I just read this article, and I had to say something. The article is titled “Look at This Photo And Tell Me Immigration Laws Are Just,” and the author is Dylan Matthews. The photo he shows is of a small Spanish enclave in Morocco, and Moroccans, or possibly black Africans, trying to climb the wall to get into Spain.
He proceeds to argue that we should allow 3rd world immigrants to stay, legal or otherwise, because it helps them to be in our countries:
If they make it over, and are allowed to stay, the migrants will do not just a little better, but much, much better. Maybe not seven times better, but that number is not far off. It’s pretty firmly established that workers in developed countries make much more than workers in developing countries doing identical labor.
And he continues to say:
So why don’t we let people stay? It’s kind of unclear. The case that immigration hurts rich countries like the US or Spain economically is so weak that even opponents tend not to make it. The case that it hurts low-skilled workers is heavily disputed and, in any case, addressable through transfer programs within rich countries. The economic case against immigration only makes sense if you’re willing to put negative weight on the well-being of foreigners.
Not only does he fail to address the arguments, but he also fails to understand them and the basis behind them. He is also unaware of the arguments, and he engages in red-herring with the asinine remark of putting “negative weight on the well-being of foreigners.” The well-being of foreigners is not part of the argument, one way or another.
The reason why we have borders and countries is because humanity consists of many sub-groups. Borders exist to so that different people groups can engage in self-rule and determine their own destiny. If one people group rules over another, than the people group being ruled over does not have self-rule, and thus have no control over their destiny. They are at the mercy of their overlords. This is a very simple concept which anyone with an IQ above 70 should be able to grasp. Our sovereignty is undermined by a constant unabated influx of foreigners.
If group X immigrates into the territory of group Y, and group X eventually becomes the majority, then group Y will inevitably lose control of their own territory. There will now be two territories which belong to group X, and group Y will be dispossessed. Every group has a vested interest in maintaining themselves as a majority in their territory, so that they can continue with their culture, lifestyle, standard of living, etc.
But coming back to Dylan, only a complete fool would think that adding a large influx of unskilled foreign workers is not going to hurt domestic workers. If Wallmart only has ten openings, and there are 20 people applying then adding 100 more applicants is going to decrease everyone in that pool’s chance of getting one of those ten openings. Why will an employer suddenly have more money to hire more people just because more people show up overnight? The fact is he won’t, but unwanted competition for limited jobs is only part of the problem.
The bigger problem is the ghettoization of the 1st world. Flooding the 1st world with 3rd worlders is not going to uplift the 3rd world, nor will it in any way uplift the 1st world. In the short term it may help some a few unscrupulous businessmen get a little fatter by hiring illegals who they don’t have to pay minimum wage to, but this is undermined as soon as the 3rd worlders are granted any sort of legal status, whether it be work permits or citizenship, and the problem remains.
Stepping into a 1st world country does not magically turn a 3rd worlder into a 1st worlder. If that were the case then there would be no difference in crime rates based on race and ethnicity. There would also be no difference in birth rates, academic performance, income, or welfare usage.
Let’s be real, the entire first world was created by whites, Asians, and Jews. Not everyone wants to face this reality, but no one can name a 1st world country which was not founded by one of those groups. Whether this is because we have superior values, or because we have a genetic predisposition to higher intelligence is hard to say. The matter has yet to be thoroughly studied scientifically, but the fact is that our birthrates are lower than those of 3rd world people, and we already know what sort of systems and countries the 3rd worlders build. All we have to do is look at any country where 3rd worlders are the majority to see what will become of our countries should they ever become the majority. We cannot allow them to flood in and stay, or we will lose everything from self-rule to the relatively peaceful and secure lifestyles we enjoy.
What benefits 3rd worlders draw from being in our countries are thoroughly irrelevant. We have nothing to gain from 3rd world cultures and conditions being duplicated in our own neighborhoods. We can do without the gangs, the violence, the honor killings, and the diseases. I don’t want Muslims, who think forced marriages and forced conversions are OK as neighbors. I also don’t want Mexican gangs, or people who think that aids can be cured by raping a virgin for neighbors. I don’t want to live next to an Ebola patient either.
Any leftist who reads this will most certainly call me racist, and will say that it’s because of white oppression that the 3rd world is the 3rd world. In fact, Dylan even hints at that in his article:
THE US SPENDS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR ON ARMED GUARDS AND PLANES AND DRONES TO MAKE SURE THE GLOBAL POOR STAY POOR
It’s a typical, tired out, leftist refrain. White oppression… Japan got hit with two nukes, how is that for oppression? How many nukes did Nigeria get hit with? The Jews were oppressed for over 1000 years, and had their country razed multiple times, and were exiled multiple times. Does that count as oppression? Obviously oppression isn’t the answer, and any person who looks at the facts objectively will realize this. Even if the white man were responsible for keeping the 3rd world backwards, then that would only mean the third world was incompetent for letting themselves be run over by a relatively small people group. If they had been more industrious they would have no need, or grounds, for blaming others for their problems.
Look at the picture. The grass is literally greener on the Spanish side of the fence, whereas the Moroccan side looks so much worse. When two people groups do radically different things with the same land (or any other resource for that matter) it instantly speaks of comparative industriousness and ingenuity, which then leads into implications about relative intelligence and/or morality. I’m not saying that there are no intelligent 3rd worlders, or that they are completely hopeless. But the fact is, until the 3rd world develops to the point where they become our equals they have no business being in our countries, or at least the bulk of them do not. Their countries should look like ours in terms of cleanliness and quality of life before we let any but the most intelligent and moral (if any) of them to come in. Allowing 3rd world peasants to stay in the 1st world (especially those who arrive illegally) is like giving a man a promotion for doing a bad job. It makes no sense. Be a good steward of what you have and you will get more, be a poor steward and what little you have will be taken away.
Until the 3rd world comes up to our level they are not culturally compatible with us, and the result of them becoming the majority in our countries will be a net loss for us and for humanity as a whole.