But aren't we all brothers?
So like, right now for example. The Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all, "What about the strain on our resources?" Well it's like when I had this garden party for my father's birthday, right? I put R.S.V.P. 'cause it was a sit-down dinner. But some people came that like did not R.S.V.P. I was like totally buggin'. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, and squish in extra place settings. But by the end of the day it was, like, the more the merrier. And so if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion may I please remind you it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. Thank you very much.
I remember when I first saw the movie "Clueless".
Despite being a bit more naive than I am these days, I thought that the
scene where the main character Cher gives a heartfelt speech for
totally open borders and unlimited immigration was hilarious, since if
I understood the premise of the movie correctly, Cher herself lived in
a very exclusive gated neighbourhood where private security forces
would immediately swoop in if anybody was seen walking on the
nonexistent sidewalk. I wonder how intentional this disconnect was from
the filmmakers.
Illegal immigration is again a relevant topic
news now that Mexicans held their little demonstration against laws
against illegal immigration. From here up north, I don't really
understand why the American open borders crowd doesn't just propose
peacefully annexing Mexico to be the 51st State and be done with that.
It certainly would save a lot of transportation and transition costs,
as the poor people in Mexico could just stay where they are and enjoy
American prosperity there.
A common and very effective
rhetorical trick of tricksy leftists is to conflate immigration with
illegal immigration. For example, since I am an immigrant who just
became a citizen of Canada, I shouldn't have the right to criticize
illegal immigration in any way whatsoever, since I am an immigrant
myself. "We are a nation of immigrants!" goes the rallying cry. The
fact that I followed the rules and demonstrated that I satisfy the
criteria that Canada sets for the people that this country wants to
take in doesn't seem to matter.
According to many leftists, everybody
who wants to should be allowed to move from the Third World to rich
Western countries (for some reason, they are not quite as enthusiastic
about immigration from East Europe), and when these immigrants get
here, they should have the exact same rights that legal immigrants and
native citizens have, including the right to work and the right to
collect welfare. Incidentally, the same people also tend to demand
significant increases to all kinds of welfare payments and other wealth
transfers inside the nation, so that everybody who lives here could get
a comfortable standard of living regardless of whether they work or not.
Now, what do you think would happen if these two goals were ever simultaneously realized?
As was explained in Jussi Halla-Aho's essay "Ceuta, Melilla and the avoidance of responsibility",
anybody with common sense and the smarter leftists (especially those
who have homes, families and jobs) understand perfectly well what would
happen. This is why leftists are secretly happy that there are walls
and men with guns on those walls to stop the hundreds of millions of
poor people from coming here. Meanwhile, the leftist can shine in his
moral superiority by taking the cause of some individual illegal
immigrant who was caught and is being deported, so that the leftist can
loudly complain how this deportation is unfair and inhuman. Of course,
the leftist will never
explain what exactly makes that particular illegal immigrant so special
that he or she should be allowed to stay, while millions of others just
like him or her who desire to come to our affluence are kept outside,
by force if necessary.
Some leftists, typically those who are
objectively losers, are totally open and very explicit about their "no
borders" ideology. Even though I appreciate their honesty in expressing
this goal, I find their dishonesty about their motives somewhat
appalling. The real telos
behind the snotnosed leftists' open demands of no borders and totally
unrestricted immigration is simply that they are angry and envious that
other people have it so good while they are bitter, worthless and
alienated losers who didn't quite make it. So to make themselves feel
better they want to pull all other people down to their level, and they
consider millions of poor illegal immigrants a useful tool in reaching
this goal. No point denying this. That's all there really is to it.
Leftists
are especially pathetic in their double standard when they first demand
that everyone should be allowed to move themselves and their material
possessions wherever they want without being hindered by the national
borders, and then on the very next breath, they demand that rich people
and people who work for corporations should not
be allowed to move themselves and their material possessions to other
countries in which taxation is much lower and the wage levels, labour
laws and other similar factors are more suitable for running a
profitable factory. You might think that hypocrisy and cognitive
dissonance this enormous would cause them splitting headaches.
But
then again, it's not like this would be the first time that some
privilege advocated by leftists blows up in their face when other
people start happily using the exact same privilege. And it's not like
the leftists are even able to spot their bigger hypocrisy in claiming
that all cultures are equally good in everything, but for some mystic
reason, immigration pressure is a massively one-way road. You only need
to restrict immigration in countries that people would like to
immigrate in. People vote with their feet for something better and this
way put their money where their mouth is, unlike the leftists and other
cultural relativists, who love to have one public morality for other
people, and then a private morality for themselves.
Comments