August 13, 2012
-
My Stance on Immigration
Since I have talked about immigration on many occasions, I thought it would be appropriate and expedient to give an exposition about my position on immigration, and line out exactly where I stand and what I believe things should be done. Some of the things I have said about immigration may seem contradictory on the surface, but there is actually a method and order behind my position which is not at all contradictory. That being said, most positions on immigration fall into three basic categories, which I will designate as Green Light, Yellow Light, and Red Light policy. It should be noted that these are loose categories, and that variation exists within each position, as well as gradients between them.
Green Light Policy:
The Green Light Policy is the most open form of immigration policy. One can think of GLP as “anything goes.” There is no limit to the amount of immigration, or on where it comes from. There may be occasions where governments place limits on the flow of immigration, but there is no plan to shut off the flow, either permanently or temporarily. There is also little or no repatriation of immigrants. The most open form of GLP allows for anyone to come and stay once they arrive.
The motivations behind GLP vary, but it is usually instituted by left wing governments. Ostensibly one motivation for GLP is to bring in a fresh supply of workers, or a continual flow of new workers, but often it is done to instigate a demographic makeover, or to bring in a fresh supply of voters for the left wing parties. Many of the immigrants who come under these conditions live off of the system rather than contribute to it.
People who support GLP are typically motivated by guilt, or are globalists/anti-nationalists who dislike the idea of nations and political boundaries.
Examples of GLP include England, Holland, which are swamped with immigrants from widely disparate cultures.
Yellow Light Policy:
Yellow Light Policy can be defined as limited immigration. Immigrantion may be limited by need, culture, race, religion, or a combination of factors. To put it simply, potential immigrants may be filtered based on compatibility with the host culture and/or their potential for productivity once they arrive. YLP is based more on pragmatism rather than ideologically driven social engineering, although that can factor in at times. Adherants of YLP typically think “how can these people help us if we let them in?” rather than, “let’s help these foreign people by letting them in.”
Countries operating under YLP will often repatriate foreign nationals who are either unproductive, detrimental, or who were only allowed in under certain conditions or for a limited amount of time.
The US has operated historically under YLP. Immigration was mostly limited by need, and some groups were given preferance over others based on race and culture. The bulk of the immigration was European up until the 20th century, and people who came filled economic needs. Bringing the west under cultivation and working in factories were the primary needs. Today the US is very close to GLP but not quite there, as there are still significant restrictions based on race and nationality. For example, immigration policy towards Mexico is dangerously loose, but immigration policy toward Indian Nationals is extremely strict. It is next to impossible for Indians to get visiting visas, and there is a tremendous waiting period and a high level of scrutiny involved in the application process for other types of visas, including work visas.
Another example of a country that operates under YLP is Mexico, which ironically turns back immigrants from the countries to the south who try to cross their border. Mexico is not closed to immigration, but discriminating in who they let in and on what basis.
Israel is another example, which limits immigration based on ethnicity and religion.
Red Light Policy:
Countries that operate under Red Light Policy are either extremely hostile toward immigration, or entirely closed to it. Foreign workers may be allowed in under certain conditions, but are not allowed to stay their permanently. RLP is always ideologically driven, and typically stems from a fear of contamination. The only thing that varies is the manner of contamination which is feared.
Japan is a country which operates under RLP. Japan does allow foreign workers but not foreign immigrants. In fact, a foreign tourist may even be expelled for sleeping with a Japanese prostitute. Why? The Japanese government is concerned about racial contamination. They want to remain Japanese and Asian. They do not want racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity. They believe that the more homogenous a society is the better. I do not believe that that is how the majority of Japanese feel but that is how their government is.
Another country which operates under RLP is North Korea. North Korea is completely closed, both to immigration and travel. I do not know what the official government position there is on race mixing, but my guess is that they have one given that it is not even a factor there. The borders are closed in that case because they fear ideological contamination. The government is opressive, and actively limits the amount of information that the people are exposed to. Any sort of outside influence is completely unwanted.
China is another example of RLP. China allows foreign workers but not foreign immigrants, and workers exist there on a temporary basis and where they can go and what they can do is restricted while they are there.
My Position:
I of course fall into the category of YLP. I believe that immigration should be need based, and that potential immigrants should be assessed for cultural compatibility before they come. Mass immigration is especially bad during an economic downturn. Immigrants who are coming here should be coming to fill a specific need. The only needs that exist are either to fill a job, or to marry. In the first case they should already have a job offer before they are allowed to move here.
In case anyone is wondering how marriage is a need, it is really quite simple. It is the role of every good and PRODUCTIVE citizen to reproduce so that the culture and society can continue, and so that they will have a support basis other than the government in their old age. The role of a spouse is a position that needs to be filled, just like jobs in the private sector, and in both cases if no one suitable can be found to fill the vacancy locally then bringing in a qualified foreign national is perfectly acceptable, and necessary.
In the case of marriage, the citizen should be able to support the foreign national so that they will not be a burden on the system, and no foriegn born person should be allowed to receive welfare. Foreign nationals should only be allowed to contribute positively to the system.
But regardless of what need exists to be filled, determining cultural compatibility is absolutely essential. Whoever comes needs to be able to assimilate, or to at least contribute productively. Cultural compatibility does not necessarily mean assimilation. For example, I fully support Indian, Asian, and European immigration. To use the US as an example, Europeans assimilate immediately, or in one generation at the most, because most of us are Europeans to begin with. Asian immigrants do not assimilate right away, which is where the designation FOB comes from. Typically their children will be fully acclimated to the US, so assimilation will occur in one, or at the most two generations. Indians take a good deal longer to assimilate, and seldom engage in miscogeny even after being here for a few generations, but both Indians and Asians contribute positively and are net producers rather than net drains on our society. They may not adopt the culture right away, but in the meantime they contribute positively and cause no problems. Their cultures are compatible with ours, which allows us to coexist peacefully together even if we are not quite the same.
Some groups should be given preferential treatment, while others should be kept out completely and not allowed in under any circumstance. For example, Islamic immigration should be entirely banned for many good reasons. They are completely incompatible with other cultures. Anyone who categorizes all unbelievers as “the abode of war” should not be allowed to move to a different abode. It is simple common sense. Most people in the US, and in the world, would be leary of former Nazi Gestapo agents moving into their countries. We should be similarly distrustful of Islam, which contains all the worst aspects and vices of the Nazi movement, plus a good deal more. Muslims can never assimilate, and they can never be loyal to the host country or identify with it if they are true practicing Muslims. They act as parasites in western countries, demanding special treatment, living off the state, and producing many children. They are a subversive element incapable of peacefully coexisting with other cultures, and incapable of assimilation.
I am not so supportive of the mass immigration which we receive from Mexico. I would like to see that curtailed drastically. Surprisingly the average IQ for Mexico is higher than the average IQ for India, yet Indians in the US score consistantly higher on average than the national average, while Mexicans score lower. Why is that? Because there is a limit on who can come here from India, but no limit on who can come here from Mexico. As a result, most of the Mexicans we get are less intelligent, while most of the Indians we get are more intelligent. Mexican immigration is such an issue that it could be addressed in a separate article on it’s own, but my point here is that all immigration should be restricted and regulated.
So while I do not oppose immigration in and of itself, I do oppose certain types of immigration and I definitely oppose unlimited immigration. GLP is suicide, and no country can continue to exist under a sustained immigration policy like that. Cultural Marxists are pushing GLP because they want world government, and nations are the biggest obstacle to world government. For now they are targetting white western countries, but is foolish for anyone to think that they will stop with us. Once the have destroyed our countries they will move to the eastern world, perhaps beginning with Japan. I also find the concept of having immigration for the sake of immigration, and especially for the purpose of a demographic makeover to be shameful and ethno-masochist.
That being said, I definitely would not want to live in a country where RLP is the modus operandi. While RLP is certainly not as harmful or destructive as GLP, it certainly can be detrimental when it comes to filling needs which cannot be filled locally. They might miss out on some scientific breakthroughs because the scientists go elsewhere, or there might actually be a shortage of workers, or a shortage of viable women. I believe it would be a severe and profound mistake for the US to switch to a RLP. We would not survive as a people under RLP because of how the women are averse to reproduction. All the same, I have no problems with other countries having these policies if the majority of people wish to have them, so long as the people who do not wish it are allowed to leave and go somewhere more suited to their needs. So I have no quarrel with the system in Japan, but I do have issues with the system in North Korea.
