BAD IMMIGRATION POLICY GIVES RISE TO FEAR AND INTOLERANCE–SO THE ECONOMIST CLAIMS. FEAR GIVES RISE TO STRIDENT NATIONALISM, WHICH IN TURN STANDS IN THE WAY OF THE SOLUTION. BACKWARD NATIONALISM CREATED THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND BREXIT. AND ON GOES THE ARGUMENT OF THE ECONOMIST. AND THE CURE? “BETTER IMMIGRATION POLICY AND SECURE BORDERS.”
EVEN MORE CENTRAL TO THE PROPOSED CURE IS GLOBALISM. ULTIMATELY THAT MEANS NATIONS NEED A SUPRANATIONAL NANNY. GLOBALISM WILL BRING A HALT TO AN ON-GOING FLOOD OF WAR REFUGEES ARRIVING ON THE EU’S UNSECURED SOUTHERN SHORES? IF EU COUNTRIES COULD SECURE THEIR BORDERS, WOULDN’T THEY HAVE DO SO ALREADY?
exist for a reason. Jokes about economists exist for a hundred reasons. The curative pondering of The Economist ranks right along side 401k fees. Being bent over the desk by the 401k pirates is a service quite deserving of relentless ridicule. The gumball machine plugs panned about by this paper rank equally. Why can’t a group of one hundred economists flush a toilet? Because they conclude that the gang will never fit into the bathroom.
The country that brought us Brexit also provides ceaseless global economic advice. As the UK teeters on the cusp of economic ruin, it’s spectacle of publishing rubbish oozes on. One such publishing bullhorn is The Economist.
The late summer edition, August 25-31, 2018, brought us “People and borders. A way forward on immigration.” This British “paper” shamelessly presents answers to every economic issue worldwide–and they do it weekly. “You want it–we’ve got it.”
This outlet of advocacy journalism clearly states “we are losing the argument for liberal immigration.” On liberal immigration their position is crystalline. Open borders benefit all. Oddly however, they only speak so for the west. The Pacific rim remains completely unmentioned. Ask them why.
The Economist suggests their losing argument for open migration is to “sharpen their argument and become more honest.” Hum. Honesty up-front is nice. Perhaps they’ll try that–oops, too late. When considering their losing position, the chosen response is more arguing, with a touch of honesty. Perhaps they could consider the notion that their chosen position is widely reviled and inviable.
The notion that affluent countries will only grow more so, so the argument goes. In short, national borders are atavistic. Open borders will rid nations of intolerance, increase prosperity, and appropriately relieve both refugees and migrants of undue suffering. The best interests of all are served. Resistance is only backward and myopic, and will fade in time–supposedly as we the dimwitted begin to realize the Gnostic truth.
The message repeated is that affluent nations will only benefit as all immigrants assimilate, learn the language, and work. Zero mention is maed of the very lack of assimilation seen across Europe. Disruption, social and financial, are but growing pains. Only “fear” stands in the way.
The failed states of the world and their silly economic ways matter not. The west is responsible for the world. Rubbish. “The long-held national decision of who’s in or out is passe. Raging Viktor Orban nationalism is the threat, open borders the answer. What was once called self-determination–democracy, only stands in the way. Any half-bright liberal will call that out as pure nonsense.
Each and every element of the paper’s forward-looking plan ranks as ridiculous. “Encourage people to work and learn the language.” How exactly dose one force others to work, or learn a language? On the how, the paper is mute. “Reform the international system for refugees.” Translation–remove the power to decide from individual nations. “Secure national borders.” When was the last time the EU controlled it’s borders? Never.
The EU has existed for nearly half a century. How secure are their borders? “Relieve national concerns over overburdened services and social safety nets by charging migrants for entry.” How do you “charge” migrants for entry?
Right. Just charge refugees for national entry like Disney World. No problem. “Will you take a check?” “No. Just charge it at the kiosk positioned on the beach.” Works at the mall. It’ll work on the beach. Self-serve entry payment kiosks on the beaches of Italy and Greece will do. No muss no fuss. When migrants disembark from life-and-death Mediterranean crossings any survivors can stumble up and swipe their Visa card at the kiosk.
Every “remedy” offered by the paper costs. They suggest immediate extension of healthcare and education. ID cards too. How much could that cost? Overhaul the international refugee system? We se how well international law works. Create “loops” for systematic economic migration? Again “Loops?” If not individual nations–then who decides those policies? And who pays? Guess.
In truth, The Economist displays only contempt for democracy, while fully enjoying the benefits of said.
At every turn The Economist smears national concern and calls for the end of self-determination. Simultaneously they call for the securing of national borders, while systematically squawking for global power. National thinking should be cured by embracing the export of power to the mirky inviable supranational. Turkey as an example of any kind of immigration model is idiotic. Yet there it was. Who wouldn’t enjoy witnessing this goofy know-it-all paper attempt to publish their advocacy idiocy from Istanbul.
No where does the paper explain the unstoppable disgust felt by most Europeans for their supranational EU leaders, bureaucracy, and policies. Meanwhile the world observes the stunning farce the EU stages attempting to control a half-baked currency, monetary system, and deposit insurance joke. Who sleeps better once informed of the details of the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism? Is the EU a model for anyone, with it’s Swiss cheese southern borders, unassimilated and marginalized immigrant enclaves, radicalized 2nd generation terrorism, and a rudderless Brexit guaranteed to impoverish the very nation from which the paper prints? And you claim to know the way forward?
The Economist lives up to it’s name. It’s a paper that has never seen a problem for which it doesn’t claim an answer. Rather then claiming to know the way forward for the world, has The Economist ever considered simply reporting economic news?
Roll with volatility, and keep your bucket upright.
Images sourced from Pixabay.
Pixabay.com is simply amazing–a sprawling compendium of joy. Thank you Pixabay. If you also know love and use Pixabays’ lavish resource, please take time to donate to them at Pixabay.com. We do, truly.