Cubans. The open-borders crowd doesn’t want Cubans here, for obvious reasons (they will vote Republican). Apparently, though, they also want to refuse entry to Haitians, for no obvious reason I can think of.
Anyway, for years we’ve been hearing from our elites – mostly, but not exclusively, leftists – that there was this zeroth amendment to the Constitution that prohibited the average American from making any complaints about open borders. This amendment appears at the base of the Statue of Liberty in a poem by Emma Lazarus, and we have to respect it, even though it is not actually part of the Constitution. We have to respect it because we ourselves are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants (unless we happen to be a full-blooded American Indian), and for us to want to prevent other immigrants from coming here would thus be hypocritical and mean-spirited. Accordingly, to be against open borders is in effect to be un-American. In fact, some have gone so far as to say that foreigners are the real Americans and that those of us who were born here and grew up here are sad imitations of them. They will be hard-working, etc.
Now there are all kinds of holes in this argument. The implication is that anyone who is against open borders is therefore against immigrants, but this is seldom true. Those of us who are “against immigrants” mostly are against the complete lack of control the average person has in this situation. It is all controlled and decided by the elites.
But never mind any other holes in the argument because those in favor of open borders have now come out against them by wanting to prevent some people from coming here. (Horrors! They are anti-immigrant. How racist!) However, as some clever person has pointed out, all the Cubans and Haitians have to do is to get to some other place where they can then join all those coming through our open southern border. It is true that that might be hard, but then it would be amusing if ordinary Americans were to help them do this by intercepting any flotillas and helping them get to Mexico or wherever (near Brownsville, TX, if that's feasible).
And if this were to happen, expect the rhetoric about walls to change faster than you can imagine.
But getting back to Cuba, I see that the clueless woman who came up with this 1619 business has claimed that blacks are treated well there. (See here.) Now contrast the U.S. and Cuba. We have had a black president, so what about Cuba? Nope. No black leaders. In fact, throughout most of my life, it had only one leader, Fidel Castro, who was white, but now his brother has taken over. I guess leadership there is hereditary.
Also, the clueless one made the following statement (see the same link):
“I’m definitely not an expert on race relations internationally,” Hannah-Jones began. She also admitted that “it’s also hard to look at countries that didn’t have large institutions of slavery and compare them to the United States.”
“If you want to see the most equal multi-racial democ… — it’s not a democracy — the most equal multi-racial country in our hemisphere, it would be Cuba,” Hannah-Jones said.
Is she trying to say that Cuba didn’t have a large institution of slavery? It is easy to find maps of the slave trade, and most of them show the same thing: Cuba got a huge number of slaves, possibly more than all of the United States did.
Comments