Brazen Proposals

Duly Noted                                                    

The pressure of “illegals” that claim “persecution” as they break into the developed world grows. Societies which disperse opulent welfare, if as so often PC-determined, cannot respond to remedy the problem. This predicament has assorted components. One is that expulsion does not follow the finding that the request for asylum is unfounded, which makes the claimant’s presence unlawful.

In Europe and in America, handling mass migration should begin, Australian-style, before the border. This means defending the boundary of member states and the Union’s outer limits. Although their awakening peoples abandon them, left-liberal elites insist that there is no crisis, no abuse, no threat and that, topping all that, there is nothing worth to be defended.

The fiction-inspired errors in handling the situation abound. Some, however, fit within the limitations of a short essay.

Let us commence with some much watched footage. Thereafter, we shall proceed from the specific incident to general insights and the principles these support.

The now month-old video’s venue is Ceuta which is a Spanish enclave in North Africa. Whoever gets into Ceuta is legally in Europe and, thereby, entitled to “the whole works”. The disturbingly simple question is “why is this so”. But let us not get side tracked by pursuing it. Ceuta is protected by a 20 foot wall. Because crossing it brings ample benefits, crowds with millions in reserve, are hell-bent to traverse it. Pressured by a swarm, the Spanish defense, also shackled by remote Brussels’ rule that nothing effective be undertaken, has collapsed. As a result, the Europe of spastic elites is burdened by folks with a legal claim to milk from a cow they do not need to feed.

Closer to the reader is another outgrowth of the unprincipled confusion of the soft. The highlights of the plot are unlawful entry, then a clandestine existence in illegality, financed by activities that spice crime statistics. As a reward for not being caught by a system that does not wish to apprehend, the case ends with a nod to stay. At times the script follows an alternative story. After identical preliminaries, it includes a US-born child. Automatic citizenship legalizes the parents’ presence for repatriation, under self-imposed rules that encourage imitation, is made “impossible”.

For Europe the RX is: enter illegally, ask for asylum claiming a fake nationality. Even if rejected, you get the right to stay. That comes with the adjective “temporary” which in practice means “permanent”. Time spent while conditionally tolerated is used to prove assimilation. Even if unemployable and lacking language skills, repatriation, once the crisis has passed for whose duration the stay had been granted, is said to be inconvenient for the migrant. The temporary privilege, packaged as a human right by the left-liberal oligarchy and the bureaucracy that runs the migration industry, is practically irrevocable. It is also a funnel which draws in extended families that are, coming from pre-industrialized societies into post-industrial ones, predestined to remain welfare clients.

In time, the frustration of not sharing the wealth of the majority mutates after a generation into “resistance” to the host’s system. The result is the rebellion of the “ghetto” whose allegiances are external, against majority rule. We have just seen that in Holland when she resisted Erdogan’s export of Turkey’s policies. Comparable cases of the assertive rise of tolerated minorities in support of alien causes against the “protecting” majority are on the rise.

Recalling a Lenin pamphlet, the term “What Is To Be Done?” comes to mind to find a way out of the self-induced predicament.

The described illegal migration and its consequences share a component. It is that an initially unlawful act is allowed to become a condition which is then transformed into a privilege that is ultimately converted into a right. This contradicts not only abstract reason but also the reason in law.

Only the deranged would support the claim that, a stolen item becomes the legally protected property of the thief if he escapes detection long enough to become used to what he stole. Formulated as a principle, we state “No originally illegal action can create an enforceable legal claim”. Accordingly, an impostor that breaks into a home cannot invoke the principle “my house, my castle” when, without a warrant, the police tries to enter the usurped space.

Applied to illegal migration, besides preventing an illicit act from becoming an advantage, in America’s case, a further measure recommends itself. It is that ius solis should be abolished or modified. Earlier, granting citizenship to the US-born might have been a reasonable privilege. Why “privilege”? Well, because most countries do not adhere to the principle. Today, citizenship-through-birth is a source of abuse that impairs the public interest. Therefore, citizenship as a birth right should be made contingent upon a reasonable condition assumed by the original legislation.

Citizenship at birth, if on US territory, needs to be made contingent upon the status of the parent(s). The offspring of legal settlers – such as Green Card holders- but not of illegal migrants or casual visitors, should be allowed to be registered by their parents as Americans. Expressly, an unrelated event (a child’s birth), should not serve to legalize a deed (illegal entry and stay) that otherwise the law of the land forbids.

Closing the newly emerging inadequacies of once adequate laws would inevitably evoke the anger of the relevant lobbies. Those that assert that migration and settlement is a basic human right, will never accept practices that can effectively control the inflow of persons. Equally bitter will be the opposition to the application of meaningful criteria to determine an applicant’s qualifications for citizenship. Naturalization needs to be granted not on the basis of residency, but must hinge upon proven integration. Critical parts of that are the command of the language and financial self-sufficiency because migration into welfare needs to be prevented.

The protection of the interests of society and its security should not be abandoned in the pursuit of unlimited migration which is not a basic human right. Admission needs to be made dependent upon the compatibility of the receiving society and the values of those that apply to join it. Yes, a person has a right to his identity and the resulting life-style. The open question is where this individuality may be lived out.

At the same time, the principle of free choice is also valid for the host, his system and those that reside there. In case that the two models express incompatible values, those of the native are to be protected –if need be by physical border protection. Additionally, affirm the obvious, namely, that the controls are legitimate: immigration should be to the advantage of the host –or at least not to be at his detriment. Accepting and tolerating organized groups that threaten the state, the social-political system, and the security of the indigenous, is not a proof of humanity in action, but an indicator of the will to commit collective suicide as a civilization.

 

Comments are closed.