i think a part of the reason that i'm more attracted to allowing "illegal" immigrants to stay, and interested in stopping the government from facilitating the flow of "legal" refugees, is that there's a bit of a darwinian basis to it.

i've very loudly trumpeted the benefits of a merit-based immigration system, and been lukewarm about accepting refugees precisely because it's not merit-based. we only take the strongest immigrants we can find, but then we ruin all of this good work by literally absorbing the weakest refugees we can scour the world for. then, we applaud ourselves (like the good tories that we are) for our noblesse oblige in "protecting the most vulnerable".

that's gotta stop. we're a fraction of the world's population. we should protect our own most vulnerable. but, we need to let the other peoples of the world protect their own, and fight their own battles - and do what we can to help from a distance through multi-lateral institutions, like the united nations.

there are exceptions...

but, broadly speaking, i want to accept the strongest refugees, not the weakest ones. and, you do that by picking the ones that survived tremendous odds in finding their way here, not the ones that sat in a un refugee camp with a grade two education for ten years and are going to end up wards of the state for life when they get here, as they insist that they be allowed to follow their customs, even when they contradict our laws.