“Our system was inundated … it’s not only Latin America. You are finding people from all over the globe that are coming here, coming to the borders, using the borders to come across.”

These are the words of New York City mayor Eric Adams in response to a recent wave of illegals descending on his city. In this same speech, Adams warned residents that these illegal immigrants would soon become a noticeable burden on the city’s infrastructure and that “everyone’s block is going to be impacted by this”. One would think that a city so dedicated to implementing the policies that allow such an oppressive and unregulated wave of illegal immigration to occur would not need prompting from its leaders about accepting the impact of these policies on their day-to-day lives. However, it seems that the same coastal elites who finance and support policies that allow illegal immigration never thought they would have to deal with the innumerable consequences of their ideas. This is not hypocrisy while it may seem that way at first glance with the fact that hypocrisy is falsely claiming an ideal with no intention to live up to the said ideal, in this case, our ruling class never claimed that they liked illegal immigrants or wanted them in their communities, they simply think that you should like them and that you should hand over your communities to the unregulated lawlessness they bring. Elites like those who would need such a message about their favorite areas of coastal cities becoming homes to large numbers of criminal migrants expect to reap the rewards of illegal immigration in its products of cheap labor for their inflated financial interests and the altering of the electorate in red states but think that the costs should be burdened by other Americans who over time have continually come to know less and less influence in the decision-making process of the country. The same people who will lecture you about the strengths of so-called diversity for your community could not fathom the effects of diversity on the Upper East Side or Martha’s vineyard. This is because they see the two distinct communities as subject to entirely different standards. In their eyes, the coastal cities which act as havens for a global elite ought to be shielded from the realities they subject to the country they fly over to. Their connection to the rest of the country goes as far as they can use it to extract resources, wealth, and influence; otherwise, they think the two lands should be completely separate in their standard of living, community makeup, and law.


Featured image via technologymanias.com.

+ posts