This was an interesting assessment of immigration around the world. I liked what Hoppe said that no one can despise personal immigration. It is a position advocated by libertarians and freedom-minded folks all the time. One should be able to vote with his feet if he doesn’t like where he lives or if he spies better opportunities elsewhere. So no one can deny the beauty of it. But the immigration we are seeing in the world today is not the individual trying to make good. It’s mass immigration. And one must ask if the western countries are responsible for the world’s refugees? Or should they stay put and resolve internal conflicts at home?
Hoppe starts by raising the immigration in European countries. He points to the destablizing effects of the Middle East conflicts. The result is a huge flood of immigrants and refuges. And refugees come en masse. He explains that the welfare state in western Europe existed before, and its problems are not new. But the numbers increased in a such a drastic way would not be possible if in these regions–the Middle East–some sort of civility existed in some way. One wishes that Saddam Hussein would be back, that Qaddafi would be back and that Assad would be back.
He asks “What is the motive?” of these conflicts and the inevitable migration of refugees? He explains
Of those who want to create some sort of world state dominated by the United States. European Union is a sub-chapter of a one-world government. People can no longer vote with their feet.
But this is the real goal:
To destroy the identities of all nations and countries.
And how do you achieve this destruction of the identity of people? You promote the policy of multiculturalism.
A point of culmination has been reached. Add to this democracy, and you get civil strife, and in some cases you get civil war.
The population is largely brainwashed. The German politician tells its citizens with their past, as Nazis,
Refugees provide an employment program for social workers. The effects and the numbers of immigration are difficult to assess. But there’s still a majority who take a sober view on immigration, namely, the view that no one would be against immigration per se.
This point I like:
But you take people who will add value to your country, the place where you like and love. You want to exclude people who do not add value, who are parasites on other people’s work. You cannot express this attitude in Germany. You’re automatically called a Nazi.
Look at people’s personal life. Who do you want as neighbors? Those increase the value of your own life, your own property. There are some states that do a better job at this. Take a look at Australia. Boats of people tried to get into Australia, and that government turns them away.
What type of qualifications are preferred, are desirable? If you select people you’ll want to make your country better.
Saudi Arabia does not take any refugees or Qatar, despite the fac that they are closer culturally to Syrians. And there’s very little criticism of these countries by western countries. Golan Heights is controlled territory. Israel doesn’t take a single refugee of course.
Pressure should be exercised on those countries to do their fair share. Pay some states in Africa and we pay you. Why don’t you take them? This is not acceptable to the western elites.
This was interesting and horrifying because of how true it is. I found that egalitarianism was the predominant ideology in public schools. This is what is horrific. Hoppe points out accurately its problems:
Dominant ideology in the west, particularly in the United States is egalitarianism. All people are just the same. We just have to mold them in the right schools, and they will all turn out the same. They believe if people fall into the hands of social workers, we will all be Einsteins. You see from the social workers themselves that they did not become Einsteins.
If all cultures are the same, then you adopt idiotic immigration policies.
Of course you want to have productive people come into your country.
In Germany, for instance, we have welfare payments that are higher than middle class incomes in most countries in the world. And if you have that, then you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state together. No possibility of dismantling the welfare state. If you allow people coming into the country without screening them in some way for their qualifications, the welfare state will astronomically increase.
When Hoppe says that it’s difficult to assess, he is correct. It’s difficult to assess the effects of mass immigration on the economy, on culture, on religion, and on indigenous families.