For John, BLUF: The linked OpEd is very dishonest. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Here is the sub-headline:
Immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries.
From The Old Gray Lady, by Mr Suketu Mehta (Mr. Mehta is the author of This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto.), 7 June 2019.
Here is the lede plus three:
There is a lot of debate these days about whether the United States owes its African-American citizens reparations for slavery. It does. But there is a far bigger bill that the United States and Europe have run up: what they owe to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order, for the excess carbon they have dumped into the atmosphere.Monday last, on City Life, Mr George Zaharoolis, talking about the Greek Orthodox Church, kept saying Constantinople. But, today it is Istanbul. So why does the author not reference that non-respect of borders, some 566 years ago (1453AD). No mention by the Writer of the Armenians, or the Ukrainians or the Baltics. Maybe it is not PC.
The creditor countries aren’t seriously suggesting that the West send sacks of gold bullion every year to India or Nigeria. Their people are asking for fairness: for the borders of the rich countries to be opened to goods and people, to Indian textiles as well as Nigerian doctors. In seeking to move, they are asking for immigration as reparations.
Today, a quarter of a billion people are migrants. They are moving because the rich countries have stolen the future of the poor countries. Whether it is Iraqis and Syrians fleeing the effects of illegal American wars, or Africans seeking to work for their former European colonial masters, or Guatemalans and Hondurans trying to get into the country that peddles them guns and buys their drugs: They are coming here because we were there.
Before you ask them to respect our borders, ask yourself: Has the West ever respected anyone’s borders?
I wonder where he comes down on the Reconquista? Who was in the wrong? Were reparations owed? And perhaps most interesting, when does a conquest stop being a conquest and becomes accepted social reality? Have we accepted and adapted to the Norman Conquest of 1066? On the other hand, do we accept the Roman conquest of the Holy Land, and all that flows from it as fait accompli?
This is rubbish.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff