(english translation by Constance Mwangemi, original version here)
Voluntas enim naturaliter tendit in bonum sicut in suum obiectum: quod autem aliquando in malum tendat, hoc non contigit nisi quia malum sibi sub specie boni proponitur. (Tommaso D'Aquino)
Mass immigration exemplifies a clear case of war between the poor, not only because that is what it is in practical terms with millions of people contending inadequate housing, low-paying jobs, unskilled criminal labour, cramped suburbs and the palliatives of a welfare destroyed by cuts, but simply because they want it to be so - or at least they try as hard as they can.
At the same time Giovanni Ceriani, a disabled Italian with a monthly pension of 186 Euros and an annual bonus of 1,000 Euros, died of starvation in the same city, the local government of Milan decided to award € 400 a month to any citizen who offered shelter to a refugee in his own home . As I write, in La Spezia, an invalid, Roberto Bolleri is on hunger strike to try and reclaim his council house illegally occupied by a Moroccan family, who was not on a council housing waiting list. The Moroccan family refuses to leave the premises until the Municipality will have assigned them one. In Germany a nurse Bettina Halbey and her neighbor are going to be kicked out of their apartments by the city of Nieheim to make room for asylum seekers, equally in the rest of the country, private properties and public schools are following suite.
You do not need to be a member of a far-right party to understand that it will end badly, very badly.
In a public finance system where underinvestment is postulated as a dogma, it is inevitable that the poor and the impoverished contend the crumbs and dread the arrival of new mouths to feed. Moreover, if the same system preaches lower wages and lower social protection as a virtue and labor shortage as a guilt, leaving the weak with no other choice but survival cannibalism in which ethnic and racial hatred is only a pretext for gang war.
There is intent, or at least immense irresponsibility, in those who perpetrate these policies of scarcity and at the same time call for humanitarian corridors to take in foreigners, they advocate for the removal borders and dream of accommodating 300-400 thousand people annually, perhaps 30 million in 15 years. At the onset of a humanitarian catastrophe which would affect everyone - primarily the immigrants they support - they endorse the Cultural Revolution and criticize individuals of xenophobia, launching vibrant campaigns against hatred. As if xenophobia and hatred, were diseases from obscure origins, to be eradicated with the prophylaxis (in young people) and antibiotics (in the old), and not ethology, as a consequence of the policies they created.
There is intent and irresponsibility in this humanitarism at the expense of others, but above all, there is its opposite, namely racism. It is not the racism the progressives complain about: Islamophobia and contempt of contrasting civilizations, deplorable and senseless in this writer's opinion, which is already widely condemned and will soon be the subject of a special commission for filing reprobate. Neither is it self-racism where foreigner’s needs are placed before those of natives. The racism of good people instead hits just them: the immigrants, protected by words and deeds that transforms them into instruments of a small and painful exercise of ethic self-certification and a larger socio-economic pattern of exploitation of the weakest.
The idea that we need (?) the seed of millions of destitue people to repopulate a continent in demographic stagnation, or their arms to do the jobs Europeans no longer want to do (i.e the underpaid ones) does not differ in principle from the deportation of African slaves to the Southern United States or the convicts to the English colonies. Then, they used violence, now they force them through the violence of debt, war and exploitation - that the good slave traders call respectively international aid [sic], peacekeeping missions and foreign direct investment, and support them by wiping their conscience clean with an “agile lexical move”. Feeling that some countries in the world, the impoverished, are able bodies to be relocated at the whim of the less needy meets the requirements not only of racism but also of outright slavery, and betrays an unsuspecting but total disregard of the rights of these peoples to live in peace and prosperity in their native lands.
Regarding the chorus of the-jobs-that-Europeans-do-not-want-to-do, it’s been around for at least 20 years and is a classic example of how a real problem (the lowering of wages) is made worse by a false solution (immigration). If a job in many trades does not guarantee sufficient income for a dignified life even though those jobs are required by, and in many cases essential for the market, there is an obvious problem of allocation of the fruits of labor, that move from the productive base to the managers, to entrepreneurs, reaching the very top elite represented by financial investors and their vassals. And if work is worth less, the ambition to compete with open borders and a fixed exchange rate with the countries who have preceded us in large scale exploitation does not help, condemning us to a global war between the poor, where the winner is who buys the work, not who does it.
For those who call themselves leftists these concepts should be their daily bread, except that opium of moralism made them believe that Europeans are lazy and spoiled and "do not want to dirty their hands", whereas the migrants are blessed with desire to improve themselves through hard, humble and unpretentious work. The narration of this tale interrelates at least three abominations: 1) contempt for their fellow citizens who are fighting to preserve the rights and well-being conquered with the blood of their ancestors, now debunked as privileges, 2) the celebration of its ethical exceptionality (according to the note Equation of Scanavacca) and, 3) about the foreigners, the certification of their status as poor wretches willing to do anything for a handful of rice, of savages that all in all could live without the full set of welfare benefits formally guaranteed to those born in the rich hemisphere.
If the first two points deserve compassion, being ultimately self-harm, the third arouses anger and surprise for the way in which ancient concepts of colonialism, paternalism and exploitation were able to recycle themselves in the shoes of good feelings. The only, very bitter, consolation is that those who admit the deportation of the poor to benefit the rich - albeit with the bonhomie of the colonial lady who throws candy to the little black boy - must be prepared to follow their fate at the service of those who are even richer, as it is happening.
Perhaps one day we will realize that fighting poverty by importing the impoverished, fighting slavery by importing slaves and fighting unemployment importing the unemployed is not a good idea - from whichever political party you belong to. That day, Europeans and foreigners, wherever we will find ourselves, we will know who to thank.