What really motivates the left on immigration

Judging by the endless brouhaha over President Donald Trump's executive orders regarding immigration, travel and the like, it's abundantly clear that the left is serious about anything that could possibly impede, however slightly or temporarily, the endless flow of Third World immigration into the United States.

Dead serious.

Chucky Schumer's tears are just the tip of the iceberg. Astonishing as it may seem, most of these folks actually seem to genuinely lose sleep over it. An aborted baby is dead tissue, a woman murdered by an illegal immigrant is a statistic, but try to keep someone from the Third World out of the United States for any reason at all, and all of a sudden we've got some serious moral outrage.

Serious enough to skip an evening playing video games, smoking pot, or whatever else liberals do and instead hightail it down to the local Dollar Tree, buy some poster board and a few Sharpies, draw a goofy picture of Trump with a Hitler mustache and go block some traffic somewhere.

The rest of us? Well, when we're not working, we just shake our heads and wonder what's gotten into theirs.

When was the last time you drove down your street and mused, "There just aren't enough Syrian, Chechen, or Somali refugees in my neighborhood to suit my tastes. What can I do to make sure there are more?" Do you go to the movies, or sit in traffic, or wait in line at the DMV and think how awesome it would be if there were MORE crowds? Do you apply for a job and wish there were MORE people to compete with?

That's right – nobody thinks like that, not even liberals. For them, because hypocrisy is usually a defining trait, it's pretty much an "OK for thee but not for me" kind of thing. Their gated communities and lily-white enclaves are shut off from the actual ramifications of the inane policies they espouse. If given a "chance" to actually host a "Syrian refugee," few if any would take it, as this Joey Salads video sadly demonstrates.

But make no mistake, they're still serious about filling our country with as many Somalis and Syrians and Pakistanis and Mexicans as possible. And the more backward and medieval the culture of origination, the better. I hear there's even a bonus for failed states where female genital mutilation is a "thing."

So really, what makes these people tick?

Is it altruism? For some, possibly. Certainly, only the heartless wouldn't be moved by the horrific photo of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi lying lifeless on a Turkish beach after his boat capsized shortly after beginning the journey to Greece. Images like the one of Omran Daqneesh, the visibly stunned child whose picture, taken shortly after he miraculously survived an air strike on his Aleppo neighborhood, became a "symbol" of sorts of his country's suffering, move us and generate a desire to "fix" the problem, by whatever means necessary.

But how? Is bringing all 1.6 billion Muslims to America the solution? No? Well, why is bringing tens of thousands to our shores somehow the "magic fix" to world poverty or the endemic problem of radical Islam?

This classic NumbersUSA video utterly annihilates the case for mass immigration to the United States as a way to alleviate world poverty and suffering. In truth, we could bring millions of refugees here and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent. What it would and does do, besides the obvious security risks, is further strain our already crumbling infrastructure, continue to tear away at our already torn social fabric and add to an already crippling national debt.

Is it, as some academics will argue, to elevate America's standing in the world? Apparently, there's a "fair share" of refugees the U.S. needs to accept to be perceived as having done our "part." Never mind the millions we've already taken in and continue to take. They will always want more.

The same academics will also say we need to accept refugees, particularly Muslim ones, to keep the Islamic world from hating us somehow. But let's get real. We could let in 2 million, 5 million – hell, we could let in 50 million Muslims, and the radicals among them would still hate us. Except now they would in a better position to do something about it.

The problem is, if we were to let in 50 million Muslims, all of whom tend to have more children on average than native-born Americans, the United States itself would become a Muslim-majority nation in a couple of generations. So would Europe.

Which really gets to the motive behind liberal obsession with immigration, doesn't it? When you peel away the onion of various possible and even partial motivations, the real driving force at the root of it all is something that has plagued humans since the dawn of civilization: the lust for power.

They can virtue-signal all they want about the unending glories of "diversity," but at the heart the left knows that Third World immigration is the key to building what they have called a "permanent Democratic majority" in the United States. Because, in addition to all the societal, criminal and budgetary ills many post-1965 immigrants bring, they also tend to vote for liberal politicians, and by significant enough percentages to swing elections in favor of Democrats in key states.

Virginia is gone forever to Republicans and likely won't return. The only reason Trump managed to win the Rust Belt states that swung the electoral college in his favor this time was because of his popularity with working-class voters disenchanted with globalist trade policies. The left sees this as an anomaly, not a trend, and they will use any tactic to ensure it never happens again.

So, do our protesting patsies understand the big picture? Maybe not, but their college professors, their politicians and their think tanks do. Their goal is to ensure the continued flow of Third World immigration, by any means necessary. By doing so, they know they are ensuring that this very likely could be the last four years any Republican or even nominal conservative sits in the White House.

And it's going to take a herculean effort by Donald Trump and his administration to turn the tide, before it's too late.