Saturday, 24 June 2017

Roy Peck talks balls about immigration - and makes perfect sense

American journalist Roy Peck's famous 2010 gumball rally immigration video...

...has been doing the rounds on social media this week. I thought I'd already posted it, but can find no trace of it on the blog. So here it is. Obviously the figures will have changed in the last seven years - especially the ones for China - and the world is getting richer (thanks to capitalism, and no thanks to socialism) - but the argument against using mass immigration as a way of alleviating world poverty obviously still applies. In fact, as emigration from poor countries has increased of late, Peck's demonstration is probably even more relevant now. 

So why do many in the West persist in supporting mass economic migration, when it's evidently about as much use as prescribing two aspirin a day to someone with a broken leg? In fact, it's worse than useless - not only does it do positive harm to the countries the migrants are deserting, it also does incalculable damage to the countries they move to, in terms of social cohesion, housing stock, the health service, education, the benefits bill, crime etc. Not all migrant group are harmful of course - some are positively beneficial. But because of the sheer number of newcomers, and because many Western countries refuse to discriminate between immigrants based on their country of origin (which would be sensible but, apparently, wicked), and, because it's considered monstrously racist for members of the indigenous population to express a preference for one group of incomers over another, sensible arguments for allowing in productive, useful, assimilable economic migrants tend to get drowned out. 

This is daft, of course. The part of London where I live seems to have a large number of economic migrants from two countries, one Eastern European, the other African. One of the groups has a good reputation, one most certainly doesn't. But, thanks to political correctness, and despite a vast amount of evidence suggesting that these groups' differing reputations are well-deserved, we're not allowed to point this out in case we attract the attention of Mr. Plod.

Given that large-scale, non-discriminatory economic migration actively harms the large mass of poor people in poor countries, why is it so popular amongst Western leftists? Two main reasons, I think:

1. It makes them feel morally superior to the millions and millions of Westerners who don't think it's a good idea: it feeds their puffed-up egos by allowing them to demonstrate their boundless compassion for the wretched of the earth - without actually requiring them to do anything to help the wretched of the earth (unless anyone seriously imagines that signalling your virtue by screaming hateful slogans at rallies or posting humongously self-important, self-righteously angry comments online represents purposeful activity).

2. It forces conservatives to say things that can be characterised as racist and uncompassionate. When the wetter sort of conservative embarrassedly adopts a more liberal posture on the issue to avoid charges of racism and cruelty, leftists instantly increase the stakes by demanding that western countries immediately remove all border controls and allow in unlimited numbers of immigrants. This would rapidly turn western countries into dysfunctional, poverty-stricken hellholes, of course - but that's not the point: embarrassing conservatives is all that matters. That's how petty, childish, selfish, irresponsible, nihilistic and downright malevolent many leftists are.  I suggest never giving them an inch: an inch soon turns into a foot, which morphs into a yard, and, in an eyeblink, they've taken a mile - and they'll still be screaming "racist scum" in your face and accusing you of "hating poor people": might as well be hung for sheep, I say.

1 comment:

  1. Great video-thanks.
    What ever happened to the UK's points-based system for those outside the EU?
    Watered down by PC. Or lost in a labyrinthine bureaucracy?
    One hears precious little of it these days.