"We can't throw all the migrants under the bus because of a few bad apples"

The latest terror attack: a vehicular strike
outside the UK Parliament
On March 22, 2017, a highly-esteemed professor used the argument above to diverge from his lecture and demonize the Trump Administration's travel ban.

Unbeknownst to the professor, less than an hour ago, up to forty natives had been "thrown under the car" - that is, attacked with a grey hatchback driven by a "product of migration to the UK." And that really sums it up: either somebody loses an opportunity because they are stopped at the border, or somebody is dying because somebody was not stopped at the border. The lib-left will try to cover the former in emotional gloss to make a point but, really, the trade-off is the bottom line.

Back to the lecture, the professor proclaimed that migrants are important because "they do the jobs nobody else wants to do." It is, for example, an old lib-left line that illegals only pick vegetables in a field or sell oranges by a freeway. In reality, only four percent of illegal immigrants work in agiculture.

So what about the rest of the illegals, and the legal migrants, too? Walking past Taco Bell, I saw a sign advertising jobs at $10.50/hour. Surely, there are jobs that migrants can strive for. And this represents the base bottom. Any number of manual-labour, blue-collar positions are within grasp.

Incidentally, I had just gotten off the phone with a friend of mine who graduated from a state university and is earning just a dollar or two more per hour in his white-collar job while working for the state. He is not alone. The average yearly earnings in the United States are around $50k per household. Assuming two migrants live and work together earning $10.50 an hour, their household earnings would be $44k. Now for the fun part: because tuition costs are up to $33k a year, full need-based scholarships are for the poorest of the poor, jobs requiring college education are less available than ever and economic growth is sluggish, blue-collar jobs that "nobody else wants to do" are the jobs that are being sought. In fact, the up-and-coming generation is even being told to target blue-collar jobs.

So what is the impetus behind the "migrants do the jobs nobody else wants to do" argument? As we all know, the argument is the cornerstone of lib-left pro-multicultural thought. But it is also a plank for fiscal conservatives like the professor, because graphs and charts tell him that healthy economies will - and always will - require migrants to supply and perform the services and labour that the host community needs. But at what cost is the cycle followed, and why is this model considered the only way when so few countries endorsed a "migrants-for-labour" policy before it was en vogue to do so?

Furthermore, what makes the model even desirable in the first place? Aside from the obvious downsides - the potential culture clash, foreignization and radical Islamic terrorism - societies that follow the model do not appear to be more inventive, culturally fulfilling or even financially rewarding. Look at how few inventions have emerged in the last few decades with this system, how empty and repetitive our culture has become and how many people live below poverty, are unemployed or rely on government aid. Just a few thoughts to think about should the topic come up in a classroom near you.


  1. If you are so informed with knowledge, then surely you are aware that the person who attacked in London was not a migrant..........

  2. Thank you for your comment, Anonymous.

    Please ask yourself these two questions:
    1) Was the person who attacked living in the UK?
    2) Was the person who attacked living in the UK because of migration?

    The person who attacked was most definitely a product of migration to the UK


Post a Comment