What right do countries have to exclude some would be immigrants

By Ted Belman

Ted 4Let us say that Canada or any country for that matter decide that the only people they will allow to immigrate are whites. That would make them racist because they are choosing one race over another. Why is it morally wrong to do so? Is there an argument that supports the right to choose the racial make up of one’s country or must all counties be racially blind. I believe Japan maintains their racial make up. Are they then racists in a pejorative sense?. Why is there an imperative to be racially blind. For the record, I am not suggesting that people or countries should discriminate because of the colour of one’s skin. It is value free.

But not every distinction is value free.

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest for Free

Lets change the question. Let’s say a country only allows atheists or Christians or Jews or Muslims to immigrate. Does that make such a country racist or is that an acceptable criterion for admission. Does a country have a moral obligation to accept all religions? Muslim countries don’t and neither does Israel. The Left, of course, argues that all cultures and religions are relative and therefore value free or equal.

Or let’s say a country excludes Nazis, Communists or Muslims who are committed to Jihad. Does that make its citizens “racists”? Or lets say a country chooses not to accept any Muslim in the belief that their religion is incompatible with the culture of such country? Can such choices be made? If not, why not? This is not a question of morality. Culture Matters.

The Left are so dogmatic in their demand for inclusion that they cling to their policies even if they will result in national suicide. In fact that is their goal.

Let us say that a country decides not to allow any immigration. Is that morally acceptable?

November 19, 2015 | 14 Comments »

Leave a Reply

14 Comments / 14 Comments

  1. In your sovereign country you can receive who you want and exclude who you want.

    Israel is the Jewish Country and it allows immigration (aliyah) of Jews and some close relatives. It excludes others.

    The USA and Europe have different rules. Switzerland has very tough rules as so do the Japanese.

    The issue in the EU and USA has become that some of the politicians like Merkel and Obama are obviously allowing immigration that puts its citizens at risk from security and also for allowing people to immigrate who have a great likelihood of not assimilating to the majority culture which will cause further problems.

    Sweden has had such bad immigration policy that some think the state is in serious danger. They have brought in Muslims who do not work but are on welfare and violent crimes including mass rapes have gone through the roof that people are scared.

  2. I wrote the following to Clare Lopez.

    I posed this question on my blog to start a conversation on the subject.

    What right do countries have to exclude some would be immigrants

    There are some very interesting comments.

    I wanted to make the point that indiscriminate immigration is a harmful policy and that immigration should be limited to people who are not ideologicaly against you like Muslims or at least Jihadis whether violent or stealth, and are prepared to integrate.

    I also pointed out that the elites in Europe and the Democrats in America are defying public opinion and forcing Muslims upon their people. It seems to be driven by globalization aided by PC..

    One final point. The Republican candidates for the nomination all all attacking Obama’s immigration policies either because it will put Americans out of work or because some are lawless but no one has the courage to argue that US immigration policies should be tailored to protect our culture. Therefore Muslim immigration should be very limited and hand picked. Certainly Christians should be admitted before Muslims.

    Clare Lopez replies:

    Absolutely agree….the people who built a country, who already live there, who contribute to the fabric of its life, have the right to decide who may come and join them to live there.

    First consideration must be whether newcomers will accept the host culture, laws, traditions, and values & assimilate, not stake out separate enclaves from which to demand concessions of the host society.

    Yes, in both EU & US, it is the over-educated elites w/multicultural, post-modernist, progressivist, value neutral ideas about the deconstruction of their own successful societies that drive the immigrant importation agenda. I know for a fact that this is the case for the UK, where political leaders, 20-30 years ago, decided that England was too Christian, too white, too European…and so deliberately opened the floodgates to immigration from former (Muslim) colonies. Now the place is wrecked.

    Here, too, such idiotic ideas flourish. We must support candidates willing to speak up as Americans who treasure the Judeo-Christian-based laws & society that our Founding Fathers gave us & think it is worth keeping – as is. Yes, absolutely.

  3. David Rubin writes.

    Western Civilization from a primarily Judeo-Christian one into a society of their respective choosing. The Muslims want to create an Islamic Caliphate, in which Islam would rule all. The secular Left wants to create a sort of nouveau Pagan, hedonistic society in which same-sex marriage, abortion on a whim, and fanatic animal rights would be the norm. This worldview would seem to be at odds with that of the Muslims, but it is the hatred of Judeo-Christian civilization, and also of Israel that binds them together.

  5. I received this email from Francisco Gil-White.

    I think immigration policy can be restrictive without there ever being a question of racism. Culture does matter, and a democratic government has a duty to its citizens, not to every person in the world.
    I think the operative principle should simply be whether a certain immigration policy harms or benefits the citizens of a country. A democratic government has a duty to its citizens, so it’s immigration policies should have the public’s approval and should be designed to benefit the citizenry.

    In the late 1930s, as contemporary polls showed, despite much antisemitism, US citizens overwhelmingly approved (70%) establishing refuges for European Jews on US soil. The Jews are easily the most productive and innovative population in the world, per capita. Today they account for 2% of the US population and 40% of its Nobel prizes. So both criteria applied: letting Jews in was something US citizens wanted and it was clearly of benefit to them. But the US power elite refused to let them in. Other Western power elites did likewise.

    I doubt that most Europeans want to receive a huge influx of Muslim refugees, especially once properly informed of the contents of the Qur’an and of the Friday sermons in the mosques.

    It is also obvious that importing Muslims into Europe is harmful to Europeans. Why? Because they tend to be unproductive, becoming a great strain on social services that productive citizens pay for. But most importantly because their most radical religious leaders quickly seize control of community life, funded to the hilt by jihadist regimes such as Saudi Arabia, and organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and so they develop an ecstatic ideology that promises world victory on the infidels who received them, who must be slain for their unbelief.

    Despite the obvious costs for Western citizens, the Western power elites have been quite energetically importing Muslims. At one time this might have been attributed to a poor understanding of the situation, but the situation has been clear for some time now, and Angela Merkel and other leaders are nevertheless upping the ante.

    So this is not stupidity. Anybody who thinks Western leaders are stupid then has to explain why they are in power. No, it is not stupidity. They just have different values. They don’t want democracy, which ties their hands. They knew exactly what would happen if they imported Muslims (because they are not stupid) and they got exactly what they wanted.

    They want a Muslim Europe. If Europeans do not resist, they are going to get it. Then they’ll come for us, in the American continent Our world is dying. Will we fight for it?

  6. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted, the word “discrimination” is an interesting word, in that it has been used almost exclusively in the West, in a negative fashion.
    In fact, what we badly lack these days is the ability to apply “discriminative thinking” to all our worldly problems. This why people – many people – can turn around and blithely state that “there’s no such thing as good and evil”. By saying this, they are able to opt out of making situational judgements based on rational thinking, because (a) it’s easier on the mind, and (b) discriminative thinking relies mostly on rational thinking, which in turn relies on intelligence, not, for example, on emotion or sentimentality.
    Going further, rational or discriminative thinking is not at all encouraged by those in academia… How surprising!!!!

  7. I revel in the fact that the Euros are so obsessed with despising Jews that they have no time to defend themselves from the Muzzies. Hating the Chosen will be the end of Europe, and that is a righteous outcome. Thank you, Lord.

    Soon the Muslims will be raping and enslaving and crucifying the people of France, and we will hear those familiar words (being screamed in agony but with a beautiful French accent): “We hate the Jews!”

    Enjoy the hatred, Frogs, because it is your ruination.

  8. A sovereign state has the legal right to decide who can enter it. If it is a successful state and it doesn’t exercise this right, it will soon lose control and descend into chaos. Its leaders have a moral obligation to protect its population, and this is just another way of doing that.
    It’s probably dumb to exercise its right on the basis of skin color, but maybe not so dumb, for example, for Israel to admit Jews but not ‘Palestinians’.

  9. Mordechai ben Menachem writes:

    The problem with all of your questions is that they are based on logic – a logic which is flawed in the present political and social climate of the dying West.

    A vibrant culture acts positively to stimulate and grow its culture. One of the criteria to grow a culture is nurturing what is desirable and shunting aside that which is less desirable.

    But there’s the rub. How does a society decide what is desirable and what is less so? What ought to be enhanced and what is better left to wither and dry?

    these are always difficult issues and there is no clear-cut “methodology” for discernment.

    in a culture such as ours, we have a clear advantage over others in this, as we can base things upon three and a half millennia of culture and cultural experience. Basically, we have a pretty good idea what works and what is highly temporary and even does damage (e.g., Shabbtai Zvi). The Chinese, the Japanese, perhaps India and perhaps some native American Tribes have similar advantages.

    Europe remains a cultural of barbarism and has no basis other than a history of the grossest acts of demeaning, hedonism, arrogance and decadence. What can Europe show the world other than new and innovative means of mass death?
    Islam is even worse.

    So basically, your questions are probably quite good and relevant questions, but they cannot be answered in any methodological fashion. Evaluation criteria do not exist – unless we go back to the list I gave and we note that the Japanese maintained their exclusivity and survived intact, the Native Americans did not and were massively genocided (by the ‘superior’ Europeans).

    Shall I express my personal opinion?
    Any country that does not control its borders ceases rapidly to be a country.

    While every society/nation has minorities that it controls (except places that are ridiculously small) control of minorities is not a goal, but a tool.

  10. @ Ted Belman:
    Ted, in matters concerning fundamental national aspirations, you cannot rely on the “elected government” which only acts on partisan goals, often at odds with their election platform, thus cheating the electorate.

    A true nation-state should easily garner an overwhelming support for those fundamental aspirations which no “elected government” would dream to challenge. When that is achieved, no nefarious external influence will ever be accepted.

    I am afraid Israel hasn’t reached that stage yet, unfortunately.

  11. What Israel wants is defined by the elected government. Of course the left and the right are critical of what the government wants but that is democracy. But my point is why doesn’t the world accept the choices made by Israel. They are superimposing their values on us. Or to put it another way, they don’t accept our right to choose.

  13. Yes citizens can decide democratically to do or be what they want except that PC restrictions today restrict that choice to being multi ethnic. There is huge societal pressure world pressure to be indiscriminate in everything, immigration policies included.

    After dealing with policies based on race, I dealt with discimination based on religion and then discrimination based on ideologies or values all of which comes under the rubric or charge of “racism”.

    Essentially I was asking “why can’t Israel be what it wants”. I was also asking why can’t a country exclude people with other cultures if they deem them to be incompatible with their own.

    The globalists have the world by the nuts in forcing the world to move to one government and multicultural societies. The elites in most countries even defy their citizens who may reject such moves. This is so even if those citizens are in the majority. PC is a straight jacket.

    In this post, I point out that opponents of unbrideled immigration based their arguments on economics or security but never on defense of culture.

  14. Ted, the restrictions you listed are perfectly legitimate only when the citizens of the country in question freely chose to keep their State as a nation-state.

    If citizens opt for a multicultural state (as Sweden did some years ago), then they democratically favor a mosaic, with the hope that it will be an integrated mosaic. But democratically approved decisions have sometimes unexpected consequences. Sweden is now starting to see the consequences of their decision.

    The clash between multicultural societies (European Union) and nation-states goes a long way to explain the ongoing animosity of the EU against Israel.