...the people in charge of the immigration program that saw millions of immigrants flood into the country are having second thoughts about the wisdom of such a policy.
In his paper, Is the progressive case for migration truly progressive?, Mr Finch said supporters of immigration have bemoaned the drift towards restrictive and reactionary policies since the 1960s.
The fact most people disagreed with them only further convinced them they were right, he said.
But he admitted: "A particularly unfortunate element of this syndrome in relation to migration is a tendency to characterise our opponents as nasty, stupid and backward. By so doing, we give ourselves license to either patronise or ignore them."
He added: "In fact, as must now be obvious to us, the vast majority of mainstream public opinion does not see the logic or the ethics of our case."
He said while it would be wrong for restrictions to be based on race or particular nationalities, "it does not follow that restrictions per se are inherently wrong, and it is certainly not the case that totally free flows are more progressive than controlled ones".
He accepted that large influxes of people to some areas can have "serious downsides" and that "anything approaching ‘open borders’ would cause chaos and massive destabilisation –within both developed and developing economies."
The US problem in miniature, with the problem a bit more advanced than it is in the US. It's amusing to me that the progressive elites couldn't imagine such an outcome in advance, but had to see it for themselves after the damage had already been done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment