Sunday, September 23, 2007

racists and socialists

It's great to know that in Canada we are free from discrimination based on race, colour, religion, creed, and all kinds of other good stuff... as long as you weren't born outside of our country. After all, the rights you have are based on which side of an imaginary line you were drawn on. Born on the wrong side of the line? Well then if you try to come to Canada, its citizens will apparently say "No."

All arguments against complete global freedom of movement and not against the welfare state are based in flat-out racism.

Is there a problem with the current system? Of course there is. But the problem isn't people taking their children or themselves to a better life, it's that we pay them to come here. In a classic case of unintended consequences, well-meaning socialists have institutionalized racism in many a civilized nation.

(That said, if you think that we should be paying to help disadvantaged Canadians afford food, shelter and big-screen TVs* - and especially if you think that it's an obligation because people have a right to food, clothing and big screen TVs* then I can't think of a consistent argument against helping everyone in a similar manner... unless, of course, you factor in some good ol' fashioned racism again. One of many reasons that I am not into that sort of stuff.)

If Americans have the wool pulled so far over their eyes that they aren't drowning in irony while kicking people out of their country that are fleeing economically or socially repressive conditions for a better life, then Canada should be stepping up to do what's right and protect freedom and human rights by allowing people to live where they choose to make the best lives for themselves that they can.

If we can't afford to run all the programs we have, let's cut off (or modify) the programs - not trap people in a situation because of their ancestry, place of origin or citizenship. Hell, we fought wars to guarantee those rights for ourselves.

h/t: Freeway to Serfdom
cross-posted to: The Natural Society



*OK, so I've only heard of people within 2 degrees of separation from me getting a big screen TV on welfare once, but once is more than enough for me.

6 comments:

Frank Hilliard said...

You must be kidding. The idea that you can be a conservative -- someone who conserves things -- and be opposed to the concept of the nation state is a new one for me. If you consider Western Values like wine and the nation state as a bottle, then having open borders would be like pouring wine into a colander. No?

Janet said...

I am a Conservative (party member) and not anything like a conservative.

The only Western values I see as being worth preserving are the ones that are in no way harmed by allowing anyone into and out of the country at any time.

It really does blow my mind that anyone would support conservation for the sake of conservation. The preservation of the welfare state and/or racism as something positive just doesn't make sense to me.

Frank Hilliard said...

Since Muslim immigrants want to impose Shari'a law, which among other things, mandates second-class citizenship for women, and since they have large families while the Canadian fertility rate is 1.5 babies per woman, wouldn't unlimited access to Canada for Muslims mean the end of the Canadian constitution, Charter of Rights, Parliament, courts and other institutions (and much else), in which case wouldn't your enjoyment in open borders be cut rather short?

Let's hope you don't get what you wish for. BTW, I love the picture of you on the yacht.

Raphael Alexander said...

It's not racism which wants to keep immigrants out. It's about protecting a quality of life we have worked hard for, and for which Liberals would hand away without a second thought. The idea of giving tax dollars to house illegal refugees is, simply put, appallingly irresponsible. If I can't make rent, if I can't make a mortgage payment, I lose what I have. And nobody bails me out on that. That's capitalism. We have a few systems in place to protect us from total destitution. But my parents and grandparents did not work hard so that their taxes could be spent putting up hotel rooms for illegal Mexicans. It's absolutely ridiculous. Any other country in the world, if you walked across the border with your hand out, would probably have it either slapped or chopped off. That's human nature. And if you want to rebel against it, be prepared to share what you have with all who do not. And be prepared to see whatever quality of life in Canada you enjoy, plummet with that well-intentioned values.

Janet said...

frank - Rule of law and property rights should not depend on who lives in the country or what they want to vote for, but should be in a constitution to protect people and property from outside harm. These are the Western values that I believe we must always strive to protect.

If government has a mandate, its most important (if not only) job is to protect us from force and fraud and ensure that we are all treated equally under the law.

These values should always be protected, and so long as they are I really couldn't care less what colour, race, or religion anyone is. But thanks for making my point about these arguments being based in bigotry.

And thanks for the comment about my photo. It's my hope that everyone in the world can one day enjoy an afternoon out on a sailboat if they'd like to, regardless of where they were born or what paperwork they've done.

raphael - Sounds like you have a problem with an expansive welfare state, not with immigration.

Raphael Alexander said...

Sounds like you have a problem with an expansive welfare state, not with immigration.

Right. And I also support legal immigration, not illegals and refugees fleeing discrimination from things like "sexual orientation".