6 Arguments Always Used To Justify Mass Immigration
The fact that there are non-stop immigration policies encouraging those from the Third World to enter into countries with a white majority population is hard to miss and their existence is fairly common knowledge these days. Here we have deconstructed 6 common arguments used to justify mass immigration into the West.
- “We must help all refugees”
Liberals say it is our moral obligation to open up our borders to all the people in the Third World. In their opinion, it is our exclusive responsibility to help as many as we can, at all costs and no matter the consequences.
Open border policies are only forced upon white countries. Nobody expects Japan or China to help the Third World by letting them into their countries. We do not hear anybody demand Saudi Arabia take in any number of Muslim refugees. The anti-white mindset dictates that refugees, wherever they are fleeing from, must come to a white/Western country.
There is a presumption that it is only us whites/Europeans that must help the immigrants and refugees and that they are going to stay here permanently for the rest of their lives. War is not prevalent in all of Africa or the Middle East. There are plenty of countries not at war in the Third World that they can live in. The war in Iraq, for example, is over but nobody seems to expect that Iraqis who have immigrated to the West should return to their homeland.
If helping people is the goal, there are many ways we could help them without having to become a minority in our own countries. For example, we could help a lot of refugees in Europe by giving them shelter, education and work skills followed by helping all of them to return home when a war is over. After all, it is not inhumane for Pakistanis to live in Pakistan or for Turks to live in Turkey. That would not only help the ones who fled but also the ones left behind. However, people with an anti-white mentality do not come up with suggestions like this because their underlying mentality is essentially to get rid of us whites (or at least to justify a world without us), not to help refugees properly. Anti-whites will always find excuses to let immigrants stay in our countries permanently, thereby forcing us to become a minority in our own countries.
- “We must have diversity and multiculturalism”
We have all heard the mantras. “We must have diversity”, “diversity is our greatest strength”, “without diversity we will not survive” etc. There has been a default presumption for a long time that the Western world must be multicultural. Nobody has questioned what the purpose of it all is – until now.
As mentioned previously, these policies are only forced upon white majority countries. It is not demanded of Senegal to increase its diversity because their country is “too black”. Mexico does not need diversity; it is apparently already diverse.
“Diversity” and “multiculturalism” are words only heard in white/Western countries because that is the point. If Congo closed its borders tomorrow, nobody would argue against it. But if Germany or France closed their borders, we all know the type of reactions there would be.
More diversity and multiculturalism is code for less white people. Europe could be multicultural and 100% white in theory. But that is not what anti-whites mean when they talk about multiculturalism. The world is multicultural and will stay that way if we have segregation, but that is one thing so called multiculturalists are always against.
When Europe was predominantly white, anti-whites wanted diversity. And once we had diversity, they talked of (forcing) integration. But if we integrate and mix, the diversity they claim to seek will be destroyed. They do not care for diversity itself; they only use it as an excuse for non-white/Third World immigration.
Again, “we need more diversity” and “diversity is strength” are only slogans to push for non-stop immigration into white/Western countries. If anti-whites truly believed that diversity was a good thing, then they would have argued that poor non-white countries should open their borders and let themselves become more blended. Pakistani refugees could go to the Congo and Congolese refugees could go to Pakistan, for example.
- “We need immigrants to do the jobs white people are either too lazy or too stupid to do”
In the anti-white mindset we are dependent on non-whites for labour. They say we need them in order to have certain foods in our countries. We need the Chinese to have Chinese restaurants and without Pakistanis there would be no taxis and there would be no doctors in our hospitals and all technological advancements would cease since there would be no engineers or rocket scientists without the great influx of Africans, according to the political correct anti-whites.
Although it could be argued that we need more people in healthcare for example, it does not justify politics that lead to us becoming a minority. Also, even if we are in need of doctors and other highly educated and productive people, it would not benefit Africa if we imported African doctors. After all, Africa is in greater need of doctors than Europe. So this argument that we should have educated people from the Third World goes against the “Helping excuse” in point 1.
The reason that some argue that we need African doctors is only because they are coming up with another justification for more non-stop Third World immigration. This is what they always do. The statement “that we are too stupid or too lazy” reflects the anti-white attitude towards whites. This is something that would have been viewed as racist had it been said about non-whites.
- “We live in a globalised world”
Their logic is that it is easy for people to migrate over great distances today, and therefore it is only natural for people to move to the Western world.
People have always been able to migrate over great distances. It is not like airplanes and boats were invented during the last 20 years and until then we had no means of cross-continental transportation. The difference is that we used to have restrictive immigration policies in Europe. We did not just let anybody enter our countries as they pleased, and we certainly did not offer them free social and economic benefits that not even the native populations got access to.
- “We have an aging population”
An aging population is not a problem in itself. Sometimes a population increases and sometimes it decreases. It is the natural way. If it really was a huge problem, we could focus on implementing policies that encouraged a higher birth rate amongst our people. But arguing that we should encourage having more white children to someone who identifies him- or herself as ”anti-racist” will not go down well in their anti-white mindset. They will scream “naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews”.
Anti-whites will only present one option for dealing with an aging population and that is more non-white immigration.
- “Whites did horrible things in the past and therefore need to be punished for them”
Notice how anti-whites in one context talk about all the benefits of immigration (see point 2, 3 and 5), but whenever the topics of slavery or colonisation come up, they immediately start to justify non-stop immigration into our countries by claiming that we need to be punished for our supposedly past deeds. A few European countries colonized Africa 200 years ago and therefore we cannot deny people access to our countries today.
Anti-whites talk about slavery and colonialism as if these are unique acts that were solely perpetuated by whites. Anti-whites ignore the fact that Turkey had one of the largest colonial empires in the history of mankind and that nobody says Turkey must open its borders because of that.
In the end, all arguments from the so called “anti-racists” are meant to demonise us white people and will always lead to a world without any white people. That is why “anti-racist” is a code word for anti-White.
What do you consider to be the most commonly used justification? Is it one on the list or is it one we did not mention?