Holding back the robotics age, the immigration industry is the new slave economy

Earlier, Armed with Knowledge explored the reasons for multiculturalism. Today we will cover one of the elements of multiculturalism in greater depth: the economy of immigration.

In a number of ways, the economy of immigration is similar to the 19th century economy of slavery.

The 19th century had three principle components: 1) a commercial sector that used slaves to create jobs (ex: end product manufacturing and banking) and put goods and services to market at maximum profit; 2) an export industry that generated wealth by distributing slave-produced goods and services and 3) a government that protected the wealth-generating slave institution, which created taxable earnings to generate federal wealth. Today, the economy has three dominant components: 1) a commercial sector that uses immigrants to create jobs (ex: social services and law enforcement) and put goods and services to market at maximum profit; 2) an export industry that generates wealth by distributing immigrant-made goods and services and 3) a government that protects the wealth-generating immigration institution, which creates taxable earnings to generate federal wealth. It also involves a criminal element.

Under both systems, monied elite interacted with government elite to design policy that protected their choice institution. For example, in 1820, the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed that slaveowners could use violence towards their slaves (North Carolina vs. Mann). The decision empowered slaveowners to punish those who tried to escape from, or disrupt, the slave economy. With the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Congress passed an act that gave slaveowners the legal protection to retrieve slaves who crossed state lines. In the 1857 case Dred Scott vs. Landford, the Supreme Court held that slaves from Africa and their descendants could never become U.S. citizens. The decision cemented the commercial industry's control over the slave labour force, both in the present and the future.

In the European Union, legislation is proposed by commercial sector lobbyists who come together to form a commission - the European Commission. They have their sights on the ballooning, predominantly poor population in Africa and see migrants who can potentially contribute to the workforce that the commercial sector wants, producing goods and services for wages that are much lower than the supply/demand market value and much lower than what a native European would be willing to accept. The leaders of the European Union propose immigrant quotas for each member state. European Union member states have been pressured to amend their citizenship laws, as the arriving migrants may or may not have documents. Regulations concerning the free movement of peoples and inability to interfere with open borders are some of the ways that the European Union has taken control over affairs. The consequences are tremendous: divergence of interests concerning the native and new populations, an open door to terrorists who wish to help establish the Caliphate, education and integration costs and social system burdens when the migrants fail to work.

Now we will examine how world view is shaped to justify each institution. In the 19th century, Christendom had a firm place in European civilization. But, like all Semitic religions, Christianity permits, and merely regulates, slavery. The idea of tribes and the story of the curse of Ham were part of the construct used to  justify the economy of slavery. In today's society, the education system and socio-spiritual impulses are shaped for the economy built on immigration to thrive. The new religion is one-world-ism, the belief that the differences within humanity are all stereotypes, that all people of all backgrounds may be capable of the same thing and that all the failings of immigration are either overstated or non-existent. Those who do not agree are treated as heretics and, instead of being told they will go to hell for rebelling against God, they are told that their ancestors were colonizers who built Auschwitz. Support for the immigration system is treated as atonement.

In the end, the economy built around slavery came to an end. Industrial development and machine-based industrial power signaled a transformation in whose assets generated the most wealth, and these elite did not need or want slaves. Railroad and industrial work required hundreds of helping hands, and it actually became less profitable to clothe, feed and house those whose labour was in demand than to pay out a salary which was barely suffice to take care of these needs. Those who perished due to workplace accidents or became ill due to overwork would have been a huge liability had they been owned by those they worked for. Nevertheless, those who were behind the economy built around slavery did not wish to adapt to the new age. Nor did they go quietly into the night. Ultimately, the region where the economy built around slavery succeeded and, when the forces of the U.S. failed to withdraw, the result was war.

Here, a parallel can be drawn to the present.  The rise of automation threatens to destroy many of the jobs which the monied elite, who have their hands in production and services, use cheap immigrant labour to carry out. As the problems with immigration continue to add up and the advances in robotics move forward, will those who have invested in the economy built around immigration entrench themselves like those who defended the economy built around slavery?

Comments