The following is an essay by Beaver, which helps one look at the recent immigration issues the US have been experiencing from a different perspective:
Immigration is a fairly recent reality in human history. Though it has always been possible for people to move from one nation to another, it’s only in the more recent centuries with the development of better means of transport that it has become a significant phenomenon. The ever advancing technology has made it easier and easier to physically move from one destination to another, and better socioeconomic conditions has convinced more advanced nations to facilitate this process for several reasons.
However, too few dare ask: what does a nation stand to gain from immigration? Too often, allowing immigrants in is not seen as something which should be a profitable endeavor, but as a duty of the host nation and a right of the immigrants. My aim here is to deconstruct this perception: A nation should not be obliged to take in immigrants, it should not feel any obligations towards foreign entities except through diplomatic agreements and it should concern itself with its own welfare and that of its citizens before considering that of foreigners. Does this mean immigration should be forbidden? Absolutely not. Not only do I believe that it is quite possible to have constructive immigration but I believe in the concept of freedom of movement, where an individual is free to decide where he wants to go and live, within reason of course.
There are many ways to classify refugees, such as economic, family, refugees, etc. These classifications are meaningless to my argument, except for that of refugee, which I will cover later on. Regardless of their reason, good leaders would always ask themselves: “Does the nation stand to gain from the immigration of these people?” How can we determine this? There are two main aspects to consider in this regard.
First of all, the immigrant’s background. Though different nations have different cultures, some nations are far more alike than others. Immigrants who come from a nation which is very similar to the host nation are likely to have little trouble adapting and integrating themselves. Likewise, the greater the difference, the more difficult the assimilation. Therefore, it is preferable to take immigrants who come from nations where culture and life standards are similar first.
And yes, I speak of assimilation. When an individual moves to another nation, he should not seek to preserve his previous national identity. Refusing to assimilate to the local culture and forming ghettoes is little more than a form of conquest, where a part of the host nation informally becomes the land of another’s. If immigrants cannot assimilate, we obtain multiculturalism, and as I’ve explained before, multiculturalism is undesirable, not to say harmful.
Secondly, one must consider what the immigrant will do in the host country. Is that person going to work? Will they be able to provide for themselves? Are the resources available to support that person? What will they contribute to the society they join? What kind of job will they occupy? An individual whose intention is to live on the good will of the hose nation should never be allowed in.
Before moving on, let me add that the same can be applied to the families of migrants. An individual may be fit for immigration, but if that individual would be unable to support their close ones who move with them, then the outcome for the nation is a loss, and so this person would not be a suitable candidate.
But what about refugees? Don’t we have a moral duty as humans to protect and rescue those in peril?
I say: According to whom? By what standard? And why would it be acceptable to harm your own people to save others, who are sometimes the architects of their own misfortune? No nation has a duty towards any refugees. Rather, it is the nations which these people are fleeing who are to blame, as they are attacking their own citizens. Assigning blame might seem petty and pointless, but it isn’t. The fact is that when there are refugees, the reason for it is war in their home country. And thus the solution to that issue is not to give them a new country, but to end the war in the old one.
This does not however mean that refugees should never be taken in. As before, the same reasoning applies: What does the nation have to gain by letting these people in? However, in the case of refugees, an additional dimension is added as one must consider the harm it would do to the nation they are fleeing. If the refugees’ home nation is an enemy to the host nation, then taking their people away peacefully can in itself be a boon. However, this aspect must still be weighed against the other. Weakening your enemies is pointless if it is done at such an expense to your nation that you grow even weaker than they do.
We can thus see that the question of whether a nation should take in immigrants is far simpler than one would think, and that most nations should be taking in far less than they are right now. So, why? Why are they doing this?
The excuses given are multiple. The first one is that developed countries’ birth rates are too low. Yet why is the solution more immigrants instead of promoting reproduction in the population? Then, we’re told that we are letting in skilled workers in. If we are low on skilled workers, why is the solution more immigrants and not forming more skilled workers at home? Then we’re told, because who cares about contradictions, that it’s because we’re short on unskilled workers as the local population apparently refuses to take those jobs. If so, why is the solution more immigrants, and not better wages and working conditions? And at last, once backed in a corner, the globalist will speak of some imagined duty towards the greater human race, as if it is our duty to accommodate the rest of humanity at our expense.
The true reasons for immigration are multiple, from simple naivety to outright evil. Yet, if I were to determine one common goal for all globalist leaders, it would be that they wish to go back to the days of an ignorant, poor and powerless pseudo-slave worker class. By flooding their nations with immigrants who accept lower wages, longer work days, worse working and life conditions and who won’t complain, they force their population to compete with them, and thus prevent social progress. And by social progress, I don’t mean the immaterial and abstract gobbledygook some would claim as social progress such as brotherly love, “equality” (read: equal representation and outcome) and multiculturalism. I mean concrete, objective progress, such as actual equality (before the law, actual equal opportunity), greater wealth, better life conditions, longer life expectancy, etc. Their hope is to not only stall social progress, but to regress it and return to the days of wealthy aristocracy who had all the rights and no responsibilities while those who worked saw but a meager return on what they actually produced. They want to enslave their population, and mass immigration is one of the means to do it.
And so remember: No nation has any duty towards foreigners. Immigration should only be allowed if the nation has anything to gain from it. And there is no problem in your nation which can be solved by replacing its population with that of another.
Original screen cap: