Norway, we are told, may follow the Swiss on immigration. As the Swiss have just voted (narrowly) for immigration quotas, we are told disapprovingly. The E.U. neighbors of the Swiss are huddling over what to do about this, as if the little country were any of their business. But as we hear that some E.U. countries are threatening Israel with boycotts if it does not cave to the ‘Palestinians’, we aren’t surprised by the attitude. Our species has always been gifted with the ability to tell others what to do.
Immigration is a presently hot potato in both European and North American politics. Generally, the political leaders, who obtain various benefits from immigrants, want relatively open borders while ordinary citizens who pay the costs of immigrants, want various limits on their arrival. The “Y’all come!” leaders disapprove of the (ignorant, selfish, racist, etc.) attitudes of their voters but have so far failed to change them. It’s perhaps because the voters must live with realities the leaders ignore?
Americans at least at one time, made much of the idea of “peaceful enjoyment of their private property.” The U.S. Founders even inserted that idea into the American Constitution. It’s a very English idea, though King George III wasn’t perceived as sufficiently careful of it as the Founders thought he should have been. So they enshrined it in their New World.
If you are entitled to property, you must have the right to exclude any intruders whose presence you don’t desire, no? And if you can exclude from your property, then all of you ought to be able to exclude from your country. When a large enough number of uninvited arrivals appear, we call it invasion, do we not? And all agree we have a right to repel it if we can. And who, if not the residents, has the right to decide how many is too many? But in present Europe and North America, “leaders” have assumed that decision.
In the U.S, Democrats receive the majority of votes from the Hispanics who dominate the influx. Republicans depend upon the donations from large enterprises that rely upon cheap labor supplied by that same group. But taxpayers fund the costs of their presence in schools, hospitals, public housing and prisons. And they compete at the bottom of the labor pool. Perhaps as annoying or more so, they speak another language and have been led by American politicians to expect that limitation to be serviced at public expense in both conversation and documents. Probably most annoying of all, they share the universal habit of our species: They leave home because it is less desirable than the much richer U.S. and then want to change the U.S. to match the home they had to leave. In Europe, its Moslem immigrants are even more overt about that and more violent as well, celebrating major holidays by burning people’s cars in the streets.
The Swiss are generally seen as pretty hard-headed folk, better grounded in reality than many. They have now settled upon controlling the numbers of people they will allow entry to their country, their ‘property.’ As a tiny place with only a few million people and with no great room for lots more, that seems to make sense, if the Swiss want to preserve the very decent lifestyle they have worked hard for centuries to make for themselves.
The U.S. has more room than Switzerland, but it cannot accept every impoverished Hispanic in the Americas who might wish to come. They only come because their home systems have failed in the same ways that the U.S. has succeeded. Their salvation lies in changing that at home, not in mobbing the U.S. So the realistic solution seems to be: Return to admitting those whose arrival benefits the U.S. rather than the Democrats and Republicans. It worked here for a long time; it was a big part of what built the place. America needs immigrants still, but immigrants who arrive legally and who come to contribute and to blend in, rather than those who come expecting subsidy and accommodation.
Most of all, Europe and America need leaders pursuing the interests of their countries rather than of themselves.