“It’s Sad Because They’re Poor” has Never Been a Core Value of Any Country

RSS Feed

“It’s Sad Because They’re Poor” has Never Been a Core Value of Any Country

November 23rd, 2015

Awake Goy

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
November 22, 2015

Following the massacre in Paris, Barack Obama has become obsessed with pushing for America to be flooded by Arab immigrants from ISIS territory.

He has picked up on the European “values” talk.

VoA:

“There’s a difference between being vigilant and being concerned and taking this seriously and taking precautions and in some cases changing out security arrangements as we’ve done for example in aviation,” Obama said.

“There’s a difference between smart applications of law enforcement and military and intelligence and succumbing to the kind of fear that leads us to abandon our values, to abandon how we live, to abandon or change how we treat each other.”

The problem is that even if they are not terrorists, they are at best welfare leeches who do absolutely nothing for our country.

It is also notable that they are not even escaping a war, but escaping camps in Turkey.

I guess it sucks to live in one of these Turkish camps, but, you know, things are tough all over. It isn't my problem. — I guess it sucks to live in one of these Turkish camps, but, you know, things are tough all over. It isn’t my problem.

The entire argument (the same as is coming from Merkel, the UN, the Jewish media, etc.) is that we have to let them in because it’s sad that they’re poor.

This is not a logical argument, and it certainly does not represent some traditional value of America or any other country.

It is fair enough to say as a statement of fact that America is a nation of immigrants. More accurately, it is a European colony that used immigration as a means of expanding itself across an unconquered landmass.

Each wave of immigrants was brought in not because “omg it’s so sad,” but because the decision to let them in benefited the country financially.

During the colonial era, it was all White Northern-European protestants, except the Irish. People were brought over to settle the land. They paid taxes to the British crown. The Irish were mostly indentured servants.

The reason it was a "nation of immigrants" was not due to some vague ideology, but the hard practical reality of filling up this land with people. — The reason it was a “nation of immigrants” was not due to some vague ideology, but the hard practical reality of filling up this land with people.

The same basic policy continued after the founding of the United States. They needed people, but only allowed people that would benefit the country. They ended up having troubles with Catholics and had to limit Catholic immigration. They also banned the Chinese, even while the Chinese were considered good workers, because people hated them.

Obviously, the Blacks were brought over for the reason of financial gain, given that they were slaves.

It wasn’t until the 1900s that we ever allowed non-Whites (other than Black slaves) to come to the country in significant numbers, and this was still always for economic gain.

Even the Mexican invasion, which began under George Bush and has remained ongoing, is for the financial gain of the ruling class, given that it keeps wages so low.

Whites would have asked for like ten dollars an hour for this.

The Jews will constantly whine about how we rejected their boats back when they were trying to escape Hitler in the thirties. We rejected these people because they were seen as not benefiting the country.

So when did using mass immigration as a means of humanitarian aid become a core value of Western countries?