Replies

I don’t know about this book, or what else is written inside it, but this seems to be fairly empathetic and objective view “To let them in would destroy us. To reject them would destroy them.” That would seem to be an honest view of a humanitarian crisis described. People in need of help would be destroyed without the help. The people who need to give help would have trouble adapting to such a dramatic shift in numbers and the people coming for help would bring a different set of values that might threaten the giving society’s ability to help anyone in the future. It doesn’t sound racist to me it sounds like the description of a cultural and social conundrum.

People escaping a natural disaster is different from people escaping a culture/society/government that doesn’t promote values of self-reliance and civil society and the rule of law. People coming from a place that dig wells and carry water in buckets and don’t have sophisticated industries or agriculture can’t contribute much to a society with indoor plumbing. It is not anybody’s fault. The solution is to export the ideas and technologies that make the west a place to seek refuge to the place from which the refugees flee. But we have institutions from US Aid to the United Nations that are just corrupt and bureaucratic. Very little real humanitarian relief on a global scale; except in those situations where food and supplies are airlifted due to extreme and sudden ecological/natural disasters.

No surprise that a group like the SPLC is demagoging here. They hate this Stephen Miller guy for some reason I am not all that familiar with the reasons but this kind of story is just the cult of personality - it doesn’t accomplish any material good for anyone.

They hate this Stephen Miller guy for some reason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Same reason they hate Donald Trump.
He sides with the citizens and the rule of law and wants to help the citizens keep their country.

The elite will not allow that.