The Center for Immigration Studies has issued a report, Fewer Jobs, More Immigrants, maintaining that despite the loss of 1 million jobs, 13.1 Million immigrants arrived in the last decade. The level of immigration remained the same despite a huge worsening of job creation.
Most tellingly, in 2008-2009, in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, 2.4 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the United States, even though 8.2 million jobs were lost over the same period. And the forecast is miserable, the LA Times print edition headline screaming “Fed forecasts hears of pain on job front.” The article did not quote anyone who thought that cutting back immigration would be a good idea.
Which tells us one thing: It’s not about economics. As the CIS notes, “the level of new immigration can remain high even in the face of massive job losses.”
I was reminded of this as I read my daily email from the American Third Position, titled “U.N. Calls for More Legal Immigration, as U.S. Jobs are Increasingly Shipped Overseas.” (Click here for the article; instructions for getting A3P emails are on the same page.)
Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that “Although states have legitimate interests in securing their borders and exercising immigration controls, such concerns do not trump the obligations of the state to respect the internationally guaranteed rights of all persons.” Among those rights is the right to migrate wherever they want–effectively saying that in fact states have no right to control their borders.
She implies that the developed world should be willing to take in 214 million (!!) international migrants. America is clearly not doing its share. (And there will be plenty more prospective migrants as soon as these 214 million are settled in.) Indeed, as A3P notes, she essentially threatened Americans as being outside compliance with international law, stating that “The principle of non-discrimination is fundamental in international human rights law.” Everyone has a right to come to the US and the US has no right to discriminate among among prospective immigrants.
In the hands of Third World ideologues, what started out as the powerful, uniquely Western idea that people have rights against the state is in effect turned into the right to displace the people who created these societies. Western societies have rejected an identity based on their traditional people and culture in favor of an ideology that they are nothing more than “proposition nations”–a major theme of The Culture of Critique. Such proposition nations are ill-equipped to establish a principled intellectual defense against such egregious expansions of rights. Viewed from the perspective of, say, an African native of Kenya, any policy that discriminates in favor of people of European descent involves impermissible discrimination.
Niva Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Clearly, there will be unrelenting pressure on the West to admit ever more immigrants–regardless of the economic conditions in those countries and regardless of the consequences to the founding populations and their culture. The Camp of the Saints nightmare in slow motion. But since the elites of all Western societies are resolutely committed to the dispossession of the people who built them, one never hears anything from political leadership or from the mainstream media about the astounding fact that legal immigration has continued more or less as it has been despite millions of unemployed Americans.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Frankly the most reasoned among us do not believe in the idea of passports (and passport fees, or IDs and ID fees) or borders or nations. The world belongs to everyone and barriers from migrating ANYWHERE one wishes should not be imposed on anyone, especially those who have not committed crimes. Maybe maintain the passport requirements ONLY on criminals who have committed crimes related to tariff evasion or escaping crimes specifically?
The following is unnecessary but included to highlight societies of today : That ‘IDs or passports for criminals only thing’ would encourage local governments to invest in their people’s sense of justice and ethics because criminals will not be allowed to travel and a profiteering society or governance paradigm ends!
Combined with reasoned subsistence/production-worthy only paradigms in land ownership limits, Utopia and freedom from TSA and the profiteering paradigm via ‘government’ justification of need for identification (how many terrorist acts were actually governments colluding, or even locally contrived situations) is possible.
This effective disallowing of people from moving around worldwide creates police state mentality and subjects them to the mercy of the state and should be liberalised. All non-criminals should be allowed to travel the world unimpeded. What was it like 300 years ago? Anyone could travel anywhere and local laws would punish criminals as well. There was no passport or what not. No idiotic citizen’s ‘fight song’ (aka anthem) or whatever childish b.s.. Just a sense of fairplay, that fosters ethical treatment of one’s fellow man – WORLDWIDE – instead of this communal country vs country b.s., faither vs non-faither vs agnostic, vs atheist b.s..
Badly governed, apartheid/backward law keeping or nepotistic and dictatorial nations would thus see their citizens migrate away from those nations (areas) until they died out instead of thinking ‘the citizens have no choice so the 99% will have to tolerate whatever laws we dish out to them backed by laws written by 1% types, and then enforced by police FROM their own 99% ranks to boot! – What b.s.!
Conversely good nations (areas)would grow and prosper with new migrants (though spreading out into the country at LOW DENSITY (i.e. lots of green lung) instead of getting more dense), instead of being trapped into elections systems (and profiteering mechanisms thereof parasiting off elections) that again are not even participatory or even true democratic (1 man 1 vote AT ALL LEVELS), being mostly representative democracies, an exception being a portion of USA’s governance in the 1 man 1 vote for President, though the wide ranging powers of Presidents could again be separated into expert councils and the President’s powers itself could be to VETO when deadlock or a quick decision is needed more than anything else.
Back to nations and migration.
People who are criminal (refer to crimes in the most common sense manner, negative freedoms like as discussed throughout my WP site ARE NOT CRIMES) could still be expelled from nations or non-(fill in your ‘criminal’ action here) zones, or kept in certain (fill in your ‘criminal’ action here) advocacy districts (rather than profiteering prisons – Thieves Quarter / City of Thieves anyone?) they had been ‘criminal’ in. Networking with GPS, surveillance technology could easily ensure that such persons won’t be able to run off to another nation and cause trouble, but migration ESPECIALLY by goodly and hardworking folks should be ENTIRELY UNIMPEDED or plutocratic in nature (requires certain amounts of funds to enter or ‘switch countries etc..)
The current system breeds profiteering via demogoguery and xenophobia, opens the door to abuse by war mongers in government, the unethical within the psychiatric establishment (nominally also the medical establishment colluding with a food production with infused with cancer causing preservatives and other potentially addictive if not sickening unpronounceable substances), and encourages riots or hegemonies including over residents of any country. The right to migrate has been trampled on since the passport or various ‘prohibitions’ on essentially valueless, easily grown at home substances which Nature GIFTED humanity, were introduced (which undemocratic group of people say you are not allowed to grow your own food at home or medicinal and recreational plants???), what is needed in fact is redistribution of wealth and land ownership if we even claim to have left the dark ages.
Try the link below where Capitalism is not uncontrolled. “Utopia is Capitalism with Socialist Caps on maximum Personal Wealth sequesterable. Try 50 times 401K at a maximum of 20 million . . . (think Romney’s 600 times 401K . . . or Bloombergs’ 50,000 times 401K . . . )”