When we think about immigration, we usually see it as a negative force on indigenous populations across the world. Whether it be Columbus discovering the New World to rape and enslave the natives or overwhelmingly male refugees flooding Europe to rape and replace the natives, typically natives in high-immigration regions suffer the most. Land and other resources are finite on this world, so it stands to reason that whatever indigenous populations bear in costs from additional people moving to their lands should be nullified by extra taxes on these immigrants to offset those extra costs for locals. While the anti-worker liberal can pretend that Muhammad is just as German as Hans and that Jose is just as Japanese as Kensuke, the fact of the matter is that neither Muhammad or Jose are from those countries, and as guests, should bring things to the table to more than offset any costs they impose on their hosts. When we look at the fact that a great deal of a country’s economic progress is reliant on its available labor pool, it becomes apparent that immigration is vital in sustaining developed economies, given that birth rates are falling in the developed world. While we can source workers from degenerating and “developing” countries to avoid reductions in our labor pools, it’d be far better to tax those immigrants higher in order to subsidize the creation of native workers, in terms of procreation, child rearing, and education. If this seems chauvinistic or nationalist, that is because it is. Nations across the globe are the products of native cultures and the creation of patriotic policies like these helps to ensure the survival of these nations.
While taxing legal immigrants more to subsidize the existence and proliferation of native populations might seem controversial, the fact of the matter is that if the immigrants still keep coming, it clearly benefits both sides. The natives of developed countries aren’t obligated to take on the unnecessary social costs (cultural conflicts), financial costs (higher costs of living), and sexual costs (increased rates of rape, reduction of native gene pool size) that come with the inclusion of foreigners and indigenous people should be compensated accordingly. At the end of the day, if you are on another native population’s land and you aren’t giving back to their community, you are at the very least indirectly hurting them. When we look at things like illegal immigration and the importation of welfare-dependent refugees, the answer is quite simple in our eyes: the host is in no way obligated to support these civilian invaders and lumpenproletarian parasites. When we look at how property laws work around the world, home invaders typically forfeit their rights once they cross over the property lines of the family that lives in that home and we see it the same way with unwelcome immigrants. While many would argue that the developed country should be on the hook for returning these invaders home, we disagree here at DMSG. The receiving country should be allowed to do whatever they want with these intruders, whether that come in the form of labor camps, medical experimentation, or other things that would benefit the defendant country and offset the costs of defending their borders. While former President Donald Trump used to publicly pretend that Mexico would pay for America’s border walls, if DMSG had its way, one way or another those walls would be paid for by Mexicans whether they liked it or not. With over ten million illegal immigrants in the United States, the amount of surplus we could extract from them without restraint could pay for a great deal of things!
While many would argue that people should have a right to live wherever they want, DMSG asks: why? When has anyone in history been allowed to move in and settle in foreign countries without assimilating, without following local laws, and without contributing to the local community without experiencing severe repercussions? The fact of the matter is that DMSG sees the propagation of viewpoints like “Open Borders” as a veiled form of ethno-masochism, with these ideas having been dreamed up by bourgeois forces in order to saturate labor markets and diminish workers’ bargaining powers domestically. We aren’t all the same and cultural coexistence is more than not more costly and dangerous than cultural homogeneity for the native populations. From an indigenous rights perspective, insinuating that unhampered immigration, be it in the form of intentional conquest or in the form of illegal immigration, is liberating or any other liberal buzzword is a form of veiled genocide justification. While that may seem like hyperbole, when we look at Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide, it is as follows:
“… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2”
Even though we look at genocide as being an intentional act going by the definition of the word, it’s not the hunter that poses the biggest threat to the deer but the developer, who has an economic incentive in destroying the living space and resources that deer require to live. Similar to the developer in the deer metaphor creating a shortage in food supply for the deer with their continued development, when we look at capitalist nations who save on expenses by importing people from foreign nations rather than educating their own population, it slowly strips away a nation’s people of their ability to put food on their own table. Similar to the developer in the deer metaphor covering up any wildlife losses that come about with developing the land, when we look at how capitalist nations suppress crime statistics in order to cover up the negative consequences of their imported people, it shows the willingness of the ruling class in a nation to allow the killing of its own people so long as their bourgeois ideals that ensure a cheap labor supply are protected. Similar to how the developer in the deer scenario might downplay the intelligence and moral values of the deer in order to justify the declining population of deer, a capitalist country telling its native people that they all suffer from a guilt that they are born with, that they have no culture, and that only immigration can culturally enrich them plays along those same lines of dehumanizing the victims. The list of abuses inflicted on indigenous populations in the West since the turn of the century continues to grow but the point of the matter is this: genocide doesn’t have to be intentional and in the 21st century, due to the incentives to import workers and prevent the labor pool size from declining in developed countries, this process is a natural occurrence in capitalism. This is due to many different reasons but it comes down to mainly the fact that developed countries now have to deal with inverted population triangles, in which the resources devoted previously to younger people are now being sapped away to support an ever-expanding group of retirees, which in turn prevents young people from procreating at the same rates, which in turn incentivizes countries to seek population replacements out of a need to keep their economy’s wheels turning.
While ethno-masochists may rejoice at the decline of the deer and media outlets may tell the deer that having children is a bad decision when the deer could travel and act like children instead, we need to remember that material conditions determine social conditions. Immigration and population replacement aren’t a personal or hateful process at its core but just a game of numbers, in which corporations and government planners see the clear benefits in pretending that nations don’t exist and substituting more expensive people that they’d have to educate and train for cheaper people educated and trained elsewhere. The corporation doesn’t have to worry about its daughter getting raped or its son having his job stolen, while as long as the tax base remains intact, the government can continue to function and ensure that it can pay for its social security obligations that guarantee a continued source of votes for its elected officials. While the idea behind “Open Borders” is said to be a left-wing plot, the truth is that no socialist or “communist” country has ever done anything similar to this in history. Stalin did not tell Russians they had no culture, Hitler did not advocate for giving citizenship and free healthcare to illegal immigrants, and Mao didn’t cover up the crime rates of immigrant groups. While people that see this blatant trend for what it is like to blame it on “the Jews” or “the communists,” the fact of the matter is that this trend originated completely in capitalism and only the overthrowing of this economic system, as well as the destruction of progressivism, can guarantee that these market-friendly genocides of indigenous populations are prevented.