8 votes

My 2 cents on Immigration

Is immigration still the politically acceptable term?


As a practical libertarian, the immigration policy you support should be the one most likely to produce a population amenable to libertarian political traditions.

That means people with a low degree ethnocentrism and collectivism in their cultural and political traditions, high individualism, regard for and possession of property, widespread education and literacy, a long custom of the nuclear family, of political liberty in government, separation of government and religion, separation of state powers, representative institutions, a long history of market economies, reasonably high average IQ and low time preference (capital accumulation, thrift, savings, work, self reliance).

People who can afford to come here with some property and expectation of useful employment are more likely to be politically sympathetic to libertarianism, in addition to the above factors.

This would mean in practice a quota of some 100,000 or so people a year, mainly from Europe and east Asia, who have the patience, means, property and a reasonable expectation of being able to integrate successfully into a western political and cultural forms. Immigration should also reflect the interests of the people already here, so that they maintain their proportion of the population and aren't subject to being engulfed in a sea of well organized, ethnocentric minorities with drastically different cultural and political values and traditions.

The world isn't getting any bigger, and for my part, when I am driving around I am not saying to myself, my gosh we could use more people, there aren't enough people. America is not here to be the eternal sewage drain of the population overflow of countries and cultures that cannot successfully employ, feed or peacefully integrate their poor and politically destabilizing masses of impoverished and incapable. We don't have the luxury of being the release valve of revolutionary pressures in unstable societies in order to protect the interests of wealthy minorities in foreign countries, whether they be native or American interests.

Don't come back with ludicrous argument about the evil of laws and borders, spun from ethical hairsplitting in the fantasies of your fevered brains, I will just laugh at you. If all property is private, the it follows that immigration law would be the collective agreement of all owners on who would be permitted to trespass on their property. That would mean no immigration policy at all, just individual walls and borders or group agreements in specified cooperative private land holdings.

If public property is allowed to exist in your shadowy ideological realm, that that too would be subject to the consensus of the already existing citizens and owners of property. There is no sound property-based libertarian argument for open immigration.

Ideological blinders and naive, fanatical commitment to utopian ideals of a world without borders will just result in a bedlam of balkanized, politically fractious identity groups with no regard, interest or tradition of anything resembling political liberty, out to use the state for their own interests and collective group goals, as we are seeing emerging as the normal course of things all throughout western countries today. That is the result in the real world from your fantasies. Anyone with eyes to see and a regard for history can observe the simple fact that individual liberty is a spring that runs dry in any environment in which the combination of multiculturalism + democratic politics is present.

If you want a squabbling empire of divided, ethnocentric groups engaged in identity politics and mutual group hatred, intolerance, and self-advocacy, ruled by a cognitively superior, wealthy elite minority, isolated in gated communities, escorted by armed guards, using authoritarian means and doling out state benefits to keep an impoverished, revolutionary mob at bay, with zero political liberty for you, then support open immigration by all means.

If you want massive wealth concentration and inequality, no middle class, no consensus on the form of the political order, no tradition or regard for libertarian or individualistic cultural norms and traditions, and no regard for property aside from the regard that comes from the barrel of a policeman's gun, by all means support the eestablishments' primary political agenda of divide and conquer, balkanization and open borders.

You, the average middle class, individualistic, law biding American, will by fscked with a capital F. Whatever property you do manage to acquire through your thrift and work will be gobbled up by a mob of poor, indolent, hungry collectivists organized to expropriate your individual property for their group benefit, with their group power, expressed through democratic forms. You will have no liberty, no representation, and will have no choice but to join some ethnic interest group, or submit to authoritarian organization to protect your property and your person, and advocate your individual and group interests.

Your whole society will become a mirror image, on a massive, continental scale, of those conditions that prevail in prison. Gang members by necessity, even if not by inclination. Ethnic chaos will not produce ethnic tolerance and individualism, but massively amplify ethnocentrism, as the prison analogy should demonstrate. It will produce the exact opposite conditions of those it claims to desire.

If you want a world of prison rules, a prison state, an authoritarian minority using the state to control an impoverished, alienated majority of dependents, ever ready to use violence and political pressure to expropriate from you whats yours, to physically harm you and your loved ones, to overturn laws at a whim for their interests, keep up your mindless evasion of reality and the lessons of history and the real world.

Multiculturalism will create endless collectivist conflict over political resources, and zero individualism, as it always has.

Get your heads out of the sands, or give up on thinking, its not for you.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I would really like to know

How can one implement any immigration policy without breaking the law? I have looked at this issue every which way I can but I cannot find any logical congruent way within law to implement an immigration policy without violating the law.

If you can explain to me how it is even possible to not break the law with any immigration policy I really want to know. I am serious here. I only look for logical congruency within all law to find out what is indeed LAW. Just like scientific law Real law requires no conflicts for something to be law otherwise we are a nation of men's opinions and not a nation of law.

When using this standard of law, every which way I look at attempting to have ANY immigration policy only results in felonies crimes being required to be committed to enforce such policy.

Please someone answer this because I take no stance outside of law and if anyone can demonstrate to me how immigration policy can be implemented without committing crime to enforce that policy then I really want to know what logically congruent path I have missed here. I cannot find the lawfully congruent path at this point but I am all ears if someone can show me.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

metalhed19's picture

This post is fabulous, right

This post is fabulous, right on, and depressing, all at once. Bill reminds me of a young, non religious Pat Buchanan. It's for sure though, 20-30 million new voters, will care nothing about Liberty, privacy, next to nothing if anything about property rights, and will be voting for the pro-"service" pro "Let's tax the evil rich man, and the wealthy property owner" candidate in landslides over and over again. We will have a permanent socialist Democrat President, and by proxy an uber-liberal Supreme Court. Bye bye 2nd Amendment.......

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"