No Country for All Men

Who are “us”, exactly? All of the inhabitants of the planet? What does the word “country” even mean, then?

16 thoughts on “No Country for All Men

    1. So people who break laws should be deported? Have you thought that through? All criminals who are citizens should be removed from the country? Is that what you are saying? If not, then you’ve got to remove the part of your statement that says “uphold its laws and play by its rules.” What’s left, then? A country for everyone willing to come in? That’s exactly what I said.

      Please think before posting.

      Like

      1. Pretty sure our neighboring countries would have some objections if we started shoving our criminal populations across their borders. But it’d save us a ton on jail costs…

        Oh, wait, Isn’t Venezuela currently sending us their prison populations to save money?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Cuba did the same in the past. I’m very eager to know what limitations on immigration our pro-open borders people would accept. But I can never get any answer. It’s always some vague rules they can’t specify.

          The question is simple: who shouldn’t be able to get in? Should everybody “have the right” to move to America? Forget criminals. Should every non-criminal, well-meaning person be able to move in? That’s billions of people. There are no schools, hospital, residences, etc to accommodate them all. That’s simply a fact. What’s the plan, then?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “I’m very eager to know what limitations on immigration our pro-open borders people would accept. But I can never get any answer.”

            I have similar sentiments. I feel like I am failing to understand their thinking. I don’t think many of them are consciously ideological about it (as e.g. revolutionary socialists or certain libertarians are). But I suspect some fraction of them might be sentimental one-worlders (as in Lennon’s “Imagine”: “imagine there’s no countries… [just] a brotherhood of man”).

            But I think one should distinguish between the thinking of the people who are actually in control of immigration and border policy, and the thinking of the regular people who don’t object to what’s happening. Every western country now has an immigration bureaucracy which operates partly on autopilot and partly in the interests of an immigration lobby, as well as according to more principled reasons (e.g. the idea that declining fertility rates, and the economic problems they will lead to, can be ameliorated by bringing in people from more fertile countries).

            In the case of the USA, there has also been toleration for decades of the presence of illegal aliens, apparently as a form of cheap labor. And then I also believe there are darker reasons for the recent neglect of border control: first, the Democratic Party wants new voters (although some fraction of those who enter illegally will become Republicans); and second, I do strongly suspect that many powerful Jewish liberals in America imagine that Jews will be safer in a society that doesn’t have a white majority or a Christian majority.

            Like

          2. “very eager to know what limitations on immigration our pro-open borders people would accept”

            Usually they don’t admit to wanting open borders “No one is advocating that!”

            My go to questions then are:

            Who do you want to keep out?

            How do you want to keep them out?

            What do you want to do if they get in anyway?

            Anyone who can’t imagine even asking such questions (I’ve never gotten an answer that meant anything) is an open borders advocate.

            Liked by 3 people

  1. I’ll start calling them Haitian-Americans once they’ve attained citizenship. Why would a recent immigrants who don’t even speak English be considered American?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment