“Duly Noted” likes to address the growing inconsistencies that describe the immigration policy of the West’s developed countries. Europe, the USA, and Australia suffer from a self-imposed inability. The moving force of the matter is that the rules of the PC game prevent them from formulating a meaningful and up-to-date policy. To the extent that there is a policy on the books, little as mandated will be allowed to happen. Influenced by theory-based paroles and the palliatives of PC, states suffer from a corresponding lack of determination to enforce their own laws. 

It does not require much fantasy to discover that this paralysis connects a number of entities that have become the target of unwanted inflows. Aside of that, these countries have little in common in the realms that we generally use to define collective identities. Location, language, histories, and traditions all differ. However, there are determining similarities. They are all advanced economies and have compatible and matching legal – political systems. The latter feature makes them to attempt to secure the rule of liberty in the context of an economic order which produces wealth for its participants. These features can mute into the political goal of leniency toward violators. At the same time, the financial muscle provided by a productive system of wealth creation contributes another common feature. It is that it is easy to “pay for it”.

Lately these political systems depart from an originally reasonable assumption. It was that individual rights are most likely to be attacked by governments and not by other organized groups. Therefore, the protection of liberty depended on the curtailment of –originally inherited monarchical- government power. Doing so implied that the legal system, designed to protect society and individuals from misdeeds, was to administer justice under rules that favored the accused. Government prosecution of persons could have an unstated political motive. If there was no protection against political persecution for the individual then society’s freedom could be undermined. Criminally inclined migrants can exploit the protection extended by such an order. That can happen to the extent that the community’s ability to protect itself is hollowed out in the face of unanticipated challenges.

We need to start from idea that a country is the home of a society that has created, defended, and shaped its system to fit its contours. This being so, the resulting state’s main purpose is the protection of members members. Full membership in the community so created entails the participants’ consciousness of common interests, their acceptance of these purposes and, regardless of the differences that normally exist within large groups, a commitment to defend these. The right to political participation hinges upon this attitude. Without a majority of residents that as individuals see themselves expressed by their state, society and its order, indeed the country itself, is bound to fall and its people are destined to become slaves.

In the interest of maintaining an entity in which the common denominators prevail, the state, as it acts in behalf of society, has duties. One of these has in recent times moved from the self-evident to a concern in advanced democracies. Internationally, the influx of new people has changed the nature of a once controlled immigration. This happens in such a way that the process threatens to become an invasion that completes incremental conquest. This, being for some an inconvenient taboo and therefore an ignored term, is no wild extrapolation. There are several, here discretely unmentioned, instances in which officiously the penetration of certain regions is advocated as being a reconquest. As such, the process is depicted as the “correction” of historical events that brought the land under the control of its current owner. 

The point that a certain kind of immigration has become a form of combat for territory, and privileges, can be eloquently made. This is the case presented in material that is circulating. In the publicized specific instance, not uniquely but most openly and expressively, the future planned by some for the America’s West is laid bare. Such is the quoted honest admission by a Mr. Osuna who serves as a Consul that “we are practicing ‘La Reconquista’ in California”. Professor Guerra sees it so: “we need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos”. Actually, the bit about needed “codes” is exaggerated. Inernationally, the cover of a code by groups with comparable agendas is unnecessary. Indeed, aggressive intruders regard their host societies in Darwinian terms. These are said to be “old”, spastic, cowardly and thus deserving their intended fate. No wonder. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the challenged peoples are made by their political class to apologize for their greatness. Guilt ridden because of their achievement,  they are giving away their wealth to mitigate the shame felt for having attained more than others have.

We discover a symptom of this in the way some medias define xenophobia. The sick hatred of foreigners is alleged to exist when someone admits to not liking certain categories of aliens because of their actions. According to the masters of correct values, the right attitude is to admire or at least show understanding of anything that is rejected if locally rooted. Such actions are to be tolerated provided that, a person with a “migration background” that expresses his “culture” commits the deed. 

The left makes political hay out of administering this dual standard. The idea that one is to give legal immigrants a chance and to imply that, it is incumbent upon the settler to earn the opportunity by performance is labeled “racism”. Indeed, the enlightened citizens of all countries will agree with a view that grows out of their value system. That is that there is a duty to protect minorities from proven and groundless persecution. Just here, this ex-refugee needs to react to today’s malpractice. There is no moral obligation to protect minorities that are bent upon harassing and exploit their host. Even legitimate refugee status –implying home-country persecution for political reasons- does not grant the right to violate the order upon which the protector’s society is based. 

Amazing is that it is now accepted that alleged refugees turn out to strive to import the way of life that they have abandoned. Have they not, as claimed, fled that system? Fake asylum seekers, sensing the feebleness of resistance, react to those that make out of refugee status a license to ignore the standards that govern their rescuers. Therefore, more and more immigrations not only refuse to fit themselves into the host’s system  but use resistance to it and hatred for it as the glue to bind them together. A consequence finds expression in frightening statistics. Where the writer lives, 22% of the residents are aliens. The rogue element of these produces half of the criminals, 59% of the murders, and seventy percent of the prisoners. Lastly, 44% of the dole is absorbed by the twenty percent that is much younger than the national average. It rounds out the picture that two out of three persons suspected of wanting to give the USA a new 9/11 are naturalized citizens. 

Who, besides the exploited natives are the victims? They are the good immigrants that bring needed skills and pursue regular careers. Especially hindered are genuine refugees that are carrying a stigma created by criminal and welfare attracted migrants. Fairness and humanism demand a change of course.