What does it mean to have a big heart? Nothing is easier than seeing someone in a pitiable situation and wishing them well, but when the burden falls on you to open your wallet or door, compassion is met with real-world limitations. If you come across a stranger who needs somewhere to sleep tonight, a sudden deluge of excuses about all the "things on your plate" arises. You might reassure yourself that the other party isn't really in such a sorry state and accordingly drop your would-be charitable act, then you can comfortably depart the situation, fancying yourself a kind person for merely thinking about being helpful. It sure would be something if we could provide for others without busying up our schedules or spending precious money. Imagine if the best of all worlds were possible: declaring to everyone that you are willing to take on the burden of being helpful, offering something of substance to those in need, and facing no noticeable consequences in terms of money or effort. Such a sales pitch is made to the compassionate voter to support modern immigration policies. Immigration once conjured up images of a family with only a few bags embarking on a crowded boat to flee their tumultuous local circumstances, perhaps starting an ethnic restaurant in a promising new land, and finally sending their children off to college to become wealthier than the parents could've ever hoped. But today, immigration has adopted a new, threatening demeanor. You may picture gangs of young men who don’t appear to be fleeing any particular war, nor do they appear to be with their families, nor do they even show an interest in the place they're moving beyond reaping the amenities of first-world luxury living. The question that should be on more people’s minds isn’t so simple as, “Should we have more or less immigration?” Instead, we might ask, “Why is immigration today so chaotic and disastrous when it wasn’t always this way?” The easiest answer, which many will readily proclaim, is to condemn the character of these new immigrants, stating that many of these people are criminals and need to be properly vetted before a civilized country recklessly opens her doors to them. This answer satisfies most conservative-minded individuals who believe that borders exist for a reason and, therefore, welcoming complete strangers must be done with caution. However, that explanation still feels incomplete. A thoughtful person understands that human nature is universal: most people, regardless of background, want to have their and their family’s needs met without undue violence or trouble. So long as living a peaceful, productive life meets less opposition than living a life of crime, it follows that individuals will largely choose to cooperate. This is called the "path of least resistance". Naturally, the inverse is also true. When crimes such as theft are seldom punished in a given area, and making a few hundred dollars is as simple as taking goods from a store and walking out without impediment, does it not follow that more people will choose this easier way of the criminal regardless of their cultural or ethnic background? To tie this argument to our subject at hand, it is first necessary to demonstrate that immigration does not inherently lead to an increase in crime. An obvious example can be seen in pre-World-War America, where homicide rates were low, even as immigrants flowed in from a nonstop firehose. In 1910, 15% of the U.S. population was foreign-born, and the homicide rate was 4.6 per 100,000. Fast-forward to 1970, and foreign residents bottomed out to less that 5% of the population, yet homicides shot up to 7.9 per 100,000. But perhaps times have changed, and immigration today is bound to be fraught with peril, because of technology, loneliness, overstimulation, radical Islam, or some other modern peculiarity that has directly caused an increase in migrant crime? Not so. Japan, one of the safest countries on the planet, has continuously shown no meaningful correlation between their amount of nonnative inhabitants and crime. From 2015 to 2018, Japan saw a nearly 50% rise in foreign residents (from 2.1 million to 2.9 million), while violent crime steadily dropped by more than 10%. If you're a foreigner or a local in Japan, a man or a woman, an adult or a child, with a 99.8% conviction rate, who would dare pursue a career as a criminal over there? Sooner or later, you will be caught. Many foreigners have learned the hard way that there are no kiddie gloves in that prison system either; physical exercise is forbidden, and if you don’t speak Japanese, you’ll be beaten by the guards. The point is that people, whether locals or immigrants, largely act based on the consequences they expect from their actions. This seems to be exactly why recent immigration has been a spectacular failure in several European nations, while in other areas it's been so seamless as to hardly merit commenting on. In France, to highlight one perfect disaster, instead of promoting productivity and punishing crime, new foreign residents are offered free living stipends, healthcare, education, and even subsidized housing, all at the expense of the French people. Given this all-you-can-eat buffet of benefits, why on earth would someone struggle to start a business when the great government honeypot sits wide open? As has been shown, if soft criminal policies and endless taxpayer-funded freebies are incentivizing people to serve themselves by taking from others, such a nation is guaranteed to suffer regardless of their immigrant situation. When you then add a loose or open-border program to this equation, it can only accelerate the disaster by attracting opportunists to your little "handout heaven". However, let us not assume that immigration is therefore an evil in itself, when there can be no doubt that great nations have benefited from welcoming millions of outsiders who were attracted for all of the right reasons and consequentially improved the new place they called home.
When immigrants look to migrate to another country in the world, then their main destination is the United States of America because the USA has the largest economy in the world. In the countries in which the immigrants are leaving, they do not have viable options to make a decent living in their country of origin. The amount of immigrants looking to migrate to the United States is at an all-time high. According to this report from the Migration Policy Institute created in 2022, there are 46.2 million immigrants living in the US at this time. That means that 7.58% of people (around 1 in 14) currently in the US are immigrants. The amount of immigrants are alarmingly high. I wanted to see why so many immigrants are leaving their countries. What are the present contributing factors as to why so many people feel hopeless in the cities that they live in? If we could solve some of these factors in their lands, then the balance of migration could no longer overwhelm US Border Control at the southern border and at the northern border. The report from Migration Policy Institute also lists the top ten countries where immigrants have left in order to reach the US: Mexico, India, China, Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and South Korea. About every 1 out of 4 immigrants that come into the USA enter from Mexico. It's easy to see why so many people from Mexico seek to migrate into the USA. The crime rate combined with the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families are the two main contributors for migration from Mexico. People from Guatemala and the Dominican Republic leave their countries for the exact same reasons. Seeing India and China on this list was surprising since both countries claim that they are bringing more economic opportunities to their people. However, their leaders are the main reason as to why they are leaving. In India, PM Narendra Modi is in his third term running a Hinduist nationalist state. If you are not a Hindu living in India, then you have been screwed for the last decade. China is still under the vice-like grip of the Chinese Communist Party led by Xi Jinping. Cuba and Vietnam are in the same boat with communism destroying their countries. For Cubans and the Vietnamese, defecting to another country is the only solution to receive a fair wage. People in Philippines and South Korea leave because of the lack of economic opportunities along with constant threats of war from China and North Korea. El Salvador is in a class by itself because mostly criminals are leaving after President Nayib Bukele built a mega-prison in the country. Having better diplomacy would bring a balance back to migration. Developing countries must seek to enhance their alliances with other countries in order to generate trade between each other. Tapping into their own resources leads to more manufacturing jobs which will prevent people from leaving their countries in order to migrate into the USA. People of America, be grateful that the shoe is not on the other foot in which Americans would have to migrate en masse to Canada for jobs. One other major factor of migration is due to war. Here is a look at where people have left their country due to war in their homeland: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Ukraine, Sudan, Colombia, Armenia, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Having better diplomacy would put an end to these conflicts, which would then lower the amount of migration.
By its very nature, “Nature” is not static; Nature moves and mankind – like nature – also moves. When we as a species were hunter-gatherers, we migrated in search of food because we didn’t hibernate as do the bear and the toad. We “moved” from places of scarcity to places where we could survive. But things changed when humanity became practitioners of agriculture. No longer chained to the hunt, man could remain in one place and that great innovation changed everything. No longer limited to small groups, mankind was able to build civilizations and the cities necessary to house them. We went from “tribes” to “peoples” and this inevitably led to conflict. Even as men became more able to feed and succor themselves, they became less able to live in peace and harmony for there was always the danger posed by other groups of men. Ergo, a mindset developed that it was better to remove (or absorb) competing groups than to have problems later on. And so, as a species, larger and stronger groups absorbed (or destroyed) other groups that might become a danger by virtue of their size and proximity. This strategy also used the movements of peoples but this was neither migration nor immigration – but invasion! For man was still seeking “the necessities of life,” but now the movement undertaken for that process was initiated with the understanding that he would destroy or absorb other human groups located within his declared destination. History is replete with invasions by one human culture of other human cultures and though we are no longer hunter-gatherers or even isolated “civilizations,” we continue to use this same process to displace groups of people by using other groups of people as the weapon of choice. However, we no longer speak of “invasion” – though that is what is being waged – but of “immigration” for that term is not nearly so threatening to those being invaded. But in this new millennia this ancient “replacement strategy” has become much more devious. For those involved who are using it understand that “immigration/invasion” requires more than just large numbers of people being sent to replace the native population. It is also important that those “replacements” not be of the same “type” as those they are meant to replace. And so, when an area is targeted for cultural extermination – such as Europe and North America – as most of the people in these areas are white, those running the show don’t “invade” using groups of people who are themselves of European origin and thus also white (see Australia &etc.). For, though new people might be moved into the target area, those people would in time naturally unite with the remaining people of their own background and history and thus fail to be useful agents in the devolution of the targeted culture (a/k/a: Western Civilization). No, to destroy the stronghold of one race and its culture, one must use other, different races with their cultures; that is, people whose appearance, languages and customs make clear that they are “not one of us.” It doesn’t matter what racial culture is being destroyed, it only matters that to destroy that culture, one must use other cultures that do not naturally adopt and adapt to the culture under attack! And that is exactly what is underway in the West today, and not just in the United States! Our “leaders” are using large numbers of people who are being removed from their own cultures and forced into cultures unable – and often unwilling – to accept them. This results in ongoing cultural (and sometimes actual) warfare and when the government of the target country is using these “invaders” for its own purposes, it perforce refuses to protect its own citizens leaving them without legal recourse. This is not “migration!” This is not “immigration!” Neither is it a matter of “misjudgment” but, in fact, it is a war being waged upon the invaded people and their culture for the purpose of ultimate conquest! As well, neither is that conquest limited to the target population for the invaders themselves and their cultures are also in the cross-hairs as this is a battle to destroy civilization in all of its manifestations in order to bring about something else; that is, the promised New World Order designed to make all earlier cultures irrelevant. Now, once we understand the nature of this “migration,” this “modern movement of people,” It becomes obvious that attempting to focus on the matter as if it were lawful “immigration” such as has happened in the past, is patent nonsense! If we could (or be allowed to) see what is going on, nobody would think to look at this as mere human interaction. In fact, we should no more address “accommodating migrants” while “managing domestic concerns” or become fixated on “humanitarian issues” than these matters would have occurred to the Germans on D-Day! We must address only those matters that arise during a full-scale invasion by a foreign enemy – for that is what is happening! And as with any people under attack, we should be thinking about defense and response, not accommodation! Those manipulating this invasion want ordinary people to see only other ordinary people; they don’t want us to see the “unattached” military-aged men or the soldiers of the cartels or the criminals who have robbed, raped and murdered innocent Americans absent the constitutionally guaranteed protection of their own government. I as an American, don’t want to “accommodate” them; I want them gone together with those who arranged to bring them here in order to make war against us. For if they remain than the United States of America ceases to exist – and that is unacceptable! Therefore, to comply with this ongoing “invasion” by labeling it immigration(!) and considering how best to bring it about “humanely,” is to be complicit in the death of our once great nation. There’s a name for that. It’s called treason.
A shift in perspectives:When tackling the
subject of global migration, it is important to take the time to recognise and
catalogue one's own biases. Every opinion we express through thought, word, and
action is entirely shaped by the healthy and unhealthy biases we developed throughout
our lives. It takes conscious
effort to strip away "Self" from the equation when exploring broad
reaching topics, such as globe-spanning migration patterns, demanding one to
always have the question "Why?" as a metaphorical round in the
chamber, ready to catch stray thoughts and opinions, dismissing them to focus
on the very core principles of why a thing occurs.At its core, our
economy utilises a "For Profit" model to stimulate economic momentum,
this implies rules to the game based on how profit can be accumulated
regardless of legality, cultural differences, or environmental impact. From
this perspective, the concept of global migration is a natural process where
individuals and communities seek out and prosper from lands and needs that can
be settled into (for at least as long as there is prosperity to be extracted)
and made a home to grow further from.However, as we
reintegrate the economic layers that separate the individual from the wider
economy back into the equation, stagnation and friction points become apparent;
cultural and ethical clashes, rapid environmental decline, social stagnation,
wealth and power hoarding, just to name a few. But this also often includes
benefits that are core to the continuation of our species; diversity of thought
and skills, natural redistribution of prosperity, genetic stability, a broad
global market ecosystem, etc.So, if it can be
reasonably said that regardless of it's downsides, global migration is
ultimately a natural and beneficial process, how and for what reason are we
experiencing what is being described as a migration crisis now?The answer to this is
a multifaceted miasma of complex variables that span the length and breadth of
the global economy but as information collates and is refined patterns begin to
form at the foundational level of our economy.The basic principles
that underpin how our national and international economies function rely on the
notion that habitable land and exploitable resources are infinite, this is
evident throughout history as nations rise, expand, and fall, not only utilising
prosperity as a means of expansion but being driven towards physical and
economic expansion by the natural pressures that the fiscal system exerts on
the wealthy and poor alike.It is of the greatest
importance to recognise, at an economic level, that although infinitely
scalable, a fiscal system is fundamentally an engine of growth that demands and
consumes aggressively, an unthinking and unfeeling mechanism that cannot
independently recognise finite from infinite. While it could be said that
policies and incentives are (either intentionally or otherwise) exaggerating
the recent surges in global migration, it would seem that the crisis is
ultimately a symptom of the greater economic instability caused by our
developmental level as a species, caught in a transition point between an
economic system that produces unbiased growth and one of closed-loop economic
system that provides long-term stability.In conclusion, I think
it is time that we, as a cognitive species, consciously reshape the principles
that help to guide our global economy, putting aside the engine of growth that
is the fiscal system and adopting a system of sustainability that can only be
utilised by a globe-spanning and interconnected species. In doing this, we may
be able to stem the tide of migration for profit alongside the multitude of
symptoms we are currently experiencing.Thank you for reading.
When contemplating the immediate and impending impact of immigration, it’s important to impress what lies at the root of this issue: nation-state vs ‘globalist village’? Certain elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shed light on this predicament. “Freedom of Movement” has been used to justify “the right to asylum”. People have utilized these inane ideas to insane lengths where the citizens of a country can no longer determine who should be allowed into their nation. Consequently, considering who the biggest proponents of unfettered immigration are, people must recognize that illegal immigration is imposed upon citizens for two main reasons: Vote-bank politics and cheap labor. While demographic shift is now a familiar term, vote-bank politics is a relatively less known concept in the West. The former is a type of the latter. Vote-bank politics refers to any policy that deliberately alters the structure of a population to achieve a permanent supply of votes of a particular ideological bend. The United States already has a unique immigration process where immigrants are processed based on physical arrival and place of birth. In most other countries, immigration happens through a points system that is reasonably meritocratic. That’s what legal migration looks like. However, with illegal immigration, the kind of people coming in are mostly those who would not be able to migrate legally because they would fail to fulfill any legitimate selection criteria. After all, why would anybody do anything illegally if they could do it legally? And therein lies the crux of the matter. What kind of people would typically fail to fulfill a nation’s legal migration requirements? The data from the USCIS shows that the primary drivers of illegal immigrants are low financial net worth, inability to speak the local language, low education, and often a criminal history that they want to keep hidden from authorities. These are the kind of people who wouldn’t be able to achieve economic and social independence, nor would they assimilate well with the nation’s culture. Hence, they will be dependent on big government or State intervention, and they typically vote left. The proof of this lies in the voting practices of different voting blocs in the country. Hispanics and African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Most illegal immigrants come from the Southern border and are mainly Hispanic people. Unsurprisingly, the US Census has found that these two ethnicities rank the lowest in terms of average household income. Poorly educated people also tend to work menial, low-paying jobs because they lack the education, linguistics, and intellectual competence to obtain anything else. Hence, many rich businesses use illegal immigrants to obtain cheap labor because they can even pay them illegally (pay under the table and avoid the tax man). This crony capitalism keeps wages artificially low and is likely to continue until sufficiently advanced AI eliminates the need for human labor. The resulting elimination of the middle class is a tried and tested policy of the leftist political aisle. If people can no longer afford financial independence, they must depend on the State for survival. Therefore, using illegal immigration to lower wages, increase inflation, dilute votes, and create a permanent welfare-dependent vote-bank is a blatantly obvious political tactic of the left. The Democrats do it in the US, the Liberals do it in Canada, and the Labor Party does it in the UK. Now, there are opinions about the humanitarian cause of offering refugees asylum to save their lives. Yet, this is often as fallacious a defense as it is deceptive. If the goal is only humanitarian, then all political refugees can be provided asylum in the closest country to their origin. For instance, if Syrians are refugees, they can seek asylum in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. But they don’t. It’s always about socioeconomic benefit. Even then, there are better solutions without maligning the demographic of a country. Refugees can be given temporary residences and then deported once their home crisis is resolved. For cheap labor, the Persian Gulf countries are famous for issuing work visas and never allowing permanent residence or citizenship to foreigners. Thus, all defense of illegal migration fails when examined logically. A nation belongs to its people. The state derives its legitimacy from the people it serves. Democracy exists due to individual sovereignty: every person owns themselves. Every republic is based on popular sovereignty: the government gets to govern by the consent of the governed. Ergo, citizens have the ultimate right to decide who enters their country and who does not. So, illegal immigration and a lack of deportation of illegals is a violation of the pact between the people and their servant, the state. It’s high time that the US completely revamped its immigration system and made it merit-based. They must then deport all illegal immigrants, including the Dreamers who were born after their parents entered criminally. This must be done before the middle class is permanently destroyed. None of this needs to be done at the expense of helping refugees, who can be treated humanely in their own geographical regions. Even if they get here, they can be returned to their original country after the crisis has been dealt with. When the people get to choose who they let inside their nation, they are also less likely to be hostile to immigrants. For evidence, take a look at the ethnicities with the highest average household income in the US. 99% of them came in legally. If a person can decide who they allow into their home, and throw out trespassers, then citizens must have the right to deny entry to those who trespass into their country.
Cultural
Effects
Whenever
migrants enter a new society, they naturally bring their own
experiences, characteristics, and culture with them. Differences in
worldview, values, virtues, manners, customs, language, and
traditions however make interaction and cooperation more difficult.
As people find it easier and oftentimes also more pleasurable to
interact with people who tick the same way, they naturally start to
interact more with similarly-minded people. This, over time, leads to
the emergence of different subgroups within society. But as different
individuals take up different elements of foreign cultures, splits do
not only occur between locals and immigrants, but a broad palette of
different subgroups / subcultures emerges.
Open,
strong, and explorative individuals primarily experience this as an
opportunity. Instead of being stuck in an all-encompassing and rigid
customary culture, they can now explore many different possibilities
and optimize their own path, trying to find a subculture that they
truly like. Many people however primarily experience this as
frightening and unsettling. They feel adrift amongst all these
possibilities and do not know how to tell good from bad.
Subconsciously, they start to desire a strong leader / organization
that quells the chaos and just tells them what to think and what to
do.
In
any case, as people tend towards mostly interacting within their own
subgroups, rifts start to form within society. Cultural diversity
thus always initially decreases societal cohesion. In the long run,
however, the presence of other cultures forces a culture to develop.
The different subgroups still somewhat have to interact with each
other, and the constant friction slowly withers away the differences.
Better / more popular cultural elements are retained while obsolete
ones disappear. A certain degree of internal conflict thus helps to
rejuvenate and improve a culture. Other cultures also always bring
new ideas and forms of artistic expression with them. These tend to
stimulate artists and intellectuals, which is why cultural diversity
often also leads to a remarkable flourishing of the arts and
sciences.Economic Effects
Immigrants
can either be highly skilled, talented, or educated individuals or
they can be common workers. Short-term, the influx of high-end
workers increases the competition for local high-end workers, thus
reducing their wages. But as their salaries often are quite good,
that is not a fundamental problem. In the long run, however, the
influx of talent primarily leads to economic growth. More great ideas
come up, better products are produced, exports rise, and the society
grows in wealth and power. The influx of common workers on the other
hand most often leads to wage dumping. Wage dumping fundamentally
upsets the lives of many local common workers, thus leading to
resentment and political radicalization. Rarely, however, a society
also desperately needs more common workers, in which case their
influx is beneficial economically.
On
an individual level, global migration leads to more economic
possibilities. New ideas also upset old customs, and long-established
but inflexible companies crack while dynamic newcomers rise and grow.
The able,
strong,
and
talented can thus profit from a larger selection of attractive
employers or more
easily start
new companies themselves. The weak and
unskilled on the other hand primarily experience uncertainty and
pressure. They no longer have a clear and reliable path towards a
safe middle-class life, and the rise in competition depresses their
wages.
The
decrease in societal cohesion as well as the increase in individual
choices also lead to more egoistic behavior. People are less willing
to help others, and the mindset of looking out for all of society and
growing together gets less common. Instead, people primarily
cooperate within their own cultural subgroups or economic interest
groups, and each subgroup tries to take advantage of all others. This
of course weakens the societal cohesion even further.
Conclusion
The
above exposition shows, that a society has to keep its culture alive
and maintain a sense of cultural and thus societal cohesion, if it is
to thrive in the long run. This entails standing in for one's
worldview, values, virtues, and customs, but also limiting the
immigration rate, as only so many new ideas, views, and customs can
be integrated within a given time. At the same time, however, a
society should always have some exchange with foreign cultures to
keep its culture alive and up to date. Integrating too many
immigrants without them bringing an economic benefit and
simultaneously allowing the local culture to decay will, on the other
hand, certainly lead to intra-societal splits, growing political
dissatisfaction, and increasing internal strife. Coupled with
economic decline, this is a sure recipe for the decline and eventual
collapse of a society.
Some
people say it is heartless not to help poor and desperate
individuals, but while this is true on an individual level, it is not
true on a societal one. Poor countries can produce an infinite stream
of desperate individuals, thus continuously absorbing them will not
solve the problem. It will however break the target society over
time, thus leading to fewer people having a good life in the long
run. It is thus far more heartless to let a good society decay
because of an ill-conceived sense of humanitarianism than to set
clear boundaries and to expect other societies to solve their own
problems by themselves. I am of course aware, that many Western
organizations meddle in the affairs of other countries in many
nefarious ways, oftentimes even actively keeping them in chaos and
instability. But rather than trying to take in all the victims one's
own actions may have helped to create, it would be far wiser to stop
harming others in the first place. Societies, like individuals,
should first and foremost make sure to not harm others. If this is
given, then no society has to feel responsible for fixing another
one's problems, and each one can, in good conscience, work on
improving itself as it sees fit, while at the same time granting
others the respect and courtesy to do the same.
We
have all heard it, the well-worn excuse for our seemingly unchecked
immigration. “They just want a better life.” Are
today’s global population movements 'migrations' or 'invasions'? As
with most difficult questions, the answers depend on definitions.
In
732, Frankish ruler Charles Martel, 'The Hammer', won victory in the
Umayyad invasion of Aquitaine. Per historians, the battle
was an important factor in curtailing the spread
of Islam in Europe.
This act by the Umayyad
Caliphate is
clearly considered a Muslim 'invasion' of Gaul, so what is the
difference in this historical 'invasion' and the modern 'migrant
crisis'? The violence? The modern version comes with plenty of that.
The intention to 'conquer'? As it turns out, that may also be a
corollary. In
an Observer article by Selwyn Duke, the author states,
“This
trend was also noted by late Libyan leader Muammar
Gadhafi, who said in
2006, “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that
Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without
guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within
a few decades.” Is
this 'migration'? It sounds a lot like 'invasion'. In
an interview by Dr. Jordan Peterson with Dr. Bret Weinstein,
biologist, author, podcast host, Weinstein described his recent visit
to The Darien Gap, a dense rain-forest in Panama, the only land
bridge between the North and South American continents.
Weinstein
reports that upon his visit to the Darien Gap, along with war
correspondent and journalist, Michael Yon, they found two encampments
just north of the Gap; one where mostly Hispanics gather, those who
survived the journey through the nearly impenetrable jungle, and
another that is occupied by Chinese nationals. Regarding
the first encampment, Weinstein says, “... everybody seems eager to
talk, and they all say the same thing when you ask them why [they are
migrating]. It’s always about money [economic reasons]… what it
isn’t, is people seeking political asylum. That’s the excuse that
is used [for the migration] at our US southern border... but that is
absolutely not true. Not a single person said ... that they were
being oppressed or targeted. They were not being persecuted. The
problem is that the rules of our system say that that’s not a
justification for entering our country because to the extent that
people are entering the country for economic reasons, they do so at
the cost of Americans.” Dr.
Weinstein’s point is accurate and disavows the claim that illegal
immigration should be tolerated because 'they just want a better
life.' Unlike
the first encampment, the second encampment is housing Chinese
nationals,separately. These migrants have skipped the treacherous
trek through the Darien Gap and have arrived there by boat, a means
exceedingly more expensive, and they are coming from China. If these
people are migrating to the US for financial security, where do they
get the funding for such a costly undertaking? Disconcertingly,
the Panamanian border authority forbids access to the Chinese
encampment. A second obstacle to obtaining information about the
Chinese encampment, “are the Chinese [migrants] themselves, who
are... not forthcoming in a way that is utterly conspicuous,”
Weinstein states. When
Yon attempted a conversation with one of the Chinese migrants, the
individual pretended to be Korean. Michael Yon speaks seven languages
fluently, so during the conversation, Michael asked the Chinese
migrant a question in Chinese. When he answered in Chinese, there was
laughter, because they knew they were discovered. Another
concerning factor is that, although the population is not entirely
male, it appears that the vast majority are military age men. The
secrecy involved with the Chinese encampment and the demographic of
its population is cause for concern. It seems that the movement in
the second encampment is intentionally being blended with the
economic migration in order to disguise a true purpose. Could that
purpose be more akin to 'invasion' than 'migration'? In
a talk for Prager U by podcast host and journalist, Konstantin Kisin,
he discusses the failures of multiculturalism. Immigrants to many
Western countries are no longer expected to assimilate, nor are they
eager to do so. They tend to form communities among themselves, and
maintain the culture and values of the countries that they left. Is
this tendency actually conducive to, 'a better life'? It could be
argued that these migrants are 'escaping' nothing, and are simply
bringing their old problems to a new location. Kisin
explains that Sweden was once an ideal Western society, but due to
multiculturalism, “The Swedish dream looks more like a Swedish
nightmare. Over 2 million of Sweden’s 10 million people are foreign
born… Sweden now has the highest rate of gang killings in Europe.” He
explains the results of multiculturalism in Britain, where hundreds
of thousands of women and girls have suffered from the Muslim
grooming gangs.
Consider
the recent takeover of entire apartment buildings in Aurora, Colorado
by violent Venezuelan gangs. Can we really say that these criminals
came to the US for, 'a better life'? New turf? Sure. A better life?
Hardly. Last
year in El Paso a frighteningly large faction of Venezuelans stormed
the US border as security tried to stop the mass entry with barbed
wire-barriers and armed agents, CNN.
In
January, Texas Governor Abbot called on the SCOTUS to secure the
American border, stating “I have asserted, in court, there is an
invasion going on in the United States”, FOX News. From
multiple sources, a video of an illegal Arab migrant asked by
reporters why he was entering the US answered, “If you were smart
enough, you would know who I am... but soon you [are] going to know
who I am.”
Many
migrants do want a better life and are doing what they can
assimilate, but the high crime, human trafficking, drug cartels,
grooming gangs that accompany the migration counter the more
favorable aspects of the issue. Assimilation
failure, skyrocketing crime rates, economic distress and the threat
of terrorism make the argument for, 'a better life,' rather feeble,
and the argument for 'invasion' quite powerful.
The Great White North presents an interesting case study into
one of the modern world’s most pressing issues. Although the vastness of the
Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans successfully prevents fleets of dinghies
from illegally crossing, Canada is nevertheless facing a dire migration crisis.
Illegal immigration remains a problem in Canada, but unlike so many other
Western countries, it is legal immigration which seems to be the larger problem
by far. Canada’s ambitious immigration efforts have resulted in an estimated
2.6 million non-permanent residents (i.e. temporary workers and international
students) residing in the country as of 2024, against a domestic population of
around 40 million citizens. This is in addition to over 400,000 immigrants who receive permanent resident
status annually, representing one of the highest per capita immigration rates
in the world. Such an enormous commitment to immigration would represent a challenge to any
country and its citizens, and the goodwill of Canadians is being stretched as
they attempt to come to terms with a rapid increase in newcomers. A recent study from the Environics Institute, a Canadian
market research firm, found that 58% of Canadians believe their country accepts
too many immigrants. This represents a 31% decrease in approval of immigration
since 2022, according to the institute. This disapproval is grounded in more than xenophobia, as some
commentators suggest. Canada has one of the highest costs of living in the world,
a problem that is being greatly exacerbated by an influx of immigrants. Mass
immigration is contributing to the country’s housing crisis and wage stagnation.
Regarding wage stagnation, economist Sheila Block argues, “If you
bring in people who have fewer rights than people with permanent status, then
what that's doing is creating downward pressure on wages." Immigration may not be the only factor contributing to these disadvantageous
economic trends, but there is a bipartisan consensus that immigration is exacerbating the problem. In regard to these economic and population-related issues, Canada
could potentially benefit from adopting a version of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia
Meloni’s immigration policy. Wherein labour shortages and population concerns
are dealt with by providing a legal path to citizenship for select landed
migrants, while continuing efforts to prevent new arrivals. Canada could see even greater success with such a program, given the country’s abundance of documented
migrants and much better fortified geography. However, the concerns Canadians have regarding the economics
of mass immigration are also compounded by sociocultural factors. In the summer of 2024, a father-son duo from Richmond Hill, Ontario was arrested for plotting
an Islamic terrorist attack. The father’s asylum claim was effectively expedited years prior for reasons many find unsatisfactory. Another attempted Islamic terrorist attack was
foiled this summer involving a man who had entered the country on a student
visa. These would-be terrorists were originally from Muslim-majority countries. In addition to threats of Islamic terrorism, Canada is also the
latest battleground of the Khalistan movement, which seeks to create a
separatist Sikh state in northern India. This movement is responsible for the deadliest terrorist attack in Canadian history. Khalistani separatists continually display intimidating shows of force
throughout the country, and are engaged in an international conflict with India. This conflict has seen gangland-style
violence come to Canadian soil (albeit much of this violence was allegedly perpetrated by the Indian state). The threatening presence of these ideologies points to serious
oversights in Canada’s immigration vetting process. While most immigrants integrate
peacefully and oppose radicalistic movements, a proportion of newcomers are struggling
to leave their problems at home. Canada, and other Western nations, would be
well-advised to implement a policy of leave it at home, or return home
for those refusing to adjust. Furthermore, anyone associated with an extremist
group, or hostile foreign government, should not be permitted to reside in
Canada in the first place. Canadians have well-grounded concerns about immigration’s
effect on safety and living standards, but the well-being of newcomers is also
very much worthy of consideration. A 2024 poll indicated that 84% of newcomers reported that life is “significantly” or “somewhat” more expensive than they
anticipated. In addition to economic issues, many immigrants and migrants are also feeling a
strain in cultural relations. Canadians’ perception of India, which is the home
country of the largest segment of newcomers, has declined in recent years. This
decline is attributed to complications stemming from the Khalistan movement,
and declining support for immigration in general. There are also some indications that
Canadians’ legitimate concerns about
immigration are devolving into bigotry. According to Google Trends, the term
“Pajeet”, a derogatory neologism used to describe Indians, peaked in popularity in
the winter of 2024. This finding is consistent with reports of an increase in anti-immigrant
discourse in Canadian cyberspace. On top of finding Canada less welcoming
and affordable than expected, it appears that many newcomers are understandably
underwhelmed with their oversaturated and low paying employment opportunities
and educational prospects. Furthermore, the ill-conceived and untenable student
visa scheme in Canada is finally beginning to break down. Recent policy changes
may result in over 70,000 students being deported, and countless others left in
a state of stressful uncertainty. The current state of migration in Canada is far from ideal, and this is reflected in the reported experiences of both Canadians
and newcomers. This unpopular situation must be considered alongside the need for the country to fill labour shortages, prepare for a decline in domestic
birthrates, and reestablish itself as a solution oriented global leader. The
Canadian government continually emphasizes these points in their publications,
but with an increasingly dissatisfied population and fraying diplomatic
relations, the government’s boastings of global leadership are not fooling
anyone. Like most Western nations, Canada faces an immigration situation with no easy solutions. However, common-sense
reforms regarding quotas and vetting could be a great help in ameliorating problems
associated with immigration, and providing other Western nations with guidance on
this complicated problem.
“Diversity is our strength.” The student body president uttered this Orwellian platitude in his welcome speech to a cohort of new international students at the Midwestern university where I worked. As an international student recruiter and Designated School Official with the authority to issue immigration documents on behalf of the university, I had a role in bringing young students from all over the world to the U.S. While diversity has its advantages, strength isn’t one of them. Diversity’s proponents are quick to cite the vibrant cultural contributions of migrants and the benefits of considering multiple worldviews. But they ignore diversity’s drawbacks and dismiss skeptics as racists. The loudest advocates for mass migration typically live in predominantly white suburbs (“for the school district”) miles away from migrant neighborhoods. They are not competing with newcomers for scarce housing, and are not in danger of losing their own jobs to migrants. This leads to a moral hazard in that protestors can virtue signal their enlightened position and reap the benefits of doing so, while their poorer compatriots pay the price. This isn’t virtue signaling per se: It’s status signaling conveniently disguised as virtue signaling. One downside of diversity is the decreased level of trust among neighbors due to a lack of shared values or language. No one at my daughter’s school shares her ethnic makeup. When she was having problems with a boy of Arabic descent teasing her, I told her to stick up for herself. I didn’t think the teasing warranted a confrontation with the parents. But I also didn’t think confrontation was an option. If the boy’s parents had been Americans, I might have been able to talk to them about the teasing. But the boy’s mother was always clad in a black burqa and kept a scowl fixed to her face. I wasn’t sure whether she spoke English. I found her unapproachable. If the situation had escalated, I would have to go directly to the school’s administrators. This lack of shared culture leads to people appealing to authorities rather than dealing with conflicts on an interpersonal level. Maintaining order in a highly pluralistic society may necessitate more authoritarian control. The dangers of authoritarianism are well-known, but can liberalism go too far? The liberal extreme to maintain a modicum of peace between groups would be to allow groups to govern themselves by their own sets of rules. This is already happening in parts of Europe with Muslim enclaves, where sharia law becomes the de facto legal system. When university admissions officers or professors apply different criteria for so-called BIPOC students, they're creating two sets of standards based on group affiliation. While this can lead to a tenuous peace, it also sets the stage for group conflict. This didn’t work in the Balkans, and there’s no reason to think it'd work anywhere else. The argument America is a nation of immigrants that should welcome tired/poor/huddled masses is outdated if not disingenuous. The immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island in the early 20th century predominantly shared a set of values rooted in Christianity and Western civilization. America was characterized as a melting pot in which new ingredients would be incorporated into the stew and absorb the flavor of the soup. Mass migration becomes untenable when the newcomers not only don’t share their host countries’ values, but hold values that are hostile to the host countries’, have no interest in assimilating, and instead demand their hosts accommodate them. Assimilation shouldn’t be a dirty word. The “ugly American” stereotype stems from Americans going overseas and disrespecting the host country’s norms, whether obstinately or through ignorance. Yet, when migrants come to the U.S., Americans are expected to be sensitive to their values and accommodate their norms. Americans are held to a standard that doesn’t apply to anyone else in the world. By refusing to seriously address the illegal immigration issue, Democrats have conceded it to Republicans. This makes it harder to reach a compromise. Because the conversation is being held primarily among Republicans, the voices in the debate only range from moderately conservative to reactionary. Liberals are unfortunately missing from the debate, as the party that used to represent them has refused to engage due to pressure from radicals. If we can dismiss the extremists calling for open borders or zero immigration, those in the middle can compromise on an acceptable level of immigration. One issue we should prioritize because both sides seem to agree on it is the need for a speedier system to sort refugees from economic migrants. Resources should be dedicated to expediting asylum cases. This would ensure America remains open to people fleeing for their lives, while discouraging economic migrants from using the sluggish asylum process as a backdoor to immigration, eroding trust in the judicial system and undermining asylum protections. A bipartisan win on this could create momentum for further compromise. For most illegal immigrants, the only crime they committed was crossing the border illegally in the first place. The majority have no run-ins with the law after that. Deporting them shouldn’t be a priority. However, illegal immigrants who commit crimes should be deported promptly. I don’t think this is controversial, but apologists make convoluted arguments that the illegal immigrant was driven to crime out of a lack of opportunity and if they are sent back to their home country, they would be in danger. This is victim blaming at its most devious: The host country is to blame for the crime because it failed to provide adequate opportunities to someone who had invited himself there, and the danger its citizens are placed in is secondary to the danger the migrant claims he’d face in his home country. Enforcing existing laws coupled with a speedier asylum process would restore trust in the system, and an expectation to assimilate to a reasonable degree would increase trust among migrants and citizens. None of these suggestions require innovative solutions.
Migration policy is a complex issue and has been widely analyzed by sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, and economists. In this essay, I will narrow the scope to the recent 2024 EU Pact on Migration and Asylum as our case study. We will examine it through the lens of Hannah Arendt's concept of "the right to have rights". This approach allows for an exploration of how the pact addresses — or fails to address — the rights of those seeking refuge. As a Jewish refugee during the Second World War, Arendt observed from her own experience that mere belonging to humanity was insufficient to guarantee human rights. It is belonging to a political community that is the necessary condition for this. This is what is now known as "the right to have rights". The pact aims to streamline the asylum process and make it more efficient, but it overlooks some key issues. 75% of refugees settle in low- and middle-income countries, often bordering their place of origin. There is a global power dynamic at play, where wealthy countries impose restrictive policies, effectively shifting the responsibility onto poorer states that often lack the resources to adequately support refugees. While the pact is trying to be more efficient and make it fairer in a way, it doesn't necessarily address this uneven distribution of responsibility, or the root causes of displacement. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the policy is the concept of the legal fiction of non-entry. This refers to the treatment of individuals physically present at EU borders as if they have not legally entered. This limits their rights and exposes them to increased risks of detention. Imagine fleeing a war-torn country, arriving at what you believe to be a safe haven, only to be told that you are not really "there" yet. This strange legal loophole circumvents what we commonly consider basic human rights. Is speed and efficiency in processing asylum claims always beneficial, or does it come at the expense of fairness and accuracy? We must consider the potential for error, the need for thoroughness, and ultimately, the human cost of getting it wrong. The pact highlights a fundamental tension about how the EU approaches migration and asylum. On the one hand, the EU wants to be seen as upholding human rights, yet the policies themselves seem to prioritize control and security above all else. This directly contradicts the spirit of Arendt's right to have rights. If individuals cannot even access the system, how can their rights be protected? The tension between control and compassion becomes even more evident when we consider the rise of pushbacks at EU borders. This is where individuals are denied access to any kind of asylum process at all. States understandably want to maintain control over their borders, but does that ever justify denying someone the right to request asylum or have their case heard? Arendt argues that the "right to have rights" is fundamentally tied to being part of a political community. When that belonging is stripped away, as it is for those forced to fleeing their homes, it creates a profound vulnerability. While the pact aims to streamline the process, its mechanisms can actually exacerbate that vulnerability. Screening procedures and holding people at the border for days, or even weeks for some cases, leave individuals in legal limbo — physically present, but without recognized legal entry. I would like to highlight some key areas for improvement, starting with the need for more safe and legal pathways for people to reach Europe and seek asylum. Imagine if we invested in robust resettlement programs, humanitarian visas, and family reunification schemes. This could alleviate some of the pressure on the dangerous, irregular routes that puts people in vulnerable positions. By shifting from a reactive approach to a preventative one, we could addressing the root causes of forced displacement and creating opportunities for people to seek safety in a dignified and humane manner. The definition of a refugee in the 1951 Refugee Convention has already faced criticism for being too narrow and outdated to address the realities of displacement in the 21st century. The criteria affect who is granted protection and who is not. People fleeing poverty, climate change or generalized violence often do not meet the strict criteria, even though they face very real threats to their lives and well-being. Do they not deserve protection, simply because they do not fit into a category created decades ago in a very different world? This ties back to Arendt's work: if the definition of a refugee excludes those who desperately need protection, it undermines the foundation of human rights for everyone. Currently, the existing system is clearly overwhelmed by the scale and complexity of the crisis. Alongside this are ethical questions: who deserves protection, and who gets to decide what our obligations are to those fleeing violence and persecution? Despite its aims, the pact reinforces a system that is built on exclusion rather than inclusion. Rather than expanding the definition of 'refugee', it doubles down on border control and deterrence. The fiction of non-entry is an example of this exclusionary logic in practice. In the future, population growth and climate change will increase the refugee pressure on Europe. This ensures that the refugee problem will remain on the global agenda. Simply relocating these refugees to their countries of origin (or as close to it as possible) is not feasible. The migration challenge will not disappear; it will only become more urgent. This makes it crucial to think carefully and strategically about how we address this growing crisis.
Westerners must be reminded to be proud of themselves as their forefathers created the greatest sanctuary of middleclass lifestyle that the world has ever known! Morality, law, social cohesion, economic power, and top-notch infrastructure are very impressive and inviting yet these attributes are not free. The West is the result of countless generations who worked hard, saved, defended and died for the rights and freedoms inherent to the walled gardens of the West. Western citizens and governments have always encouraged vetted and controlled migration into their countries. This helped expand the diversity within the West, filled jobs as well as humanitarianly provided shelter for migrants who were leaving inhospitable nations. The great majority of current migrants are quality people. Their main reason for migrating is to escape oppression and/or gain a better life. Westerners must have empathy for fleeing migrants as any responsible person would be doing the exact same thing for their families if they were enduring oppressive realities. The majority of western citizens are opposed to the current forced mass migration as they have seen negative effects within their social services, healthcare, unemployment, and housing. Western citizens are opposed to policies that are dividing them, destabilizing them and dramatically changing their lives. Governments are ignoring struggling segments of their own populations and giving preference to migrants in housing, social services, access to loans and employment. When peaceful assembly occurs to show discontent with policy, politicians embarrass themselves by addressing large portions of their own citizens with hateful and harmful rhetoric. In many large western cities, multigenerational western children are now the minority in their overcrowded classrooms. Western children are bullied, shamed or worse in many schools - this is not acceptable. Elderly people are dying because they can’t get medical care - this not acceptable. New immigrants are getting preferential treatment in employment, grants and loans - this is not acceptable. The citizen majority must be consulted and give consent before more migration is allowed into western countries. Towards the overwhelming inflow of migrants, the general consensus of the middleclass majority is, “Be appreciative, fit in and we will support you in your transition to our society. Make problems and you are not welcome.” States must retain control regarding migration and refuse to be influenced by external forces. The World Economic Forum, United Nations and global financial fund executives are motivated to force mass migration onto the west. Power and gold are the clear motivators regardless of the carefully-manufactured, bleeding-heart rationalized schemes they propose. Hypocrisy abounds at the Michelin star get togethers. These same people fly hundreds of private jets to resorts so they can chat about greenhouse gases and climate change. The mass migration narrative Elites push promotes a utopian borderless society in which a select group of powerful individuals retain power over all world citizens. Beware. They are smart. They are powerful. They are insidious. Observe the current buyup of residential property by megafunds competing with the average citizen. Pull back the curtain on who owns the corporation that outbid the young family in their efforts to own a home and raise a family. Then drive by that home in a few months and see that it has become a permanent rental to migrants receiving government-guaranteed salaries on the lower end or a rental to that same citizen family who will now never increase their net worth through equity. Take Elites seriously when they predict, “You will have nothing and be happy.” The truth is that if the middleclass continues to allow Elites to go forward with their mass migration plans, the middle class will indeed have nothing and social cohesion will be only available in history books. Good news; courage is returning to the west. Restless citizens are increasingly unhappy with this top-down forced change to their societies due to mass migration. Westerners are no longer willing to sit idlily and wait to vote every few years as their lives quickly deteriorate and their freedoms and rights are increasingly violated. Current political propaganda promotes citizen shame. It is understandable that citizens have been generally inactive because their leaders have no problem cancelling them or even throwing them in jail if they try to assemble and voice their concerns. People that once felt that they couldn’t afford to be the “nail that stands up” are now starting to become enlightened and reject the fear of being hammered down. Times are changing. People are gathering. Independent media now allows freedom of speech that had almost ceased to exist. The West must support independent media heavily! Think of it as tithing. Solutions: 1. Assembly: Citizen bravery required - Citizens must assemble and stand up vehemently to government in order to halt mass migration until the current social cohesion, social services and housing crisis is resolved. Remember that the government works for the citizens. Citizens must stand strong in solidarity when government tries to shame them. Shield your good neighbour! 2. Fair future immigration policy - Encouraging assimilation and truly increasing diversity involves spreading the migration out between many more nations. It is unfair to the rest of the world if two or three countries monopolize all the immigration to a target western country. Example: If it is agreed by all that 200,000 annual immigrants are sustainable, allowing 1,000 migrants from each of the 200 countries would be fair and beneficial to the host and the migrants. 3. Stop corporate ownership of residential housing - Create a corporate acquisition tax so that residential homes (under 10 units) sold to corporations are penalized by a hefty 25% tax upon acquisition and then 25% annually. Money talks. This will effectively, yet gradually, make prices affordable to the middle class and immediately allow much needed housing inventory back into the market. The West is based upon the concept of a walled garden with the pillars of morality, law, freedom and democracy resulting in a solid infrastructure where citizens can thrive and pursue happiness. This western garden can only retain order… with walls.
An October 24, 2024 news release on the Government of Canada website reads: Government of Canada reduces immigration. "Today, the Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, announced the 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan: a plan that will pause population growth in the short term to achieve well-managed, sustainable growth in the long term." As I write, I'm listening to Marc Miller, Canadian Liberal MP and Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, speaking with CTV's Vassy Kapelos who pointedly asks him, "Where were you in the last number of years?" She is referring to the housing crisis where rents have doubled in Canada under the current Liberal government. Miller points to Covid and labor shortages, even before Covid, and says the government is now responding to what Canadians and economists have been saying and "asserting its further control over the immigration system it has some responsibility for." Vassy has a point. How did we get to the place where residents and migrants cannot afford a home? Our infrastructure has not kept up with the pace of immigration. It's not that Canadians are against immigration. We are opposed to offering hospitality when we have nothing to put on the table. We have all heard of the immigration woes in the U.S. and Europe. A February, 2024 headline in the Epoch Times reads, Former Panama Border Chief: UN Is Behind the Chaos at US–Mexico Border. The article states, "Nearly $1.3 billion of U.S. taxpayer money was given to the U.N. and other agencies assisting migrants in 2023, according to a government spending database." Another article, ‘Cash in Envelopes’: How the US and UN Are Funding the Border Crisis reads, "The U.N.-orchestrated Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan update for 2024 calls for distributing $1.6 billion in 17 Latin American and Caribbean countries with the help of 248 partner agencies, which are also receiving U.S. grants." The 2024 Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP) states that, "By end-2024, it is projected that there will be some 6.82 million refugees and migrants from Venezuela in-destination in the LAC (Latin American Countries) region, including some 4.71 million people in-need (PiN) of assistance according to the updated RMRP 2024." (The link option does not appear to be operable on this app. The download is available here: https://www.r4v.info/en/rmrp2024update). The Migration in the 2030 Agenda publication states that the UN Migration Agency, The International Organization for Migration (IOM), is "a significant actor in the implementation of migration-related SDG objectives," specifically Goal 10, "reducing inequalities." In addition, "Migration is also of relevance for targets on sustainable cities and resilience in the face of climate change." The introduction states, "This collection of papers explores the many linkages between migration and SDGs and discusses the policy responses that may be called for." (https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/migration_in_the_2030_agenda.pdf) Note, "policy responses that may be called for." Further on we read that, "inclusion of migration in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) under cover of target 10.7.... Called for the empowerment of vulnerable groups, including refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants...[and] Called for access by all to lifelong learning opportunities." There may be some difficulty with implementation and determining "a definition of indicators to measure success." Note, "success." The UN wants to ensure the success of its migration plan and this is a worldwide plan. It is a plan to "empower" and "give access to all." In other words, migration has become a matter of human rights. At the United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner website is a summary entitled, About migration and human rights, OHCHR and migration. We read, "OHCHR promotes a human rights-based approach to migration, which places the migrant at the center of migration policies and governance, and seeks to ensure that migrants are included in all relevant national action plans and strategies...." We are familiar with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion where white males end up at the bottom of the "gender" and "nationality" totem pole, so to speak. We have heard of "replacement theory" - the idea that "white" people are being replaced in countries of predominantly European descent. A massive influx from underdeveloped countries to developed countries, in recent years, is resulting in a greatly diminished percentage of a white population. We've also heard of immigration in the U.S. being termed as an "invasion." Are these migrants new, ambitious "colonizers"? How might "reducing inequalities" play out for developed countries? I live in Surrey, BC where 45% of the population are immigrants, primarily from India. Mention of the fact on social media can result in a label of racism or xenophobia. This is the furthest from the truth and our local hospitality bears this out. I have no objection to any nationality but I do have an objection to totem pole hierarchies. My "white male" husband has his job of choice. We have not had any adverse experiences with immigrants in our community, although we do see increased gang activity, long hospital waits, over-crowded schools, housing shortages and increased drug use and homelessness. A suite that rented for $500 a month a decade ago, now rents for $1500-2000. People come to our country for a better life, but if unmanaged immigration deteriorates the standard of living for an entire country, that rather defeats the purpose. We lived in Asia for a number of years and can compare lifestyles. Some of our friends have immigrated to Canada. We feel compassion for immigrants who have become disillusioned. We want them to have a reward for their hard work. Surprisingly, our Liberal government took steps today to 'assert some control' over the immigration system. The question I have is, who has been in control until now? The UN? Eventually the conversation leads to the question of borders and sovereignty.
Two verses
from the Hebrew bible, informing as it does the conscience of Western
democracies, opens our exploration. Do not
maltreat the migrant and do not oppress him because you were migrants in the
land of Egypt. (Exodus 22:20) An
awareness of the wheel of fortune teaches that sometimes we rely on the
openness of other peoples and other societies to help us in times of need. This memory of our time in Egypt engendering generosity and gratitude is even
more remarkable given the harsh reality of that time in Egypt. Nevertheless, we
are enjoined to take from that experience an openness to the migrant seeking to
benefit from our society. Several times, the Bible harkens back to Egypt as
impetus for kindness to the stranger and even a forgiving attitude to the
Egyptian slave master. A different
verse speaks not to what we owe the migrant but what the migrant owes the host
society in terms of obeying the law. Being subject to the law, both obligates
the migrant and confers rights and protections. You
shall have one kind of law, for the migrant as well as the native-born; for I
am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 24:22) I think the
polarizing debates around immigration in America, certainly in the run up to
this election, would do well to remain mindful of these complimentary Biblical injunctions.
One law must govern the migrant and the citizen. He cannot be allowed to
circumvent the necessary procedures, tests and screens that a country sets up
to properly absorb and assimilate newcomers. Democrats would do well to
recognize that a coherent immigration policy must presuppose working borders. But
Republicans would do well to recognize that almost everyone in America was once
new to that land. North America was built on immigration. There is vociferous
and popularist opposition to immigration egged on by former President Trump
that resonates deeply with his voters. It is a suspicion and oppression of the
migrant that contravenes the first verse quoted above. Understanding that
opposition will help us contend with it. We need to
disambiguate three, often conflated categories: Immigrants, Refugees and
Revolutionaries. Immigrants seek better opportunity in a new land. Refugees are
forced out of the “old country” because of war or famine or political
oppression and seek asylum in the “new country.” Both they and their hosts may
regard the grant of asylum as temporary, holding out hope that conditions are
restored in the “old country” allowing the refugee to return home.
Revolutionaries carry habits and beliefs from the “old country” about how
things should be done in the “new country.” They seek ways to refashion the new
country in the image of the old country. The opposition to immigration focuses
on the sense that these newcomers are changing the country that we know and
love for the worse. We need to examine that sense, recognize when it is
legitimate and when not. Immigrants are more willing to leave behind the faulty
constructs and social ills that frustrated their progress in the “old country”
and to assimilate the better ways of doing things in the “new country.” Thus,
the immigrant does not pose a problem to the existing population, so long as we
correctly identify those “better ways” we ask the immigrant to embrace. I still
have some investments in the bank where I grew up in suburban Toronto. I
returned recently to check on those deposits to find that my bank had become
entirely Chinese. The signage facing the street, Chinese, the explanatory
pamphlets, Chinese, and all the management Chinese, Chinese Canadian, I rush to
add. I found it difficult to get good advice for my money, across a stilted
language barrier. I felt the trust that my precious investments were in good
hands erode and a desire to move them elsewhere. Was that fair? Was my
financial advisor an immigrant to Canada, a refugee refusing to part with her
old ways or a revolutionary, infiltrating my neighborhood bank and slowing
placing it inside a communist Chinese orbit?
The
demographics of North America are steadily changing, becoming more brown, more
Asian and more non-English speaking. If a bank wants to flourish in my old
neighborhood, it would do well to do exactly what it did even if that makes me
less comfortable, even encouraging my relocation. The signs of a shifting
aesthetic, religion and culture are evident over the half-century of my
connection to that neighborhood. But my old neighborhood is no less Canadian
for it. When we ask an immigrant to leave behind the old country and embrace
the new country that does not necessarily include aesthetics or religion or
even culture. Language is a legitimate issue, and it is important that strong
English speakers are accorded privileges. And as long as that is in place, the
children of those immigrants will grow up speaking a fine English. They are not
refugees, and we should have no expectation or suspicion that they are going
back to China any time soon. Nor are they revolutionaries as my bank remains a
secure, legal, thriving Canadian institution even as I might move to a better English-speaking
branch. Revolutionaries do exist and they are indeed a problem seeking as they
do the undoing of the principles that make North America the attractive
location it is for migrants. They must be recognized by actions and attitudes
antagonistic to western democracies and not by projecting those attitudes upon
foreigners by virtue of their different aesthetic. Those revolutionaries are
certainly plentiful and powerful among the native born. In trying to further
the needs of an existing population, it should be remembered that productive
immigrants contribute much to the society and economy. We need to remember
those verses encouraging our charity while insisting on the rule of law. And we
should be discerning about who we let in, properly distinguishing between
immigrants, refugees and revolutionaries without painting them all with the
same brush.
originally posted in Conversations at 8:58 am EDT (by mistake)Countries are not ethically required to dedicate resources to take care of migrants. What are examples of resources that a nation need not devote to migrant welfare? Providing housing or transportation to migrants en masse who have no commonality, such as race, religion, political affiliation, or other cohesive group. Affording special protections against transnational criminal organizations. Establishing educational resources for gainful employment to economically motivated non-citizens. These ethical issues are not on the scale of individual actors, but rather a government organization. As such, a nation’s duties are to enforce justice when within its power and prudent. It must create impartial laws that restrict significant, demonstrably harmful activities against its members (citizens) and against egregious unethical character in its communities. A country rightly devotes resources to restore justice by reparation (compensatory justice), penalty (retributive justice), forgiveness, or removal.Positive and Negative Duties To enforce justice, there is an important difference between positive and negative duties. Duties are obligations with a valence of benefit or harm. Negative duties are obligations torefrain or avoid (hence, negative) doing some harmful or coercive action, such as burgling my neighbor’s house. This is also called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Positive duties are obligations to perform or enact (hence, positive) some action, such as fulfilling one’s promises or contractual agreements, or compensating for bodily harm or reimbursement to replace damaged property. Doing good is not always an obligation, but in the words of Jan Narveson, it is a matter of compassion rather than justice. This is so important to grasp independently of the plight of migrants, since it ensures that we are consistent in our principles across the board, so that we are not open to accusation of special pleading. This means that a wide variety of government activities are not matters of justice, even though they may benefit individuals and communities effectively. When must a nation, then, perform beneficial actions? It is only obligated when enforcing contracts or facilitating the restoration of parties after a violation. When making an agreement, it is a matter of justice to do what you have agreed to. When wrongs are committed, it is a matter of justice to come to the aid of the afflicted, to make things right. Without wrongdoing or contract, however, there’s no duty to benefit others. It is no violation of anybody's rights, merely to fail to do good that is within your power to do. We might owe migrants positive duties. Who has wronged the droves of migrants seeking a better land? What citizens are in breach of contract with migrants? Whenever the answer is none, then that's what we owe. Nothing. The government is under no ethical obligation to centrally plan ways so improve their welfare. What promises has our nation made, that the nation must fulfill? If the answer is empty, then our account balance owed is empty too. If we didn’t commit to doing it, then we can’t be compelled to do it.When To Take Care of Migrants This line of thinking is not insensitive or calloused. Recall that there is room for compassion. People can individually or collectively work toward altruistic ends. The Effective Altruism(EA) movement intends precisely this. With proper planning and collaboration, coalitions can be effective. Love for one’s neighbor is entirely laudable. But there are three caveats. First, a nation’s priorities for compassion are for their members. Citizens are taken into consideration because they hold some stake in the nation’s success as members. Non-citizens have personal interest in the nation’s success, but not as members. The nation need not secure the interests of non-citizens in the same manner. Moreover, you should be basic before you are extra. It is prudent to engage in compassion, which goes above the call of duty, after meeting one’s obligations first. Second caveat is that there are conditions for obligatory intervention. Have we already consented to provide care or aid, by means of a treaty, pact, or other international negotiations? Often the answer is no. The clear exception is with asylum seekers. Seekers need to meet certain conditions, such as establishing awell-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country …. (Convention and Protocol) We have an obligation as a nation that has adopted the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. Different nations have obligation, ceteris paribus, under their respective laws that obligate them. But I argue we should not provide housing to those who exploit us with loopholes. Reciprocity is key. It is lacks reciprocity to enter illegally. This should be an escape clause. Our obligation as a nation has qualifications. The third caveat is that even when it is not obligatory, people know how to help each other when they know their needs personally. It is not always wise to provide support on a national-level, where person-to-person organic relationships would inject compassion. The immediate and long term needs of non-citizens are more effectively met by people who have local knowledge. The kind of understanding you get when you meet and know the person, not just address a number or react to a trendline.Conclusion We should not be planning resources centrally to help those who come in droves. It just simply isn’t a matter of justice, most of the time, to admit non-citizens to enter. The case is worse for those who have broken the law upon entry. And the case for central-planning is, on the contrary, better devoted elsewhere. It is a matter of priority: if there were an ethical basis for taking care of migrants at a governmental level (it doesn’t), it’s first priority is to care for its citizens.
Mass migration isn’t new.
If anthropologists are to be believed, in prehistoric times people found
their way to entire unpopulated continents by traversing a variety of natural land
bridges. Humans have been migrating out
of Africa into the rest of the world for at least 70,000 years. In fact, the societal frictions generated even by small bands
moving within highly local areas in the process of hunting and gathering
predate the beginnings of agriculture (which tied people more directly to
specific plots of land). As a
consequence, modern humans are faced with two sets of problems – one relatively
modern and one utterly ancient – when contemplating the darker side of being a
globally dominant species. The first set is the one that we address with our modern
brains, perhaps in part because our leaders (elected to power or elevated to it
by political natural selection) have at least somewhat greater intelligence
than average for the population. In the
United States, most possess advanced degrees, typically in the law. (For any given Congress, half of the House of
Representatives and two thirds of the Senate are populated by lawyers.) Thus it’s in the nature of politicians (at
least initially) to use reason, logical deduction, and a host of upper brain
functions to outline public policy on immigration. Underneath that modern brain, however, resides Homo sapiens’ more primitive brain. (A well-known clinical psychiatrist recently devoted
the first chapter of a bestselling book to observing that the same antidepressants
that work on humans also work on lobsters – and that our species diverged in evolution
at a time so long ago that trees didn’t yet exist.) Much our neurology is of an ancient design built
for hunting and gathering. As much as we’d
like to sit in some mahogany-paneled, marble-floored office in the capital of some
nation and to reduce our deciding of policies on immigration to a purely cerebral
exercise, one level lower in our brain structure, that’s not how we’re wired. Agriculture changed much of how we look at our own migratory
patterns. Yes, our lower brain functions
did make our pre-agricultural clans territorial – but not to any meaningfully greater
degree than you’d likely find in a pack of some other omnivorous mammals in
search of their next meal. The birth of farming, however, greatly upped the ante. Actively farming the land brought about an investment in it
that remained absent for as long as humans were scavenging for berries instead
of actively growing them. Two groups of
thirty to forty hunter-gatherers (the largest band that their lifestyle might
support) would occasionally travel to some boundary of their territories and simultaneously
stumble upon the same plant filled with edibles. Yes, there would be a territorial conflict,
but it would be more about the calories and nutrients hanging on the vine at
that particular moment than the factors that went into producing them – and which
if intentionally reinvested might produce food again the following year. As agriculture expanded, so did the value of the plant
(which itself might not be palatable) and the dirt in which it grew (which
invariably was inedible). People became
tied to their land since they had to irrigate the same plants in the summer as
they’d sewn in the spring and would harvest in autumn. Mobility went down and populations not only
grew thanks to surplus calories finally being available, but they also became
aware of their investment of labor into a specific parcel of ground. Also, with not every waking moment having to
be dedicated to finding the next thing to eat, these expanding populations could
afford to develop their own unique cultures. Thus, when people from some distant place came into what a
group perceived as “our land,” reactions varied depending on the degree to
which the same territorial lower brain function we share with crustaceans got
triggered. The response to that provocation
depended a great deal on whether the incursion was a few people (which in
modern terms, we’d say is “immigration”) or many people (which today we’d call
an “invasion”). Even to this day, we see
the world through this lens because the roughly 12,000 years since we began
farming is an eye blink on the timeline of evolutionary biology. The term “invasion” in particular is
heavily loaded emotionally. In the West, we’ve been doing a marginally respectable job
of dealing with population migration thanks to gifts bequeathed to us by the ancient
Greeks, the Jews and early Christians, and the Romans. Greek culture warned that a stranger might be
a visiting god in disguise. Jews
grappled with the notions of Isaac and Ishmael (and Jacob and Esau) being
brothers. Apostles Peter and Paul wrote
that Jews and Gentiles were both welcome at Christ’s table. And the Romans developed a concept of citizenship
that extended it to the peoples they had conquered. (The aforementioned Apostle Paul got out of
more than one legal scrape by saying, “Yes, I am a Jew, but I am also a Roman
citizen.”) Today it’s easy for all of us to agree, “We’d welcome this
Nobel Laureate’s coming to our country because of the positive impact he’ll
have.” A more difficult problem arises
when we get to the thornier issue of whose extended family members to let in –
or the degree to which their bringing their culture will imperil our own. We simply have not yet evolved the brain
structure that allows us to resolve a conundrum with no clear intellectual
solution. Thus we fall back on using the 600cc’s
of brain we share with Homo Habilis,
our ancestor who distanced himself from chimpanzees about two million years ago. When two logical arguments hit an impasse, the
extra 800cc’s of modern human gray matter goes out the window. Rhetoric becomes heated, illogical, and
emotional. Until we recognize our developments of technologies and social
structures have vastly outstripped our own evolution, our best hope may be to
look for examples (particularly the Greco-Judeo-Christian-Roman ones) of what historically
has worked.
Listening to the ongoing diatribe between Left and Right on the immigration issue caused me to reflect on the arguments of the contestants. On the Left, we have a defense of the constitutional rights of illegals to due process. We also have a deep-seated belief that we should “help” these poor, struggling, potentially economically vibrant participants in our society who only need an opportunity for making a better life. On the Right, we have several things. First, we hear the prima facie case that these people are here illegally, and as a sovereign nation, we have the right to determine whether to accept them as members of our society or not. We also hear the argument that they drive down wages for citizens by taking the lower tier of jobs at wages that citizens can’t afford to live on; that there is a large proportion of them that commit crimes (either on themselves or us), as they largely fall into the young male demographic known for its high crime rate. And, we hear that they have no intention (unlike previous generations of immigrants) of assimilating into the American culture. At the core of the Left’s argument is a desire to “help” these people. (True, the politicians may have ulterior motives in generating more voters for themselves. But this thought is largely isolated to the Left’s political elites, not the rank-and-file.) How, exactly, that “help” would occur is left to one’s imagination. The key thing, it seems, is to be able to self-gratify oneself with the warm feeling that one is sticking up for the “little guy”. ...Read more here: Is Immigrant Welfare Really Good for Them? – A Pilgrim's Search