Immigration Watch International (2): The Moral Case for border control

Sunday, February 4, 2024

The Moral Case for border control

Every year of Joe Biden’s administration, more than 100,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses. That’s nearly 300 Americans dying every day. Much of this tragedy can be traced back to the deadly Chinese fentanyl that is coming across the southern border.

Imagine for a moment that one Boeing 757 with approximately 300 people on board crashed every single day. That would be a national emergency.

A door blew off a jet recently, and everyone was justifiably upset. Federal bureaucrats jumped into action. Well, what do you think we would be doing if one passenger jet crashed, killing everyone on board, day after day after day?

That’s essentially what’s happening with the epidemic of drug overdoses that is fueled by the left’s open borders policies. But our elites and the neo-Marxist left won’t do a thing to stop it.

Many of the people dying from illegal drugs are working-class folks who were barely hanging on. This is part of a phenomenon that became known as “deaths of despair.”

But we know what leftist elites think of them. Barack Obama called them “bitter clingers.” Hillary Clinton called them “deplorable and irredeemable.” Joe Biden, who has yet to visit East Palestine, Ohio, called them “semi-fascist.”

In a number of states, Democrats have managed to camouflage themselves enough to get elected. One of the most disappointing examples occurred just this past November when a solid conservative candidate for governor lost in Kentucky.

Where are the Democrat governors and senators on the border crisis? They’re AWOL. That’s because the Democrat Party is increasingly neo-Marxist. Anyone playing in that sandbox claiming to be a “moderate” is lying or delusional.

At the same time, Republicans who say they are “tired of all the drama” need to understand what they are saying. Drama is what happens when a conservative seriously fights the left’s “fundamental transformation of America.”

Democrats love “no drama” Republicans because it means those Republicans really aren’t fighting at all against open borders, trade policies that hurt American workers, threats to religious liberty and the radical indoctrination in our schools.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/103981-the-moral-case-2024-01-30

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Sunday, February 4, 2024

The Moral Case for border control

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors