Rigidly defending the President’s precise formulations will always pose a problem for his supporters. I think even his staunchest backers will acknowledge that Donald Trump isn’t Churchillian in his eloquence. That said, nearly every time he is assailed by his pseudo-sophisticated, morally inverted critics in the culturally Marxist press, it turns out that he was correct.

The manufactured controversy surrounding his remarks about Sweden is simply the latest example of the media’s malicious lying and/or stupendous ignorance. No, President Trump wasn’t referring to a specific terrorist attack in Sweden, although there have been jihadist assaults in that nation, including suicide bombings, but rather to the degradation of that country-as well as others in Central and Northern Europe-occurring as a result of catastrophically wrongheaded immigration policies.

What happened last night, as well as many nights before in immigrant-heavy, Islam-friendly towns and cities in that country, is chaos. Rampant sex crime, tribal warfare, widespread rioting-some of which targets members of the liberal press which is so enamored of non-Swedes-and general lawlessness. In spite of the Swedish government’s refusal to acknowledge reality, censorship of hate facts, and systemic coverup of migrant rape of Swedes, the non-brainwashed know what is happening in Europe.

Despite forbidding the collection of statistics which would identify the ethnicity of those committing crimes in Sweden, we still have a very good idea of who is responsible for many of them. For example, 85% of those sentenced to at least 2 years in prison for rape by a Swedish court of appeals were foreign-born or second-generation immigrants. We have firsthand accounts from career law enforcement officers attesting to the culpability of foreign immigrants and refugees in the diverse array of problems Swedes currently face.

The idea that the state and its accomplices in the media can somehow indefinitely cover up the truth in a networked world, where we can read descriptions of what the multicultural boroughs of Europe are actually like, is the height of absurdity. The facts denied and buried by the mainstream media are at the fingertips of those who choose to obtain them. That is something that will not change any time in the near future, no matter how much our ruling class would like to suppress the truth.

One of the most entertaining aspects of the open borders dogma is observing the cognitive dissonance its devotees require in order to sustain their belief system. Mass immigration fetishists, by their very nature, are constitutionally incapable of recognizing irony, and a perfect illustration of this fact can be found in the pontifications of Bryan Caplan, one of the most fervent-albeit, least persuasive-advocates of permanently altering the demographic composition of the developed, Western world.

His most recent contribution to the stereotype of oblivious mass-immigration enthusiasts comes in the form of a post to The Library of Economics and Liberty blog which castigates those morally relativistic conservatives who lionize the accomplishments of Christopher Columbus. It’s doubtful that Professor Caplan will  bother to read the replies made by EconLog readers in response to his denunciation, but if he did he would find a number of cogent points, chief among them the idea that the European empires represented by the great explorers embodied the spirit of open borders ideology, arguably even more so than Bryan Caplan himself.

Something not pointed out, but equally pertinent to this discussion, is that the laissez-faire immigration policies of this country prior to the 20th century, and extolled by open borders fanatics at every opportunity, were crafted by the descendants of the colonizing parties Mr. Caplan abhors. The animating ethos of open borders dogmas is, after all, the infallible conviction that the feelings of other people are inconsequential if a certain person-or a large group of people, in most cases-find life in your country preferable to life in their countries of origin.

Diversity is our strength, even when it’s our greatest weakness. The experience of Australia isn’t unique, something the ostracized  Frenchman, Swede, and Norwegian can attest to, when they’re given the opportunity. Contrary to popular, i.e. elite consensus, mass immigration has not been an economic boon to ordinary Australians, despite an emphasis upon skilled immigrants which doesn’t currently exist in American immigration policy, and would not be the norm even with the cosmetic reforms of the Gang of Eight bill.

Prime Minister Gillard was right to oppose the Big Australia policy, and her dramatic policy reversal will only spell more misery for the people who voted her party into power, as well as everyone else who doesn’t get to externalize the costs of open borders or depress the wages they would otherwise have to pay their employees. Multiculturalism might be a strength for those who get to use it as a cudgel against competitors and political opponents, but for the rest of us it amounts to a raw deal.