It is a strategy but not a good one

On the way to work and to the train, I first pass a Jewish primary school, and then when I turn the corner, on the right there is the Holocaust Centre and on the left there used to be the main Melbourne building of the ABC, the major mouthpiece for anti-semitic anti-Israeli thought in Australia. The left only loves victims. If you cannot be classed as a victim, they will support any of your enemies as long as they can be declared a victim, and if they can be made out to be victims of the Jews, all the better.

We Jews cannot survive without friends. Whether in the Middle East or in the countries in which we were born, survival, actual physical survival, depends on the good will of others. No Jew is unrelated to someone who has been murdered for being Jewish. Every Jew is aware of this, and every Jew has a strategy, whether it is to join with our enemies and show how wonderful we are, or to oppose our enemies and risk creating even greater hatreds.

Sultan Knisch has written an article he titles Betrayal of the Holocaust. He begins:

When we talk about the Holocaust, we are talking about the mass murder of millions of Jews.

The dead included my grandparents and countless others, shot, starved, gassed, beaten to death and buried in mass graves. And yet the lessons of the Holocaust in its commemorations rarely have anything to do with Jewish lives.

So in the memory of the Holocaust many Jews are helping to open our borders to some of the most vile anti-semites who have ever lived. It is a strategy, but, I fear, not one that will be blessed with success. If Christian culture does not survive, neither will the Jews.

Their vision of our future

You antediluvian reptile, you. You reactionary, backward neolithic barbarian, locked into your out-dated twentieth-century mindset. This is what our elites believe, and this is the world they are making for us from inside their gated communities. From The Atlantic: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely. This is the conclusion:

Closed borders are one of the world’s greatest moral failings but the opening of borders is the world’s greatest economic opportunity. The grandest moral revolutions in history—the abolition of slavery, the securing of religious freedom, the recognition of the rights of women—yielded a world in which virtually everyone was better off. They also demonstrated that the fears that had perpetuated these injustices were unfounded. Similarly, a planet unscarred by iron curtains is not only a world of greater equality and justice. It is a world unafraid of itself.

Merkel’s not insane. She, like others of her kind, just thinks that everyone should be allowed to go wherever others have been successful in creating wealth so that they too can have their fair share as well. What could possibly be wrong with that? What could be more just? A hundred years from now they will all look back at us and think how primitive we must have been.

[Via Instapundit]

Two articles on immigration

As everyone knows, open borders leads to a more harmonious happier more contented and prosperous world. Here are two articles published today that you might therefore read to confirm your views on how bizarre those who oppose immigration are. One is from the US by Ann Coulter. The second is from Australia by Peter Baldwin.

First Ann, whose article is titled, Useless Idiots. You’ll have to read the article for yourself to see who she means, but she really does go over the top.

The second is titled, Migrant crisis: Europe must close borders to refugee influx. An obvious hysteric with no credibility. You’ll again have to read the article for yourself to see just how off the planet he is.

AND LET ME JUST ADD THIS: Of course I’m a migrant and so the last thing in the world I would be against is migration. I was, however, amongst that first tranche in 1975 who needed a migrant’s visa to move to Australia from Canada. This entailed an embassy official to come down to Toronto from Ottawa for an hour-long interview to which he brought a professor of economics from the University of Toronto to ensure themselves that I was up to the mark for teaching at the College in Bendigo. This is what I understand about migration. The country decides on who comes and who does not, and they also decide on how many in any given year, and they ensure as best they can that the migrant is likely to become a productive member of the community. However, what I do not accept is people just wandering in as they please where the host country does no sorting and assessing. That I don’t get, which is why I was very keen to ensure that the boats were stopped, as was most of the country. These are not fine distinctions, but the very minimum requirement if we are to remain a nation state in a world of other nation states.

YOU CAN NOW ADD A THIRD ARTICLE TO THE TWO ABOVE: This is from that nitwit Mark Steyn who never quits talking about migration and demographics. This one is called The Emperor’s Moral Narcissism which even comes with a photo showing a crowd of sensible people holding up a sign reading “Refugees Welcome”.

Open borders idiocy

If you would like some idea of why I will never count myself a libertarian, here is one of the most important. This is a newsletter from the CIS titled, Open the Borders.

March 16 is unofficially ‘Open Borders Day’, drawing attention to the moral and practical case for more movement of people across national borders. It refers to the presumption that people should be able to move freely – the burden of proof lies on those who favour restrictions.

Apart from the ever-present issue of asylum seeker and refugee policies, and stoushes over 457 visas, immigration policy largely flies under the radar. This a positive by-product of a relatively bipartisan consensus on immigration benefits, but also means creative thinking in this area is lacking.

There has been a largely unremarked shift in the government’s rhetoric. Michael Pezzullo, secretary of the Department of Immigration, Customs, and Border Protection, (the delineation of these three functions is indicative) has said mass migration is a mission “long accomplished”, describing the department as a “gateway”, and emphasising the border.

The Howard era approach – where a deterrence narrative for asylum seekers sat comfortably alongside a welcoming attitude to immigrants – appears to be going out of fashion.

Due to the budget pressures outlined in the Intergenerational Report, which can be ameliorated by higher levels of immigration, a substantial restriction in immigration policy is unlikely. But it’s also worth asking why, then, scant attention is being paid to it outside the government’s latest plan to crack down on 457 visas.

Given the government has had much success in negotiating freer movement of goods across borders, it could also be successful in negotiating freer movement of labour, particularly with countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and United States, in a manner similar to the arrangement with New Zealand. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has expressed interest in the idea.

The Productivity Commission has suggested changes to visa conditions to make it easier for live-in au pairs to stay with a family longer than six months, and another suggestion involves allowing Indonesian women to live and work in Australia as nannies, as a partial solution to the problems plaguing childcare.

These are the kind of innovations that could revitalise discussion around immigration policy. It shouldn’t continue to fly under the radar.

There is, as it happens, not a single good economic reason for opening our borders, with the positively worst one of all some kind of Keynesian demand-side stimulus idiocy. There are no other good non-economic reasons for open borders either. Here we find the CIS lining up with Obama on possibly the single most important issue the US is facing. Immigration should be selective and the immigrant should be assessed very carefully by the country to which application is being made. Showing up on the border and asking to be let in should ensure someone is put at the farthest end of the back of the queue. Immigration may yet sink the West beneath a tide of newly arrived migrants who have no marketable skills and care nothing at all for the value system of the West.