Some Thoughts about immigration

1. If you have a family and you want to invite somebody to live with you, forever and forever, and be a part of your family, who do you think is suitable for this purpose? If you have the chance between two options, who will that option be? Will it be that educated refined professor from the Cambridge University, or that illiterate peasant from a far off village in the mountains of who-knows-where land who needs to be educated how to use a toilet and a fridge?

I think it is a no-brainer what you will do, despite all the talk about political correctness and multi-culturalism and tolerance. You prefer your kids to be around that professor. His presence will elevate the culture and arts and conversation level in your family and all of you will learn from him and benefit from his presence. What will that peasant offer your family by living with you????

2. When mass movements of populations happen in history, the new settlements will be the exact same copies of their motherlands. They can't be otherwise, can they? They bring the same culture and level of education and behaviour and social structure with them. It has always been like this throughout the history. The Greek colonies around the Mediterranean were exact same copies of the Greek cities that sent them there. If the city was Athens, they were democractic. If it was another city with dictatorial social structures the new colony was a dictatorship.

In the new colonies of Americas, the Spanish created the same backward social structure of the motherland and the whole of south America turned into a bunch of bloody corrupt coup ridden dictatorial states, and the British immigrants in the north created a democracy.

It can't be any other way and it is stupid to expect these people to do otherwise.

Now, if you had a say 300 years ago in shaping the immigration policy in your new American country, which group would you have prefered to immigrate to your country, or colony, or whatever it is? The British immigrants with their culture for democracy back from the motherland, or the Spanish immigrants who would have built up the same corrupt dictatorships they had back home. If you had a choice, would you bring the mafia infested peasants from Sicily, or mostly educated Holland or Scandinavian immigrants?

It is a no-brainer again, isn't it?

3. The barbarian invasions, how correct it is. If a society open its gates to barbarians and can't moderate and control the rate of immigration, sooner or later it will pay the price of it's folly by being drowned under the waves. Rome resisted it, but when cracks appeared and then the walls came down completely and waves of barbarians flooded the empire and also were granted citizenship, soon it was destroyed and changed beyond any recognition. I have witnessed another similar one in Tehran. Tehran was a city with its own refined urban culture created for good or bad for 200 years. Then in the short period of 20 years waves after waves of freed serfs from the countryside swelled the population. The immigration was so huge that the city culture, that had been planted painstakingly for two hundred years was totally overtaken by the peasant mentality and culture. The city drowned and died. You could feel it and see it year by year. Everything got worse, from the driving codes to the attitude of people towards each other. And when the revolution happened, it was a peasant revolution in the city, not an urban one. And of course none of us forgets the Russian Revolution which was supposed to be a revolution of workers and PEASANTS, but at the end was turned into a revolution of the peasants only.

The point is, whenever in the history the advanced civilizations have opened the gates to huge waves of immigration from less developed socieites, without first providing a strict system to change and educate the barbarians, they have been destroyed under the waves. I am sure the Romans were still discussing the benefits of multi-culturalism and tolerance and the merits of mass immigration when the Rome was being burnt down and pillaged by the barbarians.

I am not against immigration if it is planned well in advance and with a goal to refine and advance a society. I am just against a "barbarian invasion" sort of immigration. Although sadly, from what history teaches us, I know that most of the time barbarians win at the end.