Socialists are not nationalists, they’re internationalists. And they know that the nation state operates as a prophylactic against the “world-mindedness” they mean to encourage.
Their underlying agenda is to collapse the nation state into a global multi-culture, then argue that since we’re all one world now anyway, a one-world government is “for the best.”
For leftists, the border controls and immigration laws protecting nation states against outsiders who simply want to move in are something to be undermined, circumvented, and ultimately removed altogether.
This is analogous to encouraging people living next door to a more upmarket home to jump the fence and take up residence without the consent of its owner, with the owner then obliged to let them stay as long as they want to, while supporting them indefinitely from his own pocket.
Just as we have and enforce laws to prevent trespass and home invasion, so, too, we have immigration laws, to ensure that only appropriately vetted invitees get to live here.
Leftists focus on the "plight" of those who have broken immigration laws, rather than on upholding the law itself. It needs to be pointed out loudly and often that immigration laws exist for the benefit of the people of a nation state, not for the benefit of people in other countries who might want to live there.
Merely using the word "illegal" to describe those breaking immigration laws is held up by leftists as mean-spiritedness and racism. By implication, the alleged past sins of Western peoples now obliges them to admit all comers by way of atonement.
In point of fact, countries, like people, are typically poor not because of what others have done to them, but because of what they haven’t done for themselves.
There’s a simple explanation for First World prosperity. And contrary to the Communist-derived narrative prevailing among our intellectual elites, it’s not because the West has “exploited” the Second and Third World from which most of its immigrants now come.
Many of those countries have abundant natural resources. They also have corrupt economic and political systems that prevent those resources being used to better the grinding poverty which drives anyone who can get out to seek a better life elsewhere.
Tolerating illegal immigration means that illegal immigrants and their leftist enablers get to make the call about what kinds of people enter Western countries and become part of their populations, irrespective of whether their skills, attitudes and behaviours are actually wanted by the people of those countries.
Importing people means you also import their cultures. Those cultures no longer feel obliged to assimilate because they’re not required to. The leftist avatars of “multiculturalism” instead force the West’s laws, language, and culture to defer to, or at least accommodate growing alien enclaves in its midst.
The irreversible decision to permanently add large numbers of people -- and their incompatible cultures -- to a nation state should be determined by those who already live there, not by a self-anointed intellectual elite with an subversive agenda they’re not telling everyone else about.
A nation is more than just a collection of whoever happens to live within its borders. Something has to unite those people if a country is not to slide into a slew of competing groups, all pulling in different directions
Unity and patriotism protect our rights and freedoms against international socialism and its one-world government agenda. Open borders, unenforced immigration laws, and mass-scale immigration from countries whose cultures are not a good fit with the West’s are dangerous currents that erode national solidarity.
No nation can absorb unlimited numbers of people from another culture without jeopardising its own culture, particularly when leftists in the education system, media, and politics are busily promoting group separatism, resentment and polarisation.
Here’s one example of how a leftist media slants the news on the question of border controls and immigration laws.
Recent news reports about a container-load of 35 Afghan illegals (22 adults and 13 children, including a baby) found at Tilbury Docks, England, referred to those hidden inside as “victims of people-trafficking” and “migrants.”
Aided by leftist “civil rights” lawyers, the Afghans have since claimed asylum in Great Britain, on the grounds that they’re minority Sikhs persecuted by a Muslim majority.
If this is the case, why didn’t they simply pay the traffickers to take them across neighbouring Pakistan and into India, where 83 percent of the world’s Sikhs live in the Northern Indian state of Punjab?
In showing up in England, these people are not migrants but illegal immigrants. They have no civil rights, because those are for citizens. Nor are they “victims” of people-trafficking.
Far from being victims, the Afghan illegals paid large sums of money to jump the queue and attempt to sneak into another country without following due process as set out in that nation’s immigration laws. They are in fact uninvited economic migrants, not legitimate asylum seekers.
If legal benefits are to be conferred on illegal immigrants at the drop of a hat, Western nations may as well abandon any pretence that they have an immigration policy.
Far from being allowed to stay, these people should be immediately repatriated to their country of origin and the cost billed back to its government.