May 3, 2017

"Why is it, exactly, 'immoral' for a nation to have a certain preference as to whom it allows to migrate in?"

"It may not be consistent with a choice we would make, but are we the world's standard, something we are otherwise routinely trashed for. I can certainly see the NYT defending a Muslim nation making such a choice (no doubt to 'protect its unique culture and heritage' or some such language) or at the very least remaining silent lest any criticism be blasted as hateful."

Top-rated comment on a NYT op-ed titled "Australia’s Immoral Preference for Christian Refugees."

Second-highest rated: "Good for Australia. At least one western country has come to its senses. A country can define who it allows in however it wants, depending on how the country feels that person or group of people will fit into their national fabric."

58 comments:

tcrosse said...

Here's looking at you, Canada.

mesquito said...

How many Somalis live in Minnesota? In whose interest was THAT allowed?

eric said...

Maybe Christian refugees because Christians are the ones being slaughtered.

Balfegor said...

Because Australia is English-speaking, Australia's refugee and immigration policies are a living refutation of the argument that it's impossible to control immigration, or that controlling immigration will result in utter disaster. People can point to them and say "but Australia's doing it and the world hasn't ended!" and this is intolerable to a certain sort of person.

Japan is also moving into the cross-hairs here -- they're not English-speaking, so they kind of slip by, but people are starting to notice that they're a huge country with a high standard of living, negligible crime, and minimal immigration, so there are some people out there trying to drum up a bit of outrage. As a living counter-example to modern nostrums about immigration, however, they're less salient than Australia. They're not English-speaking, after all, so it's not quite as obvious to the average Westerner.

Kep Hartman said...

We have the choice of who to let in, and who can become a citizen. I am pro-choice. And I choose those whose values and lifestyle will fit in best with our own.

We should take care of our own first. We do have limited funds to support those who enter---and we already have a tremendous debt to pay! Immigrants ought to help our GDP, not take away from it. Yes, we ought to provide a limited safety net for refugees from war-torn areas, but again, we can offer temporary refugee status without making them citizens. Men, especially, should be denied refugee status, as they should be fighting to preserve their own homeland.

Likewise, we should not take those whose social customs, behavioral norms, and standards of governance differ significantly from ours. We cannot have those think that cannibalism is acceptable, or rape, or genital mutilation, or making women walk around under sacks, or those who cannot handle freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly (and those who want to make it illegal to criticize their religion, for instance). We cannot allow those who believe in totalitarianism into our country. Those who fail to completely pass these tests should be denied entry.

If some slip through and fail to completely assimilate, then they must go back.

Kovacs said...

I won't argue about a country's right to determine its own borders and who it lets in, etc., but a Christian who wants to give succor only to other Christians isn't following Jesus's example. That's kind of the point of the good Samaritan parable.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left is stuck on a bad idea -- multiculturism.

It's a reaction to "homogeniety" or, worse, "white supremacy" -- which they greatly disfavor. And they do have a point, but they overreact to it.

At it's core, it means that all sorts of different cultures, ethnicities, sexes and sexual orientations, can magically be thrown into a pot together, and get along just fine.

Of course, in the real world, not the university campus world, this doesn't always work out well. Ethnic birds of a same feather tend to flock together.

Indeed, the whole concept of American immigration from 1922 to 1965 or so, was to ONLY allow immigrants from England, Ireland, Germany, Holland -- because assimilation was easiest among those European Western countries.

Ethnic multiculturalism detached from any effort to assimilate is a recipe for disaster. Europe is in the midst of latching on to this bad idea, and allowing it become predominant.

And, if it takes hold, in 50 years, Europe won't be Europe.

Good for Australia to not succumbing to deadly political correctness.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dude1394 said...

Australia and Japan may be the only two western countries that come out of this thing.

SukieTawdry said...

Why should any nation be expected to import people who would change, if given the opportunity, its principles of governance, traditions, culture or societal norms? I'm sure we all have enough on our plates dealing with our respective home-grown subversives. I am surprised, however, that NY Times readers seem to generally agree.

cubanbob said...

I don't know why the NYT is in a tizzy. It's not like the Aussies reverted back a White's only immigration policy like they used to have.

pacwest said...

United we stand, divided we fall. Best way I know to divide us is to import groups of people whose beliefs and system of governance are antithetical to ours. Another good way would be to create pockets of populace who don't speak English, and have no real interest adopting our culture. (Or if you can't import them fast enough just create them).

Conversely you can try to unite by demanding a single common language and importing folks as needed who have as much as common with us as possible.

This is common sense stuff. I see people at airports holding signs that espouse immigration policies that would so obviously create more divisions harmful to a civil society, and am clueless as to what line of thinking could lead them to this rationale.

Why would we want to commit national suicide? And for those who haven't heard-we settled the western part of the USA several years back and don't need a heavy influx of immigrants to help with that anymore.

Original Mike said...

A few days ago I heard Nancy Pelosi call The Wall "immoral". What rubbish.

Good on the Aussies.

Jack Wayne said...

Here's two cliches which the Left love. And were articulated many times by the Dear Leader: "We're on the right side of History" and "We're better than that". I would love to see them both thrown on the ash heap of history.

tim in vermont said...

Funny thing is, we are not a "Christian" nation, but we are a democratic one, and a tolerant one, and we should only let in people who are amenable to tolerance and democracy. It's not that hard a test. We can't take in 7 billion people, we have to choose somehow, and we don't really need, in this labor market, a huge influx of cheap labor. It's not racism, it's common sense.

traditionalguy said...

Christians are monotheist and deny the other gods. Ergo the World Religion must destroy us. And that means destroy free speech.

Thorley Winston said...

Several thoughts:

(1) There are a finite number of refugees that any country is going to take in.

(2) Generally refugees should be relocated temporarily and as close to their country of origin as they safely can be so that they can eventually return home.

(3) There are a number of Muslim majority countries surrounding the areas of conflict that are safely out of the combat areas and could admit refugees that are of the same religion of their native population. There are not any Christian-majority countries in that area.

(4) There is a credible argument that Christian refugees – because they are disproportionately targeted for violence both by the warring factions in the country they’re freeing from and by other refugees in the refugee camps – may generally have a greater need for refuge than Muslim refugees.

(5) While there might be an individual case in which a particular refugee who was more in need of refuge was denied it in favor of one was given preference because they were Christian, on the aggregate it is entirely defensible and rational for countries like Australia and the United States to give preference to Christian refugees over Muslim refugees.

(6) If Human Rights Watch is criticizing the policies of a Western government, the government is usually doing the right thing.

Sebastian said...

"I can certainly see the NYT defending a Muslim nation making such a choice (no doubt to 'protect its unique culture and heritage' or some such language) or at the very least remaining silent lest any criticism be blasted as hateful." But this ignores prog logic. The argument is not: every nation should be able to decide its identity; therefore Australia has the right to do what it did. It is: no bad white western nation should be able to decide its identity; bad white westerners can only be absolved of their sins by admitting the Other and giving up their identity; therefore Australia is compounding its sins (but Muslim countries shutting the gates do not).

"we are a democratic one, and a tolerant one, and we should only let in people who are amenable to tolerance and democracy. It's not that hard a test." It is. In fact, it is an impossible test. Somalis can tell you a thousand times they mean well, and next month their lovely teenage kid will declare himself a jihadi. Not that a serious ideological screening would pass muster in domestic politics anyway.

Che Dolf said...

Kovacs said... a Christian who wants to give succor only to other Christians isn't following Jesus's example. That's kind of the point of the good Samaritan parable.

"The succinct response to the Good Samaritan parable is that the Samaritan was not obliged to house and feed hundreds of millions of refugees, who attacked and raped his children, and Christ did not enjoin people to let others overrun their homes and start drug and prostitution rings while building mosques that preach an adverse, murderous faith."

"The Good Samaritan helped someone out, he didn't let the guy colonize his home. Treat guests well, but a guest by definition leaves."

mockturtle said...

Kep Hartman writes: Likewise, we should not take those whose social customs, behavioral norms, and standards of governance differ significantly from ours. We cannot have those think that cannibalism is acceptable, or rape, or genital mutilation, or making women walk around under sacks, or those who cannot handle freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly (and those who want to make it illegal to criticize their religion, for instance). We cannot allow those who believe in totalitarianism into our country. Those who fail to completely pass these tests should be denied entry.

A good test question for potential immigrants might be: Should it be legal to draw the Prophet Muhammed?

urbane legend said...

What Che Dolf said.

Drago said...

Kovacs: "I won't argue about a country's right to determine its own borders and who it lets in, etc., but a Christian who wants to give succor only to other Christians isn't following Jesus's example. That's kind of the point of the good Samaritan parable."

Who can forget Jesus lobbying Pilate and the Roman Emperor to enact laws that forced others to live by the principles that Jesus espoused?

Gee, it seems as though Kovacs might have gotten a few things wrong regarding the Good Samaritan parable.

buwaya said...

The writer made no ethical argument at all.
No system, no basis, no premises, and no connection between the alleged default and any of these.

It merely asserted an ethical judgement, or what it claimed was an ethical judgement.

This is typical.

YoungHegelian said...

Ya ever notice how folks who criticize Western countries for not letting in Muslim refugees never seem to publicly criticize wealthy Moslem states who don't let them in?

I'm sorry. As a mackerel-snapper, I'm a proud member of the Dar al-Harb**, & not the Dar al-Islam. Let the Kuwaitis, Saudis, Malaysians, etc take in hordes & hordes of their spiritual brother & sisters. Or, are westerners the only people in the world who commit the sin of hypocrisy?

** And, closer to home, a proud Follower of the Whore of Babylon, who is just a fabulous dresser, BTW.

Steven said...

That's kind of the point of the good Samaritan parable.

Have you read the parable recently?

The good Samaritan took the beaten Jew to a safe inn near the site of the attack, and paid the innkeeper to take care of the beaten Jew while he recovered. He did not take the beaten Jew, a man of another religion, into his home for the rest of the Jew's life.

Accordingly, by the standard of the NYT op-ed, he was the Immoral Samaritan.

bagoh20 said...

Having lived in Los Angeles for decades, I've known many illegal aliens and gotten very close with some, even best friends. Lately when the subject of illegal immigration comes up, I ask some simple questions:

What if someone moved into your house uninvited? Even if they help around the house and pull their own weight? Do you still think they have a right to stay there regardless of your preference that they not? Now what if they actually are a burden, as in eating your food, not paying any rent? And what if they are actually hurting your family and stealing stuff? Is there any situation where strangers should be allowed to move in and stay forever without your permission?

This always brings the same answer: "That's not the same thing."
But, isn't it exactly the same thing?

The problem is that some of us have let them in and practically invited them for so long that getting strict now is like a bait and switch so long running that it's become cruel to ask them to leave. It's always the problem with not sticking to the rules. Eventually you have to be an asshole to get them back. Foolish tolerance makes you an asshole eventually, but if you want your house back...

Marc Puckett said...

Imagine the outcry and consternation if Malaysia made a serious offer to resettle 100,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians and asked the Saudis and the Gulf States to bankroll a significant part of the cost: the goodthinkers in the West would be marching in the streets against what would be interpreted to be a devilish Israeli-US plot.

mockturtle said...

bagoh, you make an excellent point. The answer is enforce the law. Enforce it fully and consistently. When laws go unenforced, law, in general, fails to be respected.

n.n said...

Principled alignment is a skilled indicator of character.

That said, the cover-up of collateral damage from the left forcing CAIR is not progressing as Planned. Choosing elective regime changes has consequences. Their advocacy to deny life unworthy and support of the abortion industry is one of many visible conflicts of interest, as is their support for [class] diversity (e.g. institutional racism). The rise of anti-nativism is a clear and progressive threat to people affected by CAIR at both the origin and destination.

DanTheMan said...

My last visa stamp from the UK says I am ineligible to work there, or receive any public assistance.

What a bunch of racists!



DanTheMan said...

I should be able to sneak into France, get a cash-only job, and once there, bring over my entire family. Then I can demand that they teach my kids in English, and print all government forms in English, too, including my tax "refund" for taxes I never paid.
I'll demand a drivers license. I vote illegally, of course, since its a hate crime to ask for my ID. And I should be free from threat of deportation in sanctuary cities.
My kids will wear the stars and stripes on July 4th, and demand that public schools ban the wearing of the tricolor cockade on "our" day as inciting violence.

Anyone who disagrees is a hateful racist xenophobe.

Gahrie said...

It's always the problem with not sticking to the rules. Eventually you have to be an asshole to get them back. Foolish tolerance makes you an asshole eventually, but if you want your house back...

They usually tell me that the rules are unfair and shouldn't be enforced. So I ask them would it be OK for the U.S. to change it's immigration and citizenship laws to match those of Mexico. The ignorant ones say yes, until I explain Mexico's laws. The one's who already know Mexico's laws usually manage to look embarrassed as they say no.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Kovacs,
Jesus made a point to not be political - he was referring to personal morality, not political morality. If Christians would like to help the oppressed in other countries, they have many options other than bringing them into the United States.

roesch/voltaire said...

Historically we have made decision about who can migrate in-- not so many from China, keep the Jews out etc. But of course now that Trump is creating so many new jobs we will need immigrants to fill those jobs, or is it reasonable to consider what in a reasonable influx given, space, jobs and resources? I think so.

Drago said...

r/v: "... or is it reasonable to consider what in a reasonable influx given, space, jobs and resources? I think so."

You wanna clean that up a bit so we can discuss? It's a bit of mess right now.

Fernandinande said...

A year ago A. Odysseus Patrick was complaining about Aborigine immigrants:

In Australian state, aboriginal kids 53 times more likely to be in jail than others

jack hoysted said...

i am a regular reader, though not a comment, an aussie lawyer, partner in an immigration practice,
aus has 80% public support for its migration programme, because it is rules based and largely skills based,
pretty sure that doesn't apply anywhere else.
it is also non-discriminatory, though i think in this instance a decision was made that christians and yazidis were particular targets of isis and would find it harder to relocate in a mid east fairly hostile to them so some preference was given.
as to Aus being racist, well, compared to where exactly.
we have more foreign born than anywhere, and i live in Asia and we are much less racist that anywhere up here.

Jay Vogt said...

Roosevelt's War Refuge Board was created explicity to give refugee/immigration preference to Jews.

Will history assess him immoral?

Crazy Jane said...

Every time the NYT runs this sort of rah-rah piece about refugees or undifferentiated immigrants, the reader reactions are negative. Very negative. Lots of, "I'm a Democrat, but ...."

This is unusual. The typical reaction to the paper's official line on other issues is a Hallelujah chorus of progressive backpatting.

It suggests that there may be broader consensus on immigration policies and that the consensus is one that includes people of the left as well as centrists and people on the right.

Kevin said...

Australia has a lot of Lebanese Christian immigrants who have generally been successful, some of whom have reached the highest levels of Australian society.

Australia also has a lot of Lebanese Muslim immigrants who have generally not been successful.

Maybe it's just empirical observation.

William said...

The NYT is prescient. There's a good chance that if we accept too many Hindus, Coptics, or Syrian Christians, then those ungrateful pricks may end up voting Republican. Some immigrants are even more disreputable than Cubans. We should recruit immigrants mostly from countries or religions that hate America. These immigrants are the true lovers of democracy. People who have grown up burning the American flag will have no trouble assimilating the ideals of the Denocratic Party.

Yancey Ward said...

Crazy Jane wrote:

"It suggests that there may be broader consensus on immigration policies and that the consensus is one that includes people of the left as well as centrists and people on the right."

I never read the comments at a NYTimes piece, but your observation would not terribly surprise me- there is a broad consensus stricter immigration policies that at least picks up part of the political left. Letting anyone in who wants to come is definitely not even close to a close call politically.

SDN said...

"I won't argue about a country's right to determine its own borders and who it lets in, etc., but a Christian who wants to give succor only to other Christians isn't following Jesus's example. That's kind of the point of the good Samaritan parable."

Oh yeah, totally the same, especially how the rescued was a known follower of a religion that has as it's central tenet that anyone not following that religion is a legitimate target for enslavement or death.

tim in vermont said...

It's. immoral because it needs to be immoral in order to support the Democrat Party's quest for single party rule in the United States. End of story. If you think Democrats are corrupt now, wait until they have re-engineered the electorate to the point where they can't lose an election.

Inkling said...

I can't help but wonder why supposedly tolerant liberals, here and in Europe, seem so eager to flood their countries with Arab Muslims, arguably the most intolerant, xenophobic people on the planet.

There is an explanation. Liberals don't want tolerant societies. They want to set group against group, pandering to one and demonizing another, in order to better control and manipulate them all. Call that the politics of hate.

The Drill SGT said...

bagoh20 said...
The problem is that some of us have let them in and practically invited them for so long that getting strict now is like a bait and switch so long running that it's become cruel to ask them to leave. It's always the problem with not sticking to the rules. Eventually you have to be an asshole to get them back. Foolish tolerance makes you an asshole eventually, but if you want your house back...


Listen to your Aunt Violet:

"No guest should be admitted without the date of their departure being fixed in advance!"

The Drill SGT said...


""Why is it, exactly, 'immoral' for a nation to have a certain preference as to whom it allows to migrate in?""


Ask those wonderful Mexicans why they assist their citizens in illegally entering the US, but ruthlessly abuse illegals from Central America trying to cross their Southern border into Mexico.

Unknown said...

I am heartily sick of non-Christians telling me what I *must* believe.

Kovak's argument is so at odds with the text of The Bible, that I must doubt he's ever even read it.
He's certainly not familiar with who the Samaritans were, where they lived, and their relationship with the Jews. Even a cursory knowledge of this basic background makes his claim laughable.
He ignores the explicit obligation to give preference to one's co-religionists when providing charity.
There's a rather sizable difference between aiding an injured stranger, and bringing him home with you. Refugee camps are a perfectly adequate analog for the inn in this particular hypothetical.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Jay Vogt said...
Roosevelt's War Refuge Board was created explicity to give refugee/immigration preference to Jews.

Will history assess him immoral?
5/3/17, 10:30 PM

For waiting till 1944, you mean?

Larry J said...

Perhaps the US should Adapt [sic] Mexico's Immigration Policy.

William said...

Interesting to note that Chamberlain--no one's favorite British PM--accepted 50,000 German Jewish refugees before the start of WWII. FDR, by way of contrast, accepted about 500 Jewish refugees. Most of them had ties to Hollywood.

dreams said...

As the Instapundit likes to say, personnel is policy. As late as the fifties and early sixties our country was about 90% white and 10% black and we had a shared heritage, those were the good old days. We're becoming a ....

Bruce Hayden said...

What is wrong with giving priority to immigration grants who will assimilate better and make the country stronger? I would suggest nothing. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that it is good for the country.

Why multiculturalism? Why should we give priority to immigration grants whose theology requires our destruction? The answer to these questions is really, again, the Russians. A real plot this time, not the fake conspiracy being foisted on us by the left. The Soviet leadership knew two important things about the US. One was that they couldn't beat us in a stand up fight. They learned that during WW II, when our massive aid allowed them to survive. And the other was that we had to be beaten from within. So, they set out to do the latter, and worked for decades to accomplish it. Much of the anti-Vietnam War movement was theirs. Their funding and their organization. By the fall of the Soviet Union, their anti-western movement here had reached critical mass, and was well embedded in academia, teaching the next generations not about how our culture created this country and all its prosperity, but, rather, all of its (often imaginary) sins. And, if our country fails, or even fails to lead, they will have succeeded, by destroying what made this country great from the inside.

And that is the point here, that the original reason for multiculturalism was to destroy what made this country great from the inside. To destroy our cultural cohesion. And keeping that in mind answers the question of whether or not the Australians are right here.

I should note that the Russians who orchestrated this, and the Russians who run their country to this day, don't have these issues. They have been on the border with, and fighting, expansionary Islam for many centuries. When they tried to absorb Muslim neighbors, they did so brutally, as they tried to Russify them. To some extent, they acted like Henry Ford did originally with car colors - their republics could have any culture or language they wanted, as long as it was Russian.

Balfegor said...

Re: Bruce Hayden:

And that is the point here, that the original reason for multiculturalism was to destroy what made this country great from the inside. To destroy our cultural cohesion. And keeping that in mind answers the question of whether or not the Australians are right here.

I think it was originally that the United States was not an ethnostate. It really never has been an ethnostate given the Blacks brought over as slaves and the American Indians who were here before and all the Hispanics in those territories we acquired from the Spanish Empire and Mexico. As an accident of history, we all happened to end up here in the same land, so for all of us to live together there needed to be mutual consideration for our different cultures. And that was multi-culturalism at first. Melting pot vs multi-culturalism -- just a matter of how you mediate the distinctions between the people who have ended up living together for whatever reason.

But multiculturalism has metastasized into an affirmative desire to add as many new cultures to the mix as possible. And that's what you're reacting most negatively to, I think.

Jay Vogt said...

Bad Lieutenant said..."For waiting till 1944, you mean?"

That's a very fair comment and I agree with what you are inferring. However, it's really immaterial to my point - which i suspect you already know.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Oh, of course, I fully believe you may pick and choose. You have to do what makes sense. Persisting in absurdities because you get caught in some kind of logical cleft stick is not my style.

Angel-Dyne said...

Balfegor: I think it was originally that the United States was not an ethnostate. It really never has been an ethnostate given the Blacks brought over as slaves and the American Indians who were here before and all the Hispanics in those territories we acquired from the Spanish Empire and Mexico.

The original U.S. was pretty close to being an Anglo ethnostate. Blacks and American Indians added to that but they did not make the U.S. "multicultural" in any meaningful sense. "All the Hispanics" in the territories later taken from Mexico amounted to very little, population wise, and, aside from long-standing cultural influence in parts of the Southwest, "Hispanics" were not a huge cultural force in the nation at large until very recently.

As an accident of history, we all happened to end up here in the same land, so for all of us to live together there needed to be mutual consideration for our different cultures. And that was multi-culturalism at first.

The U.S. stopped resembling any kind of real "ethnostate" within less than a century of its establishment, but I don't think what you write above is at all an accurate description of what the U.S. was, culturally. It implies that a very diverse, wildly disparate bunch of people just happened to wash up here and decided to have a go at making a nation sui generis. No, the U.S., was a British-derived nation, founded by Englishmen, and that was the overwhelmingly dominant political and cultural "melting pot" into which newcomers assimilated.

Melting pot vs multi-culturalism -- just a matter of how you mediate the distinctions between the people who have ended up living together for whatever reason.

Just being a bunch of "people who have ended up living together for whatever reason" would be an odd description of the U.S. I grew up in (or really, much want to live in). I want to be (and for the most part still am) able to refer to "my countrymen", not "citizen-units with whom I have been randomly thrown together and among whom cultural distinctions must be continually mediated". "Melting pot" implies a real national identity, that is, an existing standard against which any necessary "mediations" are conducted.

I don't think we're disagreeing much about ends here, countryman. I am taking issue with points of demographic history and some of your phrasing.

Balfegor said...

Re: Angel-Dyne:

"All the Hispanics" in the territories later taken from Mexico amounted to very little, population wise, and, aside from long-standing cultural influence in parts of the Southwest, "Hispanics" were not a huge cultural force in the nation at large until very recently.

Hispanics are actually a negligible cultural force in the nation even today (unlike, say, African Americans, who have a cultural presence far greater than their numbers). But it depends where you were, I think -- as you say, in the Southwest, or out on the frontier, Native Americans and Hispanics (and for certain periods of time, Chinese coolies) were a much more visible presence than in the major population centers of the country, where most of the people were -- Chicago or Philadelphia or New York. Those were basically Anglo, as you say.

But even in those days there was a sense that there were multiple distinct cultures in the US, and there were people who crossed between. Sam Houston is the person who comes first to mind here. After he separated from his white wife, he went to live with the Cherokee for some years, adopted their language, married a half-Cherokee lady under Cherokee rites (the Cherokee themselves having become westernised in a lot of ways, but retaining I suppose, some of their old customs) and travelled with the Cherokee when we drove them into the west. After he returned to White society and played his part in the Texian War of Independence, he sometimes went about dressed in Cherokee clothing rather than Western clothing. In a sense, he ab-similated towards Cherokee culture rather than pushing the Cherokee to assimilate further towards Western culture. While not universal, I think this kind of embrace of cultural difference does represent a pattern of American life that existed alongside the melting-pot approach.

That said, as a pattern it may well have been confined to the frontier -- Houston made his career in the marches, out in Tennessee and Texas, after all.