Regular readers of this notebook blog are aware that I have no love for the tradhots. But Lauren Southern’s detainment and denial of entry into the U.K. offers us a chance to see how ideologically consistent open borders advocates are.
Since news of her detainment has spread, what has their response been? Has it been sadistic glee or amused irony. Or have they come out in defense of her “freedom of travel”?
Remember, these are the same people who believe that one million “refugees” from the Middle East had the right to enter Europe, even if that meant they had their needs and living space provided via the welfare state.
I’ll make two points.
One, being of ideological consistency, I’ll state here and now that Lauren Southern has no “right” to enter Great Britain. Any opposition of mine to the U.K. government’s decision is based on prudence and the idiocy of their reasoning, not her “freedom of travel.” This same government lets in self-professed ISIS fighters and overlooks mass child rape, but somehow a 22-year-old Canadian thot presents a clear and present danger to national security. Clearly, their border policy does not reflect the sensibilities we see in the private sector concerning private property open to the public. But since Great Britain is not common property, neither I nor Southern have freedom of movement to travel there (I’m putting aside the invitation-scenario for argument sake).
Second, the only acceptable comment from an open border advocate is that the U.K. government had no right to deny Southern entry into the country, regardless of her political views or activism.
After all, that is what they claim to believe.
And yes, “secure border” advocates who argue that Lauren Southern’s rights were violated (aside from perhaps her Orwellian-style detainment) are not being consistent.
Whatever one thinks of the ACLU, their claim to support free speech is proven genuine when they defend individuals from all political backgrounds, even those whose speech they wholly detest. They are ideologically consistent.
Open border advocates who sit back and chuckle at her situation would be like anti-war activists finding “poetic justice” in the atomic bombings of Japan.
I’ll be on the lookout, but if anyone reading this happens to find examples of open border proponents defending Southern and other laydees kicked out of the U.K., post them in the comment so they can be recognized.