Many on the left condemn opposition to mass immigration as “racist”. This is an absurd allegation for many reasons and I’ll explain why below. Libertarians often join the left in this condemnation although for different reasons. They say restrictions on immigration will stunt economic growth.
The NZ National Party kind of supports the Libertarian view, although with them its really pragmatism over principle. John Key and his hopeless socialist acolytes know that without a massive inflow of foreign capital driving consumerism and the real estate market, their extravagant and reckless socialist budgets would drown in a sea of red ink.
National party supporters often label dissent as racist too, or though the word xenophobic seems to be more favoured. Perhaps because its got a few more letters, something that appeals to the half educated hipsters that make up the younger factions in the party and chase “cool” as if their life depends on it.
Mark Levin has been a political mentor of mine through his books and radio show for 15 years or more. He spoke at the US CPAC conference yesterday and as only Levin can do, laid out the case against mass immigration clearly and succinctly. He successfully rebutted the progressive argument that “we are a nation of immigrants” by stating that we are in fact a nation of citizens. He’s not against immigration. In fact I don’t know anyone who is.
What Levin is against is mass uncontrolled immigration that does not allow migrants time to assimilate into the culture of the host country. Without this time you basically have invasion, where the newcomers set up enclaves marked by different cultural perceptions and habits, and these enclaves grow and grow until they compete with traditional culture for space and political representation. Balkanisation is only a matter of time.
The point is that in countries that have established cultures based on western values of individual freedom and democracy, immigration must only occur at a rate that enables assimilation. Otherwise the traditional culture is threatened and may even be overcome, as is illustrated by events in the UK and France, for only two examples.
Socialist political polices as practiced in NZ by Labour and National (too spineless and bereft of principle to turn back any of the left’s key anchor policies) have put NZ in a parlous economic position. The same goes for most other countries in the west. Mass immigration is demanded to shore up economies against the fiscal damage caused by socialist policies.
Very little thought has been given to the downside, but it is an inescapable fact that a flood of migrants who do not assimilate will compete with the traditional culture. This is the danger the Nationals and so many other socialists (and Libertarians ignore). If we lose the principles that established our free and democratic society,and that so many lives have been lost defending in so many wars, then what have we gained?
Immigration is fine but its happening far too quickly and with far too little care for its overall impact. Socialism drives this unwelcome operation. We must stop big spending governments, restore individual responsibility, and get our budgets in order. Surely this is a preferable alternative to the selling out of our cultural heritage. The heritage that made immigrants want to leave their own countries and come here in the first place.