Framing The Debate

The debate about the government’s open borders policy has flared up again, as well it should. Still, I think we make a mistake when we allow the open borders lobby to claim the debate is about immigration. Really ? Do folks who think there should be a least a few differences between a country and a hotel really want to blow up the arrivals hall at Heathrow ? Do they want to seal the borders tight shut, never to open again ? Or is it actually just some types of immigration they don’t support ?

Call it a shot in the dark, but I’m thinking we may be able to draw some meaningful distinctions between a doctor from Madras and a gang leader from Somalia. On the other hand, not only do the open borders lobby claim we either can’t draw these distinctions, or even that we shouldn’t, we now have a system that seem designed to positively encourage lunatics to immigrate. Consider, for example, how the whole ‘asylum’ scam is based on a ‘fear of persecution’ no matter how, or why, the scumbag in question may be being ‘persecuted’. So if you’re facing the rope back home just for blowing up a few infidels, you’re in.

Hey, it’s possible to call this insane without necessarily wanting to prevent Arsenal from buying the next Pele. See, this is the debate – not about immigration, about the type of immigration. This is a vital point and it needs to be rammed home as often as possible.