Here’s a rare college student who has sane and sensible ideas about immigration.
In an e-mail to VDare, he recounts his discussion with a politically correct fellow student on the issue of Trump’s proposed ban on Moslem immigration.
‘He was parroting comments made by Hillary Clinton and members of the MSM that such inflammatory remarks have made Trump ISIS’ biggest recruiter, as it alienates Muslims and makes them more prone to radicalization. And so I asked him, “so what?” Why should we care if our immigration policies antagonize foreigners thousands of miles away, or even nearby for that matter?’
What else do these ‘social justice warrior’ types ever do but parrot the official party line on anything? Most have never had an original thought or opinion in their lives. Maybe they are congenitally incapable of independent thought, or have had the capacity ‘educated’ out of them. But his non-PC interlocutor asked him a very good question: why should we care if others outside our country are antagonized or even if their feelings are hurt? To make policy based on what people on the other side of the world think of it, or of us, is to essentially give them a say in our country’s policies. And maybe some think that ”democracy” means giving every human being on the planet a say in what we do. But to give their opinions more weight than those of native-born citizens? That’s crazy, and wrong. Do other countries do so? Only the Western, historically White countries — and only in the era after the cultural Marxists have gained control of our educational system and our media (as well as ‘our’ government).
The counter-argument made by the leftist student was that we are just ‘radicalizing’ Moslems by talking of banning Moslem immigration, and thus strengthening ISIS. We’ve all heard this kind of ‘argument.’ But the obvious reply to it is: if they are so likely to be ‘radicalized’ against us, and to be more inclined to attack us, you’ve just made further argument FOR excluding them — because the obvious thing to do is not to welcome people who are potential ‘enemies within’, or people who will forever demand that we continue to enact Moslem-friendly policies — or else. Or else they will get all militant and possibly harm us. As if they haven’t done so many times since 9/11, and as if many planned attacks have not been discovered and thwarted.
But it’s the same with all immigration: the more immigrants we allow in, the more pressure is on us from the immigrants already here, or their voting descendants, to continue to let in more of their fellow-nationals. If we even think of limiting, much less banning, immigration from someone’s country of origin or ancestral country, of stopping ‘chain migration’, then we have a powerful ethnic lobby agitating against it. We also have elected officials from foreign countries (such as Mexico) lecturing us on how we are horrible racists for trying to simply curtail illegal immigration from their country. It seems they have a vested interest in sending millions of their citizens North to ‘enrich’ us.
Now we have two men of recent Cuban immigrant origin running for President.
The immigration-patriot student who wrote the e-mail to VDare sums it up:
“I then asked if allowing Muslim immigration, or any immigration for that matter, is akin to a pact with the devil. Once begun, are we compelled to maintain the same immigration policy for fear of upsetting the foreigners that we have imported?”
The short answer: YES.
If we let ourselves be dominated.