Borders Imply Walls

Trump recently rolled out his new immigration plan, and it is, to put it mildly, absolutely great.  It does away with the bizarre, randomized lottery system for immigrants, extended family visas, and the priorities placed on the importation of unskilled workers.  Instead, it values—as America does—those with English language proficiency, previous experience in good jobs, entrepreneurial ambitions, and skills that extend beyond picking fruit or wielding a weed-whacker.  That seems completely reasonable, so naturally, the Left has reacted in their predictable fashion: call the President of the United States a white supremacist.

Anyone can see how asinine it looks to call this sort of reform racist.  But then again, anyone should have been able to see how asinine it is to criticize building a wall on our southern border.  To the Comintern, borders are one of the great traditionalist enemies that modernity seeks to overthrow—what company the Leftists in our own country are willing to keep!  But these are the same people that seem to enjoy burning cop cars and forming exclusionary zones based on skin color, and they keep electing local politicians that run their cities even further into squalor than they already are.

A few quick reminders, lest we forget our privilege: yes, erecting a fence between your neighbor’s property and your own is a sign of toxic white masculinity.  And yes, it’s quite bigoted and probably even racist to keep a lock on your front door—especially if you live in a crime-ridden neighborhood.  And yes, contracting out your home improvements to companies that seem to know what they’re doing is, unquestioningly, ableist, racist, and downright capitalist of you.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s next remind ourselves that immigration policies like this new one wouldn’t only favor intelligent Europeans over the general populations of Somalis, Pakistanis, and Nicaraguans, but it would also favor Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Koreans—the sectors of the world which end up with men and women who generally score higher on IQ tests than their more primitive third-world neighbors.  And if we’re going to respect national sovereignty, it stands to reason that we can choose who enters the country in order to become an American.  Americans aren’t Somalis or Pakistanis or Nicaraguans, and we aren’t Mexicans, Cubans, or Iraqis, either.  Nor are we Asian or Indian, but the general tendencies of the latter group is that they don’t typically end up on the welfare rolls or prisons quite in the numbers like the former do.  They have a modicum of respect for the law, for each other, and for themselves, generally speaking, which makes their cultures at least not entirely incompatible with the American ethos.  They’ll still take a few generations to integrate, and the numbers of immigrants should still be scaled back from the somewhat baffling one million per year figure that it’s hovered around now for the past fifteen years, but figuring out who’s a right fit for the country and who still needs some work is at least a start.

But of course, even speaking of “who is a right fit for what country” is elitist, racist, something-phobic, and utterly unacceptable to the effeminate, Starbucks-going, tea-sipping liberal elite who value the cultural merits of immigration as much as their next door neighbor, who lives on the other side of a stainless white concrete wall about seven feet tall and topped with ornamental roses.  There’s that whole gated community jab I could make as well, but all of that is just too easy at this point.  The SJW-populated Left has not learned from the last two years; attempting to marginalize common sense views on national sovereignty by playing the perpetual “Ally to a Victim” Twitter rage is not winning any supporters anymore.  The Operation Trump Derangement is succeeding beyond any foreseeable measure, but instead of snapping people back to reality, it’s more clearly delineating the lines on the battlefield across which America must be prepared to fight.  And realistically, that’s the appropriate thing to do anyway.

How can the existence of “sanctuary” cities even be tolerated?  How can multiple-time deportee criminals be hand-waved away as insignificant statistics when the heinousness of their crimes range from illicit opioid dealing to rape, murder, and larceny?  How can the very definition of “nationality” be contorted to a crypto-fascist buzzword that implies a racial element of in-group supremacy?

How can a simple wall be racist?

Ask your nearest SJW.  He probably won’t have any answers, but he’s likely to find ways of turning the argument back at you.  He’ll move the goalposts.  He’ll ask why you’re so heartless about the suffering immigrants, no matter how much you might want to encourage third world development to help the people where they already are.  He’ll call you racist, even if you attempt to argue from a soft-Right/libertarian civic nationalist perspective.  He’ll tell you that these immigrants are people too, full of dreams and ambitions, as if a) you had implied that they weren’t, and b) the sheer volume of crime, drugs, violence, general irresponsibility, as well as cultural replacement simply doesn’t matter.

This is cluelessness, and I’m glad it’s finally getting a wake-up call.

4 thoughts on “Borders Imply Walls

Add yours

  1. Interesting post. I’m not one to scream racism or make Trump Hitler comparisons. Do you see any underlining prejudice by the bill’s favoring those that speak English speakers?

    Check out my thoughts on the GOP’s immigration bill I would greatly appreciate a follow if your interested and I would love to respond to comments


    1. Cheers. Government regulations are by nature prejudicial, favoring some group and their interests over another. This is especially the case with regard to immigration restrictions and limits, so I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re asking. I certainly don’t see a problem with a sovereign people limiting immigration to those who at least share their language.


  2. Good point, I agree regulations are by nature prejudicial. English is not our national language. I just believe that American exceptionalism calls for us to stand on a moral high ground and help those in need regardless of the language they speak or their country of origin.


    1. Nations are built upon communities, and communities don’t typically last long when their members are divided by language barriers. Amiable coexistence could be possible, but such a difference impedes the formation of cohesive social units. That’s why assimilation is so critical with regard to immigration. The alternative is some form of balkanization.

      As for American exceptionalism, we should be doing our best to help people where they are. If we are exceptional enough for people to want to live here, then we are exceptional enough for people to want to emulate us. That’s far more affordable and less destructive than attempting to import the mass billions of people might benefit from our system and ethos.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: