Last week in the US, Democrat senator Dick Durbin leaked like a rat to the press. Revealing a private conversation at the Oval Office he and some others had with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Trump reportedly questioned why the US should use (insane) diversity lotteries or migration chains to accept more immigrants from Haiti and “shithole countries” in Africa. Or did he use “house” rather than “hole?” It doesn’t matter. He has admitted to using “tough language.”
Apparently, too, in the same breath, he queried why not Norway as a source of immigrants, having just met the Norwegian prime minister. The problem here is that Haitians and Africans are, shall we say, dark while Norwegians are fair. What a racist. Proof positive according to numbers of commentators and politicians. A Grand Wizard in disguise.
I am not too sure what previous presidents have said in private conversations about issues they care deeply about when presented with ridiculous and partisan solutions. Judging by the apoplectic media meltdown following Trump’s alleged remark, I can only assume that they have been models of decorum.
Anyway, I come not to defend Trump unwisely using base words to reflect his feelings when in the company of leakers. He will survive quite well because he is doing great things for his country. My principal aim is to investigate how best to delineate certain countries which you might not want your children to holiday in. And where you might not want to run lotteries to choose immigrants or accept aunts, uncles and nephews of those who have already won lotteries from the countries in question.
Right now, we have a series of euphemisms which tend to lump Third World or less-developed countries into the one category. But, of course, they are not all the same. To avoid profanity, I will use the descriptor “basket case(s)” to describe countries which are, say, corrupt, crime-ridden and dirt-poor and from which masses of people want to escape.
Is this descriptor something that Trump could use safely in extremis? In other words, whenever he is in a room with Dick Durbin or Never-Trumps. Of course not, that’s a silly proposition. Trump gets away with nothing. As has been variously pointed out, so it isn’t new, if Trump were to be seen walking on water, the headline would read ‘Trump can’t swim’.
But back to basket-case countries. For illustrative and comparative purposes, I have chosen – purely at random you understand – Haiti, South Sudan, Somalia and Norway.
Transparency International is an organisation which ranks countries by corruption. Of the 176 countries it ranks, Somalia is bottom and South Sudan next to bottom. Haiti comes in at 159th. And Norway? It is sixth on the list. Other things equal, where would you like your (out-of-the-hat) immigrants to come from?
Based on UNDOC figures, South Sudan’s homicide rate is 13.7 per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Haiti’s is 10 and Somalia’s 5.6 (oh yeah!). And in Norway? It is 0.6. Where would you like your immigrants to come from?
World Bank data puts GDP per capita, in current US dollars in 2016, at $434 in Somalia and $740 in Haiti (there is no data for South Sudan but safely assume it is piddling). And Norway’s? It is $70,912. Where would you like your immigrants to come from?
It goes without saying that identifying basket-case countries should proceed without racial connotation. Countries of predominantly fair-skinned people should be eligible for inclusion. There aren’t any you say? Then it must be racist. And that precisely is the kind of double-speak which passes for logic among the left.
We have a problem in the rich (predominantly) fair-skinned west. Our problem is thinking that we are lucky. We are not; if by luck we mean chance. Chance has nothing to do with it. Our deeply embedded Judaeo-Christian culture and values have made us rich – not our fair skins. So, we better make sure when inviting large numbers of people in that they don’t bring dysfunctional cultures and values with them. With Haitian, or Sudanese or Somalian cultures and values Norway would not be the Norway that we know. It would be a race of fair-skinned people wanting to escape en masse to America.
Racists make excuses for corrupt, crime-ridden, dirt-poor societies. It is the racism of low expectations. Secretly, the Dick Durbin’s of the world harbour the thought that dark-skinned people are stupid and can’t compete and, then traitorously, spot the opportunity to give them preference in immigration in exchange for their compliant grateful votes. What happens to the US is collateral damage.
Non-racists, including Trump, I suggest, put differences down to culture and values not to race. Trump wants a merit-based system which brings people who can contribute and who, as he puts it in his homespun way, “that love us and want to love our country.” He puts America first, as he should.
What is wrong with that? How is that the least racist? It is only racist to those who see everything through a racial prism.
I kid you not. Leftists have well dispensed with their grossly mistaken, but kind of respectable, narrative that the government is better at directing economic affairs than is the market. They’re now pimping every contemptible cause, especially including untrammelled immigration, to undermine western civilisation.
To be fair to leftists of the past, a new alien breed has taken over. “Sleazebags” comes to my mind. Now there’s a word for Trump to conjure with. These are people in inner trendy suburbs who never personally experience the consequences of their own perverted ideology. There are no blue collars to be seen. It has been the non-fiction version of mind and body snatching. And a lot of useful idiots continue to trot along tribally with their votes and views as though nothing had changed.