Here is an idea I have not heard mentioned before. In Judo, we use the energy and force of our attacker against them. We should do the same to those who wear a moral crown and claim we need to let in endless streams of beleaguered refugees and immigrants for moral reasons. We should use their moral arguments against them.

Immigration patriots look bad when we say “stop!” to all immigration and refugees. Our reasonable, sane and informed social, economic , and environmental arguments against massive immigration are ignored, as we are simply bad people.

What if we said “Yes, we should allow immigrants and refugees in”? What if we said anyone that wants refugees to come here should be allowed to sponsor a refugee or immigrant as long as the refugee or immigrant lives in the sponsors house with his family and wife and daughters and so long as the sponsor pays for all of the true costs?

All of the housing, food, education, medical and welfare costs should be paid by the sponsor. Those wanting more refugees or immigrants should also pay a bond in case the refugee or immigrant breaks the law and harms another person or their property and they would not be allowed to use any government aid or services while they live here.

Since we are told refugees and immigrants almost never commit any crimes the bond cost should be insignificant to someone who is so morally superior to the rest of us. I do not see many refugees or immigrants coming if we agree to this arrangement.

James Fulford writes: I don’t know if it’s a practical program, but it’s a useful thought experiment, which also applies to homeless activists, who rarely take a homeless man home and let him sleep on their couch. But there are people who would go for it, for whatever reason.

When Europe in 2015 had a kind of AirBnB for refugees, they got a lot of positive response, for whatever reason.

John Derbyshire questioned the purity of their motives: