03 August 2014


Let's take illegal immigration from first principles. First we must dispense with a couple of arguments. If a person is fleeing their native land because of political strife or war with no intention of assimilating into the nations they are fleeing TO; they are a refugee not an immigrant. If a person moves from their native land to a foreign on with no intention of becoming assimilated and becoming a citizen of their new land; they are a colonist not an immigrant.

Words mean something. Otherwise the USMC recently emigrated to Afghanistan.

Just as the smallest minority is the individual, that which is immoral for an individual is immoral for the group. It's immoral for me to break into your house and demand you let me live there and that you support me. Nothing about breaking into a sovereign nation makes it moral.

It is moral for me to shoot someone who's broken into my home. It would, likewise, be moral to shoot anyone illegally crossing a nation's borders. Declare it a prima facie case of espionage and shoot them as spies. Legal under several international agreements the US is a signatory to. Any lesser response is an example of our charitable natures and kindness. But note, that even if I decide to not shoot the person who's invaded my home, I'm still under no obligation to shelter and feed them. I may evict or eject them from my home at whim.

Let's go back a bit. A refugee is in exile, effectively. It is compassionate to help them out until they can return home. They likely want to as well. There's nothing immoral or racist about placing them in centralized locations (camps).  There is also nothing immoral about noticing and deciding that you cannot survive supporting such a population and closing your home/border to them.  It is important to note that once the conflict that drives the refugee to flee ends, they go home.

None of this is racist. When the group self selects the response to it is not and cannot be racial. If a black man breaks into my house and I shoot him, it's not because he was black that he was shot!

Now let us discuss the colonist.  They move into a foreign land with the intent of remaining a citizen of their former land and force changes onto the natives of that land.  Special consideration is demanded and through threats of violence the natives are coerced into compliance until the natives are absorbed or displaced by the colonists.

Now that we have the basic principles addressed.  A nation has the right to seal its borders and refuse entry to anyone for any or no reason.  A nation also has a right to allow a defined number of people enter to become citizens, to visit to see the sights to conduct business, etc...  Those rights all stem from the same rights a home-holder has to allow or disallow people into their home.

The main reason that there are limits assigned to the number of people who can enter a nation to emigrate is the speed of assimilation.  Because it's no longer permitted to be rude to people assimilation is even slower.  Notice that in less than two generations the only way to tell someone was Irish or Italian descended is their last name.  Can we say that of Mexicans as a whole?  Something that caused the Micks and the WOPs to assimilate was the only route out of their squalor ridden enclaves was to become like the surrounding natives, and they were forced to.  Immigrants are rarely so forced today because of cries of racism and bigotry.  The foreigners trespassing have all the rights and powers in the interactions with them.

Most of the time I am not asking for anything worse than happened to my ancestors.

Finding a Mexican-American who's fully assimilated today is no more a proof that there isn't a problem with the massive numbers pouring over the border than finding a hold-out Italian in a ghetto in early 20th century New York proves that assimilation doesn't work.

This is why I predict a violent response sooner rather than later.  Predicting it is not wishing it were so.  I often say that I am Cassandra.  I suggest lesser actions which will lead to a solution to the problem and am castigated for it.  I am insulted for looking at the problem for what it is rather than what I wish it to be, for blaming those at fault and not reviling the actual victims.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.