Whenever a celebrity, a politician, a journalist, a TV host, or any similar high-profile person publicly endorses mass immigration and repeats the propaganda slogan "diversity is our strength", when people check where that person lives, quite unsurprisingly a clear pattern emerges:
In the vast, vast majority of cases, those people live in areas of the country with the least amount of immigrants, the least amount of "diversity". These tend to be affluent areas with no cheap apartments, no migrant hotels, no migrant processing centers, no places where migrants are placed, no migrants loitering on the streets, no migrant tent camps, no trash on the streets. In terms of population these areas tend to be at a minimum 90% native white people, quite often 99%. Unsurprisingly, the very few migrants that can afford to live there are rich ones, completely westernized (probably from very young), with high education and a high-paying job.
There have been cases where the government has tried to place illegal migrants into some of these places and, unsurprisingly (and quite hypocritically), the rich inhabitants object to it. And because of their wealth and influence, they often succeed in stopping it from happening, keeping their rich areas clean of illegal migrants. There have been several actual examples of this, in multiple western countries (in the US and in Europe).
A moniker for this kind of hypocritical behavior has existed for quite a while: "Not in my back yard."
It's easy to defend and endorse mass immigration and the importing and keeping of illegal migrants when you don't have to experience the consequences where you live, when you are only surrounded by rich white people in a quiet clean high-standards-of-living high-security suburb or even city with extremely few immigrants of any kind (and pretty much no illegal migrants). It's very easy to endorse it when they are not camping in your back yard, and they burden other places but not yours.
And what do you think happens if somehow they fail in stopping the flood of illegal migrants into their own area, which inevitably brings with it decreased safety, increased crime, decreased cleanliness, and the closing of businesses?
They move somewhere else, of course. They are rich, so they can easily afford it. If their metaphorical back yards do get invaded by the illegal migrants, they just move somewhere else in the country, or sometimes even to another country. And, obviously, they will still keep virtue-signaling and promoting the greatness of mass immigration. Never mind that they themselves are constantly keeping themselves separated from it, and fleeing it if it comes too close; that doesn't matter.
Unsurprisingly, the strongest opposition to mass immigration come from those who actually have to live with the consequences and have no choice about it. It comes from those who have to personally see and experience it in their everyday lives because they can't afford living in a rich neighborhood with almost zero migrants.
Yet, the celebrities and politicians tell them "you have to accept them into your neighborhoods. Sure, we will not accept them in ours, but you have to. Because we say so. We are rich and powerful, and you are a peasant, so we command and you obey."
Comments
Post a Comment