Thursday, August 21, 2014

Reuben Chapple: Illegal Immigration

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.


Barry said...

The NZ government states an estimated number of Pacific Islander illegal overstayers but doesn't round them up and boot them out! Why not?

Brian said...

Excellent analysis.
Now that the Australian PM has institution a tough immigration policy. (His next step must deport them back) It follows that before long we here in New Zealand, will receive boatloads of illegal immigrants.
These will be welcomed by our liberal elements as future political voters.
What will be New Zealand's political reaction to these immigrants? An belated appeal to the U.N.?
Which as per usual will fall upon deaf ears and this country will signal its liberal intentions as a place of welfare refuge for all illegal migrants.
The Western Nations have to rid themselves of this over tolerance and concern for the world's benighten millions.
They are clever and wealthy enough to bribe their way to our shores; knowing full well our over liberal welfare system will ensure a good life for all.

Peter said...

Fantastically well articulated, Reuben. I especially liked your para warning against a nation defined by its special character, becoming a slew of different groups pulling in different directions. Witness the nightmarish task now faced by Britain in trying to meld some immigrant groups into the wider British society.
In the wider context of NZ's present immigration policy, I would like to see more vigorous recruitment of young families from mainland Europe. Peoples of these nations share our core values and norms and assimilate readily into our culture.

Charles said...

Good article. When Europeans came to NZ they found coal, iron ore, sulphur, silica.....all the things required to make life comfortable. They also found a stone age society hell bent on killing each other's tribes in order to survive. The knowledge to use the environment is based on intelligent application of empiricism. If it works, use it and progress that knowledge.
Western cultures have done this superbly. Other cultures less so. Do we need to introduce primitives into NZ with the devastating consequences witnessed overseas?
Their equally primitive and uncompromising religions threaten our way of life to an unacceptable level.
The question needs to be asked: if we allow someone into NZ, how will they benefit us and what will they bring with them that will enrich our lives? I fear that those how have been coming here in droves these past few years would have great difficulty in justifying their being here.

paul scott said...

Reuben, I found NZ Immigration pretty tight. I did not mind jumping through the hoops to allow enter Thai wife [ joke is enter Thai wife ]
We can see now how incredibly important it is to keep border control. If we can not control the borders then well you know. That is why I disapprove of foreign ownership, or partisan ownership of large tracts of land especially coast . And that is why this issue will be crucial [ once again],in this election

Pavlov's Cat. said...

Ancient Rome was ultimately destroyed from within by adopting a lax immigration policy