Is it really better for these people to try to squeeze in to another society for the benefits? Or are they being used as pawns for political power through demographic warfare? How much better off would they be if we helped them in their own backyard instead of funding war lords there?
The Myth Of The Beneficial Influence Of Immigration
As Africa’s population doubles, a lot of them, whatever the circumstances, will becoming to Europe as economic migrants or as refugees. They will be coming – many of them and that is a good thing if they come into a place with an open mind and those economies are doing well because we will be senile. We will be senescent demographically. We’ll need their youthful energy to do stuff. So, that is just what the economic statistics tell you and the demographic data demands, you know… and demography is destiny.
Such a statement was made at Ireland’s Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence by Jamie Drummond, Executive Director of ONE, a pressure group “campaigning against extreme poverty and for the transformation of developing economies and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals” whose top members include such personages as Bono, the lead singer of U2, David Cameron, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Lawrence Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.
Demography is destiny. Precisely. Jamie Drummond is talking about importing “youthful energetic” Africans to “do stuff” for us because we are senescent. And he probably believes everything will work out fine. Humph.
The nonsense of mixing different races is too self-evident to even discuss it so much so that historical record proves that such mixtures unavoidably end up in one of the following or a mixture of them:
- stratification of the society into a caste system (India, United States, Brazil) with ubiquitous ghettos and no-go zones;
- miscegenation that changes the host nation beyond recognition (present-day Egypt as opposed to ancient Egypt; the Ottoman in place of the Byzantine Empire; present-day Mexico and pre-Columbian Mexico);
- civil unrest and civil war with mass butchering (Polish-Ukrainian or Armenian–Turkish borderlands; Tutsi and Hutu in Africa).
The very idea of wishing to change the face of ones own kith and kin is an aberration. So it is, but then economic arguments are raised and to some people money is all that matters. In the case of the Old Continent it is often said that since Europeans have stopped multiplying, they need an influx of people from around the globe (why are Europeans not encouraged to have children in the first place?) so that the welfare state will continue, especially because the growing elderly population in the West becomes a liability for those participating in the labor force.
A welfare state provides for all its citizens. That’s a very humanistic idea and it sounds very attractive. Who wouldn’t like to be taken care of? It seems all right so long as we do not take a closer look at it. The problem is that goods and services cannot be granted until they have been made. Full stop. You cannot distribute things that do not exist. Things and services are made by people, by particular men and women. That’s obvious. Yet they are not made by each and every member of society: children and the elderly, to use the most obvious categories, do not make things or provide services. They are recipients of them. It means that a part of society works to satisfy their own needs plus the needs of those who cannot or do not work.