Time to dabble in politics again, after all it's Saturday.

On today's menu, we have two propositions: "ALL immigration is good", and "not ALL immigration is good". I will excuse you for thinking that no adult would seriously hold the first view - but here is a former elected representative:

YES, all immigration is good. It’s humane; it’s our ancestors
carving a life for themselves, and us; it is proven to boost
the economy; we benefit culturally, artistically, politically,
and socially by immigrants just being here.

So I swear, it's not a straw man, because this way it's easier to counter. So let's start with a light fisking:

  • "it's humane" Maybe ... humane to whom? Sure, it is good to comfort the afflicted, but if that comforting brings suffering to someone else, then it is not humane on a net utilitarian basis. "This can't happen"? -- read on.

  • "it's our ancestors carving a life for themselves" Two ways in which this is wrong. First, even if this were true & relevant, it would only mean it was good for the ancestors' descendants, not the people already in the place where this life was carved out. Second, this phrasing is typical of those who are referring to white colonization of North America as an example of "we're all immigrants". If this is what he was getting at, this is wrong, because there was no preexisting nation being immigrated into when colonists arrived. There were tribes and a whole lot of wilderness. The Europeans conquered / colonized / settled / killed, what have you, but not immigrated.

  • "it is proven to boost the economy" Beyond just a "citation needed", one can proceed a little farther. Just recently, Expert Studies assess The average recent immigrant in Canada imposes a fiscal burden of $5,300 annually to government. Earlier, more Expert Studies concluded Syrian mass refugees' full-time employment rate has doubled in the past year to 27 per cent, and this after a few years. So there's plenty of reason to disbelieve the claim about these cohorts of immigrants, and therefore about the "ALL immigration" claim generally. Last, we are repeatedly told that low-skill jobs are going away (partly due to stupid rises in minimum wages, partly automation). So importing low-skill people directly competes against whatever scraps of starter-work are available for our own next-generation youth, and dooms them to eventual unemployment anyway.

  • "we benefit culturally, artistically [, socially]" If only ALL immigration brought us good culture! We could have a thousand "international village" pavilions with all the gaiety of a thousand cultures' food and music and quaint costumes! Is that a straw man? I'm not even sure, it comes up so often. Here's the thing though - not all cultures are good. Not all cultures are compatible with our western ways of life. There exist cultures that think some types of people are slaves or cattle and treat them this way. There exist cultures where violence and crime are routine. There exist cultures where justice is based on race & religion, not civic law. There exist backward cultures. We do not benefit from immigration from such cultures.

  • "we benefit politically" Another case of "citation needed", but beyond that, let's consider what happens when many immigrants arrive. A great many - after all, "ALL immigration" is good, so a person who believes that must necessarily believe that it must be good in unrestricted numbers. In our democratic system, demographics is destiny: if those immigrants rise to noticeable numbers, and old stock withers due to pathetic fertility rates, the newcomers can literally vote as a block and take over. (Voting as a block is quite common in some demographic communities.)

The nice thing about arguing against "ALL immigration is good" is that it's so easy. If ALL immigration were good, the Camp of the Saints would be utopian rather than dystopian fiction (?).

For comparison, here is a rough outline of the types of requirements that I, King Frank, would support:

  • contribute to the nation, not to speak toward conquering it eventually, not to commit crimes - so the reference goal is a zero crime rate, not the native crime rate

  • cultural compatibility, so as not to dilute our western culture & values, including certain types of equality, language, general respect of reason and education (even though they are creations of "old white men")

  • self-sufficiency, meaning a likelihood of being able to find productive work rather than living off the dole, possessing a minimum level of intelligence and/or funding and/or work-ethic

  • reasonable density, meaning not letting many people arrive fast & settle close enough that ghettos develop where assimilation is impossible or not even attempted

Coincidentally, this is roughly similar to one and only one Canadian federal party's immigration platform. The exact parameters of this sort of thing are obviously a matter of detail. I try not to be an absolutist on these things. But I don't mind saying a harsh NO here and there, because sometimes harshness is required to protect what we have - what I want to leave to my children and those I love.