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.
TrueblueNZ 
6 responses to “Hey Progressives..!! There is a legitimate argument against mass immigration”
An interesting article. There are many very persuasive arguments against mass immigration on economic, social and environmental grounds.
In Australia, we also get the ‘we are a nation of immigrants’ line trotted out by those in favour of continuing mass immigration. This is literally BS, because at no time in the recorded past have the number of immigrants present in Oz exceeded the native born. The truth is that Australia has always been a nation of natives. Yes, we have immigrants in our family trees, but what nation doesn’t? This is unexceptional to the point of banality. Our shared nationality is a uniting force, as opposed to the backward looking dogma of multiculturalism, which seeks to define people into perpetuity by the ancestry of their (distant) forebears.
One point of disagreement. You say that ‘socialism’ is driving mass immigration. In Australia and elsewhere, this is misleading. Big business, through it’s libertarian lobby groups (ACCI, BCA etc) openly and constantly argue for more immigration and open borders. They see migrants as a source of cheaper labour and a bigger market. The loyalty of such groups is unquestioningly to the dollar, rather than to their own people. It’s also true that some parts of the Left are in lockstep agreement with this approach – providing an ‘anti-fa’ to give cover to the neo-liberal mass immigration policies of business. At the same time, some trade unions (MUA, CFMEU, AMWU) have spoken out against the worst excesses of 457 visa rorting and other aspects of open borders. They are invariably criticised as racist by both the hipster left and neo-liberal right in unison.
LikeLike
Feminism is cultural Marxism. It has cut off reproduction in the West. Lack of children has an economic impact on socialist ideas. Large scale immigration to NZ for example is an attempt to make up for lack of population growth within the native population. Without this population growth the economic base of socialism would collapse.
Taking that thesis a little further, the fact that native NZers are not producing enough children to sustain socialism is neither here nor there really as the numbers needed are so astronomical women would need to reproduce by the dozens.
Also, newer generations need to work and produce over time. Immigrants bringing in their savings are a shortcut.
A recent report said that by 2060 NZ’s socialist economic status would be totally unsustainable. Key and English were quiet on this issue. I suspect because they saw massive immigration as the only possible way to save this collapse, but were reluctant to say it publicly.
I don’t believe in behind closed door conspiracy theories around capitalism. Working in a capitalist industry, I know how unlikely this is. However I do believe in socialist cronyism, because it is there in stark relief everywhere you look.
I also know that large scale immigration is the only possible/ potential way to maintain NZ’s socialist system. Its just mathematics.
On the other hand, I can recognise what is frequently referred to as “globalism” as a political means to attack the left wing’s control of labour. Whilst I regret that people are losing their jobs in the West, workers have brought a lot of this upon themselves by allowing communist subversives in the so called labour movement to exploit them. I acknowledge that there is a political force trying to break the power of these unions. Globalism is a big part of those efforts.
LikeLike
I wonder what you mean by ‘behind closed doors conspiracy theories about capitalism’? Personally I don’t think there’s anything closed door about capitalism’s anti-national agenda. Most of the business lobby groups in Australia are explicit about their aims. These include absolute free trade, including the ability of multinational corporations to sue governments over laws that damage their corporate interests. If you have a look at who was openly backing the TPP (now thankfully dead in the water) it’s not communist unions. It’s big-business lobby groups. Ditto mass immigration. It’s the Conzinc Rio Tinto’s of the world that want an Oz population of 50 million, not the MUA.
This is the issue I have with old 1970’s style left vs right arguments. Those on the right are always willing to let big business off the hook for their treasonous behaviour – and blame ‘the left’. But the reality is that there are now two ‘right wings’ and two ‘left wings’.
On the right, you have your standard neo-conservative, globalist corporate sock-puppets. In Australia, this includes the whole of the Coalition, including Tony Abbott. In the US, they’re starting to call these people ‘cuckservatives’. They wrap themselves in the flag come election time but sell out their people without a second thought if patriotic policy might cost a business somewhere a few bucks.
Then you have an alternative right, or alt-right. These folks hold on to classic right wing values, but aren’t afraid to lash the cucks for their globalism and lack of national (which they often conflate with racial) solidarity. They are – in many ways – genuinely conservative. They may agree with the cucks on issues around regulation and taxation, but are fundamentally nationalist, rather than internationalist. In Oz, there are a few nationalist groups/people that would fall into this category, including The Dingoes (dingoes.xyz) and possibly Mark Latham.
On the left you have your internationalist post-modern personal identity wonks. The sorts who think safe spaces and LGBQWERTY rights are ‘socialism’. This includes the entire ALP and virtually the whole organised Left in this country. They disagree with the right on regulation, tax etc, but are united with the cucks in their internationalist outlook. The fact that the labour share of GDP has been falling since the 1980’s in almost every OECD country doesn’t register with these hipsters – shareholders are OK as long as they buy fair trade lattes. They suck as much as the cucks, in my book.
You also have a very small but growing alt-left. We are left of centre on economic issues but reject the SJW posturing and personal identity politics of the internationalist left. We’re nationalists. We’d put tariffs back tomorrow (as would some of the alt-right, but for different reasons). We like MMT and post-Keynesian economics. We think the ‘Invisible Hand’ is a crock. Ditto Ayn Rand. We’d end mass immigration and multiculturalism. We look to people like Arthur Calwell and John Curtin as Australian nationalists with a labour focus. We would respectfully disagree with your view that ‘globalism’ and socialism go hand in hand, instead arguing that the single biggest driver of globalism is international business and the neo-conservative economics it fosters.
The important aspect of all this is that the two nationally focussed ‘alt’s’ have much in common. If we can secure our national futures, free of the globalist agendas of left and right, we can still have our debates about tax and regulation as time goes on. But we have to get past the old left v right thinking, which will tie us to the hipsters forever (kill me now) and you guys to the stagnant swamp of the cucks. Our nations deserve better.
LikeLike
“I wonder what you mean by ‘behind closed doors conspiracy theories about capitalism’”
I mean the raving of basement dwelling nutjobs who feed off fantasy and conspiracy and never come into contact with the real world.
If you search here you’ll find my views on the TPP and other trade agreements.
Secondly, whenever someone comes along talking about redefining “old concepts of left and right”, you can bet that in a few sentences they will start talking like jack booted grey suited commie stooges from East Berlin circa 1959.
The battle is very simple. You either want to take power from individuals and give it to govt, or you want to take power from govt and give it to individuals.
I’m a Constitutional Conservative, meaning I think the American Constitution is the greatest document ever written, and when govt is carried out in accordance with that constitution, it is best.
All govt that contravenes the principles expounded within the Constitution is bad. EOS.
I’m not interested in ignorant of history thousand word essays of introverted navel gazing gibberish, full of the latest buzzwords, and that twists and turns so badly it reads like psychobabble.
You either support a govt restrained by the Constitution (or similar ideas) or you don’t. Its that simple.
LikeLike
Best of luck with your endeavours then..
LikeLike
TY, and you too.
LikeLike