Who believes in open borders? And why on earth would anyone be this stupid?

Sadly the answer to the first question is quite a large chunk of the media and educational establishment, although thankfully almost no-one else.

A recent poll in the UK had 80% of respondents declaring in favour of more drastic immigration controls. Of the 20% who were left most would have been in favour of the system as it stands, only a tiny % would have responded in favour of open borders, it is beyond a minority view, it is a view at odds with the vast majority of public opinion. So why do we even hear about it? Why does the view of such a tiny part of the population have enough weight to even be on the radar?

Well it’s because the believers in this insanity are in the faculty lounges and newsrooms of not only Britain but the world. The only believers in the free movement of humanity are either employed by an openly left wing or publicly owned media source or a publicly funded educational establishment. They know they won’t have to compete on the open market with any new labour that comes into a country, so they are insulated from the proposed effect of their insane ideology, although if the work of left wing journalists gets outsourced to Mumbai I will be the first to laugh my head off.

But why do they believe it?

If free borders were applied to the world it would seem to be a counter productive activity, the first world would immediately be swamped by the third world and the infrastructure of the west would be destroyed. It would be a true levelling, all the well off consumer societies in the world reduced to the level of a third world gutter. Why would anyone in their right mind support this?

Worldview

There are two views of the world, one sane one insane.

1.    The first view states that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, so anyone who owns one dollar more than the average must have “oppressed” or “stolen” that wealth from those who have below the average. It’s the same as saying that everyone should earn more or less the same amount regardless of how much work they have done. This is the insane view of the world.

2.    The second view is that we earn wealth and that the total amount of wealth in the world is not finite but infinite. That if I make a profit from my shop that does not make me a thief. It means that if my father slaved his whole life to make a better life for me then I should be able to enjoy the rewards of his labour. It also means that if my people have created a country that is wealthy safe and well cultured then I have a right to it that is not shared by the inhabitants of the rest of the world.

While the believers in open borders are few, the believers in the first ideology are legion, which is why their insane and inane squabbling gets media play. Nearly every mainstream political party in the west is committed to the ideals of “equality”, in other words, they are committed to the first [insane] ideology.

Equality is a short way of saying that anyone who works hard and has more money is a thief; this is why the politically correct masses are always screaming about the “imperialism” and “oppression” of the west. Its not actual oppression they are upset about, it’s simply that the west is successful.

Since in their view everyone is born equal and there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, any person or country that is better off must have become so through “oppressing” others. Therefore the only way to solve this problem is to allow the masses of the poor world to come and live in the first world to make everyone more “equal”.

Of course this ideology doesn’t sound that cool when you live in the so-called “rich” world and can’t pay for your heating, which is why this is an ideology almost totally confined to the well off, usually public employees with secure jobs. In the view of the great and the good the rest of us can simply go jump.