Invasion vs Immigration

by John Dow

  1. Imagine two hypothetical nations.. Let’s call them Nation A and Nation B.
  2. They have different cultures.. Let’s call them Culture A and Culture B.
  3. And because of these different cultures, they have different sociopolitical structures.. Let’s call them Sociopolitical Structure A and Sociopolitical Structure B.
  4. Now, if a bunch of people from Nation A all decide to force their way into Nation B for the purpose of altering Nation B’s sociopolitical structure, we correctly call this an invasion.
  5. However, if a large number of people from Nation A immigrate to Nation B, they will gain sociopolitical influence, and because they have Culture A, they cause the sociopolitical structure to alter akin to Nation A.In both scenarios, people from Nation A are occupying Nation B and altering their sociopolitical structure.

    So really, a military invasion and mass immigration differ only in method, but have the same result.

    If someone aides a foreign power to invade their own nation, this is called treason, so why do we tolerate those who endorse and facilitate mass immigration?

One response to “Invasion vs Immigration”

  1. Sociopolitical structures change all the time endogenously. Hence the issue with only looking at the result here.

    They are not invaders because there is no coherent authority to stop them, like a marcher lordship or anything like that. They are willfully let in. Modern immigration offices are amorphous bureaucratic structures. They are not colonizers, because they are not chartered by any outside authority for the purpose of building a settlement.

    As no one is control (although, of course, in theory there is always someone who can define the state of exception, but this is a distinction between the potential and actual), mass immigration quite horrifically just becomes another case of homesteading. You get the government, or lack thereof, that you deserve.

Leave a Reply