Author Topic: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments  (Read 1384 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2021, 09:10:07 pm »
OLD CONTENT contd.

Some anti-immigration arguments I've heard recently:

[1]: Prevent cartels from getting in.

As if they won't just come up with new ways to smuggle in drugs, which is something they've been used to doing for decades now.

[2]: Save billions of taxdollars.

Which is stupid because I can't imagine how building one of the longest walls in human history and consistently MAINTAINING IT would save billions.

---

"new ways to smuggle in drugs"

E.g. drones. And who invented drones?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#History

Quote
Israel developed the first UAV with real-time surveillance.

"Save billions of taxdollars."

Which they can then give to Israel so that Israel can invent even more advanced machines that we never asked for.

---

A weak version of my longstanding line of argument has finally gone mainstream:

www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/opinion/immigration-reparations.html

Quote
Why Should Immigrants ‘Respect Our Borders’? The West Never Respected Theirs
...
There is a lot of debate these days about whether the United States owes its African-American citizens reparations for slavery. It does. But there is a far bigger bill that the United States and Europe have run up: what they owe to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order, for the excess carbon they have dumped into the atmosphere.
...
Before you ask them to respect our borders, ask yourself: Has the West ever respected anyone’s borders?
...
Immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries. Britain should have quotas for Indians and Nigerians; France for Malians and Tunisians; Belgium for very large numbers of Congolese.


And when they come, they should be allowed to bring their families and stay — unlike the “guest workers” who were enticed to build up the postwar labor force of the colonizers and then asked to leave when their masters were done exploiting them.
...
Just as there is a carbon tax on polluting industries, there should be a “migration tax” on the nations who got rich while emitting greenhouse gases. The United States is responsible for one-third of the excess carbon in the atmosphere; Europe, another one-quarter. A hundred million refugees fleeing hurricanes and droughts will have to be resettled by the end of the century. The United States should take a third, and Europe another quarter.
...
What is good immigration policy for the United States is separate from what is just and moral for the peoples whose destiny America, past and present, has affected. It might make economic sense for the United States to let in more skilled Indians and fewer unskilled Latinos, but America owes them more, and it should open its doors more to its southern neighbors.

History is what has happened and can never un-happen; history is happening right now. Attention needs to be paid. So does the bill.

www.suketumehta.com/







Quote
When today’s immigrants are asked, “Why are you here?” they can justly respond, “We are here because you were there.”

Compare with my version:

Quote
A distinguishing feature of leftism is a strong vision of poetic justice. The wish to see victims of oppression redressed and their oppressors finally held to account for their unfair gains is among the most intense of leftist emotions. One development that many sincere leftists thus long to see realized is the demographics of each former Western colonial power coming to resemble the demographics of its historical colonial empire as a whole at the height of its power, in other words the people from the former colonies at last receiving compensation for their past labour for the benefit of the colonial base, by recovering their fair share of the colonial base.

And don't forget my wallet analogy and air conditioner analogy for dealing with rightists:

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/anti-zionist-harvest-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-178416

Wallet analogy:

Quote
“But why would the Refugees want to come to the West, if indeed it is the West that has caused their misery?”

If you steal my wallet and I chase you, would you ask me why I am chasing you if indeed it was you who stole my wallet? (What else do you expect me to do? Chase someone else who didn't steal my wallet?)
...
“Many times, throughout history people have lost their homes and livelihoods but they did not flee, they stayed and rebuilt…Is this not more noble?”

If you steal my wallet, it would be slavish for me to stay (hence letting you get away with the theft unpunished) and merely re-earn the money (so you can steal it again later?). It would be more noble for me to chase you down, kill you and take back my wallet.

Air conditioner analogy:

Quote
“you have said that the Whites are more cruel then say Africans, if that is the case then why would the Africans want to go to the cruel place from which the Whites came from?”

Let me offer another analogy. Suppose you live next door to me, and you install an air conditioner that cools your room by blowing hot air into my room. That is cruel. In this case, should I not want to move into your room? (What else should I do? Install an air conditioner of my own to blow the hot air back into your room and see whose air conditioner is more powerful, which wastes even more energy?)
...
“If Western Civilization is inferior than why would refugees from superior Oriental cultures want to go to the West to be Westernized and become inferior?”

Installing an air conditioner that cools your room by blowing hot air into my room is inferior behaviour. Your room is cooler as a practical consequence of your inferior behaviour, so of course I want to move into your room. I do not become inferior by moving into your room because I wasn’t the one who installed the air conditioner. (I especially do not become inferior if I intend to demolish the air conditioner after entering your room.)

As well as the gun analogy:

http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/anti-zionist-harvest-2018/comment-page-1/#comment-178341

Quote
“you will probably say that the violence and or poverty is cause somehow by the West, then if that is the case why would you want to invite them to the West which has caused the violence and the poverty in their own countries?”

people living in any country which is within target range of another country’s WMDs, but which itself is not equipped with WMDs sufficient to launch a matching counterstrike, are automatically justified in moving into the WMD-armed country as a self-defence measure, no differently than how if someone from across the room points a loaded gun at you (who are unarmed) and you run towards him to grab the gun, you are not attacking him but only defending yourself; if the gunman is injured as a result, it is entirely his fault for pointing the gun at you in the first place.

---

More from This Land Is Our Land:

www.cnbctv18.com/buzz/meet-suketu-mehta-the-balladeer-of-immigration-3971771.htm

Quote
In his stunning new book, ‘This Land is Our Land – An Immigrant’s Manifesto’, Mehta recounts how in the 1980s his maternal grandfather in London was accosted by an elderly British man who lashed out: “Why are you here? Why are you in my country?”

‘“Because we are the creditors,” calmly responded his grandfather, who was born in India, worked all his life in colonial Kenya and was now retired in London. “You took all our wealth, our diamonds. Now we have come to collect.”
...
It is indeed almost a karmic tale of epic proportions, the end result of hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and abuse by the Masters which stripped the home countries of wealth and jobs - and now the exploited are once again on their doorstep, looking for justice, for retribution. As Mehta writes, “This book is being written in sorrow and rage - as well as hope. I am angry: about the staggering global hypocrisy of the rich nations, having robbed the poor ones of their future, now arguing against a reverse movement of peoples – not to invade and conquer and steal, but to work.”
...
“The rich countries have always claimed the freedom to move around the planet, not just to sightsee or seek employment, but to invade, conquer,” he writes. “At airports around the world, the holders of Indian and African passports line up miserable in hours-long lines while their fellow passengers holding American and European passports, gilded passports, swan through immigration.”

I agree. Also:

Quote
Even the terms differ for the rich and poor: brown people, often working in menial or service jobs are called ‘migrants’ while white people, often working as executives or professionals get the exalted title of ‘expats’.

I noticed this long ago too. There actually exist accurate business-language definitions of these terms. If you are an employee of a company in A, and your company sends you to work for them in B, you are an expat. If you move from A to take up employment with a company in B, you are a migrant. But few people use these definitions anymore. Exactly as Mehta writes, I have encountered countless "whites" (almost always Homo Hubris types) fitting the latter description (e.g. ESL teachers) who nevertheless call themselves "expats" (which alone should disqualify them from teaching English!). They also don't like it when I correct them.

---

Another vocabulary point I want to clear up is the difference between human smuggling and human trafficking, which many people nowadays often use interchangeably. Our enemies in particular like to call human smugglers "human traffickers", for example:

news.yahoo.com/salvini-dismisses-eu-migrant-ship-proposals-emergency-talks-224118678.html

Quote
"While France and Germany continue to want Italy to be one of the very few landing countries, we are working on a solid Mediterranean axis which wants to change the rules and crush human trafficking," Salvini tweeted.

Of course Salvini is subhuman bullshitting.

Human smuggling involves people who themselves want to migrate, but who are violently prevented by one or more states from doing so openly, voluntarily seeking out the smuggler to transport them under the radar in exchange for money. This is a contractual agreement of mutual prior consent between the migrant and the smuggler, therefore wholly non-violent. Of course there exist greedy smugglers who take advantage of migrants' desperation (and lack of options during an emergency refugee crisis) by charging extremely high prices for the service, but if states were concerned about protecting migrants from smuggler greed, their best response should be to allow migrants to enter/leave openly (and indeed offer state-run transportation as necessary during emergencies), thereby obviating the need for smuggling.

Human trafficking is a different phenomenon entirely. It involves people who themselves never agreed to migrate, but who are violently kidnapped by the trafficker and moved into a different country without their own consent (often threatened with death for non-compliance), and in effect become slaves owned by the trafficker, unable to ever choose their own occupation/residence/etc. and instead permanently restricted to work/habitat permitted by the trafficker, often involving unhealthy/dangerous conditions that the victims would never have voluntarily subjected themselves to.

In case you haven't noticed by now, deportation = human trafficking done by a state.Salvini, who talks about crushing "human trafficking", is the actual trafficker.

---

New Mehta piece:

www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-am-an-uppity-immigrant-dont-expect-me-to-be-grateful/2019/08/02/321d9b60-b483-11e9-951e-de024209545d_story.html

Quote
I will not bow and scrape before my supposed benefactors. I am entitled to be here.

In June, I published a book (“This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto”) arguing that immigration is a form of reparations. It drew forth a fusillade of hatred — on Twitter, in my inbox, under the rocks of 4chan and Reddit — suggesting that I return to India. One reviewer on Amazon called for me to be “skinned alive” and to go back to my “turd-world country.” Someone else tweeted, “This cockroach needs sent back to whatever s--- hole he crawled out of.”

Meanwhile, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, in a speech at the National Conservatism Conference, said I had argued that “immigrants should not join the mainstream or try and preserve and protect what makes America great, but should just take over from the ‘white power structure.’” (I’ve said no such thing, of course.) Wax accused immigrants like me of being culturally inferior: “Most inhabitants of the Third World don’t necessarily share our ideas and beliefs . . . Our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.”

I’ve been told to “go back” ever since 1977, when I enrolled in an extravagantly racist all-boys Catholic school in Queens, N.Y. — birthplace of President Trump, who recently became the biggest, loudest mouthpiece for this line of rhetoric when he tweeted that four congresswomen of color should “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” The idea is: White Americans get to decide who is allowed to come in and what rules we are to follow. If you come here, don’t complain. Be grateful we took you in. “Go back” is a line that’s intended to put immigrants in our place — or rather, to remind us that our place in this country is contingent, that we are beholden to those who came here earlier.

To this I say: No, we are not. I take my place in America — an imperfect place — and I make it my own; there’s a Constitution that protects my right to do so. I will not genuflect at the white American altar. I will not bow and scrape before my supposed benefactors. I understand the soul of this nation just as well, if not better, than they do: a country that stole the futures of the people who are now arriving at its borders, a cacophonous country, an exceptional country, but one that seems determined to continually sabotage its journey towards a more perfect union. Nobody powerful ever gave the powerless anything just because they asked politely, and immigrants don’t come hat-in-hand. I am an uppity immigrant. I am entitled to be here. Deal with it.

Should today’s migrants be “grateful” to the countries that caused them to move in the first place, the ones that despoiled their homelands and made them unsafe and unlivable? For example, in Somalia — birthplace of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — the United States sent $1 billion to the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre, and the ensuing civil war quite literally blew up Omar’s childhood. She should be grateful that her family had to escape their land and their people, and live in a tent in a refugee colony for four years? Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) should be grateful that her parents had to leave the West Bank and seek shelter in the country principally responsible for backing (and sending billions annually to) the government that occupies their hometown? Central American immigrants, too, should be grateful to the United States? An American banana company, for instance, owned 42 percent of all the land in Guatemala, and for decades Washington replaced democratically elected Latin leaders with dictators more malleable to its will. Now, at our southern border, we turn away people seeking asylum from the consequences of those policies.

The West has despoiled country after country through colonialism, illegal wars, rapacious corporations and unchecked carbon emissions. And now their desperate migrants are supposed to be grateful to be let in by the back door at the mansions of the despoilers, mansions built with the stolen treasure of the migrants’ homelands?

Of course, contrary to what Mehta says, the Constitution does not protect anyone from anything. If it could, you could just paste a copy of it on your door and any ICE agent who arrives will be zapped dead by it. The only thing that will protect immigrants is owning a firearm and being willing to use it.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2022, 09:00:22 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2021, 09:28:00 pm »
OLD CONTENT contd.

"Here’s one: “Immigrants have strong in group preferences!”"

Ironically, this enemy blog supplies evidence against this in the very same post that they make the claim!

www.eurocanadian.ca/2019/08/canadian-politics-controlled-ethnic-hustlers-jagmeet-singh-kenny-kwan.html

The claim:

Quote
Singh is an ethnic Sikh and Kwan is an ethnic Chinese. Their primary loyalties are to their ethnic groups

The counterevidence (proving rightists are idiots):

Quote
Kwan went even further. She spoke in favour of a new law that establishes every April as Sikh Heritage Month.

If the claim of ethnotribalism were true, Kwan should only treat Canadians of Chinese ancestry with empathy, and perceive Canadians of Sikh ancestry as a threatening rival ethnotribe. The behaviour we see here in reality is not ethnotribalism. but on the contrary solidarity between formerly colonized peoples based on empathy of common victimhood at the hands of the same oppressors, precisely as we encourage. This is what we need to promote, in order to dispell the rightist "Everyone is ethnotribalist!" narrative that they hope becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.



older example (repost):

www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/photo-of-brown-berets-standing-with-black-lives-matter-in-los-angeles-goes-viral

Quote
A photograph of two Latina women wearing matching brown berets and standing in formation alongside two black members of the Nation Of Islam was shared thousands of times on social media within hours of being published on July 11.

The women, who are dressed in paramilitary-style uniforms— brown shirts, army belts, and brown cargo pants tucked into army boots— are members of the East Los Angeles Brown Berets, a civil rights organization that says it is “in solidarity with all oppressed people of color who struggle for a better tomorrow.”
...
“I always hear about black and brown people clashing, but this scene captured the Brown Berets and the Nation of Islam standing side by side,” said photographer John Garcia, a Chicano artist who lives in East Hollywood.
...
Shifting demographics in South Los Angeles have traditionally caused tensions between black and Latino gangs and elected officials, but on the community level both sides have come together to fight police brutality in the past. That’s why this photo has captured the attention of so many people across the city—it shows the two groups as allies standing together against a repressive force that has targeted both communities disproportionately.
...
The story behind the photo is also interesting. Black Lives Matter protest organizers asked the Brown Berets if they could help with security and crowd control at the protest. The Brown Beret activists say they were happy to lend a hand.

“When people see this picture I hope they recognize that we need more of this unity between the black and brown struggle,” said Cindy, 23, one of the women pictured in the photo. “We also need to show that it’s not just men who are strong. I love how the picture plays that part. Both struggles are coming together to be upfront.”

Further reading:

www.kut.org/post/how-black-lives-matter-valley

Quote
Eromosele, who’s black, lives in a community that’s more than 90 percent Hispanic – a community that showed up by the hundreds at McAllen’s Arch Park for the protest.

Before the march started, Danielle Lopez of Pharr burned sage to cleanse and bless the protest. That’s a practice by curanderas, faith healers in Hispanic culture. Lopez was at the protest as part of the Carnalismo National Brown Berets – a pro-Chicano movement that first emerged in the 1960s.

"Historically we have always been very united,” Lopez says. “The Brown Berets and the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement have actually been involved with each other since the civil rights movement.”

Rosa Vidal from Pharr echoes the need for minorities to speak out against social injustices facing other minorities.
...
"The Mexican-American community also faced violence by the law enforcement especially in Texas by the Texas Rangers,” De La Trinidad says. “So there is documentation of police brutality and law enforcement brutality against Mexican-Americans, not only in Texas, but Arizona, California."

George McShan has lived in the Valley for more than 40 years. He grew up during segregation and later became the first African-American man to be elected to the Harlingen School board in 1988.

"What has happened now, the children and great grandchildren of the fathers of the ‘60s began to realize that the plights are very similar,”

---

A good review of Mehta's book:

www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/08/15/jill-lepore-suketu-mehta-real-americans/

Quote
The Mehta family immigrated from India to the United States in 1977, when Suketu was a teenager. He has been a US citizen (and a New Yorker) for thirty years: “Here was my home. Here I belonged, because everyone else belonged.” Then came the 2016 election and the extraordinary, and ongoing, Republican assault on “shithole” immigrants and immigration. Mehta—author of the modern classic Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found—was moved to act: “This book is being written in sorrow and rage—as well as hope.”
...
Mehta’s book is filled with arresting human particulars, but its theoretical thrust can be compressed into three main propositions. First, catastrophic climate change, global inequality, and the ruinous aftermath of colonialism have ensured that “mass migration is the defining human phenomenon of the twenty-first century.” Not since the end of World War II have there been as many displaced persons as there are now. By 2050, up to 30 percent of the planet’s surface, home to 1.5 billion people, could be desert; the population of Africa will double to 2.4 billion; in Bangladesh alone, 20 million could be displaced by rising sea levels. By the century’s end, land populated by 650 million people could be underwater. Mehta has a lot more stuff like this, none of it reassuring.

His second proposition is that migrants from the poorer parts of the world have a right to settle in richer parts of the world. This right is essentially restitutionary: societies that unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of other societies are obligated to make restitution. The argument is most familiar to Americans regarding slavery reparations, with one difference: Mehta expands its scope to include victims of colonial or hegemonic exploitation. The expansion is significant. There are about 42 million Americans of African descent, but there are further millions in the Central American states that, as Mehta demonstrates, the US has destabilized, traumatized, and plundered for its own gain. There are billions of people in postcolonial societies. If you believe, as Mehta does, that restitution is also due to poor countries suffering from the impoverishment and environmental damage caused by rich countries and their predatory multinational corporations, the scope for reparations grows even larger.

Mehta deals with the problem of infinite liability as follows:

Poor countries aren’t seriously suggesting that the rich send sacks of gold bullion or bitcoin every year to India or Nigeria. They’re asking for fairness; for the borders of the rich to be opened to goods and people; to Indian-made suits as well as Nigerian doctors.

And:

Fair immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries. Thus, Britain should have quotas for Indians and Nigerians; France, for Malians and Tunisians; Belgians, for very large numbers of Congolese.
...
It could also be said, of course, that Mehta is dismissive of the cultural and economic anxieties of the host population. But that is precisely his intention: to dismiss the concerns of white natives about having brown foreigners in their midst. Either their concerns are racist and accordingly without merit, or their concerns have some merit, but not as much merit as the concerns of migrants.
...
Meanwhile, disaster looms ever larger; self-examination begins to seem beside the point. A valuable feature of Mehta’s argument is that it is procedurally radical. It rejects the programmatic self-doubt that is central to American liberalism—and, arguably, central to its defeat by its Republican adversaries, who without hesitation embrace self-righteousness, domination, and the fait accompli. If Lepore is right and the nation is indeed the fight, liberals must understand what a fight involves. That is, you can’t fight performatively when the other side is fighting to win: that kind of fight simply won’t go on for very long. You have no option but to fight to win, too. You want to win because you are right and they are wrong; because you have a moral right to power and they don’t; because you are real Americans and they’re not.

Or as we put it, Westerners cannot be Americans and Americans cannot be Westerners.

---

One of the most common pro-immigration arguments in mainstream discussion is that immigrants will help pay for the pensions of retirees.

Rightists, who never bothered to understand elementary economics, idiotically retort: "But the immigrants will eventually retire and need pensions themselves! So this is just a Ponzi scheme!"

So what is the rightist solution to paying pensions? "Have lots of offspring!"

As if the offspring won't, by the same token, eventually retire and need pensions themselves?? So how is reproduction any less of a "Ponzi scheme" than immigration??

The actual economic advantage of immigrants over offspring is that immigrants arrive ready to work at once, whereas offspring require investment for roughly two decades before they start contributing economically. The money saved from the first few decades of dependency by using immigrants instead of offspring is the same money that can be redirected towards funding the last few decades of dependency a.k.a. pensions. This is what the pensions argument actually means! What immigration is about is, in simple terms, cutting costs from the front to supply the back.

This is another one of those (countless) arguments that I used to presume was so obvious that it should not even have to be explained.....

---

Good critique of the points-based system:

www.newstatesman.com/world/2019/12/points-based-system-gives-cover-naked-prejudice-against-migrants

Quote
A few months after Adyan bin Hasan came into the world, his parents realised he was having trouble trying to lift his head. After a series of tests, they were told he had mild cerebral palsy, which was most likely caused by a stroke just before or after his birth. Before he was even three years old, this would decide whether he and his parents would be allowed to stay in Australia, his country of birth.

After finishing a PhD in Geelong, a city southwest of Melbourne, Adyan’s father, Mahedi Hasan Bhuiyan, was nominated by the state government of Victoria for a permanent visa. But Mahedi, his wife and son were rejected under Australia’s “one fails all fail” criteria. One family member didn’t meet the health criteria; everyone was denied a visa. Is this the “Australian-style points based system” so many of our politicians dream of?

Australia’s points-based system is revered in the UK immigration debate. It has become a symbol of an alternative system that would still allow the UK to maintain “control” over who crosses its borders. During what would be his final general election campaign in 2005, Tony Blair promised that he would “put in place strict controls that work”, which would “include the type of points system used in Australia”. Ten years later, UKIP’s manifesto proposed introducing “an Australian-style points based system to manage the number and skills of people coming into the country, treating all citizens of the world on a fair and equal basis as a welcoming, outward-looking country”. Australia’s system was also repeatedly referenced during the EU referendum, so much so that during a series of twelve focus groups with Leave supporters, one group of researchers found that participants in eleven groups mentioned Australia as somewhere with a good immigration policy – entirely unprompted.

If we followed Australia’s example, the implication goes, we’d have a better immigration system. Though Australia is regularly presented as an aspirational ideal, it is only ever discussed in the most general of terms. Neither its immigration system, nor how it compares to our own, are well understood.

Australia’s “points-based system” is one of the main routes into the country. But how it operates is dehumanising; people are given points according to certain criteria. They are literally turned into numbers on a sheet. 25 points if you’re 18-25, 15 if you have eight years’ work experience, 20 if you have a PhD. You don’t need a job offer, but you do need to hit a certain score to even be considered eligible to move to Australia.

In 2007, as Blair had promised, New Labour attempted, in a way, to replicate this system. Leftover as a relic from this time, a section of UK immigration rules are still called “the points based system”. But the UK’s version of a point-based system has never really worked in the way it does in Australia, and it still doesn’t now.

To enter the UK, many people need to secure the promise of a job and a visa sponsored by their prospective employer. On top of that are certain criteria you have to meet depending on the kind of visa you’re applying for, which can include a certain level of English and earning a particular amount of money.

The UK’s immigration system is cold and calculated; it treats certain people as the “right” kind of migrant and others as the “wrong” kind. From all we’ve seen, the Conservative plans would mean EU citizens were also included in this system. The Tories have suggested different visas depending on levels of “skill”, including short-term visas for people considered “low-skilled”. They aren’t, then, going to model the UK’s immigration system on Australia’s.

Australia’s immigration policy is idealised because of what it represents: control, rationality, and whiteness. Like our so-called island nation, Australia is a go-it-alone country that is able to decide who crosses its borders. A steady drip of news coverage about people kept offshore in detention systems for months on end amplifies this message. But Australia’s system has a dark underside. Its seemingly non-discriminatory, objective treatment of individuals gives cover to policies that are exclusionary and punitive. You measure people’s right to come to the country on the basis of this relatively fixed points regime. You either get the right number of points to come into the country, or you don’t.

This logic reflects a belief that the skills, qualifications and the jobs we have exist separately from the world around us. A points-based system invokes notions of meritocracy and individual ability, as if it’s natural genius and talent – or a lack thereof – that lands people where they are. The structural inequalities that shape people’s lives are erased; so too are the effects of race, class, gender, sexuality or disability.

This appeal to supposed objectivity is alluring to UK politicians who wish to claim that ending free movement is at least partly about ending a discriminatory system that treats EU and non-EU migrants differently. They can claim to be remedying this system, while in reality they are stripping away peoples’ rights. Conservative politicians can claim they want “the best and the brightest” to come to the UK, even though some of the people the economy relies upon aren’t included in this illustrious category. They can maintain that “too many” immigrations of a certain type are bad for the country, while treating migrants like chess pieces to be moved around at the whims of politicians and policymakers, discarded when they cease to be useful.

The immigrant “other” can be measured by what “they” will contribute to “us”. In this formulation, exactly who is considered a threat and a potential problem is racialised. As well as being about economics, the immigration debate has also become about nebulous ideas of identity and belonging. Migrants who are seen to posssess certain cultural affinities, or who hail from particular parts of the world, are imagined as compatible with the UK. It is people who are supposedly culturally distinct from Britons that are an issue. In this, whiteness is still considered synonymous with Britishness.

Here, Australia is relevant again. At the same time as having a system that’s perceived to be objective, it’s a country – at least in the popular imagination – of blue skies, luxurious beaches and a predominantly white population. The promise of an Australian-style points based system is not only a relatively meaningless soundbite: it represents the anti-immigration beliefs that lie at the heart of the UK’s immigration debate. It is these ideas that must be challenged.

I will put it even more tersely: the most obvious double-standard to the points-based system is that the very people who demand it for immigrants do not also demand it for natives, even though every reasonable argument (e.g. promotion of merit) in favour of a points-based system for immigrants is a similarly reasonable argument in favour of a points-based system for natives also.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2021, 09:43:51 pm »
OLD CONTENT contd.

One especially stupid argument I have been hearing a lot recently from rightists is how "open borders only benefits employers".

If this were true, then why do the immigrants themselves migrate? Do they have an irrational love for employers that compels them to move to another country solely to do employers a favour? Of course not. Open borders most obviously benefits immigrants themselves, or else they wouldn't be deciding to migrate!

When rightists say "open borders only benefits employers", what they are actually doing is trying to condition the listener to not view the immigrants themselves as people at all.

Do open borders benefit employers? Sure, as it gives them a larger pool of people from whom to choose whom to hire. It also benefits workers by giving them - so long as they are willing to migrate - a larger selection of employers to apply to work for. Thus the benefit is far from lopsided to the advantage of employers. Workers can use the available option of taking up work elsewhere as leverage to persuade an existing employer to offer higher wages, no less than can employers use the available option of hiring someone else as leverage to persuade an existing worker to accept lower wages. It will all sort itself out given time. The only thing preventing this is in fact none other than rightists threatening to violently close the borders and deport immigrants, thereby interfering with the otherwise straightforward negotiation process between workers and employers by adding a risk that each might be suddenly prohibited at any minute from keeping their side of the bargain towards the other.

---

But when presented with this argument rightists will just accuse immigrants of being purely driven by economic interests, as opposed to natives who are supposedly more "patriotic"...

---

Paying taxes is the most basic form of patriotism. Immigrants are people who make a conscious decision to stop paying taxes to the state they left in order to pay taxes to the state they have arrived in over any other state in the world. This goes back to the following point:

Quote
Even worse are the anti-immigrant propagandists who refer to immigration as “invasion” for the sake of crude alarmism, utterly disregarding the actual meaning of invasion. If State A invades State B, former taxpayers to State B will now be paying taxes to State A instead (ie. State B loses taxpayers; State A gains taxpayers). In contrast, if inhabitants of State A migrate to State B, these former taxpayers to State A who have migrated will now be paying taxes to State B instead (ie. State B gains taxpayers; State A loses taxpayers). Thus in fact immigration is the opposite of invasion.

Also, this just in:

www.foxnews.com/media/tom-homan-ice-border-democrat-2020

Quote
"They say they care about these people, they care about children dying and women being ****... they need to look in the mirror because if you keep offering enticements... 'sanctuary cities'... free health care... in-state tuition... people are going to put themselves in harm's way to come to this country," Homan told Steve Hilton on "The Next Revolution."

Who would be in harm's way if no one had to fear being deported in the first place? The reason people rely on dangerous methods/routes of entry is because they fear Homan & Co. catching them and deporting them! What people need is the assurance that no one will be trying to deport them under any circumstances, and then they will have no reason not to use the safest methods/routes of entry available.

(Homan & Co. are covered here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/ice/ )

---

False Leftist Michael Brooks (Jew) pushing the rightist line on immigration


Are Westerners willing to work for the same “cheap” rates? Probably not, given their lavsish standards of living. Then why criticize immigrants who improve the economy with their additional labor?

All this talk of migrants being “exploited” is nonsensical and is a rightist talking point. Migrants who voluntarily choose to take up a job in another country are not being “exploited”.

What do you guys think?

---

Exactly. It gets even more ridiculous when rightists prefer outsourcing to immigration. Both are driven by employers seeking cheaper labour, but the difference is that outsourced labour is taxed by a foreign state, whereas immigrant labour is taxed by one's own state. This is why again it is absurd for rightists to claim to be nationalists. They are identitarians and nothing else.

---

We have to start with the position that even if immigration were not economically beneficial, it should still be allowed on ethical grounds. Economic benefits are merely a bonus.

Immigrants who are a drain on public funds should be treated no differently than natives who are a drain on public funds. Either eliminate welfare (libertarian approach) or modify it into a wage conditional on sufficient labour of the state's choosing being performed by the recipient to offset it (socialist approach, which we prefer). Either way, the point is to avoid favouring natives over immigrants, since none of us choose where we are born.

With that said, I agree that GDP is not the best measure of economic health. Instead, we should place more emphasis on autarky. And the fastest way to achieve autarky is to transplant all the currently offshore economic activity inside. Basically, everyone anywhere in the world whose labour serves a country's economy but who currently lives outside the country should be proactively invited to immigrate into the country.

By the way:



---

Start calling border walls, like the one Trump and Orban had built, "iron curtains."

Fun Fact: Goebbels used the term in a Feb 1945 article (3rd paragraph, middle) well before Winston Churchill. Either way, the ZioWinners of WW2 and their supporters are most enthusiastic about iron curtains.

---

And Salvini says immigrants do not contribute to Italian society:

www.yahoo.com/news/italy-nightmare-offers-chilling-preview-050009711.html

Quote
That fear has led to a sudden boom in grocery delivery services. The day after Conte announced the national lockdown, Rome supermarket entrances were jammed with bicycle couriers, mostly immigrants from Africa and South America, jostling for orders. By then Milan had settled into a home-delivery routine that has left residents waiting more than a week for a slot to get groceries.

Bonus:

qz.com/africa/1806374/nigerian-migrants-in-sicily-build-an-afrobeats-scene/

---

More immigrants "not contributing to society" (according to rightists):

www.ekathimerini.com/251023/gallery/ekathimerini/in-images/migrants-sew-masks-at-moria-camp

---

And still more immigrants "not contributing to society" (according to rightists):

www.yahoo.com/news/eight-u-k-doctors-died-184609860.html

Quote
Eight U.K. Doctors Died From Coronavirus. All Were Immigrants.
...
For a country ripped apart in recent years by Brexit and the anti-immigrant movement that birthed it, the deaths of the eight doctors — from Egypt, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Sudan — attest to the extraordinary dependence of Britain’s treasured health service on workers from abroad.

It is a story tinged with racism, as white, British doctors have largely dominated the prestigious disciplines while foreign doctors have typically found work in places and practices that are apparently putting them on the dangerous front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.

“When people were standing on the street clapping for NHS workers, I thought, ‘A year and a half ago, they were talking about Brexit and how these immigrants have come into our country and want to take our jobs,’” said Dr. Hisham el-Khidir, whose cousin Dr. Adil el-Tayar, a transplant surgeon, died March 25 from the coronavirus in western London.

“Now today, it’s the same immigrants that are trying to work with the locals,” said el-Khidir, a surgeon in Norwich, “and they are dying on the front lines.”


By the way, this is what I have been pointing out for ages:

Quote
By recruiting foreign doctors, Britain saves the roughly $270,000 in taxpayer money that it costs to train doctors locally

---

Quote
California's undocumented workers help the economy grow – but may pay the cost
With a gross domestic product worth $2.448 trillion, California has the largest economy in the US, and the sixth-largest in the world. It's also the state with the most immigrants, more than a quarter of its population. These two facts are not unrelated — but the way immigrants build that economy is more complex than it seems.

Betty Yee, California state controller, said undocumented immigrants’ ​labor is worth more than $180 billion a year ​to California's economy — about equal to the 2015 gross domestic product for the entire state of Oklahoma. Labor from undocumented immigrants is fundamental not just to agriculture, but to child care, restaurants, hotels and construction.

“This is a workforce, a supply of labor from our undocumented workforce, that actually does provide just the basic foundations of these sectors and industries of being able to succeed and thrive,” she said.

Undocumented immigrants make up an estimated 10 percent of California's workforce, and the work they do is often at the bottom rung of the wage scale. That's part of what makes their place in the economy controversial and keeps the immigration debate heated. President Donald Trump argues that undocumented immigrants drain the economy, drive down wages and take jobs from US-born workers.

For the most part, economists disagree. Major studies show immigration as a whole benefits the US economy, and that undocumented immigrants have little to no impact on employment levels of native-born workers. There is, however, debate about whether low-skilled immigrant labor puts downward pressure on wages for low-skilled workers, with some studies finding no effect and others finding immigration lowers wages for some low-skilled native workers and prior immigrants.
www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-06/californias-undocumented-workers-help-grow-economy-theres-cost

---

So many immigrants "not contributing to society" (according to rightists)!

qz.com/1838754/about-280000-essential-healthcare-workers-in-us-are-undocumented/

Quote
Imagine being on the frontlines of the fight against coronavirus—tending to the sick and risking your life—while anxiously awaiting news about whether you’ll soon be deported to a country you left as a child, and scrambling to do immigration paperwork just in case you catch a break.
...
“Right now, we are all dependent on every single healthcare and essential worker,” says Hannah Siegel, managing director of the New American Economy (NAE), a bipartisan nonprofit immigration research and advocacy group. “The DACA community is a part of that. According to NAE analysis, there are 62,600 DACA-eligible individuals working in healthcare today. In fact, undocumented immigrants overall play a huge role in our most critical workforce, [with] almost 280,000 total in healthcare,” she tells Quartz.

“Yet worries about deportation persist for many,” Siegel adds, “and the timing couldn’t be worse.”
...
Meanwhile, the many who haven’t been able to apply for the program, though they would qualify, will have no hope of coming out of the shadows. Having risked their own health to tend to Americans and to help keep critical institutions running during the pandemic, they’ll remain underground, legally speaking, living in fear not of disease but of immigration authorities.

Not just medical workers either:

www.yahoo.com/news/were-ignored-completely-amid-pandemic-204611520.html

Quote
On normal mornings, Maria, an undocumented worker at an orchard in Washington state, gets up at 5:00 a.m. The 37-year-old immigrant from Mexico puts her hair up in a bun, wraps it with a handkerchief to keep it out of the way, and packs a snack for her morning break and a small meal for her half-hour lunch. Then she sets off on the half-hour drive to the orchard, arriving so early there’s often frost on the trees. Her work depends on the season; right now it’s the grueling task of securing branches to ensure they grow correctly.

Amid the coronavirus pandemic, Maria is classified as an essential worker, which means she has to keep going in even as large sectors of the economy have shut down. She has a letter from her employer to prove it. Though she says her hours have been cut in half because of COVID-19, she’s still expected to show up. It was only last week, Maria says, that her employer finally gave a presentation about maintaining six feet of distance while on the job—which she says is impossible to do—and requesting that workers wear a face cover and gloves, which are not supplied.

“The fear that we have as immigrants is something whose extent only we can know. We’re afraid of getting sick. We’re afraid of dying,” Maria tells me in Spanish. “We’re afraid of complaining at work, to our supervisors, because we’re not getting adequate cleaning supplies. We’re ignored completely.”

Maria is one of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., many of whom are now working the essential jobs the nation is relying on—in apple orchards and grocery stores, food processing plants and hospitals. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that 6 million immigrant workers (a figure that does not take into account legal status) are in jobs on the front lines of coronavirus response, while another 6 million are in industries hardest hit by the pandemic. In normal times, undocumented labor is a pillar of the U.S. economy. In these extraordinary times, immigrant advocates say lawmakers must recognize the contributions that essential undocumented workers are making.

“At a time of crisis, when America needs a certain segment of its society to keep functioning so that we can all be safe and healthy, a significant chunk of that indispensable workforce is not formally recognized as Americans,” says Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy group. Those workers, he says, “are risking their lives in order to serve the country they call home.”

Meanwhile, rightists see no problem with this:

Quote
Yet despite paying billions of dollars annually in taxes, undocumented immigrants were ineligible for the direct deposit relief doled out by the $2.2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill. None will receive the cash assistance that millions will get as a result of the relief package passed by Congress; the payments were tied to Social Security numbers as opposed to Individual Tax Identification Numbers, over Democrats’ objections.

Most undocumented immigrants will also not receive unemployment insurance if they’re among the millions who lose work due to the pandemic. With few exceptions, undocumented workers are not eligible due to their immigration status under normal circumstances. At a time when 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits, this has left countless undocumented immigrants in financial uncertainty.

Then there’s access to testing and treatment. According to the ACLU and National Immigration Law Center, the Families First Act excluded tens of millions of people (among them, DACA recipients and Temporary Protected Status holders) from testing and treatment by not making it available under emergency Medicaid, which would lift the immigrant eligibility restrictions currently in place.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2022, 03:31:10 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2022, 01:15:43 am »
https://us.yahoo.com/news/no-kari-lake-going-border-195514614.html

Quote
No, Kari Lake, what is going on at the border isn't remotely like what is going on in Ukraine
...
In her view, immigrants in search of asylum are apparently the same as a psycho in search of conquest.

Drugs that are and have always flowed across our southern border in search of an eager supply of U.S. customers are apparently the same as tanks rumbling across Ukraine’s border in search of domination and conquest.

Republican candidates in Arizona have taken to using the word “invasion” a lot over the last few months.
...
Attorney General Mark Brnovich, in his zeal to rise above the pack in his run for the Senate, even issued a legal opinion earlier this month, declaring that Ducey can send troops to the border to repel the “invasion.”

Today, however, we are seeing what a wholesale, full-scale invasion looks like: Russian troops attacking a neighboring country by land, sea and air, with missiles and tanks
...
This, Kari Lake, is what an invasion looks like.

To compare that in any way with what’s going on the U.S.-Mexico border?

Well, you just look silly.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2022, 08:12:53 pm »
Once again:

https://time.com/6219953/hurricane-ian-cleanup-migrants-desantis/

Quote
Migrants Are Leading Clean-up Efforts in Florida, Despite DeSantis’ Crusade Against Them
...
Originally from Nicaragua, he is part of a large, informal, overwhelmingly immigrant workforce that travels the U.S. cleaning up after increasingly frequent climate-related disasters. Once a hurricane hits, these crews are bussed in by contractors desperate for workers, or they drive to the area themselves and wait in Walmart or Home Depot parking lots to be picked up for a day’s work. Aburto, a skilled laborer, was in New Orleans after Katrina in 2005, Baton Rouge after Louisiana’s floods in 2016, Panama City Beach after Michael in 2018, and Lake Charles after Laura in 2020. “These kinds of events really affect people,” he says. “We do our bit to help them.”
...
But these workers—which include a mix of documented and undocumented migrants, according to labor advocates—face a strange kind of welcome. Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis has spent the last year waging a crusade to keep migrants out of the state.
...
Over the coming days and weeks, thousands of migrants, originally from places like Central America and Venezuela, will arrive in southwest Florida’s hurricane-ravaged towns. Since its staff arrived in the region on Sept. 29, Resilience Force says it has met migrant workers who have traveled from Miami, North Carolina, and Louisiana. On Sunday, the New York Post reported that vans had picked up dozens of migrants in New York City, with one driver saying he was hired by “a water and debris company.”
...
Such a hostile environment creates “enormous difficulties” for migrant workers doing disaster recovery work in Florida, says Saket Soni, a labor organizer who founded Resilience Force in 2015. (The group advocates directly for around 2,000 disaster rebuild workers, helping them to find jobs and avoid exploitation.) In 2018, during clean up efforts in Bay County, Fla. following Hurricane Michael, Soni says undocumented workers were “routinely” detained and transferred to ICE detention. Others were threatened with a call to ICE by their employers when they demanded payment for work. “Workers have to override enormous fears to keep doing this work,” Soni says.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2022, 08:33:22 pm »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/send-illegal-migrants-claim-slavery-070000273.html

Quote
Send home illegal migrants who claim to be slavery victims, MPs tell Rishi Sunak
...
They argue that “people claiming they have been unwilling victims of human trafficking or modern slavery” should be returned to “the villages from which they came”.

“If they have really been taken against their will, then they could not reasonably object to being returned to their own homes,” the letter explained.

Since it was from their former homes that they were taken against their will the first time round, returning them there would just lead to the same happening to them again! That is the reasonable objection so obvious it should not need to be explained! The point is that their former homes were unsafe! What part of this do rightists not understand?!

rp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2022, 10:00:17 pm »
Follow subreddit r/neoliberal for rebuttals of anti-immigrant nonsense!:
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/

Other than True Leftists, neoliberals (capitalists) are the best when it comes to immigration. This is why they are attacked by both xenophobic False Leftists and rightists. Remember, Clinton was primarily attacked for being a "neoliberal" during the 2016 general election.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2022, 04:54:23 pm »
The Suketu Mehta attitude:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/debunking-rightist-anti-immigration-arguments/msg9868/#msg9868

is spreading:

https://twitter.com/Sathnam/status/1597868830235451394

Quote
Quote
I see many commentators on the census results saying, ‘So what if people who identify as “white British” are a minority in London, Birmingham, Leicester, Manchester, etc?’ Just one answer to which is ‘Because we never voted for this. Quite the opposite in fact.’

Brown people didn't get a vote when their nations were colonised by the British. We are here, because you were there.
Like Like x 1 View List

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2023, 03:35:19 pm »
Enemy article making our case for us:

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2023/02/01/gallup-800-million-people-want-migrate-us-europe/

Quote
The 16 percent who want to migrate has jumped up from 12 percent — or 750 million — in 2018.

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/climate-refugees/

Duh!

But the point I really wanted to emphasize is the following:

Quote
Many U.S. investors are reluctant to send their investment money into chaotic countries. Instead, they prefer that those countries’ young populations take the risk of migrating to the investors’ safe investments in the United States.

This is called American nationalism. Are False Leftists paying attention? Stop calling hostility to immigration "nationalism"! It is not! The above is nationalism! Authentic nationalism is pro-immigration by definition, because more immigration means less outsourcing!

Quote
The federal government has long operated an economic policy of Extraction Migration. This colonialism-like policy extracts vast amounts of human resources from needy countries and uses the imported workers, renters, and consumers to grow Wall Street and the economy.

Utter nonsense. Under colonialism, the colonized population stays put but are taxed by the colonial power, thus its total earnings are reduced while its population is not reduced, leading to less stuff to go around. Under Extraction Migration, the extracted population moves to the extractor country, so the extractee country's total earnings are reduced but its population is reduced proportionately at the same time, thus not leading to less stuff to go around.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2023, 03:51:40 pm by 90sRetroFan »

antihellenistic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
The correct view on history by the rightist. They use the western victory as inspiration, not Hitler.

https://twitter.com/exrightist101/status/1656597139995373568






Answering with argument





90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Reinforcing:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/allies/ilhan-omar/msg16053/#msg16053

with elaboration:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pouring-gasoline-fires-hate-anti-113648062.html

Quote
FEAR: Day and Lawler have repeatedly referred to asylum-seekers as “illegal.”

FACT: Not only is this a dehumanizing term that smears people fleeing violence and oppression as criminals, it’s false. Asylum-seekers who come through the U.S.’s southern border are documented. The federal government processes asylum-seekers using credible fear screenings and asylum merit interviews. Yet Day falsely stated they haven’t been screened. Kenny claimed not to know “if these people have been vetted.” And Lawler inflamed his base with an online petition warning that “New York City Mayor Eric Adams just sent HUNDREDS of illegal adult male migrants into your backyard!”
...
On conservative radio host Rob Astorino’s WABC show, Day conjured the specter of “single adult males” being housed near schools

Also, it never ceases to amuse me how those rightists who claim "adult males are necessarily fake refugees" then turn round and claim that countries need to immediately import the entire "white" population of South Africa (including adult males) as refugees. Can you figure out what they actually believe?

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-66044153

Quote
Some British people are only concerned about the immigration of "brown people" but would open their homes to others, a bishop has said.

This is true:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/msg11959/#msg11959

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/msg12620/#msg12620

Continuing:

Quote
Bishop Hudson-Wilkin, who was born in Jamaica and was the first black female bishop appointed by the Church of England, said some British people "do not understand their own history".

"I love to remind the British that they were economic migrants when they went to Africa, when they went to Asia, when they travelled to the Caribbean," she said.

"They wanted to improve their lives. That's what these people are doing."

...
The government's Illegal Migration Bill, which is going through Parliament, has been proposed with the aim of giving ministers the power to remove anyone arriving in the UK illegally and then bar them from claiming asylum.

Under the bill, illegal migrants would be detained and removed, either to Rwanda or another "safe country".

Bishop Hudson-Wilkin said she was "appalled" by the government's plans as "since time immemorial, people have moved, people have picked themselves up, picked their families up and decided [to go] where life is better".

Thank you! This goes back to what I was saying here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/debunking-rightist-anti-immigration-arguments/msg9867/#msg9867

Quote
if it's OK for "whites" to live outside of Europe (as hundreds of millions currently do), it's OK for at least the same number of "non-whites" to live in Europe. (We need a graphical version of this latter point.)

This pretty much highlights how it is flat-out logically impossible for WNs to win the ethical debate. If they go with the position that migration is wrong (which they need for criticizing migration by "non-whites"), then they cannot avoid the conclusion that "whites" wronged "non-whites" first, and hence have no authority to complain. The only logical way to avoid incriminating themselves is to go with the position that migration is not wrong, in which case they have no reason to complain. Either way they are screwed.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2023, 01:03:41 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
As a supplement to:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/refugees-welcome/msg21065/#msg21065

let's debunk the frequent disingenuous* assertion by rightists that irregular migration (which includes asylum application) is somehow "unfair" to immigrants who apply to immigrate via regular channels.

(* These same rightists then call for the regular applications to be rejected. Can you figure out what is going on?)

Firstly, we have already repeatedly emphasized that it is legal to apply for asylum and thus calling it "illegal" immigration is an outright lie:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/allies/ilhan-omar/msg16053/#msg16053

Quote
The congresswoman at one point repeated five times that it is legal to claim asylum at the U.S. border.

"It is legal to claim asylum at the United States border. It is legal. It is legal. It is legal. It is legal to claim asylum," Ocasio-Cortez said.

But is it unfair to those who wait in another country for approval prior to making their journey? It is not. As we have explained in the past, a closed border is an initiated violence. So imagine two victims P and Q of the same initated violence. P reacts by deferentially requesting the violator to stop the violence, while Q takes direct action to minimize the effects of the violence. If someone is punching both P and Q in the face simultaneously, and P reacts by begging the puncher to stop punching but willingly taking every punch so long as the puncher ignores the begging, while Q reacts by blocking the incoming punches, with the result that P's face gets more and more battered while Q's face does not, is Q being unfair to P? Of course not! It is P's own fault for not also doing what Q is doing! If anything, Q is already trying to help P by setting an example of what P could also be doing!

Which is not to say that Q's reaction is yet the best reaction. The best reaction would be Ahimsa: not just blocking the punches, but killing the puncher. One who is willing to do this would also immediately end the punches taken by P (who despite being cowardly does not deserve to be punched).
« Last Edit: August 19, 2023, 03:44:02 pm by 90sRetroFan »

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2023, 01:02:40 pm »
Mayor Adams takes down a hypocrite:

https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/nyc-mayor-adams-challenges-critic-of-migrant-crisis-policies-you-have-an-accent/

Quote
Mayor Eric Adams called out a critic who questioned the city’s response to the ongoing migrant crisis during a fiery exchange on Wednesday evening.

Hizzoner was confronted by Marie Lynch, a Honduran native and Queens Republican activist, who accused him of catering to asylum seekers
...
“Why are you treating illegal aliens better than you are treating Americans? Why are you destroying the city with illegal aliens,” Lynch asked the mayor, according to a recording obtained by The Post.
...
“Why are you destroying our city and providing for illegal aliens when our veterans and the mentally ill are on the street around the corner from here?”

“You know what?” Adams responded.

“You have an accent.”
...
City Hall defended the mayor calling out Lynch’s accent.

“As the mayor very often says, unless you’re of indigenous descent, your family came from somewhere else. It’s true of the vast majority of New Yorkers. That’s the only point the mayor was making,”

It also goes without saying that refugees are not "illegal aliens (see immediately preceding post) as Lynch claims.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11225
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Debunking Rightist Anti-Immigration Arguments
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2023, 04:06:37 pm »
Time to finally debunk the notoriously disingenuous* "brain drain" argument:

https://vdare.com/posts/open-borders-fake-morality-maybe-nigeria-could-use-some-of-the-nigerian-doctors-we-re-poaching

Quote
Nigerian doctors and nurses are escaping the country in the thousands every year, mostly for jobs in the U.S.A. Britain, and Canada.

There are only 24,000 doctors left in Nigeria to serve a population of 220 million—one doctor per 9,000 citizens. In the U.S.A. the ratio is one doctor per 310 citizens.

If potential patients were allowed to migrate to the US, they would have access to the doctors in the US! In absence of artificial obstacles to migration, the doctor-patient ratio disparity would spontaneously even out!

In other words, the shortage of doctors and other highly qualified people in Nigeria relative to the general population is not caused by the highly qualified in Nigeria emigrating, but by most of the general population in Nigeria being obstructed from immigrating to the same countries where the highly qualified are immigrating to. The solution is not for First World countries to stop accepting immigrating highly qualified immigrants, but for them to also accept immigrants who are themselves not necessarily highly qualified but who would be potential customers of the highly qualified.

Quote
And things are going to get worse. This article quotes something called The Association of Resident Doctors—resident in Nigeria, that is—as saying that 85 percent of doctors still in the country are planning to emigrate. And, quote: ”Many thousands of other talented Nigerians are trying to leave,” end quote.

Let them! And let the untalented do the same! Problem solved!

Quote
That’s an aspect of our immigration policy—ours and Britain’s and Canada’s and the oil-rich Gulf States—that you don’t hear much about. We’re strip-mining the Third World of its Smart Fraction.

Yes, by blocking the rest of the Third World population from joining their Smart Fraction in the First World countries.

(* How do I know it is disingenuous? Because rightists never argue against "brain draining" South Africa of  "whites"; on the contrary, they cannot stop talking about how the highly qualified "whites" from South Africa will be more useful in First World countries. But when highly qualified "non-white" South Africans want to emigrate to the same First World countries, then rightists suddenly trot out this argument about how supposedly terrible it is that South Africa is being "brain drained".)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2023, 10:35:08 pm by 90sRetroFan »