The Patriot Post® · RAISE Act Opposition: Globalism, Diversity and Identity Politics

By Caroline C. Lewis ·

After Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) introduced a merit-based immigration bill, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, President Donald Trump stated at an Ohio rally that such efforts will “protect our workers” and “our economy.”

In a joint USA Today article, Cotton and Perdue explain, “First, attract the young and highly skilled, since they provide the biggest boost to our economy. Second, seek out people who can integrate into American society most effectively. Third, give priority to uniting immediate families, since it’s better to give precious green cards to parents and their minor children rather than to fill out someone’s family tree with grown siblings and cousins.”

The points system, like those used in Canada and Australia seeks to achieve both the first and second objective. It attracts the young and highly skilled (i.e. English-speaking professionals who can integrate into the American workforce and culture).

The third priority of uniting immediate family members rather than “filling out the family tree” refers to eliminating “chain migration,” which allows an immigrant to petition for the immigration of their adult siblings and their adult children. The RAISE Act also eliminates the “diversity visa lottery” a fraud-laden system that randomly distributes green cards without assessment of skills. The bill also caps the number of refugees to 50,000 per year.

While these proposed changes seem reasonable, opponents of the RAISE Act have called it “racist” and “bigoted,” the natural insult to anyone with whom they disagree. But is it, in fact, racist to implement laws commonly used by industrial countries around the world?

Only if you are the United States.

The issue at stake here is sovereignty. Does the United States have the right to make its own decisions? The Regressives say no. In fact, they resist any immigration law other than open borders and amnesty. Why? They build their opinions upon two concepts: globalism and diversity. Globalists believe that all humans are “world citizens” whose loyalty should be toward the “global good.” To pledge loyalty to a specific country or to require fluency in a national language means, to a globalist, that you believe your country and language to be superior. While national loyalty and a national language exist as normal elements of countries around the globe, with the U.S. it qualifies, in their view, as racist.

The second concept, diversity, views any attempt to assimilate an immigrant into the U.S. as an oppressive attack on the immigrant’s native customs and attempt to micro-aggress his or her former cultural norms.

Ironically, globalism and diversity, the two foundations of Regressive opinions on immigration, diametrically oppose one another. Globalism says, “We are all the same,” while diversity says, “We are all different.” Globalism seeks to bring people into thought conformity, while diversity seeks to separate people into identity groups. Both ultimately cause division.

For example, globalism separates those who support local government and those who support global government. Diversity separates people into identity groups such as male, female, transgender, homosexual, heterosexual, black, white, Latino, Asian, Indian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baby Boomer, Millennial, Generation Z and so on. After dividing people into these groups, the diversity specialists “define” what it means. Some diversity axioms are “Millennials are socialists,” “Women support abortion,” “Blacks vote Democrat,” or “Latinos support amnesty,” or “Good people are for open borders.” To say anything against these axioms is to question the globalist/diversity hierarchy. To disagree is to not “conform.” And to not conform is to be punished with words like bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, white supremacist or neo-Nazi.

In this way, globalists and diversity proponents control the narrative through their axioms, claiming that those who oppose are “judging,” while simultaneously judging those who disagree with them. For example, if an immigration bill like the RAISE Act comes up, it will be immediately labeled as racist (i.e. not globalist) and discriminatory (i.e. not diverse). Sandbox politics apparently still exist with grown-ups who resort to name-calling to shame and neutralize their opponents.

Thus, the opposition to the RAISE Act has little to do with whether it will help the economy or the American worker. Rather, driven by globalism, diversity and identity politics, instead of common sense, sovereignty or the precedent of other countries, the immigration debate has fallen victim to the coercive name-calling nature of globalists and diversity proponents. However, if we realize these baseless verbal attacks for the nonsense that they are, we can resist the absurdity and allow logic and reason to triumph, not only in the immigration debate, but in all debates.