If the Migrant Invasion is Not Displacement What Is It?

Was the plan more crime, disease, and overdose deaths?

The question of whether your government has the will or the ability (the desire) to strictly define boundaries was answered in the spring of 2020. The market test that followed framed a series of restrictions pursued in some locales with militant enthusiasm for a number of years. It did not limit itself by age, race, sex, or origin. There was no shortage of reasoning or justification for any or all of it, no matter how absurd or contrary. So Yes, the government, from top to bottom, is more than able to define constraints and, even under the most ridiculous of circumstances, enforce them.

With that as the foundation, what, then, is the deal with unrestricted immigration?

Photo by Christian Wiediger on Unsplash

Why?

Without taking up any ideological tropes (or trying not to do that), what is the point of this open border policy? Why is it being allowed? Democrat mayors and governors long ago said their sanctuaries were bursting, more than filled to capacity. Inner-city residents are seeking redress for the strains the swarms of new arrivals have placed on their communities. The volume has more than exceeded any argument that we need cheap labor (which is undercutting low and unskilled Americans' pay and opportunities in a down economy). Financially demanding school districts are screaming for more money as they attempt to accommodate a multi-national army of non-English speaking children who lack even basic skills (or any concept of the culture of schools and learning). Taxpayers, in a remarkably shitty inflationary economy, are supposed to part with more dollars to house, feed, cloth, and train significant numbers who appear to have no interest in assimilating. And we would be naive to believe that 1) our enemies are not using this influx to their advantage; 2) that what we're doing is better for anyone, especially the new arrivals; and 3) that it is advantageous to dump millions of people with no connection to our history or culture (and often little connection or desire to cohabitate with each other) wherever we can find room. And they are still pouring in.

Yes, one could make the argument that the response to COVID was based on the presumption that there was a public health interest, but unvaccinated illegals were piling into America throughout the pandemic - and not just carrying COVID. We have seen the rise and or spike in illness and disease once rare and most certainly carried here from the third world as a product of open-border policy. Drugs, gangs, crime, and overdoses rise exponentially in parallel to the increase in illegal entrants. All of these present a public health threat, none of which inspires the sort of draconian control exercised upon actual Americans under the premise that it would slow or stop the spread of an airborne virus.

Why (Again!)?

The question isn't: can it be prevented, limited, restricted, controlled, managed, vetted, or any other term? The question is why it isn't. This is bad for America: public health, safety, quality of life, longevity, the economy, the climate, crime, resource management, and national safety. We must therefore ask, are these negative outcomes the goal, or is there a different one, and what is that? The answer to this is any number of well-worn theories about replacement or displacement, which gain increasing credibility if the harms are not the goal.

Conversely, by denying that this is about replacement or displacement and assuming an unwillingness to admit complete incompetence in place of malice, what other conclusions are we to draw? We must assume that the Biden-Harris administration wanted rising foreign disease, drug gangs, and overdose deaths, more crime, cultural division, and strained public resources.

Yes, there is always going to be a narrative about the responsibility to provide aid to refugees and asylees, the unwashed masses. But given all the social, cultural, and public health disadvantages to both citizens and non-citizens, where are these humans who are benefiting, and what are those benefits, and how can they possibly justify all the downsides?

If it is not displacement or replacement, what is it?