Like with most things in life, not everything and everybody is equal. In the case of immigration this means that some immigrants become model citizens, others criminals or terrorists. Do countries have the right to try to pick and choose what’s best for them? This article presents a variety of views, including Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal’s take on the recent executive order of the Trump administration.
Immigration can be a powerful driving force for a country. Immigrants often represent the best in terms of attitude: they got off their chairs, left their country and went on a journey to a new country for a better life. In the new country many of these immigrants immediately get to work which benefits not only them but also their new country. One key aspect for successful immigration is the lack of a welfare state. If new arrivals have to work for their living then they are likely to benefit their new country via the fruits of their labor.
The most successful cases of immigration are probably the US and Australia. Both countries were built up largely by immigrants who took risks and worked hard to colonize and settle the new land. In the US the new immigrants even fought a war to declare themselves a new independent union of states. The result are countries with beautiful cities and suburban areas, full of innovative business, nice houses, efficient infrastructure, freedom to pursue ones happiness and liberal democratic political systems with freedom of speech, religion, assembly and enterprise.
As the policies of countries change – e.g. massive welfare expansion under the New Deal – so does immigration. The prospect of a government welfare check can attract a different crowd than the prospect of hard work. Europe is a case in point here. Plagued by low birthrates – in part brought about by massive over-taxation of the population to finance their nanny-welfare states – many European countries need immigrants (or more babies) to stock up their shrinking workforces. But the massive welfare states and high taxes in Europe are not too attractive to the entrepreneurial/hard working folks who in the US for example head to work in Silicon Valley, oil fields, car factories, aerospace, agriculture, the military and so on. As a consequence instead of solving their demographic problems, European nations have made them worse. Instead of increasing the number of workers to shoulder the burden of the welfare state, they have instead increased the numbers of welfare dependents even further, which overall is not in the interest of a country. The problems in some places get even worse: not only are some migrants a drain to the welfare state, they are actively working to harm their new country, for example via crime and terrorism. The situation has gotten so out of hand that no go-zones in European cities are now common, from Malmo, over Berlin to Paris and Birmingham. No-go zones are in effect patches of foreign land in which national law does not apply and into which “non-migrants” wander at their own peril. Terrorists are sometimes being harbored in these areas, for example in Molenbeek, Brussels, Belgium. NYT link.
The videos below show a variety of views on this topic. In the first, Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal gives his take on the immigration executive order of the Trump administration.
Full ISIS video of burning of Jordanian pilot: video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001