Debate in Europe framing illegal immigration from the third world as a problem is “dangerous”, the United Nations (UN) refugee chief has warned, insisting that the mass movement of peoples has been “a source of progress and prosperity since people first began to migrate”.
As Africa’s population doubles, a lot of them, whatever the circumstances, will becoming to Europe as economic migrants or as refugees. They will be coming – many of them and that is a good thing if they come into a place with an open mind and those economies are doing well because we will be senile. We will be senescent demographically. We’ll need their youthful energy to do stuff. So, that is just what the economic statistics tell you and the demographic data demands, you know… and demography is destiny.
The future of the West is touted as transnational progressivism (per John Fonte): a borderless, nation-less land-mass, across whose surface all humanity will be free to roam and free to consume wealth, stability and peace. The vanguard of this dystopia is multiculturalism. Few notice the monster hiding inside this political face of plurality — namely, the failed state.
The failure begins with hyper-ethnicity, or romanticized tribalism, whereby people cling harder to identity politics by becoming “billboards” of “their culture.” Such displays are not in the manner of dress or exoticism of food but in the habit of mind.
To be fair, this loyalism is required of minorities who are rewarded with power and position, if they live up to expectations by being hyper-ethnic. Again, as with all Leftist ideologies, a utopia is pursued while reality is ignored.
Maxime Bernier ignited his latest political firestorm when he used his Twitter account to criticize the “cult of diversity” perpetually promoted by the federal Liberals. If he had a valid point in there somewhere it was not helped by his unfair comments about “people who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto” that “don’t make our society strong.”
Most immigrants coming to Canada want to build a new life in a free and democratic society, escaping tyranny, prejudice or poor economic circumstances. Their local ethnic communities help them get adjusted to their new home. But it is nonetheless true that Canada faces a real test in maintaining national identity when so many people come from disparate backgrounds, and in avoiding problems that occur with ethnic conflict.
It seems that public conversations about immigration, diversity and especially multiculturalism are verboten in Canada. To mention the advantages of integration, on any tone, in any manner, smacks of colonialism, it seems.
When have we become fearful of confronting in the public square issues that are openly discussed in people’s homes and places of work? Why are a German chancellor and a British prime minister able to question the benefits of multiculturalism without being called racists while we go crazy when an elected Member of Parliament does the same thing in a series of tweets?
Spain must open its borders to more than five million migrants over the coming decades in order to fund the pension system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has declared.
According to the organisation, which is led by arch-globalist Christine Lagarde, the Mediterranean nation must welcome 5.5 million migrants before 2050 in order to ease dependency ratio woes which can result from an ageing population.
On Sunday evening, Quebec MP Maxime Bernier posted a six-tweet thread on ‘extreme multiculturalism’ that has set off a political maelstrom in Canada, a country that seems no longer accustomed to hearing the truth from its political leaders.
Just like that, with the snap of a finger, a moral panic washed over the chattering classes. Someone said something about diversity and multiculturalism. And it was something that didn’t entirely fall within the officially sanctioned boundaries of how we’re supposed to talk about those issues.
Sound the alarm! Man the ramparts! Wrongthink brigade, attack!
Although the “progressive left” fetishizes open borders for its own sake, they nevertheless festoon their arguments with economic ornamentation in an attempt to convince fiscally-minded fence-sitters. Usually, their ploy fails.
But every once in a while a seemingly convincing argument is made. Ruchir Sharma’s piece in the New York Times, entitled “To Be Great Again, America Needs Immigrants,” is one such piece. Not only does Sharma rely on uncontested data, but his logic seems solid. But looks can be deceiving. Sharma’s argument suffers from two main problems: Sharma misunderstands how economies grow, and he conflates gross domestic product (GDP) with prosperity.
For decades, the big business lobby, ideologically globalist politicians, and economists have claimed that the only route to increasing the United States’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is through increasing legal immigration levels.
Like the concerned locals of Britain and, increasingly, of Europe, who every day must confront a new world not of their making, many Australians also feel something fundamental has changed. To put that sentiment in a few words, ‘We have lost our country’
The most frequently used description of America by those who advocate for large numbers of immigrants — those here legally or illegally — is “America is a nation of immigrants.”
The statement sounds meaningful. But in reality, it’s meaningless. What else could America be? If no one had come to America from elsewhere, the North American continent would have remained populated only by its indigenous people — which is what many on the left wish had happened. As the late Howard Zinn, author of “A People’s History of the United States,” the most widely used American history text in high schools and universities, said to me, the world was not better off thanks to the founding of America.