rhodescholar
Gold Member
- Banned
- #1
I've wondered for some time why is it acceptable for SOME peoples to move en masse, like central/south americans/africans/muslims to the US, Canada or Europe, but it is NOT ok for other peoples to move.
For instance, mexico has buttressed its economy on moving a large portion of its population into the US, and given how corrupt the mexican government is, this can be considered intentional. After all, the convenient US safety valve allows mexico (and lots of other poorly-run countries south/outside of the US) to continue to operate corruptly/criminally, stealing its country's wealth and relieving the possibility of an uprising by the very people who would do so - basically forcing their hand to move out of the country.
That said, why is it acceptable to the UN, leftist media, etc for mexico to transfer a large portion of its population to the US, but not for Israelis to move to the west bank?
If anything, the mexican situation is worse, because they are moving into a fully functioning, sovereign nation - the Israelis are moving into a region that has not been part of a defined nation for centuries, if ever.
So I ask why, given how similar the two situations are, for the UN/media/leftists to attack Israelis for moving - but not for tens of millions of mexicans?
I should add in neither situation is either group fleeing as refugees.
For instance, mexico has buttressed its economy on moving a large portion of its population into the US, and given how corrupt the mexican government is, this can be considered intentional. After all, the convenient US safety valve allows mexico (and lots of other poorly-run countries south/outside of the US) to continue to operate corruptly/criminally, stealing its country's wealth and relieving the possibility of an uprising by the very people who would do so - basically forcing their hand to move out of the country.
That said, why is it acceptable to the UN, leftist media, etc for mexico to transfer a large portion of its population to the US, but not for Israelis to move to the west bank?
If anything, the mexican situation is worse, because they are moving into a fully functioning, sovereign nation - the Israelis are moving into a region that has not been part of a defined nation for centuries, if ever.
So I ask why, given how similar the two situations are, for the UN/media/leftists to attack Israelis for moving - but not for tens of millions of mexicans?
I should add in neither situation is either group fleeing as refugees.
