A proposal for The Freedom of Migration Act is presented here for public scrutiny. Please do not take even one word at face value; examine my facts and logic. Challenge me, have fun.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

Read More→

Previous posts


Follow me Also on:

To lead or not to lead?

My seventh open letter to Mr. Mitt Romney on immigration

Dear Mr. Romney,

The immigration issue is about America defining itself at the beginning of the 21st  century. Is America a place where people born here are entitled to cutting coupons from the wealth accumulated by previous generations? And, should they guard this wealth from being accessed by immigrants? Or, does America embody the concept of individual freedom? The concept that the well-being of the nation would be best achieved when individuals will be guaranteed the freedoms to pursue their best economic interests? We have to revisit the fundamental question of what we want our government to do. Should it guarantee an equal right to pursue happiness for everyone, or should it provide at least a little bit of happiness for as many Americans as possible?

Conservatism was mentioned in almost every presidential debate. Professor Milton Friedman was a conservative. So was Father Charles E. Coughlin. Could you define your conservatism Mr. Romney? Sometimes, I am under impression that the more parochial and narrow-minded a view is, the more conservative you see it. How much more conservative along this path do you want to be?  Did you use the same approach when working at Bain Capital?

Since 1924, we have had a malfunctioning immigration policy. We stick to the concept of closed borders with government controlling the inflow of immigrants. So far you seem to be following the prevailing mantra that we should not take responsibility for our failure in enforcing our own policy. You echo the voices from the street that our failure should be blamed on others, and that instead of correcting our action, we should do with greater determination the same thing that has not been working so far. Did you use the same approach when resolving problems at Bain Capital?

In the media, the immigration agenda has been besieged by a small group of fast-talking commentators that represent narrow-minded anti-immigration sentiment, originating from nativist concepts, empowered by the social nationalistic strand among conservatives. They are full of lofty patriotic phraseology but are short on facts and logic. The arguments are sometimes laughable; however, in the mouths of influential political commentators and politicians, they are simply dangerous. We observe a very peculiar cycle: intellectually shallow political commentators spread anti-immigrant demagogy, the disoriented public seems to go for it, and the politicians follow the public, giving extra momentum to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the commentators. Individuals that might have doubts suppress their thoughts, being overwhelmed by high-pitched patriotic demagogy about protecting borders, terrorists, illegal aliens, and preserving American values. This self-propelling nonsense gets momentum all the way to the hallways in Washington.

If you are as skillful and talented a businessman as you claim, do not you see the nonsense of our current immigration policy? Do not you see the shallowness of the anti-immigration rhetoric? You claim that you will support entrepreneurship in America, and out of the other side of your mouth you promise to chase out illegal immigrants instead of assimilating them. You cannot do both. Could you clarify for me when you lie and when you tell the truth? I am puzzled that instead of finding a creative way to resolve our almost one hundred year old problem, in your political declarations you mindlessly follow an angry mob which is almost literally craving for the blood of illegal immigrants. Are you afraid that you have no chance of being elected by telling Americans as it is? Or, do you actually not know our problems and have no original ideas for what to do? I mean, besides following the mob mindlessly.

My inquiry amounts to the Shakespearian dilemma you face: to lead, or not to lead, that is the question.

Huffington Post refused to publish this text. Henryk A. Kowalczyk is a long-term blogger at Huffington Post, and letters to Mr. Romey are the only texts that editors of HP ever rejected.

Leave a Reply

3 Responses to To lead or not to lead?

  1. Hans Kuhn-Muller says:

    Why it is imperative to have a massive immigration into the United States now:

    Ordinary Americans -primordially the ones of European ancestry- are the offspring failed generations. In fact, the states involved in eugenics during the first decades of the twentieth century did not strictly enforce the sterilization laws on those people (mentally impaired, low IQs, retards, deformed individuals, disease carriers, imbeciles, etc). Their ancestors were labeled as undesirables by the European monarchies of the time and subsequently, expelled from their native countries. The myth these people came to America in search of better lives was designed to cover such painful historical reality.

    Consequently, the following generations are the best evidence that defective genes have been transmitted from one breed to the next and worst of all, the chances that their descendants’ DNA carrying a more complex sequence of these mutated genes are 100% guaranteed: they can be confirmed by performing scientific tests (bizarre mutations that will make these individuals being categorized as subhumans).

    The so-called Baby Boomers are an excellent case study: during the sixties these people (90% of them European Americans) invested their deprived intellect in experimenting with all types of drugs and having very promiscuous sexual lives (most of the time unhygienic, incestuous and sometimes deviant or unnatural). Today their descendants suffer from sorts of congenital malformations or diseases (a 1:3 ratio) and their existence depend heavily on prescribed medications.

    It is a fact that modern European Americans fail to reproduce mainly because of low sperm counts in males and successive miscarriages in women (a 1:2 ratio). Moreover, many servicemen misguided by their patriotism and deceived by the US Department of Defense were exposed to chemical-biological-nuclear agents and today, these people are suffering from all sorts of incurable illnesses. It is a disgusting reality to witness many of these soldiers and their offspring begging to the US Government to gain access to medical treatment and demanding monetary compensation for the irreversible damage inflicted on them.

    Additionally, with the introduction of genetically modified organisms in the food chain -GMOs- in the early seventies, the majority of these people have now a life expectancy of 60 years at the most. As a result of this, Americans of European ancestry are at high risk of developing new malign (and unknown) forms of cancers and cardiovascular diseases at early ages. It is estimated that by the year 2015, the disable population in the United States will reach alarming levels (a 1:4 ratio, primordially European Americans) and the health system will face total collapse if corrective measures are not taken.

    Therefore, the only way to sustain this unproductive generation of Americans (approximately 80% of the entire population of the United States today) is by legalizing the approximately 20 million unlawfully present immigrants residing in this country and subsequently, authorizing a massive immigration of people from elsewhere in order to be assimilated into the system, so government can heavily tax these newcomers.

    Besides that, never forget the following:
    “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
    Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
    Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

    America will need more than a hundred million foreigners to help paying the astronomical costs related to the care of these subhumans.

    • admin says:

      The owner of this blog allows comments of various ideological inclinations. By allowing this post the owner of this blog does not endorse any statements and do not confirm any facts presented in this post. Those are the sole responsibility of the person making a comment.

  2. JT says:

    While many open border advocates are disgustingly self-serving (for power or profit), some truly mean well and wish everybody could be an American. They raise a legitimate moral argument that limiting immigration isn’t fair. Why should some people have a better life simply due to luck of where they were born? Their “fair” way is unlimited immigration. Sounds nice in theory but fails the reality test and actually backfires in its maximizing the number of Americans goal. The problem is that the more we degrade our environment, the less people will be able to be Americans in the future and the quality of their lives will be diminished. Fair or not, we can’t realistically take every person who would like to come here. The U.S. is already in ecological overshoot even if future immigration were zero. Every time a person moves from a lower ecological footprint country to a higher ecological footprint country (like ours), the world eco-footprint rises further into overshoot.

    Thus, immigration to the U.S. exacerbates not just our problem, but the world’s. So while it would be nice if everyone who would like to live in the U.S. could, that would not just be impractical but unethical considering the environmental consequences. This is the moral case not to cause harm through immigration. Some say the interests of humans should come first, but that view is shortsighted. The way to maximize the interests of humans going forward is to not destroy ecosystems and deplete resources today. It would make some people feel good to take everybody in now and not worry about the effect on future generations but don’t we have a moral obligation not to be so selfish?