What Americans need is higher faction; what they get from minority parties is the lowest of the low: the coercion of government used to rob families of heirlooms and the constant derision of true unalienable rights as “racist.” What we want is Hispanics who speak the laws of the universe, but yet not even really Hispanics: what we (and by “we” I mean “traditional Americans”) want is real men, Godly men, thoughtful men, of whatever color, to whom acquisition means far less than human brotherhood.
The following statement is going to get me quite a bit of trouble, but it must be said because there’s been a lot of talk about unalienable rights, and how those rights are only good for the promotion of whites. However one looks at it, the recognition of unalienable rights doesn’t really protect everyone: it protects good people. Now, I do not mean to say that all white men are good, or that the majority of modern white men are good, or even that today’s increasingly effeminate and ignorant white men even thrive better under the establishment of unalienable rights. But what I will say is that if the Laws of God, the laws of nature, whatever we call them, serve the purposes of only a particular group, then that group should by all means thrive according to them. And if another group comes along as claims they can’t do as well within that eternally-righteous and universally-applicable framework, and that they need to trample those rights to get ahead, well then we must say that that invasive group is unfit for the caretaking of the human race. That is, especially if they aren’t presently citizens, they have no right to citizenship in the nation of high-ideals. Whether this is the case with Hispanics in America, or whites in Africa, or Eskimos in Timbuktu means no difference. A party of high ideals has a right to remain supreme at any given moment; they alone deserve success. And despite present-day American failures, we can easily say that America is more firmly based upon unalienable rights than say, Mexico.
One issue both reasonable Hispanics and Americans must agree upon is this: there is something about America that attracts Hispanics, and what attracts Hispanics did not happen by accident. The kind of people that make a nation great, and are valuable prospects for future citizens are reasonable people; and reasonable people do not believe great nations magically appear. Rather, they know that a special something, something comprising the grace of God, a particular culture, and a coexistent ethic, permit establishment, production, propagation, and defense. And what reasonable Hispanics must then agree upon, is that that something must be defended if glory is to be maintained. It is true: if the principles are eternal, then good men from all nations may reside there; but if it is to remain long a place worthy of residence, then people cannot be allowed in without discrimination. And when a people defend unreasonable immigration — or worse, illegal — then what they do is declare their support for lesser faction, and therefore themselves void of higher principle. If one may say he loves America, he must love it not for the land itself, nor for the color of its inhabitants, nor its present luxuries: he must love it for that special set of ideals which makes it great. And he must be willing to defend it, even should his own family stand in the way.