for the many black-and-whiters on this post, i recommend viewing “liar,liar”. (jim carrey film). its theme, in a nutshell, is that lying is wrong and immoral, but see how long you can stay pure. and observe the collateral damage!
Fear.
" The solution would be to repeal those laws, not restrict immigration to avoid the effects of those laws."
Well again, that is increasingly difficult to do as we simultaneously welcome a ready-made constituency for such laws. Granted, I wouldn’t be objecting if Mexicans were crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of “Human Action” held aloft to keep them dry, but that is not the reality nor is it ever going to be. In fact, what you are going to see is an increasing “Third World-ization” of American politics (and economics), as people who identify very strongly with their own ethnicity and who view economics as a zero sum game take democratic possession of the levers of power. This is the heart of the objection: if you import millions of impoverished Mexicans, eventually you end up with Mexico, complete with the same poverty-generating political and economic conditions. You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality.
In this mornings Lewrockwell.com blog:
For the record–in these strange TimesPosted by James Ostrowski at 12:31 AM
Libertarianism qua political philosophy, by definition, cannot be racist. It is a political philosophy based on the view that all human beings have rights by virtue of their nature and the nature of the human condition.
No libertarian can possibly be racist in their political philosophy. It’s possible for a libertarian to be a racist I suppose but not in their political views. Were a “libertarian” to adopt racist political views, he would instantly cease to be a libertarian.
Now, how about a libertarian being a nationalist. That’s just another form of collectivism very similar to racism. And denying access to the country is certainly done because of nationalist concerns. Therefore, Were a “libertarian” to adopt nationalist political views, he would instantly cease to be a libertarian. "
They said that when the Irish came, then with the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese and now the Mexicans. They all came in relatively large numbers (compared with the populations into which they settled).
When those folks came, they didn’t have shelves of civil rights laws to hammer their hosts over the head with. Also, the scale was far, far smaller.
And as I pointed out, those prior influxes were not without their own costs. Cultural Marxism and labor union activism come to mind.
I’d have to see the actual numbers compared with those born in the U.S. Anyway, following the blog note I posted, came another where the author says that if the U.S. continues with “oppressive policies” that Americans will just pack their bags and move elsewhere. What makes him think the rest of the world is going be any more open to American immigration than Americans are to immigration into their country? I myself am a very “tit-for-tat” person and won’t oppose controlls against a country that creates them against me. Were I live, we’re flooded with American immigrants, which pushes up our real estate market (which has had a strong negative effect on our family), alters cultural values, and has made our city a generally less friendly place to live. Thus, we need to put up immigration barriers to keep the Americans from coming up. Glad I can now freely advocate this while still calling myself a libertarian.
Kent,
What’s your point, other than that you support national efforts to keep out people who threaten your way of life?
You can have cold, socialist, politically correct Canada to yourself, btw.
My point is, as should be obvious by now, that libertarians should not be promoting immigration controls. They are not libertarian at all. But if American libertarians are going to do so, don’t be surprised if it catches on with libertarians worldwide as a now excepted part of the ideology.
As for keeping cold socialist Canada to myself, you might want to tell your fellow Americans that, as they are coming up in droves. And I suspect when the U.S. economy collapses, they’ll be coming up in numbers matching those of Mexicans into the States.
I think this is utter scare-mongering nonsense that represents an absurd prejudgement of the characters of such people. I also think that it is irrelevant what the personal preferences are of people who come here. I can care less if they come carry copies of “Human Action” or the “Communist Manifesto”. That is entirely irrelevant to the actual question as to wether or not it is legitimate for the state to illegalize their entrance into the territory, their purchasing of homes by willing sellers and their hiring by willing employers. And, if anything, the nationalist and protectionist sentiments of anti-immigrationists are treating economics as a zero sum game and are using the democratic process to maintain power for themselves by keeping out people they personally do not like.
I am sick and tired of actual principled positions being mischaracterized as hopeless idealism, while unlibertarian positions are argued for in terms of pragmatism which these very same people would argue against if it were just about any other issue - the exact same “pragmatist” sentiment is thrown at libertarians on just about every other issue. In short, you people are using the tactics of our opponents against fellow libertarians. Open borders is only “idealist” if you accept Pat Buchannan style fear-mongering claims about the end of anglo civilization. I don’t, and I don’t think, as a political means, political border enforcement and immigration restriction is compatible with libertarianism at all. It belongs in the realm of quasi-fascist populist politics, with Pat Buchannan.
Libertarian positions, from non-interventionism to sound money, can always be snubbed off as being in an “idealistic vaccum” IF and only if we accept false claims. This same attitude is thrown at us over foreign policy, when non-interventionism is characterized by conservatives as being idealist because we are ignoring the “threat of communism” and the “threat of islamo-fascism” and so on. Immigration is no different. You are basing your position on fear-mongering of outsiders, an imaginary threat of decivilization and cultural contamination. It is no better then the post-ponement position that “so long as Russia still exists, we should stave off this whole free market and non-interventionism stuff and fully support a central military state”.
But here is where your pristine ideology founders: by opposing restrictions on immigration, you are simultaneously supporting the government’s efforts to enlarge its own constituency. Immigration in its present form is not freedom of movement and contract; rather, it is compulsory association. Your policy choices are also self-defeating from a libertarian perspective. As I pointed out, people aren’t crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of Human Action held aloft. Nor, I suspect, are immigrants to Canada hitting the streets to demand the dismantling of your single-payor medical care system and an end to the odious “Human Rights Commissions.”
No, I am not. I am supporting people being allowed into the territory without a gun being pointed in their face. Entrance to the territory and citezenship are two different, albiet related, issues.
Immigration itself is no such thing - you are not forced to associate with someone just because they buy a home from a willing seller on your street (you may as well argue that ANYONE who buys a home from a willer seller on your street is “forced association”). Immigration restrictionism is compulsory dissasociation, protectionism and police statism.
Once again, this criteria is irrelevant. What books they happen to be reading is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In either case, legal citezens aren’t either, and indeed most of the adults go around living life with the comprehension skills of elementary or middle school students. So let’s deny them home ownership, evict them, illegalize their jobs and deport them.
It is not scare-mongering nonsense. For all their hard work, Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants are largely net tax consumers with high rates of illegitimacy (a behavior incentivized by the 14th Amendment and welfare laws) and criminality. They are a people with no libertarian tradition, which becomes clear when you take a look at the places they came from. So again, you can preach ideology all you want, but the bottom line is open borders are political and cultural suicide for libertarians.
Cultural preferences have nothing to do with libertarianism. And this IS scare-mongering nonsense. The American people have no libertarian tradition for the most part. They vote for socialism all the time. They do not care about freedom, they care about preserving privileges for their interest groups, which is part of precisely what immigration restriction is all about - keeping the welfare state and union privileges safe for certain groups, not opposing it in principle. Your position hinges on nothing but empty rhetoric about cultural superiority that is based on a bed of sand. You can preach cultural preferance all you want, but the bottom line is immigration restrictionism and border enforcement is not libertarian at all. It cannot be ethically justified.
Do you support the right of property owners to put guns in the faces of trespassers? That’s what happens to immigrants who venture off public roads, after all. Some how I don’t see you arguing nearly so vigorously for this but I could be wrong.
I don’t know why I should need to repeat that the state, and its borders, are not private property and should therefore not be treated as such. From my perspective, it is homesteadable.
Well, Albertans are, and no one here considers them “real Canadians”. [;)] Actually, there’s been a strong movement in the direction against our current medical system to something more along the lines of that in New Zealand. Its at least a movement in the right direction.
But none of this has to do with the issue of immigration. We should deal with the disease. Get rid of social entitlements for immigrants. That problem is then solved. As for compulsory association, you have that anyway. You can’t choose your neigbours. My neigbours happen to be Americans, there goes the neigbourhood.
Border controls can be ethically justified. Even if you do not believe in government, the fact remains that immigrants have no greater right to cross a national border than anybody else. So in the absence of private ownership, it is up to the taxpayers and their proxies to decide who gets in.
“As for compulsory association, you have that anyway. You can’t choose your neigbours. My neigbours happen to be Americans, there goes the neigbourhood.”
Prior to the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act, people were free to put restrictive covenants in their deeds, and did so. You could, in fact, choose your neighbors.
This represents a fundamental disagreement on how public property is constituted and how it should be treated. I say that there is no discernable just owner of public property - it is homesteadable as if noone previously owned it. There is no way to rationally allocate it to original just owners because it has been redistributed in an endless web. It is impossilbe for the tax-payers to exercise their quotal share. It seems to me that you cannot make this arguement without imply that public property is our common property, which I thought libertarians essentially rejected.
A national border is unowned land; it has no discernable just owner. Anyone can cross it as they please. Natives have no greater "right’ to control entry and exist to it then anyone else, and in fact it is the government that is doing the controling, not the natives. Of course, natives (or tax-payers, if you will) have conflicting desires among themselves as to wether or not to associate with immigrants, so it is nonsensical to treat the border with only one of those preferences and to monolithically or unilaterally impose that preference. The “community” has no such uniform desire.