Suicidal

When Donald Trump proposed that we put immigration on selected predominantly Muslim countries on 'pause,' he was branded a "racist," "a Nazi," and worse by virtually every Democrat and their supporters, along with their trained hamsters in the media. We were told that his proposal somehow conflicted with our "values," that we are a nation of immigrants, that it's very wrong because ... racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia. The courts seems to agree, using perceived intent, rather that clearly defined law and precedent to rule against him. The Supreme Court will weigh in soon.

So why not allow unconstrained immigration? After all, progressives dream of open borders in which the downtrodden across the world come to our shores for a better life. We did that in the past, didn't we?

Actually, we did not. Immigration has always been controlled, and entry to our country was always viewed as a privilege, not a right.

An experiment in quasi-open immigration is on-going in Europe. Douglas Murray discusses this when he writes:

Today the great migration [into Europe] is off the front pages. Yet it goes on. On an average weekend nearly 10,000 people arrive on Italian reception islands alone. Where do they go? What do they expect? And what do we expect of them?

To find the answer to these and other questions it is necessary to ask deeper questions. Why did Europe decide it could take in the poor and dispossessed of the world? Why did we decide that anybody in the world fleeing war, or just seeking a better life, could come to Europe and call it home?

The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result ...

It is often argued that our societies are old, with a graying population, and so we need immigrants ...

When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.

All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.

So as we watch a Europe beset by an immigrant population that stresses its social welfare system to the breaking point; often demands separatism, not assimilation; questions the laws of a free society and wants them replaced by the laws from their own culture (e.g., Sharia), and yes, foments a small percentage of extremists who encourage and/or commit terrorism, it's reasonable to ask whether the United States wants to go down the same path. Progressives (and some GOP elites) tell us we must, but 20 years ago, progressives also told us that socialist changes in Venezuela were a good thing, something to be celebrated. In that case, the result led to a failed country. It's reasonable to ask whether their current advice is sound.

Murray concludes his article with this:

The migration policies of the political and other elites of Europe suggest that they are suicidal. The interesting thing to watch in the years ahead will be whether the publics join them in that pact. I wouldn’t bet on it.

Trump is not wrong when he suggests that immigration into the United States be controlled and vetted. That is not anti-immigrant. It's simply common sense.

Going slow is a far better strategy than following the lead of the Europeans. I suspect that the vast majority of Americans support that view. The big question is whether the political elites will have us follow the "suicidal" path of Europe, with the same negative effects in the coming decades.