Thursday, 23 September 2010

On Elections And Fences.

News out of Sweden reports that the nationalist Sweden Democrats won 6% of the votes campaigning on cuts to immigration and stricter immigration laws. This grants them representation in the Riksdag.

In Denmark the Danish People's Party secured 25 seats in the nation's 2007 elections on 13.8% of the vote. Like the Sweden Democrats they were campaigning for a stricter immigration policy.

These elections are significant because these parties are enjoying support in what are considered Europe's most tolerant and progressive nations. They are not exceptions but are following a trend in Europe.

Another trend taking root is the erection of walls or fences to secure borders. The United States and Israel have shared considerable criticism for constructing walls that reinforce their borders to control the flow of smuggled goods and illegal migrants; but they are not the only countries doing so.

India is currently in the process of constructing a fence along its shared border with Bangladesh. The reasons are familiar: to control the flow of illegal goods and migrants. It should be noted that Bangladesh is almost completely engulfed by India.

Mexico, with no sense of hypocrisy, is building a wall along its southern border with Guatemala. The reasons are no different: to control the influx of contraband and illegal migrants from Guatemala into Mexico.

Here is a list of countries that have built fences to control the migration of people.

So it seems the world trend is to secure borders either with a strict immigration policy or with a physical barrier or both. Canadian hubris compels us to imagine that the world "looks to Canada" for inspiration when it comes to formulating policy but that is more fantasy than reality. Were it true than we shouldn't expect to see an increasing desire to restrict the influx of migrants into foreign lands. Clearly Canada is in a world of her own.


Fenris Badwulf said...

I can appreciate your reasoned, logical approach.

However, there are tens of thousands of jobs in the immigration industry that depend on the current status quo. We also know that the progressives only hire fellow minded partisans to fill these positions.

Regardless of national interests, the selfish self interests of the progressives will over ride and thought about country or future.

Also add to the mix the progressive subversion of the media and academia.

Alas, these problems will not be addressed, and anyone opening their mouth about it will be ignored by the media, or mocked. The academics will add their left slant.

So, the problem will just get worse, worser, and worst.

PaxCanadiana said...

Regardless of national interests, the selfish self interests of the progressives will over ride and thought about country or future.

I agree with you in this assessment. "Progressive" cultural elites have flocked to jobs in academia, the public sector, and the news media. In contrast the more conservative minded try to make their way in the private sector.

This stacking of the deck in institutions where opinion making is a product has resulted in a stifling of debate on certain issues important to the left of which immigration is one of them. This is why there is no debate in this country about immigration just like there was no debate about same sex marriage. We are going to get it whether we wanted it or not.

It is anti-democratic because Canadians are left uninformed about issues that directly affect them and are shut out of the debate by those who control and frame the discussion.

You are right. It is pure self interest that guides them and not what is good for the nation. Whether you're an immigration lawyer milking the system; a social worker "rent seeking" for a job; a politician trying to hold onto his or her seat long enough to collect an over generous tax payer funded pension plan; a journalist wondering if they'll still be employed next year (newspapers are a failing business model in the internet age whose core product is selling audiences to advertisers and thus immigrants means a growing product base); just follow the money. As cynical as this sounds I think it is the most correct explanation to understand the almost universal cheer leading for a bloated, bureaucratic, expensive mass immigration system that generates dubious benefits for the country.