No Cubans and dogs allowed


Someone had quipped recently that if migrants voted strongly Republican, the Wall would have been funded by Congress in an hour and just to be sure the Democrats would have also laid a mile-deep mine field along the entire length of the southern border.

It’s funny, but it’s neither a joke nor an exclusively American thing. Australian political aficionados will recall the former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam raging just after the fall of Saigon against the prospect of South Vietnamese refugees: “I’m not having hundreds of fucking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their political and religious hatreds against us”. The reference to Balts pertains of course to the fiercely anti-communist Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians who settled in Australia after the Second World War and tended to vote conservative, believing – correctly – that Labor at best didn’t give a shit, and more likely actually approved of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union in 1945 (which act the Whitlam government officially recognised for the first time). And so we couldn’t have in Australia more ethnics who actually experienced socialism first hand and would accordingly support the political right in their new home. Fortunately for Australia – and the South Vietnamese refugees – Whitlam lost power a few months later and many escapees from Uncle Ho’s workers paradise (thousands rather than hundreds) did make it Down Under, forming an entrepreneurial and hard-working urban minority (though coincidentally, a decade later, unsettling large sections of the right concerned about the “Asianisation” of Australia and ethnic crime syndicates).

I was reminded of the “fucking Vietnamese Balts” yesterday when hearing a top Biden Administration official saying they don’t want any – I’m paraphrasing – “fucking Cuban Cubans”:

With Haitians thrown in for a good measure to (unsuccessfully) make the decision seem less discriminatory, the new position seems to be that the entire Latin America is welcome to come north of Rio Grande except for one particular nationality that would be expected to settle heavily in Florida and help turn the state solidly Republican. Faced with Biden’s watery Wall, Cubans escaping the Castrocracy would be perhaps advised to head their leaky boats towards Mexico and make their way to the United States on foot, perhaps mixed among the caravans of Hondurans and Guatemalans.

You might be for open borders or you might be for restricted immigration, but it would be great if you could maintain consistency about your approach. So far, the compassionate left with their “it’s not who we are” anti-xenophobia signaling and their elevation of Emma Lazarus’s poem to the status of a quasi-constitutional document have been singularly quiet about the new “no Cuban refugees” policy.

The underlying cynicism is striking: migrants are good and welcome because – and only if – they overwhelmingly vote Democrat (or Labor in Australia or Labour in the UK). It really is just about the net gain of voters and building up own electoral base.

Votes – just votes. Not even values. Most immigrants from the developing world come from societies which are much more traditional and conservative than the post-modern West. They also tend to be more religious, and more conservatively religious, than the welcoming population. If the left ascribed the paramount importance to equity, tolerance and human rights instead of pure political power, they would be vocally protesting against Muslim immigration, which brings with it less enlightened and decidedly unwoke attitudes to gender, sexuality and family. Instead the differences are papered over because Muslims in the West strongly break for the centre-left parties, the traditional political home of ethnic minorities. It’s Sharia in the sheets and socialism in the streets (though because it’s a two-way street, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has argued earlier this month, Islamism is now increasingly adopting the woke language and tactics).

Lest you think I’m picking on Muslims, this is a general phenomenon involving as well evangelical Christian Africans, traditional Hindus, and socially conservative Latinos. When a few years ago Australia held the plebiscite about legalising same-sex marriage (it passed), some of the most heavily “against” areas were not conservative rural seats but those with the highest migrant population and solidly Labor in their political representation. It was a momentary embarrassment for the progressives but in the end all is forgotten and forgiven because the only vote that really counts is the one on the election day, which determines no issue but only who will determine the issues in parliament, and these elected representatives tend to be much further to the left than their voters.

Thus, “the people of colour” with their much more traditional views of gender roles, committed church and mosque-goers, homosceptics and untrendies continue to come out in force for the increasingly woke left-wing parties (though the recent vogue for populism has generated some alarming – for the left – voting trends, or at least inkling of trends). This is partly because there are other values in play, where ethnic communities are much more in tune with the progressives: communitarianism, welfare, redistributionism, and a generally larger role for the state. Conversely, migrants who come from socialist hellholes and are thus more likely to value things like political freedoms, less intrusive government and less socialist economy – and might therefore be more attracted to centre-right parties – are better kept out altogether (like Cubans from Cuba) or (like Cubans already in the US or some Asians) shunned and shamed for internalising whiteness, being fake minorities, and acting like Uncle Toms (“how can you support those racists on the right?”).

So next time you are tempted to wonder why the “all welcome” compassionate crowd all of a sudden goes cold when you raise the prospect of throwing the door open for large numbers of the freedom-loving Hong Kongers or the stared pet-eating Venezuelans, it’s simple: it’s all hypocrisy. If we need to import foreigners to do the jobs that the Americans won’t do – like voting for the left – then importing foreigners who won’t do these jobs either simply doesn’t make electoral sense. Nativist is just a socialist standing on the beach looking at a Cuban raft.