Localism is a good thing. Greater autonomy for distinct regions generally leads to more liberty. Even if specific regions trample upon human rights, their smaller geographical area makes it easier for those who feel oppressed to move to another region.
All else being equal, a smaller state is usually comprised of fewer people and less cultural diversity. Less diversity means fewer special interest groups, which, in turn, means greater liberty for the individual. Today’s America is a relatively free country despite its diversity, not because of it.
When bad things happen, as they ultimately do, an organization (whether it be a company or a nation-state) will respond by creating more laws in order to prevent the misfortune from happening again. Over time, these laws become oppressive; they threaten the very foundation of liberty itself. Having more citizens/employees increases the frequency of bad things happening. Hence, the more people in said organization, the more laws will be created to protect them from misfortune. Smaller states, with less people, will thus have fewer laws and more individual liberty.
A region has a chance of winning its autonomy only if there is a certain amount of consensus within the region. In other words, only if there is a common sense of identity within that region. Hispanics/Mexicans identify, primarily, as “Hispanic/Mexican.” This is what I’ve seen. It’s what they, themselves, tell me. Others have similarly noted that Hispanics in Texas do not tend to identify with the South or Texas. Speaking of more recent arrivals, on the forum “CityData.com, TexasReb writes:
No, what I mean is, and this is just personal experience and IMHO, that hispanic Texans (legal or not), do not, as a general rule, feel any Southern identity…and?…to take it further? A noteable percentage really don’t feel all that much “Texas” identity either. Perhaps because Texas IS essentially a Southern state and so much of the history and culture is at odds with their own ancestry and heritage…?
Not that “TexasReb”, or myself, are authorities on this matter. But the perception is that Hispanics identify as “Mexican” or “Hispanic,” and not so much as members of whatever local society they might happen to now find themselves in (with the exception of some long-established Southern Hispanic families). Absent evidence to the contrary, I’ll go with my own observations.
Rarely will 100% of a population support secession. Even during the American revolution, there was no clear consensus among Americans to secede from the British Empire. If 20% of the American colonies had been Hispanic, and receiving support and benefits from Britain, how might the War of Independence have played out?
Since secession requires a certain amount of local identity, and since today’s immigrants have their own identity, I would say that the influx of immigrants hurts secessionist movements. At best, it dilutes support for secessionist movements.
A case in point, anecdotal to be sure, was a recent hearing on the proposed state of Jefferson. According to Opposing Views:
The State of Jefferson, as it would be known, would be an amalgamation of rural counties focused on restoring limited, locally focused government at the state level that takes into account issues that effect the bucolic communities of which the state would consist.
On Tuesday, the Siskiyou County (Calif.) Board of Supervisors voted to support the county’s split from the state, in the presence of over 100 people who almost unanimously supported the secession.
Mark Baird, resident of Scott Valley, has been leading the movement to unite Northern Californian and Southern Oregonian counties as a new state, and insisted Tuesday “We have to have government that’s local, understands our issues and has empathy” for people like them…
Board Chair Ed Valenzuela was the sole vote against the declaration, arguing he was elected to solve problems within the syste, not undermine it.
”It comes down to because I took an oath. I took an oath when I ran for re-election, which I just did, and that was to uphold the Constitution, and uphold the constitution of the state of California,” he said. “And within that, and because knowing what it’s like to be a minority, I know the value of having to work from the other side without the numbers and without support. I signed on to do that, I signed on to work within the system I know. I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it all the time but at the same token, I did sign up for that and I will continue to do so.”
Thus, by diluting local identities, immigrants hurt the cause of liberty. How else do they hurt the cause of liberty?
They generally come from cultures where “Give me liberty or give me death” was not a founding principle. They often come from backward cultures that do not share our mores. For example, Human Stupidity recently wrote about a case where a British judge released a child rapist because, in his culture, such acts are not considered wrong. He writes:
18 year old Muslim immigrant Adil Rashid was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl he met on the internet.
When he went to be sentenced, he told Judge Michael Stokes that he didn’t know it was illegal. He said he attended private Muslim school in Britain and that they had not educated him on British law.
Stokes said that was good enough for him and freed the Rashid with no punishment. TopConservativeNews
Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order, instead of a more normal 5 year prison term.
Back in January, there was a profoundly disturbing case at Nottingham Crown Court. Adil Rashid, who had “raped” an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law;
As immigrant-driven rapes increase in the Western world, we can expect ever more draconian anti-(statutory) rape laws, which will inevitably lead to innocents being prosecuted as well. Similarly, Mexicans don’t appear to consider drunk driving to be as serious a matter as do most Americans. As drunken Mexican immigrants continue to mow down Americans on our roads, ever more harsh anti-drunk driving laws will be passed in reaction. Innocents will be caught in this legal web.
In the past, immigrants were expected to give up their native cultures and assimilate. Most were eager to do so. But now they are encouraged to keep their own traditions. In the case of Hispanics, they’re even encouraged to keep their own language. All this leads to increased cultural diversity – which we are told is a good thing. To those who believe cultural diversity, in one geographical area, is a good thing, I suggest they study post-colonial sub-Saharan African history. Rwanda and Congo are good examples of what such diversity brings. Nigeria is another.
