Written mainly from a European perspective this article offers some well thought out analysis of illegal (and legal) immigration.
Even in developing countries such as fast-evolving China, population
growth is falling, and in the Indian subcontinent, Muslims have higher
growth rates than Hindus or other non-Muslims. We thus have a situation
with an explosive population growth in failed countries, while many of
the most economically and technologically advanced nations, Eastern and
Western, have stagnating populations. This strange and possibly
unprecedented situation, which could perhaps be labelled “survival of
the least fit”, will have dramatic consequences for the world. It is
already producing the largest migration waves in history, threatening
to swamp islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty.
Lenin stated that “Marxism is based on internationalism or it is
nothing.” “The emancipation of the workers is not a local, nor a
national, but an international problem,” wrote Marx. Karl Marx has
defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s
assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of
its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its
infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its
schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its
political institutions and instilled in its people the mental
capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens
of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have
themselves created?
According to Marxist logic, yes.
Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the
inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and
functioning household. They have limited their number of children
because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B,
the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many
children who have received little higher education. One day they decide
to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are
protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is
room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty
International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist”
and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel
the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an
overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.
This is what is happening to the West today. Europe could become a
failed continent itself, importing the problems of Africa and the
Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move
anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your
home is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st
century. And it will probably have the same effect, only on an even
large scale.
...
It is strange that those who call for stricter limitations on
immigration in general and for an end to Muslim immigration are
denounced as “anti-democratic forces” when it is the other way around.
No nation, regardless of political system, can survive if it does not
uphold its territorial integrity. Democracy has proved to be a superior
system in promoting economic progress through liberty. But will
democracy also prove strong enough to survive when faced with
uncontrolled mass-immigration from failed states?
This is a powerful dilemma for democratic states in the 21st
century, one that is not exclusive to Western nations. India, too, has
big problems with millions of people crossing into the country
illegally from Islamic Bangladesh, which is why the Indians want to
build a border fence. Democratic states will either be strict enough to
control their own borders, or they will cease to be democratic, perhaps
cease to exist at all.
It's a lengthy article, but worth the time.
