https://amgreatness.com/2025/06/07/big-government-and-illegal-immigration/
The general consensus among opponents of mass illegal immigration is that the immigrants in question are largely irrelevant in their purported supporters’ calculations. For all their rhetoric about compassion, the “promise of America,” and the “land of opportunity,” immigration supporters cynically think of immigrants not as people, but as tools, as the means to an end. Mass illegal immigration is the quickest and easiest way to change the nation’s electoral calculus—altering Congressional (and, by extension, Electoral College) apportionment to favor Democrats. Or it’s the best way to undermine “white privilege” in elections (and elsewhere) by upending the white majority status. Or—as in Great Britain—it is a way to upend the historical underpinnings of the nation, create a multicultural society, and make “the right” pay for its cultural intransigence:
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and David Blunkett.
He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration,” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate their “core working-class vote.”
As with any such consensus, this one is undoubtedly rooted in at least some truth. Democrats in the United States did indeed hitch their wagons to the theory that demographic change would deliver them a semi-permanent electoral majority, and they’ve behaved accordingly for years. As for Great Britain, who am I to disagree with “an adviser” who helped craft the nation’s immigration policy and who believes that it worked precisely as expected and delivered the multicultural utopia he and his compatriots had long envisioned? Some significant part of the present immigration crisis—here, there, and everywhere—is inarguably the result of consciously cynical manipulation on the part of aggressive ideological operatives.
All of that said, however, it is perhaps unwise and unhelpful to overcomplicate matters. Hanlon’s Razor (attributed to Robert J. Hanlon of Scranton, Pennsylvania) admonishes that one should “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Douglas Hubbard, a management consultant and author, coined what he called a “clumsier” version of Hanlon’s adage, which almost certainly applies here: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”
