Should everyone be permitted into the West?

This is a crucial question and one that tends to make many uncomfortable, but it is legitimate: should everyone from outside the Western world be permitted entry to the West as an immigrant?  Is there no point where such nations may be allowed to say no to any particular group, regardless of where they come from?

With the advent of loosened immigration policies throughout the Western world over the last half-century and the growing push for multiculturalism within them, the mantra "diversity is our strength" has ushered in a mentality that effectively says all people, from all over the world, have an inherent right of entry to Western lands.  It has been argued that these lands now have an inherent obligation to both permit and embrace these people and that the common citizen is in no way to question these policies at the risk of being branded with all sorts of epithets that (it has been impressed upon him) are more than he should bear.  (Words and emotions are all that matters; if you've not a massive dose of empathy, you are inhuman; critical thinking and self-preservation, which includes your own family and people, in general, be damned.)

Yet here's the question: why?  Why must this be the case?  Why should we just assume that it must be so? Who says, and what is the endgame?

Does it not seem curious that this has happened and that the people of these nations were never really asked?  Is it not also a curious thing that it is only Western lands who are expected to embrace these policies and that any person's failure to agree to them automatically relegates one to the fringe of society — a far-right bigot and extremist who dared question our betters and the narrative they have spun for us?

This isn't necessarily even a left-versus-right issue.  Often, ostensibly right-wing people are strongly supportive of this ever widening ethno-cultural influx of people that fundamentally transforms the existing demographic makeup (even President Trump has seemingly embraced it to an extent), while some rather left-of-center people have questioned, even repudiated it, to their peril (example: British Indie rock icon Morrissey, who is by no means "right-wing").  Why is that?  Why must we bend the knee in obeisance to the narrative?

Although, only very recently, Japan has been made into an exception that ostensibly proves the rule, why is it only Western lands and people who must follow suit?  Why not all Asian lands such as China, India, and the Philippines?  What about the Middle Eastern lands, whether Turkish, Arabic, or Israeli?  Does anyone push for various African lands, from Kenya to Nigeria to Malawi or Somalia, to open their doors to a wide assortment of people from around the world?  No, only the West must embrace it and become fully open to all people from all lands and ethno-cultural backgrounds.  Does this not seem at least somewhat curious to any who are still somewhat reasonable in their thinking?  If one is truly trying to be consistent with this grand policy position, should it not be an open door policy for all lands, irrespective of who they are?

We are not to ask questions.  We are only to accept...or else.  This should give us pause as to what is really happening here. 

This is a crucial question and one that tends to make many uncomfortable, but it is legitimate: should everyone from outside the Western world be permitted entry to the West as an immigrant?  Is there no point where such nations may be allowed to say no to any particular group, regardless of where they come from?

With the advent of loosened immigration policies throughout the Western world over the last half-century and the growing push for multiculturalism within them, the mantra "diversity is our strength" has ushered in a mentality that effectively says all people, from all over the world, have an inherent right of entry to Western lands.  It has been argued that these lands now have an inherent obligation to both permit and embrace these people and that the common citizen is in no way to question these policies at the risk of being branded with all sorts of epithets that (it has been impressed upon him) are more than he should bear.  (Words and emotions are all that matters; if you've not a massive dose of empathy, you are inhuman; critical thinking and self-preservation, which includes your own family and people, in general, be damned.)

Yet here's the question: why?  Why must this be the case?  Why should we just assume that it must be so? Who says, and what is the endgame?

Does it not seem curious that this has happened and that the people of these nations were never really asked?  Is it not also a curious thing that it is only Western lands who are expected to embrace these policies and that any person's failure to agree to them automatically relegates one to the fringe of society — a far-right bigot and extremist who dared question our betters and the narrative they have spun for us?

This isn't necessarily even a left-versus-right issue.  Often, ostensibly right-wing people are strongly supportive of this ever widening ethno-cultural influx of people that fundamentally transforms the existing demographic makeup (even President Trump has seemingly embraced it to an extent), while some rather left-of-center people have questioned, even repudiated it, to their peril (example: British Indie rock icon Morrissey, who is by no means "right-wing").  Why is that?  Why must we bend the knee in obeisance to the narrative?

Although, only very recently, Japan has been made into an exception that ostensibly proves the rule, why is it only Western lands and people who must follow suit?  Why not all Asian lands such as China, India, and the Philippines?  What about the Middle Eastern lands, whether Turkish, Arabic, or Israeli?  Does anyone push for various African lands, from Kenya to Nigeria to Malawi or Somalia, to open their doors to a wide assortment of people from around the world?  No, only the West must embrace it and become fully open to all people from all lands and ethno-cultural backgrounds.  Does this not seem at least somewhat curious to any who are still somewhat reasonable in their thinking?  If one is truly trying to be consistent with this grand policy position, should it not be an open door policy for all lands, irrespective of who they are?

We are not to ask questions.  We are only to accept...or else.  This should give us pause as to what is really happening here.