by Gaius Marcius
European nations seem to have missed the reminder from the global community about how refugees should be treated. Western countries persist in Eurocentric declarations of humanitarian concern for migrants and illegal immigrants, but this is clearly a departure from the global norm. Asian, North African, and Middle Eastern powers are under no obligation to conform to Western standards of behavior, so their foreign and domestic policies dogmatically insist on national sovereignty and strong borders. Western liberals write dismayed opinion editorials about the growing distance between liberal values and global opinion as they realize too late that their deceptive and destructive policies do not fool non-Whites:
A 2015 survey by Asia Barometer found that most respondents in [Myanmar] opposed checks on executive power, believed religious authorities should have a role in lawmaking and said citizenship should be tied to religion. Support for a strong-handed ruler was high and support for full rights for minorities was low.
“People want democracy in the sense of being rid of dictatorship and having a leader that’s popularly elected,” said Thant Myint-U, a historian and former United Nations official. “But that’s very different from accepting the whole panoply of liberal values, especially when it comes to issues of race, ethnicity or gender equality.”
Burmese dissident and darling of the European elites a few years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi parlayed fame and moral authority into a position in Myanmar’s government, but she pays no heed to liberal pieties about open borders or religious tolerance for Muslims. Suu Kyi rhetorically outmaneuvered international critics by refusing to apologize for her nation’s anti-Islamic policies toward the Rohingya minority, declaring the Rohingya illegal immigrants, and recasting the entire issue as a contest between global Muslim power and a relatively small Buddhist nation. Suu Kyi followed up this faux pas by stating the obvious truth that terrorism and instability are results of illegal immigration, causing The New York Times to question her status as a strong, inspiring dissident woman that they were so sure of just a few years ago.
It should be relatively easy for the West to cut ties with a minor dissident in an obscure Asian country, but what are we supposed to do when our greatest ally, Israel, repeatedly enacts immigration policies that make Trump’s wall look like an Obama amnesty? Several controversies have emerged over the years concerning African migrants being sterilized, degraded, and excluded from regular Israeli society. Most recently Israel has determined to close the Holot refugee camp and deport or jail its occupants, called infiltrators, not refugees, without the consent of the migrants. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explained the fine uses to which surplus government money will be directed after the deportations:
“This will enable us to close down Holot and allocate some of the large funds going there to inspectors and removing more people.”
Israel is not the only nation that recognizes that African immigrants are neither a challenge nor an opportunity, but a threat. Former Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi very openly stated that Europe would be overrun by Blacks without his regime preventing immigrants from reaching the Mediterranean. Gaddafi famously gave up his nuclear program during the Bush era War on Terror, but he still held the much more destructive trump card of half a billion Africans, essentially bartering the continued whiteness of Europe for the security of his own regime. Gaddafi’s great mistake was assuming that Western elites were rational actors with the interests of their own people at heart who would want to avoid the destruction of their own nations. In fact, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Angela Merkel, and other globalists had more incentive to remove Gaddafi after they realized how damaging his ouster would be for all of Europe.
Nations that are small or poor do not have the luxury of wasting resources rewarding illegal immigrants. No country in the world can afford to be as profligate as the United States has been with its inheritance and its future. Every conservative American should support strict, effective immigration enforcement while recognizing that Trump’s immigration proposals are more mild than anything currently occurring in nations seriously interested in self-preservation.