Mark Krikorian has seen the future, and he's frightened:
The metastasis of what used to be political asylum continues. Prompted by the egregious 9th Circuit, an immigration judge has granted asylum to a homosexual man from Mexico because people in Mexico don't like homosexuals. This continues the ongoing march of the culture wars through asylum policy, where persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion just isn't prying open our borders enough for some people. So, instead, the final basis for asylum, "membership in a particular social group," has become an invitation to mischief for activist judges and anti-borders attorneys everywhere. The goal seems to be to apply our social norms to all foreigners abroad, extending an effective right to immigrate to anyone from any benighted Third World society that mistreats the handicapped, homosexuals, or women — which, of course, includes most of the planet.Let me lie down for a moment, until this ringing in my ears goes away.
Alright, then. Societies that mistreat homosexuals are "benighted," which is why America must refuse asylum to foreign homosexuals and deny equal rights to our own homosexual citizens.
The alternative would be to "apply our social norms to all foreigners abroad," which would be wrong, even though the American system is the best on earth, and shines as a beacon to freedom-loving people throughout this darkling world. Instead, we must apply our social norms to all foreigners abroad, by denying asylum to homosexual refugees.
In an earlier column on immigration as asymmetrical warfare, Krikorian inadvertently offers an even better reason to oppose asylum for this particular species of "wretched refuse":
[I]neffective immigration control leaves us naked in the face of the enemy.Indeed. Yearning to breathe free is one thing; yearning to suck my cock is quite another. And I have quite enough worries in that department as it is, thanks.