Ignoring a third way.
I have already discussed my disagreement with Greg Johnson with respect to this post.
The other comments in the post are equally disheartening. I have broad sympathy (but certain NOT total agreement) with the positions of Bill Baillie, but he makes poor, self-defeating arguments in support of his positions. He advocates for a too-integrated transnational state, he makes the self-destructive “all Europeans are fungible” argument (thus ignoring damage from intra-European migration), and he opens himself up to criticism that he is a self-interested ethnic.
On the other hand, “AE” takes the traditional “movement” view that there is no difference between migration from Ireland, Italy, and Poland and that from the Third World; further, this commentator laments the effect that immigration from those countries had in displacing the colonial stock in America while – also consistent with Der Movement – curiously omitting the displacing effects of German and Scandinavian immigration, a topic that the non-tawny Ben Franklin had some opinions about.
Is there a “third way” beyond these more typical opposing positions? Yes, there is, but in addressing Der Movement but I might as well have talked to the wind for all the heed it paid me (*).
*Apologies to Percy Alleline/John Le Carre.