April 28, 2017

On immigration, the Left has two dishonest arguments that need clarifying

Muslim Immigration

To disguise that they’re opening our country to people who should not be here, Progressives conflate distinct doctrines and hide behind the confusion.

The problem with Progressives is that they tend to combine entirely different things in a single argument and then, having intentionally muddled distinct issues, thereby perverting the data, they reach an erroneous conclusion that has a logical gloss but is, in fact, quite wrong. The two big arguments as to which they use this deceitful practice are illegal border crossers from Latin America and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees.

With regard to the Southern border wall, they conflate a fence meant to keep people out with a fence meant to keep people in. The former is a legitimate way to protect people in their rightful place from dangers lurking outside.

Hollywood stars, former Progressive politicians, and Silicon Valley bazillionaires are all really big on using fences to keep “the wrong kind” of people away from them. It’s okay when they do it because they’re rich and famous. It’s not okay when you do it, because you’re a racist pig.

The other kind of fence, the fence that keeps people locked in, is the one we associate with toddlers (got to keep them safe); prisoners (got to keep us safe from them); and nations that are so horrible that, if people are not trapped within them, they will leave (e.g., the Berlin Wall and both the DMZ separating North Korea from South Korea and the border between North Korea and China). For the last mentioned reason, border fences can get a bad rap if someone is dumb enough or deceitful enough to claim that a fence manifestly meant to keep people out is, instead, a fence meant to trap people inside a bad place.

Progressives treat Trump’s proposed Southern border fence (the fence that a bipartisan vote in Congress already passed into law back in 2006) as if it’s the second type of fence, the evil prison fence, meant to imprison people, rather than protect them. If you ask a Progress which people are being imprisoned where, you will not get a straight answer. Instead, you will be told that you’re a racist.

Whenever a Leftist tells you that you’re a racist, you know you’ve won the argument. Of course, winning the argument is scant consolation if they keep winning the larger wars.

The really big conflation scam, though, is pretending that what’s happening in Syria is the same as what happened in Germany in the 1930s. That’s the argument used to try to shame conservatives and Trump supporters into opening America’s gates to Muslim “refugees.” I put the word “refugees” in quotations because another dishonest conflating thing the Progressives do is jumbling those who’ve left Syria, who have a legitimate claim to being war refugees, with those who are leaving the Middle East and North Africa because, thanks in large part to Islam, outside of Israel those are really sh*tty places in which to live.

Progressives essentially contend that every Syrian refugee is a Anne Frank. That’s false on so many levels.

For one thing, unless I’m very much mistaken (and please correct me if I am), the Syrian refugees lining up to come here are not coming directly from Syria. They’ve already fled the country and are waiting in halfway stations. That’s totally sucky but it is not the same as coming from abattoirs nor will they be forced to return to those same abattoirs. Instead, the Syrians that Obama tried to cram into the country are staying in not-very-nice refugee camps. Again, definitely not nice, but equally definitely not a death camp.

READ  Judicial Tyranny on display

(And remind me again why Saudi Arabia can’t house them in its lovely vacant tent cities? Never mind. Rhetorical question. Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Muslim refugees anymore than anyone else does.)

For another thing, and this is the point of this post, Jews were escaping from genocide. Genocide is the notion that a certain racial group is so dreadful it must be eradicated from the face of the earth. There are predators and there are victims. They exist on opposite poles. Genocide is an inexcusable act and righteous nations should intervene (as Bill Clinton’s America and the UN did not do in the 1990s when the Tutsis tried to eradicate the Hutus in Rwanda.)

The Muslims who come here are not victims of genocide. Instead, they are people who were caught in an ideological conflict.

There are two different types of ideological conflict. One, which is the WWII kind, pits people with a good ideology against people with a bad ideology. If they come from within the same country, you might not be able to tell them apart (they all look the same, speak the same language, etc.), but you do know that there are good guys and bad guys. Sometimes, though, you have two bad ideologies at war with each other. It’s an internecine conflict in which both sides deserve to lose. (Incidentally, WWII had an element of that too, since Stalin’s Russia, after first supporting Hitler, and being perfectly comfortable with mass murder, ended up for its own reasons aiding the free West in its fight against Hitler.)

When I think of the Muslim refugees coming from the Middle East — predominantly male, antisemitic, given to pedophilia, believing that rape is their birth right, and announcing loudly their intention to impose a world caliphate — I find them pretty much indistinguishable from their opposite number left behind in the Middle East. Naturally, there are the innocent women and children who follow in their wake, and who are used for props in photographs and videos, but that begs a certain question Progressives never let us ask: What about our women and children when these “refugees” move in?

What about American women who will be raped? What about American boys and girls who will be raped? What about American Jews and Christians who will be harassed and killed? And we know that’s what will happen, because we can just sit back and see it happening in Europe. They’re ahead of us, but the Progressives would have us travel down the same road.

Moreover, the tragedy of life on this earth is that, in a way, these women and children are already lost and dead. Looking at the women in the photograph illustrating this post, her life is not going to get better here. She will always be a marginalized beast of burden (and probably sexual slave) to the men in her world. Must we sacrifice our present and future generations to save someone who almost certainly cannot be saved. (I hear some say that maybe she, or someone else can be saved, but you have to go with the bell curve. You cannot sacrifice our present and future to the possibility that one of their outliers will break free.)

READ  Bookworm Beat 3/1/17 -- the post-SOTU edition and open thread

And thinking bigger, what about those Americans who in the near future become victims of the refugees’ efforts, or their children’s efforts, to put the desired caliphate into place? History tells us that, when Muslims aim for the caliphate, very bad things happen to everyone else. In India, for example, the Muslims murdered 80-90 million Hindus.

Those numbers put the Muslims up there with Mao when it comes to mass murder, except that the Muslims did it when the world had a smaller population and — here’s the real kicker — the mass murder of Hindus was only one front in their multi-front battles during the 900 years of their expansion. There is no indication that modern Muslims committed to a caliphate support a change in tactics.

The way to defeat an ideological foe is to make it clear to him that there is no benefit whatsoever in his pursuing his ideology. We’re not doing that. By conflating Nazi era genocide against the Jews with the internecine warfare within Syria, we’re being tricked into treating Muslims as victims. Again, I agree that the innocents — the children — are victims, but unleashing their parents’ poison on America just shifts the victim status, perhaps latter rather than sooner, but still inevitably, to our own children.

Putting it in simple terms, Progressives demand that we accept Nazi A today because Nazi B seems to be winning their civil war. But they’re all still Nazis. None of them are Jews. None of them are victims of a genocide. All of them are simply caught up in Islam’s centuries’ old civil wars, wars that we would be very smart not to import into America.

I’ll make one exception for the refugees: I will take the children, provided that they are 10 and under; that they are placed with non-Muslim families; and that no more than five children are ever placed together in a single community. Because the problem is one of ideology, not race, doing what I propose will defeat the ideology on American shores — and I’m not the least bit concerned about the race. Raise them as Americans, with American values, and they can be American citizens along with all the other kids raised here.

Oh, one more thing: they may not go to college. American colleges are such hotbeds of American hatred that allowing these all-American, former-refugee children into college would undo the benefit they experienced from being raised in America as Americans. After a semester or two, they’d be just as hate-filled as if they’d stayed in the Middle East or moved to Dearborn. The only exception would be kids who get admitted to Hillsdale, a college that still educates children with information and rationality, without turning them into self-loathing, hate-filled hysterics.

About Bookworm 338 Articles
Bookworm came late to conservativism but embraced it with passion. She's been blogging since 2004 about anything that captures her fancy -- and that's usually politics. Her blog's motto is "Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts."