Anyone who has followed or participated in America’s long-running immigration debate knows that opposing the open-immigration ideology is like wrestling with Proteus: as soon as you think you have your adversary pinned, he changes his shape, maybe into a bird or sea-monster, and escapes your grasp. As a result of this mercurial quality of the open-borders arguments, there never seems to be any closure in the immigration debate, even on the most obvious and irrefutable points.
For example, one of the perennial assertions of open-borders wisdom is that “current immigration is not high by historical standards,” a plausible-sounding statement which has the effect on many people of sweeping away, or at least of silencing, all doubts they may have on the subject.But as a matter of fact the statement is untrue, because the “historical standards” it refers to are based on just two decades of exceptionally high immigration at the turn of the twentieth century. It is also irrelevant, since large-scale immigration in the past tells us nothing about how much immigration we should have today.
But no matter how many times the “not high by historical standards” slogan is discredited, the open-immigration advocates will just turn around and say that America is a nation of immigrants, or that immigration is a historical force that cannot be stopped, or that immigration restrictionists are intolerant and racist. And as soon as the next opportunity presents itself, the mass-immigration advocates will come back and repeat the argument that “immigration is not high by historical standards,” and with the same triumphant, conclusory air.
New York Times taas on haastatellut libanonilaissyntyistä Brigitte Gabrielia, jonka uusi kirja They Must Be Stopped on juuri ilmestynyt.
What about all the moderate Muslims who represent our hope for the future? Why don’t you write about them?
The moderate Muslims at this point are truly irrelevant. I grew up in the Paris of the Middle East, and because we refused to read the writing on the wall, we lost our country to Hezbollah and the radicals who are now controlling it.
Tuokin pätee niin Euroopassa kuin Suomessakin. Me kieltäydymme näkemästä sitä mikä on täysin ilmeistä, suurin ja selkein kirjaimin seinään kirjoitettua, luomme harhakuvan jostain maltillisesta, itseämme kohti kurkottavasta islamista ja keskustelemme sitten "älykkäästi" ja "sivistyneesti" sen kanssa.
1 kommentti:
Ote artikkelin linkistä, jonka toivoisi suomalaisten päättäjien sisäistävän:
"...... country undergoing a temporary decrease of population leading to population stabilization, not to a country undergoing permanent population shrinkage. A country cannot maintain a fertility rate of, say, 1.2, as Italy as had in recent years, and survive for very long. But what we need to understand is that immigration cannot save such a country either. A national population with a 1.2 fertility rate is shrinking by almost half in each generation. Immigration sufficient to replace the declining host population would thus become almost half the population in one generation, almost three quarters of the population in the next. This is not population maintenance, but simply the suicide and disappearance of a nation and its replacement by other nations. The upshot is that immigration sufficient to maintain a population is either an unnecessary palliative (in the case of a temporary decrease of the host population leading to stabilization), or a catastrophic coup de grace (in the case of an ongoing precipitous decrease of the host population)."
Lähetä kommentti