|
|
|
|
|
by hackinthebochs
2 hours ago
|
|
I'm not sure why I should care that an ethnic X is supporting a party that defends a homeland mainly for ethnic X's. It's always taken as an axiom by leftists that immigration is an unconditional good, but never actually defended. Why should stable homogenous countries take on unbounded immigration from countries with dissimilar cultures and suffer all the ills that come along with it? Why are white countries moving to preserve their culture, ethnicities, identities supposed to be unconscionable? Can anyone offer a full-throated defense of these claims? |
|
In the USA, where I live, there is not much of an ethical or cultural defense to prevent immigration. The dominant culture, white people, are themselves immigrants. To deny others the right to live and work here is selfish at best. If some people are allowed here and some people are not, the only logically coherent next step is to return all land and resources back to Native American hands. If we do not have the stomach for such a bold transition, then the next best thing is to welcome everyone. To do otherwise means allowing and denying people a life here on extremely arbitrary, hypocritical reasons (and usually racist reasons, frankly). So, at least in the USA (and I believe more broadly, North and South America), the political Left must necessarily be pro-immigration if they wish to be anti-racist.
Speaking even more broadly, Leftists have generally be in favor of internationalist cooperation (a la the famous song The Internationale). But how exactly that relates to immigration policies is debatable.