If you can't cull downstream, shutting off the flow is the only option
Posted by aogWednesday, 01 March 2006 at 18:48 TrackBack Ping URL

This post at the Brothers Judd got to me thinking about dealing with immigrants and assimilation. The Canadians are apparently considering loyalty oaths for potential immigrants. This is the standard response of the beaurocratic mind, which is that if things aren’t working, what is needed is more regulations and more putatively affirmation of the regulations. This approach is likely to be as effective as passing a law saying it’s a bad thing to disobey some other law.

But when you see pictures like this, you are forced to consider the fact that not all immigrants can or will assimilate, by which we mean accepting the fundamental values of the host nation. What is to be done about such people?

Two thoughts come to mind. The first is that if, in our politically correct culture, we are incapable of punishing immigrants who openly call for murder, mayhem and the destruction of the host society, then the rational reaction of the citizenry is to restrict immigration because that is then the only way to stop them is to stop everyone. It doesn’t require (as certain webloggers claim) bigotry or racism, or even the belief that most immigrants are like that. It requires only the belief that nothing can or will be done about those who are. In many ways it is similar to the job schlerosis in restricted economies. If employers can’t fire people, no matter what, the natural result is lack of hiring. Protect immigrants from the consequences of their actions and there will be much more support for restricting immigration.

Which leads to the second thought, which is that cracking down on the moonbats is not only good for the host country, but good for the non-moonbat immigrants by removing trouble makers from their communities and improving the overall image of the immigrants. In particular, the Islamic immigrants would benefit strongly from the deportation of the moonbats for the previous reasons and because it would set limits on how un-assimilated those immigrants could be. If there moderate voices in those communities, those would be better able to represent the community once the ravers were silenced.

In the end, though, I am left wondering why Western elites are so unwilling to confront immigrants who misbehave. As someone noted, the British government could provide 500 police officers to protect the people with the signs mentioned above, but not one officer to protect a newspaper from being attacked. The citizenry will not unreasonably view this as special privileges for immigrants. Could it be that the elites have a nativist view of immigrants and honestly don’t see a difference between these and the majority who are hard working and law abiding?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
cjm Thursday, 02 March 2006 at 13:56

which kind of immigrant plays a more prominent role in the personal fantasies of the leftists manning the beaureaucratic battlements ?

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 02 March 2006 at 14:02

“Personal fantasies of the leftist bureaucrats…” — there’s a swamp with no bottom.

Post a comment