May 3, 2013

• Immigration and Sympathy

  I keep hearing so many arguments for granting amnesty to illegal aliens, and all of them are predicated entirely on emotion.  None of them are based on law enforcement or pragmatism, because there is no logical or legal basis behind rewarding law breakers on a mass scale.  Of course I don’t believe that the stated arguments for amnesty are the real reasons why advocate want it, but lets look at the sympathy argument.

  The most common argument I hear for amnesty is sympathy.  I, and other conservatives, get called “racist” (among other things) for not wanting to reward these law breakers, or for advocating a sane and regulated immigration policy.  What the most common argument boils down to is, “Oh… but their country is so bad.”  Yes, and typically the reason why a 3rd world country is bad is because that is the kind of civilization their culture builds, and there are a lot more of them still in that country.  There are a few exceptions where succesful civilizations have become bad due to oppressive regimes, such as North Korea and China, but for the most part if a country is bad it’s because the people of that country have made it that way.  How do you tell the difference?  Look at their history over a long period of time. 

  But I digress.  So their country is bad, and that justifies them coming here?  OK, so then let’s say we open the border up to everyone who comes from a country with poor living conditions, but let’s narrow it down to the people in those countries who have it bad.  Using that as a criterion we can make some predictions about what will happen.

  So, most of the people in Central and South America should be allowed into the US, no questions asked because that would be racist.  Most of the people in sub-Saharan Africa should be able to come.  Let’s say 90%, a conservative estimate of the general poverty there.  Then, we also need to let in about half of the people from North Africa and the Middle East.  Also let’s not forget about Central Asia (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and maybe some other Stans).  Then we need to let in most of the population of India.  So far the immigration from India has mostly joined the productive sectors of society because it has consisted mostly of the best and the brightest, but that’s racist.  We need to let in the unskilled and uneducated massess.  There are billions of village people with large families that need to come to the US because their ife situation in India is bad.

  OK, so now we let in all these people, and the end result is that the US has most of the worlds population.  Also, the population is growing rapidly because uneducated 3rd worlders tend to produce lots of children.  They haven’t learned yet that having babies kills Gaia, or maybe that’s just white babies, but anyways, now they are here.  Now what jobs are they going to work?  Who is going to pay their medical bills?  Where is all the money for the social services the left insists we have the government provide going to come from? 

  There will be so many people that when you go outside, anywhere in the US and at any time, then it’s going to look like a freshly stirred ant mound.  There aren’t going to be any more forests or nature preserves, because every last bit of land is going to have to be used for housing and food production in order to house and feed the massive population. 

  Also, let’s not forget the cultural differences.  There is going to be garbage everywhere.  Uneducated 3rd worlders don’t care about the same things that white liberals do.  There will be litter, there will be about 8 children per woman.  There will be all the strange customs and mores of the various 3rd world populations.  You can say hello to child marriage, female circumcision, acid burnings, and higher rape rates (real rape not cry rape).  Rape in the 3rd world is absolutely epedimic.  If you want to see an example of a real rape culture, you need look no further than the 3rd world.

  In general the 3rd world doesn’t understand that they shouldn’t treat women like second class citizens, and just because they are living in the US doesn’t mean they are going to catch onto that, especially if they are able to form large blocs where they exist as the majority.  They aren’t going to give special consideration to a white liberal woman who is out walking alone at night (or during the day) because she felt sorry for them and wanted to let them in to get back at the patriarchy or whatever.  They don’t care if she made some speech, went on a slut walk, “pride parade,” or whatever.  In fact, those things might exacerbate their desire to rape her until she bleeds, and since we would no longer be the majority we wouldn’t have the numbers or the means to force them to comply with our laws, or to hold them accountable when they don’t.

  So this is what would happen if we just let everyone in.  The more the country fills up with 3rd worlders, the more it will become like the 3rd world.  Of course, in reality not all of the 3rd world would immigrate in.  Before that happened the US would be dragged down to a 3rd world level of development and standard of living, and the incentive to come here would be gone. 

  Now if you believe there is a limit to how many we let in, then you cannot use logically use sympathy as a basis for immigration.  Also, the fact that you feel sorry for them has no bearing on whether anyone has a legal or natural right to be here. 

  I disagree 100% with multiculturalism.  A bar should be set on who is allowed to come here, and on how many can come.  We don’t need continual immigration for the rest of time, neither do we need any additional unskilled labor.  Not all cultures that come here are going to enrich us.  Not all peoples in the world can or should live together.  Only those who are compatible with our culture, way of life, and who are capable of respecting our laws, and who can be self sustaining should be allowed in.

  • 10:15 am
  • 8 Comments