The Left’s Likely Response to Hypothetical Right-Wing Extra-Terrestrial Nordic Alien Refugees: A Thought Experiment! By Brian Simpson
Imagine a scenario where human-like in every way, extra-terrestrial refugees from another galaxy arrive on Earth. They are all blonde, fair-skinned, drop-dead beautiful, and staunchly Right-wing, their planet destroyed by a cosmic catastrophe, like multiculturalism. Their values align with conservative principles: strict borders, traditional hierarchies, and scepticism of centralised authority. They saw what multiracialism, multiculturalism and globalism could do when unleashed. How would the political Left, particularly those who consistently oppose immigration restrictions, respond? The German border policy case, where Left-leaning activists and judges undermined stricter asylum rules, offers a lens to explore this thought experiment. It suggests the Left's commitment to open borders may be less about universal compassion and more about ideological alignment, potentially leading to discriminatory responses when faced with refugees who don't fit their narrative. Like South African whites at present. But let us suppose that the aliens are pure victims, no apartheid, no colonialism and all the rest.
The German Case: A Pattern of Ideological Opposition
In Germany, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt's May 2025 attempt to tighten border controls by suspending the EU's Dublin III Regulation faced immediate resistance. The policy aimed to push back illegal migrants entering from "secure" states, leveraging Article 72 of the TFEU to prioritise national security. Yet, as detailed in the Daily Sceptic, the Berlin Administrative Court, influenced by Pro Asyl and a Green-aligned judge, Florian von Alemann, issued a ruling favouring three Somali asylum seekers, questioning the policy's legal basis. The case was meticulously orchestrated: the Somalis were coached by Polish NGOs, equipped with legal representation, and strategically intercepted to land in a sympathetic court. This reflects a broader pattern where Left-wing groups, NGOs, and judiciary figures systematically challenge immigration restrictions, often valuing activist agendas over national law.
This case highlights the Left's tendency to frame immigration enforcement as inherently oppressive, aligning with Eric Kaufmann's "asymmetric multiculturalism," where certain groups' rights are elevated based on ideological compatibility. The question is whether this stance would hold for our hypothetical Right-wing extra-terrestrial alien refugees.
The Left's Likely Response to Right-Wing Nordic Extra-Terrestrial Aliens
The Left's reaction to blonde, fair-skinned, blue-eyed Right-wing extra-terrestrial alien refugees would likely deviate from their usual pro-asylum stance, exposing inconsistencies rooted in ideology rather than principle. Several factors suggest they will discriminate:
1.Ideological Misalignment: The Left often champions migrants as oppressed groups challenging Western power structures. These aliens, with their conservative values, pro-border, anti-egalitarian, would clash with progressive ideals. Much like the Left's resistance to conservative voices in the BLM era (e.g., job losses and/or bashings for saying "All Lives Matter"), these aliens will be labelled a threat. Their Right-wing views could be equated with "extremism," akin to Germany's crackdown on the AfD party, where dissent is stifled under the guise of protecting so-called "democracy."
2.Racial and Cultural Framing: Despite their alien origins, the refugees' blonde, fair appearance will trigger associations with whiteness, a frequent target of Left-wing critique, as Leftism is anti-white racism. During the 2020 BLM protests, whiteness was often vilified as inherently privileged, with books like Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility dominating discourse. The Left might argue these aliens reinforce "white supremacy" or cultural homogeneity, justifying exclusion. This mirrors the selective outrage in Germany, where asylum is fiercely defended for non-Western migrants but conservative dissenters face censorship.
3.Selective Compassion: The German case shows NGOs like Pro Asyl selectively champion migrants who fit their narrative, orchestrating legal battles to protect specific asylum seekers. Our aliens, lacking the "oppressed" status of, say, Somalis, would not garner such support. Left-wing activists could argue their Right-wing ideology makes them less deserving of refuge, much like how conservative protesters in the UK face harsher penalties than progressive ones. For instance, a UK policeman was jailed for a private joke about George Floyd, while BLM-related violence often went unpunished.
4.Practical Objections: The Left might raise logistical concerns, housing, integration, or cultural compatibility, to mask ideological bias. In Germany, judges demanded proof that migration undermines state systems before allowing restrictions. A similar tactic could be used to argue these aliens pose a "cultural threat" due to their conservative views, flipping the script used to defend open borders.
This thought experiment reveals a potential hypocrisy: the Left's open-border advocacy will hinge on migrants aligning with their worldview. If these aliens were Left-leaning, their blonde appearance might be overlooked, framed as irrelevant to their plight, although this is unlikely given the strong anti-white race hatred of the Left. But their Right-wing stance would likely trigger rejection, dressed up as concern for social cohesion or security. This echoes the Los Angeles protests of 2025, where Left-leaning demonstrators disrupted ICE operations with relative impunity, while conservative protests, like those against abortion clinics, face swift crackdowns. The Left's selective outrage suggests a double standard, where compassion is conditional on ideological conformity.
Kaufmann's "asymmetric multiculturalism" frames this as a symptom of civilisational decay, where universal principles like equal treatment erode under ideological tribalism. The Left's potential discrimination against Right-wing aliens would mirror their 2020 BLM-era excesses, kneeling politicians, corporate virtue-signalling, and silencing dissent, where narrative trumped reason. If the Left rejects these refugees, it would confirm their commitment to power over principle, undermining the moral high ground they claim on immigration.
In this scenario, the Left would likely discriminate against Right-wing alien refugees, citing their ideology as a threat, much like they challenge conservative dissent in Germany, the UK, or the US. Their response would expose a selective compassion, rooted not in humanity but in political alignment. This double standard, seen in orchestrated legal battles like Germany's or the BLM summer's hysteria, suggests a civilisation struggling to uphold consistent values, a decay driven by ideological rigidity rather than universal fairness.
Of course, we do not need the thought experiment given here to see the Left's ideological bias; it was fully on display in their outrage over Trump taking White South African refugees, who by the Left's eyes should stay in South Africa to be raped and murdered.
"At the start of May, CSU Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt effectively abolished asylum as a path into Germany, empowering federal police to push back all illegal migrants at our national borders.
There ensued a period of messaging chaos, in which Chancellor Friedrich Merz assured our neighbours and the EU that nothing much was happening, while Dobrindt quietly insisted that yes, indeed, he was serious. He gave police orders to step up border checks and to send back all illegal migrants regardless of asylum claims – save for pregnant women, the underage and the sick.
These new borders policies have yet to exercise any significant influence on asylum statistics. It is relatively easy to cross into Germany despite the police spot checks, and we don't yet know how many asylees are managing to evade them.
The deeper legal issues are much more significant right now. We want to know whether Dobrindt's intervention is workable in theory, and whether our judges will swallow it. Unfortunately, he is already under siege from asylum advocates on the Left and the broader migration industry, who have set and sprung a very telling trap, with the aim of getting courts to overturn even these preliminary and quite meagre interventions.
To understand the issues here, we need a brief legal primer. According to German law (the so-called Asylgesetz), foreigners who enter Germany from 'secure' states do not get to claim asylum. They are to be sent straight back to wherever it is they came from. Because Germany is surrounded entirely by secure states, that should really be the end of this insane problem. Alas, this sensible law has been superseded since 1997 first by the Dublin Convention, and later by the Dublin II and now the Dublin III Regulation. The latter forbids the Federal Republic from using her own laws, holding that foreigners entering Germany from secure third states must be welcomed pending a procedure to establish which EU member state is actually responsible for them. Effectively, this means that almost all of these aspiring asylees remain in Germany indefinitely, because deporting people who do not belong here is beyond the meagre capacities of our enormous bureaucracy.
Dobrindt sought to get around Dublin by appealing to Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows member states to set aside EU regulations when this is necessary to maintain order and security.
Many have eyed this Article 72 strategy for a long time, but nothing is easy, particularly not in countries unduly enamoured of 'the rule of law', which is a lofty euphemism for 'the rule of obscure crazy people in robes for whom nobody ever voted and who enjoy lifetime appointments'. These days the Government cannot do anything at all except what it was already doing (and sometimes not even that), or unless it is obviously stupid, expensive and inadvisable, because lurking around every corner is a clinically insane judge eager to explain why sensible things are not allowed. In recent years, our extremely learned and far-sighted judiciary has explained why combating climate change is anchored in the German constitution and why basically everybody is entitled to exorbitant social welfare. All that remains for it is to explain why everybody on earth is also entitled to live in Germany and draw benefits from the state, and it will have completed its suicidal triad.
On Monday June 2nd, the Berlin Administrative Court struck the first blow in this direction. Effectively, it called the whole basis for Dobrindt's new border policy into question, issuing what amounts to a preliminary injunction in the case of three Somalis (two men and one woman) who had crossed from Poland into Germany on May 9th. Federal police intercepted the trio at the train station in Frankfurt an der Oder; they claimed asylum and the police, in line with Dobrindt's order, sent them back to Poland anyway. Lawyers from the advocacy organisation Pro Asyl then helped them bring suit in Berlin, and the court intervened in their favour. They get to be professional asylees in Germany now.
Contrary to much reporting and to the jubilation of many insane Leftoids, this does not mean that Merz's new border policy has been overturned. The decision applies only to these three Somalis and it sets no precedent. Unfortunately, because section 80 of our 'Asylum law' also makes the decision unchallengeable (this in the interests of accelerating and simplifying asylum proceedings), there can be no appeal. Secure in this knowledge, the court issued an amazingly wide-ranging judgment, casting into question Dobrindt's entire reliance on Article 72 of the TFEU to suspend EU-mandated asylum procedures. The ruling holds that the Government cannot just appeal vaguely to an emergency, but rather must demonstrate that the migrant influx is acutely undermining the functionality of state systems and institutions – and all of this to the satisfaction of judges.
As NiUS reports, this entire case, culminating with the Berlin judgment, seems to have been engineered by the asylum advocacy NGO Pro Asyl just days after Dobrindt suspended the Dublin Regulation in May.
The Somalis in question had already attempted to enter Germany from Poland via the bridge between Słubice and Frankfurt an der Oder twice, on May 2nd and 3rd. This was in the last days of the Scholz government, under then-interior minister Nancy Faeser. They were turned back both times, because none of them knew they could claim asylum. After their second pushback, they came into contact with a Polish NGO, which put them up in a hotel and bought them new clothes and mobile phones. They waited until two days after Dobrindt suspended Dublin and then they tried to cross into Germany again, this time via the strictly patrolled train route, which all but guaranteed an interception by German police:
According to NiUS information, immediately after their arrest, a German lawyer contacted the federal police and presented a pre-prepared power of attorney for the three Somali citizens. The lawyer then submitted a written asylum application on their behalf to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. This means that either the three Somalis were accompanied and observed by activists during their entry, or they sent a prearranged signal to their contacts. The lawyer's power of attorney must therefore have been prepared in advance, because the Somalis had no opportunity to seek legal assistance after their arrest. According to information from NIUS, they also do not speak German.
During their two earlier crossing attempts, all three Somalis had claimed to be adults, but in their third effort – the one transparently advised and orchestrated by Pro Asyl – the woman had suddenly become a 16 year-old, and now she even had a forged birth certificate to prove her reduced age. Minors naturally enjoy special protections when it comes to seeking asylum in Germany.
The case went to the Berlin Administrative Court because the officers who apprehended the Somalis were from the Berlin division of the federal police. It looks a lot like Pro Asyl knew this and selected the crossing point deliberately so that the case would land in that court. This is because they had an inside man there. Although it was not strictly speaking in his area, a judge named Florian von Alemann took responsibility for adjudicating the Somalis' asylum claim. Von Alemann is well-connected to the Green Party and spent his younger years in Marxist activist circles. As NiUS writes, he "follows mainly asylum lawyers and Green accounts on X", or at least he did until this story broke and he deleted his account.
As if all of that were not enough, there is this smug Syrian migrant named Tareq Alaows, who also functions as the spokesman of Pro Asyl. In advance of the Somalis' arrest in May, Alaows recorded an Instagram video hinting that his organisation was on the verge of bringing an asylum case to challenge Dobrindt's new policy. He even filmed the piece in front of police headquarters in Frankfurt an der Oder. This has all been planned for weeks if not months in coordination with Polish migration advocates, who helped Pro Asyl select the perfect complainants.
Despite all of this, Dobrindt and Merz have insisted that Dublin remains suspended and that pushbacks will continue. This is merely the first blow in a much larger legal battle, one that will probably take years."
Comments