When I started writing Refugee Resettlement Watch nearly six years ago (this is my 4,001st post!), rarely, except at VDARE (and the Center for Immigration Studies occasionally), would anyone utter a word about “refugees” other than in the most reverential tones. Refugees were the untouchables, but that seems to be changing. Fear of the collapse of the West due to mass migration is openly being discussed.
Now, the word “refugee” is no longer sacrosanct. Here Daniel Greenfield last week calls the migration of the third world to the first world what it is—colonization, with no end in sight. They are coming and are not assimilating (if that’s what you have been counting on!).
The old paradigm that a country has the right to decide who enters it has been decisively overturned in Europe, it’s under siege in such first world countries as America, Canada, Australia and Israel by the creed that says it’s the human rights obligation of every nation to accept every refugee.
Given a chance a sizable portion of the third world would move to the first, a minority because of oppression and a majority because the opportunities and freebies are much better there. Even low ranked first world nations still find themselves swamped with refugees looking to move in.
International law does not assign any priority to a nation’s citizens over any person who happens to stray across the border. At the ground level that means the end of borders and the end of citizenship which is why immigration isn’t just a touchy issue in Arizona, it’s a touchy issue in Sydney, Tel Aviv and Birmingham. You can hardly open a newspaper of the liberal persuasion without being treated to another group of refugees in some troubled part of the world walled up behind fences and trying to get over to London, Sydney or New York. [Watch for it! Syrians next?—ed]
This sort of thing can’t be called immigration anymore, it’s a straightforward migration and it has no apparent limits. However many you take in, there will be more waiting and always burdening you with an unsolvable crisis.
Ann Coulter for President! says Peter Brimelow at VDARE
Coulter spoke at CPAC yesterday and probably assured herself a disinvite next year (just as happened to Pamela Geller)* when Coulter declared that she was a one issue voter and would support only candidates opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.
She said with no equivocation that Ted Kennedy’s 1965 mass migration strategy will kill America. And, remember that was not about illegal aliens already in the US, but opened the doors of America to mass migration from the third world.
Check it out here at VDARE and watch her speech (in my view the most significant CPAC speech this year).
Has she assured her place in Grover’s ‘war on loud bullfrogs’ enemies list? You betcha!
*Update! Funny! Breitbart.com organized a panel for the un-invited including Geller and Robert Spencer—watch Spencer finger Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist!