I have more or less stopped writing about the immigration/border issue, because I’ve found people are less concerned about the results than they are about the “spirit” or “principle,” which ignores all relevant information used to determine prudent action. Not only that, but we can only look at what is happening in Europe to see the fruits of that policy.
However, my interest was reignited after I read a list by Jim Cox of negative cultural traits that should be used to bar people from entering the United States, (it could also apply to any country with common sense).
Among them are:
- female circumcision
- convicted criminals
Mind you, we’re talking about lowest standards possible for a functioning society. However, this is how it would work in a private society. The owners would set rules for who is allowed in, and yes, they would be free to presume the values of those trying to enter based on where they come from.
I’m sure there are some open border advocates who will even protest these standards. After all, what right does the state have to prevent someone from crossing an invisible line?
Cox answers that question in a similar manner as I have repeatedly.
Until we can shift to a Private Property Society we are stuck with a government handling immigration. With all property owned privately the immigration problem would be a thing of the past as the property owners would set the terms for access to every piece of property. Until PPS is achieved shouldn’t we prefer that government policies closely match what would likely be the rules when it is achieved?
Open borders advocates should direct their wrath at government intruding itself into what could otherwise be a private property society rather than at those of us who wish to solve the problem by creating that society.
Why some want to welcome violent (do I need to say, virulently anti-libertarian) people into American society is beyond me.
The problem is that open borders is fundamentally an anti-boundary ideology. It is opposed to all borders, not just ones controlled by the government. Who are you to impose any boundaries on others? Who are you to say this is yours and that is theirs?
Practically speaking, they don’t care if government manages the borders and continues to tax people for continued control. What they care about is that government remain inactive in how that property is managed.
This is why the notion of common property is inherently communist. Once the state has taken money from you to control and manage land, it belongs to everyone, according to this viewpoint.
Mind you, these same people will also point out examples of U.S. imperalism over the years – so does that land occupied by the U.S. military now belong to Americans as much as the people who’ve lived there for centuries? (Rhetorical; it doesn’t).
I could get into the more ulterior motives for much of the open borders stance (like the total lack of interest in the immigration/border policies of non-Western nations).
But this whole issue could be answered by simply entertaining the mindset of a Big Government advocate: If you wanted a larger, bigger state, what policy would you favor?
Better yet, what stance do they take right now?