Friday, December 16, 2016

Supporting Mass Immigration is Evil

(Source)

The West is being overrun by refugees. Religious and political leaders tell us this is a good thing. I even hear the expression that "Jesus was once a refugee," in reference to Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt with the young Christ in order to avoid King Hared's massacre, as if the influx of millions of refugees and illegal immigrants is the equivalent, and we should be ashamed of protecting our nation and culture.

Gavin Wax recently penned an article published in The Federalist entitled "Why It’s Not Humanitarian To Import Drastically Different Cultures Into Welfare States." Echoing sentiments I've raised before, he writes:
     So despite all of [the increased crime brought by the European refugees], why do some cling to the failed dream of open immigration? Well, over the years, a variety of arguments have been put forth to support open borders.
     On one side, you have the economic rationale for open immigration. Those who support this view argue that the free flow of labor is in no way different from the free flow of commodities and other goods. They view the issue as no different than the argument over free trade. In their mind, bushels of grain are the same thing as entire families, in their strictly quantitative and economic analysis. They commoditize millions of individuals into nothing more than a nondescript bundle known as “labor.” 
     On the other end of the spectrum, you have the emotional pleas. This line of thought argues that we must open the borders to all in order to provide migrants a better life. Such a life simply could not be achieved in their home countries and thus, must be achieved by bringing them in and supporting them generously with taxpayer-funded handouts. 
     This is nothing more than a grand attempt at virtue signaling rather than actually caring about the individuals affected. Its proponents ignore their fellow poor and impoverished citizens in favor of the poor and impoverished of other countries. They ignore that allowing mass migrations will not solve the underlying issues that drive people away from their home countries in the first place. 
     The main issue with any argument in favor of open immigration is that it always ignores one key facet: the culture. It is one thing to accept millions of immigrants coming from countries that largely embrace your values, something that the United States experienced in the early twentieth century with its scores of Irish, German, Italian, and Polish immigrants settling here. It is a completely different phenomenon when you are importing millions of unemployable young men from the Third World into a modern welfare state. 
He adds:
     Now, the arguments and slogans Germany’s open immigration crowd puts forth are quite different from the two more conventional lines of thought just outlined. In Germany, the rallying cry of the leftist open-door radicals has been “Kulturelle Anreicherung,” or “Cultural Enrichment.” 
     "Kulturelle Anreicherung” is not an economic argument for open borders, nor an argument that seeks to relieve migrants’ plight. It is an argument based entirely on self-loathing of not only German culture, but a wider disdain for European and Western values. They believe that a culture that has given the world Kant, Nietzsche, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven needs to be “enriched” by millions of third world migrants who believe in the beautiful fourth-century ideas of stoning women to death and honor killings. Quite the “enrichment.”
Rod Dreher, who's credentials as a compassionate Christian could never be doubted, similarly writes about "The Madness of Globalism" and unrestricted immigration:
     ... Don’t the English, the Italians, and the French who already happen to be living in England, Italy, and France have a say here? Should people in England, France, and Italy be forced to lose their country and its culture because tens of millions of Third World people prefer to leave their miserable countries and move to countries where the people who have been living there for many centuries have made a much better place for themselves to live? 
     It’s really quite bizarre that the views of the people whose countries would be overrun by foreigners who don’t share their history or culture don’t factor into this economist’s analysis. The natives would lose their nation as a nation. I don’t particularly care if Mali or Mauritania cease to exist as nations because all the Malians and Mauritanians have left for Europe. I don’t blame others for caring, mind you, but I don’t. But I very much care if Britain, France, or Italy ceases to exist in anything like their present form because they have been overwhelmed by invaders from very different cultures. It tells us something important, most likely, that this university economist didn’t think to be concerned about what the invaded stand to lose if his dream of the free and uninhibited movement of peoples were to come true.
Black Pigeon Speaks, a couple of days ago, posted a new video on YouTube (see below) addressing this issue, and notes that the desire--nay, the urge--to import immigrants and allow the influx of refugees is a trait unique to European whites, whether in Europe, North America, or Australia. Other industrialized nations, such as Japan and China, do not admit refugees and only allow very modest numbers of aliens to live in their countries; and, in fact, they very strongly discourage any such flow of foreigners into their country. It seems a very unique method of civilizational suicide limited to the West.

I don't believe that there is anything Christ-like in accepting large influxes of immigrants or refugees. I think it is evil. In the end, what is the difference between destroying a people by hauling its members to the gas chambers, or erasing the same people via mass migration? How is it merciful to set the stage for Balkanization and civil war? How is it kind to sacrifice your fellow citizens in order to feel better about yourself for helping "refugees"?

2 comments:

  1. It's worse than just "erasing the same people via mass migration." It is more like a slow genocide (and probably a fast genocide once the invaders become a majority of the population). The same people telling us that mass immigration is a good thing were telling people of European ancestry for several decades to not reproduce - having children would fuel a population explosion that the planet could not sustain. So, people of European ancestry are breeding at less than replacement rates, while non-European populations have been breeding like rats.

    I saw this recent article describing how the German government has decided to encourage their native young women to breed with the Muslim invaders.
    http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/12/pimping-out-the-rhinemaidens-to-the-culture-enrichers/

    As to the "moral requirement" that we must import non-assimilable third-worlders, I saw this statement which made a lot of sense:

    "Some will say, 'But you have to be charitable, you can't just let them starve because they've had some bad luck.' To that I'd say an individual, or a family, can have some bad luck. But the places these people come from have had 'bad luck' for centuries. Their bad luck is the consequence of their political, economic, and social systems. It makes no sense, it's idiotic, to import—at huge expense—masses of people that have a culture of 'bad luck.'" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-06/how-solve-migrant-crisis-2-easy-steps)

    Someone might be able to convince me that we should accept Middle Eastern Christians as refugees since they are being mercilessly killed by Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the quote. Middle Eastern Christians may be an exception, but because they belong to the Orthodox branch of Christianity, they would be a better fit within the Russian sphere. Nonetheless, the Christians (and, perhaps, the Yazidiis) would be preferable.

      Delete