We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Legality has nothing to do with it. There’s plenty of action going on in my last post on immigration. Much is being made in the comments about the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. As ‘permanant expat’ put it:
“Unrestricted” immigration, as practiced by most (Socialist) European governments is a BAD THING…..period. Anyone unable to understand that is living on another planet.
Illegal immigration is a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THING…..period. Anyone who doesn’t understand that lives far, far away in another galaxy….
Immigration is a “Death Star”…..but there’s no Luke Skywalker anywhere to be seen.
Out here on the planet Liberty, it strikes me that this distinction between legal and illegal immigration is spurious. Immigration should be discussed on its merits, and merit is NOT something that is dispensed by legislative agencies.
It always surprises me that many ‘libertarians’ who shout the loudest for the free trade in goods and services, are apparently willing to turn around and argue all for government intervention when it comes to the freedom of movement in people.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
i beg to differ.
If you take a broadly libertarian society and the next door totalitarian/corrupt grouping just sends over its “surplus” population in big enough amounts to either take over, or strongly influence the local culture it runs the obvious risk of destroying the first.
In the US Pacific NW there’s a fair degree of grumbling about Californians who move in, and promptly start voting fo the same shit that made them leave California. Ditto New Hampshire and Massachusets. Native Vermonters have been known to say disparaging things about “flatlanders”. And those are realtively mild differences.
I recall a Canadian Prime Minister “bravely” telling a Chinese opposite that they should stop presecuting dissdents and allow some to leave. The Chinese PM looked at him for a while and said: Would you like 25 million of them? (about doubling Canada population) – What do you want to bet that such a Canada would be un-recognizable to people living there now? How do you think they’d feel about such a cultural invasion?
A society/culture cannot survive mass migration unscathed, and most people recognize this as a somewhat higher priority for them than complete freedom.
Scott, I have to disagree with you.
A country is the property of a large group of co-owners: to wit, its citizens.
It constitutes more than just the real estate. It includes the political and social institutions.
Just as you and I could form a club and justly dictate who could enter it, and upon what terms they might enter, so should the citizens of a country be able to dictate who may enter, and upon what terms.
I happent to think that we should let almost everyone come to the United States, excluding only violent criminals. We should make it clear, however, that nobody has the right to come. It is a priviledge granted to those who are acceptable; i.e. not violent criminals.
But people who choose to bypass the mechanisms that are in place for processing and accepting immigrants are breaking into our “club”, without our consent. It is not unreasonable for us to ask them to please stop sneaking in the window, and come through the front door.
If we don’t do this, if instead we throw open our borders and say “come one, come all, no rules!” how are we to keep out the violent thugs who come here for richer pickings than they can get in their home countries?
It is not surprising that most people can distinguish between goods and services on the one hand and people on the other. When millions of immigrants arrive they also bring their culture with them.
Of course, if you don’t believe distinct nations should exist at all then it hardly matters if tens of millions of, say, Arab Muslims move to Australia tomorrow. After all won’t they just become radical individualists in a few years? Ha!
The vast majority of people do want to preserve their own kind and so libertarians arguing for the elimination of nations by equating free movement of peoples with free trade are just ensuring that free trade will become less and less popular. It is self-defeating from a libertarian perspective to advocate free movement of people across borders unless the real motivation is not freedom from government but the desire to replace the people of the rich nations receiving the immigrants.
i beg to differ.
If you take a broadly libertarian society and the next door totalitarian/corrupt grouping just sends over its “surplus” population in big enough amounts to either take over, or strongly influence the local culture it runs the obvious risk of destroying the first.
In the US Pacific NW there’s a fair degree of grumbling about Californians who move in, and promptly start voting fo the same shit that made them leave California. Ditto New Hampshire and Massachusets. Native Vermonters have been known to say disparaging things about “flatlanders”. And those are realtively mild differences.
I recall a Canadian Prime Minister “bravely” telling a Chinese opposite that they should stop presecuting dissdents and allow some to leave. The Chinese PM looked at him for a while and said: Would you like 25 million of them? (about doubling Canada population) – What do you want to bet that such a Canada would be un-recognizable to people living there now? How do you think they’d feel about such a cultural invasion?
A society/culture cannot survive mass migration unscathed, and most people recognize this as a somewhat higher priority for them than complete freedom.
If you are against restricting the free movement of people, then surely you must also be against restricting the right of people to resist free movement of people?
That would entail allowing a population to defend itself, should it so wish, against immigration. This could take the form of repealing the Race discrimination Act, and the Religious Hatred Act etc.
As Libertarians surely you must be against the coercion of people to accept immigration even if they don’t want it?
Andy
An article on this very subject from the American Thinker: (Link)
Open Borders threaten Free Trade
Besides do the kinds of people demonstrating in both London about the cartoons and the US about Congressional action on illegal immigration look like they’ll be free traders?
Again from the American thinker article:
Regarding the culture changing due to massive immigration, it’s instructional to look to Europe, where young immigrant thugs are becoming a real problem. Not a “they use our emergency rooms” kind of problem, a “they rape and kill our citizens” kind of problem.
The answer, it seems to me, would be a more discriminating selection process. No country should have to accept immigrants who have no desire to conform to their adopted country’s culture. The latest example of the problem is in Belgium, where last week a young man was murdered because some immigrant criminals wanted his ipod:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/995
Of course.
Naturally. Just read the ‘Social Responsibility Statement’ on our sidebar. People shpuld have the right to free association and DIS-association.
Of course. If you want to discriminate against who you associate with. do biz with. allow on your property etc. etc. , that should be your right as well.
There are a couple of issues going on in these immigration posts, but I think you’re missing a few significant factors when discussing US immigration policy.
The two central questions discussed seem to be:
1. Does the state have the right to make immigration policy?
2. Are high levels of immigration a good thing?
The problem is that both of these questions are kind of irrelevant to the immediate political situation in the US.
The first is slightly minor, but it came to mind when the state / private property distinction arose. Forget “category errors.” The immigrants are infringing on private property. Remember the stink about the vigilantes / undocumented border control agents? Most of them were calling in on immigrants going through their own property; they were lambasted as being racist and xenophobic, and the government refused to protect their property rights. There is frightenly large enough portion of the open borders movement that considers this perfectable acceptable, if not preferable.
The second, and more important, issue is social services. Consider that there are a number of groups arguing that “the right to learn in one’s native language [is] a human right.” And this goes for housing, health care, etc.
And as far as I can tell, there are no polically significant oppositions to either of these policies.
Now, I should say, that if private property rights and government spending weren’t issues I’d be all in favor of high immigration rates if not open borders. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the “legal” American left is far more demanding of these things than most illegal immigrants.
But in light of the current political situation in the US, when you are discussing our immigration policy, I think you have to assume that more immigrants means a greater expansion of government power and increased spending on socialized healthcare, housing, “culturally sensitive” public education, and demands that the government and citizens must adapt to the immigrants, not vice-versa.
Scott, what people like you don’t seem to understand is that liberty for criminals means reduced liberty for everyone else.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/07/21/1121539094208.html
“They are probably the most violent, prolific gang rapists Sydney has known, with as many as 18 young victims” (thats young as in ’13’)
“The brothers, who came to Australia from Pakistan around 2000,”
Immigration, its good for everyone!
Scott Wickstein, from Adelaide Oz….You know, that country which apart from seemingly uncontrollable Muslim gang-rapists…..has no immigrant problems, failed to quote the addendum I posted at 6.55 p.m. today, shortly after my original comment. Naughty, naughty Scott.
It is quite clear that my comment, though generalised, was aimed at the current problem in the Septic Isle. I am not a statist but I must obey the laws of the land even if I disagree with many of them…..and that should not apply only to me. Illegal immigration is just that. It is not lawful. Some immigrants, who may well be legal, bring unacceptable cultural/religious baggage into a secular host country & seek to impose “Laws” which have neither validity nor meaning on those to whom the country belongs…..yes, belongs.
Our PC-castrated & bleeding-heart politicians are an utter disgrace….and, the way things are going, will rot in an Islamic hell.
As I understand it, Scott, legal immigration is based on merit, among other parameters.
Are you spoofingly attempting to cloud an issue which is spring-water clear to all except the three monkeys?
…………………..and I somehow think that “people” are not “goods & services” I don’t think that even such a generous hearted chap as yourself would wish to give permanent bed & board to your friendly visiting plumber.
As I understand it, Scott, legal immigration is based on merit, among other parameters.
Are you spoofingly attempting to cloud an issue which is spring-water clear to all except the three monkeys?
Anyone who thinks that legal immigration is ever even remotely based on merit has never tried being a legal immigrant. Immigration bureaucracies are amongst the most venal, most petty, most corrupt, most irrational, most counterproductive bureaucracies that exist.
…………………..and I somehow think that “people” are not “goods & services” I don’t think that even such a generous hearted chap as yourself would wish to give permanent bed & board to your friendly visiting plumber.
I might want to pay him to fix my plumbing, however.
Michael: For goodness’ sake let’s not get into venality, corruption, stupidity etc………..& I did mention ‘Merit’ as among other parameters. They exist. They should be applied. If they are not, you are only confirming my point.
Good try about paying the plumber. The honourable thing to do; he provides a service, I pay & the labourer is worthy of his hire. His accomodation, assuming his legality, is in his own digs; not mine.
Who’s minding the store? Tragically, no one, which is why the BNP is in with a very good chance.
I don’t know who the British Home Secretary is as they all look alike, but they have installed Mecca-friendly loos in Islamabad aka British prisons. (Muslim “men” sit down to wee and either cannot wee or shit facing mecca or with their arses to mecca. Rules, rules, rules.)
Dave is attending a glacier-melting experience as though it was worthy of photo-ops, although as Nick M says, this is what ice tends to do in Norway in the Spring. Actually, you know what Dave and Tone have in common, besides public school and a sense of entitlement? They are both fantasists.
Have you seen those photo ops with Dave as Scott of the North Pole in The Telegraph? Posing (in a thermopacked outfit and plenty of food on hand in his helicopter) with those huskies? Whoaah! Honey, the minute those huskies heard the Norwegian equivalent of “Mush!”, Dave would be lying with his head cracked on the glacier and the dogs would be 500 feet ahead and would then go where they felt like going. They had dog handlers at that event, I guarantee you.
I mean, posing in his thermo boots standing on the sleigh’s runners. The dogs’ handlers were out of camera range saying “Stay! Stay!” But in Norwegian, you understand.
I stayed in Anchorage on business for a few months and those dogs are not household pets.
And the DC ‘king of the world’ shot, arms outstretched against the far nothern sky. In his outfit. What was that all about? Like the Peter O’Toole ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ shot with his arms outstretched on the roof of the train and the sun shining behind him. Except that was a movie. And Peter O’Toole was handsome and there was something internal that made him fascinating.
Davey-cakes, you have no relationship with glaciers and therefore have not earned glacier photo-ops.
You are such a friggin’ vote-loser. As the Norwegian glacier melts behind you in so-called GLOBAL WARMING mode (although, as Nick M says, glaciers do tend to melt in the Spring), so the Conservative Party sluices away ….
The sooner the better, and thank you so much, you silly enabler, you.
No legality has nothing to do with it, unfortunately. Here in the USA, ther is a nexus of corrupt business and corrupt politicians. The inefficient businesses prolong their impending doom by attracting black market labor. The corrupt democrat politicians think they can keep a fiorm hold on their Jurrasic philosophy by importing stupid, corrupt and ignorant people whom they *hope* will rouse themselves to vote every 2 years.
Sitting in Aussie land, surrounded by some of the most restrictive immigration policies around to protect you from all those disreputable boat people, amongst other potential interlopers, it is somewhat disingenuous for you to cast rhetorical stones at anyone else, especially the country that took in the hundreds of thousands of Asian refugees your closed society refused.
If you wish to agitate for open borders, working to make Australia’s more porous for all those teeming millions in Indonesia and Malaysia who would just love to spend some time in gloriously prosperous Adelaide would seem to be a worthy project.
I assume you will be so busy lobbying and advocating for those changes in Australian law that you will have little time to write essays bemoaning the fact that other countries are unable to live up to your high standards. I’ll miss you.
Oh indeed. But here’s the thing — if the meritorious immigration policy turns out to be anything other than open borders and unrestricted immigration, then we will have to have an enforcement regime of some sort, and every enforcement regime I can think of turns on some distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
Now, you may think that the merits lead inexorably towards open borders, in which case offering up as meaningful the distinction between legal and illegal immigration may seem like sidestepping the issue.
And I may think the notion of “open borders” is potty, in which case I am likely to disagree: trying to salvage what remains of our current enforcement regime, particularly by preserving a meaningful distinction between legal and illegal immigration, strikes me as perfectly sensible.
Bombadil wrote, “A country is the property of a large group of co-owners: to wit, its citizens.”
Which is perhaps the most Marxist thing I’ve ever seen in Samizdata comments. Let me assert, in case anyone thinks otherwise, that I own my own property. You have no claim to it. I have a right to invite anyone, from anywhere, to stay with me on my personal property. I have no right to restrict you from doing the same.
Anyone know a Salvadoran housekeeper? I’m in the market.
It’s easy to be for the free movement of people, when you live on islands
I’m not convinced they’re greatly more restrictive than the immigration policies other Western democracies have enacted, however the flow of illegals into Australia is considerably lower than nearly all its first world peers. But that’s thanks to geography, not policy.
How’s this: Immigration, if it is to have any merits, must be subject to significant controls.
Mind you, I would also endorse the following: Quotas for specific skills/professions is just plain stupid and absolutely 100% guaranteed to be counter-productive.
How’s this: Immigration, if it is to have any merits, must be subject to significant controls.
How’s this: Celebration, if it is to have any merits, must be subject to significant controls.
What’s going wrong here, even with Scott’s formulation – though I think he and I largely agree on this subject – is the assumption that one has to make a case for the merits of immigration in order for it to be permitted. That may be practically true in that there are a lot of people who oppose it and don’t care about liberty who need to be persuaded. But it is noticeable that the most fierce defenders of the Anglo-Saxon way of life, are approaching the question all Prusso-Confucian: what is not permitted is forbidden – and anything that is forbidden damn well ought to be!
In life, though not in the minds of opponents, immigration is not a thing and has no merits or demerits of its own. The merits and demerits of immigration, both for the immigrant and the native are decoupled and independent. It is not a zero-sum game. And since people can learn and change, it is not even that.
Most immigrants, just like your other neighbours, few of whom will live and die in the same place, will have no noticeable effect on you one way or the other. If there are problems then they are not caused by the mere fact of immigration, but by the failings of individuals and of domestic policies. Perhaps one of those contingent factors might be the quantity of voluntary migration, but since in current conditions internal migration in most countries is significantly greater than immigration, it is an open question.
You can have open borders, or you can have democracy, or you can have multiculturalism, or you can have a welfare state.
Frankly, any combination of two seems pretty dangerous. Combining any three seems a pretty sure recipe for disaster. Adding open borders to an already unsustainable mix of democratic multicultural mob rule is throwing gasoline on a bonfire.
In principle, I wish I could agree that open borders are a human right. However, I doubt that even Australia can stand many more of the balkanized, radicalized immigrants from the Middle East that are disrupting its peace already.
If you are against restricting the free movement of people, then surely you must also be against restricting the right of people to resist free movement of people?
I think this brings up a very important question. What is it that can be considered to be a Right of an individual? Above, two apparent “Rights” appear to be in conflict. I found this definition of Rights and Sovereignty on a site about the Basic Principles of Law. These two sections seem relevant to many Libertarian debates and are particularly relevant to the discussion so although rather long I quote them in full.
You might not accept these definitions but I found them very persuasive. Using this definition of a Right, it is quick to see that freedom of movement might well be considered indeed a Right since it does not force others to serve them (Though arguably the existence of a Welfare State does modify this). However, the right of people to resist free movement of people does not seem to be a Right as it would force others to serve them by not entering the public spaces around them.
Much of the opposition to immigration is racism and intolerance of other cultures. There is no economic support for the anti-immigration crowd, so these arguments focus almost exclusively on “cultural impacts.”
The reality is that America experiences social upheaval every generation or so. This would be true even if there was no immigration. And there will always be those who simply can’t stand to see their values, tastes, or “culture” go extinct. Give me a break.
Here in America, the anti-immigration folks will decry the illegals while munching contentedly on quesadillas, nachos, pizza, or a couple of egg rolls while listening to some Jennifer Lopez and tooling around in a Japanese made Lexus. Yes, it would be a sad thing to see this culture eroded and destroyed by foreigners.
Give me a break.
Give you a break Charlie? Does driving a Lexus mean that you have to entertain a bunch of little smiling Hiroses in your garage?
If so, for goodness’ sake don’t let them eat nachos!
Simon, your definition of rights is completely subjective and utterly useless. Some authority will be required to determine what “does not infringe on the rights of others.” This will be the dreaded State. Without objective qualifications to check its rule, it will quickly become totalitarian.
Charlie said;
… opposition to immigration is racsism and intolerance of other cultures. There is no economic support for the anti-immigration crowd……”
C’mon Charlie!
Cultural impacts-
The muslim view divides the world into castes, with free muslim males at the top, Christians as worthy of servitude, Jews barely tolerable and every one else as having no soul and therefore can be treated in any way the muslim male decides. Call me intolerant, but such a culture that debates the finer points of how to beat one’s women, justifies slavery and the murder of those deemed infidels, is not the kind of folks I want moving into my country. The Dutch have now proposed a law that muslim immigrants must now pass a test of tolerance, in their country of orgin, before consideration for acceptance. Emminently reasonable!
Opposition to immigration is racism? You need to try harder than that! No economic support for the anti-immigration crowd? Again, try looking at the *big* picture. In my industry, I work with many people from China, India, South America, etc, **BUT** these folks have an education, English skills, do *not* huddle in ethnic enclaves but fully involve themselves and their children in the community. THESE are the people that are the most desireable immigrants and are assets to their adopted country. But these most desireable people are treated like criminals, must wait years to work their way thru the system, some for decades.
On the other hand, the illegal aliens, with little or no English skills, who have no intention of becoming Americans, who ajitate for Bi-Lingual education so their children remain “ethnic”, send much of their ill-got gains back to their country of origin. Therefore, they *cost money* to the legal folks by increasing costs in the community for health, schooling, law enforcment, other services, all while avoiding taxes that would pay for these services, and while taking much of their income out of the local economy. All this while gleefully flaunting their disdain for the rule of law. This to me looks more like social parasitism with only corrupt and inefficient businesses and politicians benefitting. Perhaps you might give it another go to show how an economic/ security argument can be stretched into racism?
What’s more, Charlie, the term ‘anti-immigration’ is totally misleading…..and ‘intolerance of other cultures’ borders on the hilarious. You will get no prizes for joining the real world & understanding that there is only one really intolerant “Culture” (if one could conceivably call it that).
I don’t know how things are in Alpha Centauri but things look pretty bleak here.
Charlie,
You seem to have a very narrow view on culture. Culture is not just what you eat, what music you listen to and what car you drive.
Of course, if a country only exists for a few centuries, it will have to borrow a lot of cultural elements. To fill the gap, so to speak. But European countries do have a longer history.
Culture matters.
And there is no economic support for the mass-immigration crowd. None. There have been economic analysis on the economic contributions of the immigrant workers that came to the Netherlands in the seventies. Their average contribution to the economy remains negative. The added value they produced is smaller than the value they destroyed; welfare checks and other social services.
Islam is so controlling of every aspect of its adherents’ (and non-adherents’) lives that it should be reclassified as a cult. Not only, as Uain notes, do they have exact rules for how you may beat your wives (an imam in Spain got sent to jail for writing an entire book on the subject as a guide for Islamic control freaks), but which way the loo should face in your home, WHICH FOOT YOU SHOULD STEP INTO THE BATHROOM WITH (the left foot) and which foot you take the first step with on leaving the loo – the right foot – but only after thanking allah for having been allowed to take a dump, how many times a day you have to pray, what items you have to remove when you pray – your wristwatch, jewellery, etc, who you can shake hands with; various quixotic, to say the least, definitions of crimes: as in, if a woman or a girl is raped, she will be tried for having had sex outside of marriage and if found guilty – yes, the evidence shows that she really was raped – she can be put to death, etc etc etc.
These people are w-a-a-a-y more bonkers than the Moonies or Scientology. Islam ought to be outlawed in the West.
“The Dutch have now proposed a law that muslim immigrants must now pass a test of tolerance, in their country of orgin, before consideration for acceptance. Emminently reasonable!”
Close, but no cigar. It will be easy to fake such tests, and if the Dutch are ready to admit that the problem they face is bad enough to justify such legislation in the first place, then they need to ask themselves precisely why they need any muslim immigrants at all.
Might I suggest a variation of argumentum ad nazium, the ever popular association fallacy that brings us Godwin’s Law.
Midwesterner’s law – “As any discussion of immigration grows longer, the probability of an accusation of racism approaches one.”
And Herbert’s corollary: So does the probability of an actual occurrence of racism, but the probability that the accusation and the actuality will coincide is indeterminate.
Midwesterner: You’re probably right. Lest there be any doubt, however, I wish to make it quite clear that I am very clear about the difference between race & culture. I am not, nor ever have been, a racist. On the other hand, I feel that I’m allowed to express concern when religious bigots are bent on destroying my way of life. (cf culture.)
I think my last comment was binned. No matter.
walter “Let me assert, in case anyone thinks otherwise, that I own my own property. You have no claim to it. I have a right to invite anyone, from anywhere, to stay with me on my personal property. I have no right to restrict you from doing the same.”
You own your property according to who exactly?
Are we supposed to trust your word? I suppose you have the documents, but who would recognise these papers?
The United States government , thats who, and without them no one would recognise your claims to ownership and you would have ‘nothing’ you arrogant fool.
Just because the American people support your right to own property does not give you the right to control the immigration policy of a sovereign nation, because by doing so you affect a lot more people than just your individual selfish self.
I agree with R C Dean; – I am favour of open borders in principle. However, this is not compatible with a modern welfare state, for obvious issues. Immigration is clearly not a chicken or egg issue; the welfare state must be dismantled before we start talking about deregulating immigration.
“…obvious issues”? Idiot. “…obvious reasons.”
Let us posit, for the sake of argument, that Charlie is correct, and anti-immigration beliefs are mostly based on racism.
Let us further posit, as a libertarian position on a basically libertarian blog, that most of the emigre’s attempting to move to other countries are doing so to escape egregious violations of their fundamental human rights, whether they consciously, intellectually identify that as their motivation or not. (A society which so restricts an individual’s right to engage in ordinary commercial endeavor by regulation or corruption would, in a libertarian sense, be violating a basic human right)
Now, in light of these assumptions, let us examine the outcry against the immigration policies of the US or Britain in relation to other nations’ track records, and then the human rights situation that so motivates many of these immigrants to leave their home and attempt to make a life in a foriegn land.
We are all ordinary human beings, not supermen and women. We have only so much time, energy, money, and influence. We can only be in one place at a time.
It, therefore, behooves us (don’t get to use that phrase very often) to husband our resources and use them where the problem is most acute and the violations most severe. To use a medical analogy, if you have only so much flu vaccine, you give it to the most in danger, not healthy 25 year old athletes.
Several years ago, I participated in a seminar regarding immigration and cultural awareness prompted by the large number of immigrants entering my local area from SE Asia and Somalia. The seminar was led by two very earnest and concerned legal/sociology advocate types, who frequently commented on the complexities of US immigration law, and the difficulties of those who were caught up in it if their visas expired or they had entered the country illegally to begin with.
After listening to the presentation, I asked the moderators if, since the US was so obviously deficient in their minds regarding immigration issues, they could recommend another society upon whose example we might model a more relaxed and humane system of admitting people. I assumed there must be several other countries we could emulate, countries which took in a greater number of immigrants with less vexing redtape and legal complications.
The two discussion leaders were silent for a moment. Then, reluctantly, they both conceded that there were no other countries in the world which accepted anywhere near the number of immigrants and applications for citizenship as the US. Indeed, most countries were very restrictive, and some, Mexico included, were almost closed to poor refugees altogether.
Therefore, if this situation has not changed drastically in the years since, it is still the case that there are many, many countries whose policies are either very much more restrictive and complex than the US, or are in fact closed to new immigrants altogether.
If Charlie is correct, then there are numerous countries whose policies are blatantly racist. Further, there are numerous countries whose human rights violations are so serious that large numbers of their citizens attempt to leave, even in the face of life threatening danger, in order to improve their lives in a more open and rights-respecting society.
It would seem, then, that if the medical analogy is reasonably apt, and we must prioritize our efforts in order to maximize the positive outcome with a limited supply of time, money, and energy, the places to begin reforming and advocating would be those societies which are the most significantly racist, as indicated by their closed borders, or the origins of refugees by virtue of their egregious rights violations.
The US, and Britain also by the by, are not listed by any reputable international organization which measures such things, as either more closed or badly in violation of human rights.
I would expect, then, that Charlie, and others who share his beliefs, would embark as soon as possible to carry their important message to some of the countries which are at the top of the closed and/or violators lists.
What are the prices for plane tickets to Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Haiti, Mexico, etc. etc. these days, does anyone know?
Charlie’s waiting, bags packed, I’m sure.
Charlie,
Bombadil wrote, “A country is the property of a large group of co-owners: to wit, its citizens.”
You note he said, ‘its citizens’, not the State, or parliament, or any other political entity.
Surely every indigenous person has a proprietary stake in their country? Hardly a Marxist concept…more a property rights sort of thing.
If you accept the above concept, then the government is obliged to efficiently control immigration as part of its duty to protect the citizenry.
Trackback’s not working: My extended comments
Why in hell are folk bandying ‘race’ about? Crepuscular idiots! In my book it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture; cultural affinity if it must be spelled out. I don’t want my country full of people who despise ‘my’ culture and are scrabbling away trying to destroy it. If that weren’t enough, they wish to replace it with an imported mediaeval barbarism which should be anathema to any individual with a modicum of intelligence. WTF is going on?
I’ve been binned again. Somebody up there doesn’t love me. Please post the reason for my being rejected…..sweetheart.
So I wasn’t binned………..Sorry, I love you yet.
Heh heh. . .I’m having a good laugh at the comments my post generated.
The best protection against Talibanism or any of the other things you alarmists fear is a rich and diverse culture. Immigration fuels this diversity.
As for immigrants sponging off the welfare state, viz. France, I agree that it is a problem but one easily remedied by abolishing socialism.
Finally, I could live in a world without eurosnobbery. If immigration means the end of European civilization, then that makes me even more supportive for opening the borders.
Enjoy your laughs. Your comments don’t merit any; a modicum of disgust maybe, but laughs, no. My first impressions seldom let me down, Charlie.
What an unmitigated sad sack you are….and why aren’t you in one? It’s way past your bed-time.
You cultural defenders make good points, and I am wrong. I would hate to see Benny Hill replaced with those hispanic telenovelas.
Heh heh. . .
What permanent expat said.
Charlie, who is either very young or outstandingly stupid, writes: “The best protection against Talibanism or any of the other things you alarmists fear is a rich and diverse culture. Immigration fuels this diversity.”
Where to begin with this politically correct lunacy? Britain stood alone against Hitler for three years because we were monocultural and, essentially, monoracial. As we still are. Over ninety percent of us are native to Britain and northern Europe.
Diversity is another word for hodgepodge. Did the Duke of Wellington triumph over Napoleon (you have heard of these people, I assume, Charlie?) fired by an allegiance to diversity?
The immigrants who are most welcome are the ones most determined to fit into their new country and get stuck into integrating and becoming part of it all. (At least such determination tells us they have commonsense and an understanding of human nature on their side.) That is why the Jewish diaspora has been such an outstanding success worldwide. They set about fitting right in and they set about contributing and every country lucky enough to have Jews would be the poorer without them.
The black people, although their record is not as good as far as being law abiding goes, nevertheless set about integrating, which was harder for them because they were so easy to spot. But they worked hard at it because our shared humanity tells us that we have to fit in if we are to get ahead. My guess is, if the Tories ran a black candidate for party leader who talked the talk and walked the walk (unlike the Boy-King Dave), the Tory voters would give him a go.
The Muslims are not “diverse”, Charlie, young thing. They are single-minded monotheists who are 100% intolerant of other religions. They do not believe that people who aren’t co-religionists have souls, so it doesn’t matter what happens to them in the way of explosions on London Transport. They’re in Britain with a mission and it’s not “diversity”, sweet thang. It is the imposition of a largely insane Dark Ages controlling, conquering sect. They didn’t come to Europe to “settle”. They came, faces pinched with disapproval and loathing, to conquer.
Every democracy can absorb a few fanatics. But not a couple of million who quietly approve of actions others take in the furtherance of their self-appointed holy mission and are cultish and mind-controlled in their behaviour.
I find it interesting when individualists become conformists when it comes to immigration.
Anti-immigration is tyranny. Calls for assimilation are calls for collectivization.
As for being young, I am 35. Undoubtedly, my relative youth makes me part of the coming social upheaval.
It’s seldom that somebody confesses to being 35 years old when all the indications are that it must be a badly brought-up brat of six……make that five.
Charlie…..proper Charlie, your mental diaper needs changing.
There is a distinction between conformism and consensualism.
SANE libertarians understand that a free state only remains free so long as its citizens both understand and ascribe to ALL of the tenets of the constutition of that free state, as well as communicate well enough with their fellow citizens so as to be able to earn a living, and even debate politics with their fellow citizens.
Once an immigrant meets those standards, there should be no limits on them being naturalized, and I doubt you’ll find many libertarians who disagree with me on this. Where sane libertarians draw the line is that they are openly hostile to current day liberal immigration policies, which blithely allow in anybody, no matter how illiterate, incognizant of the principles of liberty we live under, and in many cases openly hostile to necessary precepts of liberty.
As an example, there is no place in a free society for an Islamist, period, simply because Islamists, by definition, do not believe that free societies should exist, or that individuals have any right to live free from submission to their virulent, ignorant, narrowminded misogynistic view of the world and of islam.
Allowing Islamists in free western nations is simply the surrender of the Constitution to theocratic tyranny, nothing less.
On whether cultural protection is equivalent to economic protectionism: I absolutely agree. But in the same way as removing protectionism from the national psyche was a painful, though necessary experience, this would be an upheaval like none known before. Already England’s demographic is shifting — I don’t think that matters. But in the short-term (where short can be anything up to a generation) racism will surface in communities that decide that “they took our jobs” or “they took our women”. Recent riots in Australia and England should serve as a warning about the dangers of humanity’s inability to look beyond stereotypes. While ideology should be the basis for decisions, I think we must consider the practical consequences of a good idea!
I dunno.
Try this formulation…
As an example, there is no place in a free society for a Communist, period, simply because Communists, by definition, do not believe that free societies should exist, or that individuals have any right to live free from submission to their virulent, ignorant, narrowminded misogynistic view of the world and of Communism.
Allowing Communists in free western nations is simply the surrender of the Constitution to Marxist tyranny, nothing less.
I’m not saying that Islamists are not a menace. What I am saying is that they are not a menace to our societies. It’s like trees (individuals) and forests (Western societies). The trees can be killed, and have been in distressingly large numbers. But the forest is safe.
And since the forest is safe, I do not see the need to restrict liberties, including that of the ingress and egress of people between the individual nations.
We survived the Communists, and being old enough to remember what a danger they were, I fear I smile at the threat of ‘Islamists’. There’s no comparison.
Very well put, Mike Lorrey. Certainly, people who have something to contribute economically – therefore creating more wealth than they absorb – and who subscribe to principles of liberty and freedom of expression would be welcome anywhere, surely.
And, trivial as it sounds, these are the people who are comfortable weaving themselves into the infrastructure of the country – accepting invitations to Bar-B-Cues and bringing a couple of tubs of their native cuisine as their contribution; accepting invitations to cocktail parties and taking a drink, even if only one; volunteering to sit on a committee and making a sincere job of it; volunteering their child to take an old man’s dog for a walk twice a day. Britain has never had any problem welcoming people like this. In fact, I think we’ve always found them rather fascinating.
I dispute the claim that we’ve survived communism. The degree to which constitutionally protected classical liberalism has been aborted by our nations in favor of heavily socialized overregulation, property confiscation, the epidemic of property crime in Britain dismissed as “giving a fair go”, and the idea that societies have rights at all, not to mention the idea that societal rights override individual rights, are all the consequences of the impact of communism.
It is no surprise that the truly hard communist groups in the US and Britain are overtly both pro-Baathist and pro-Islamist: they live by the enemy of my enemy ethic.
I think the damage done by communist infiltration and subversion of our formerly libertarian leaning anglosphere, in the 20th century, is the primary lesson and warning that we cannot allow the same thing to be done by the Islamists. Between Communism and Islamism, by the end of the 21st century, there will no longer be anywhere on Earth were individual liberties and constitutional limits on government will be accepted as a given.
Mike Lorrey wrote:
As an example, there is no place in a free society for an Islamist, period, simply because Islamists, by definition, do not believe that free societies should exist…
Right, but that is not an argument against free immigration and open borders. It is possible that passport holding citizens are (real) criminals and radical enemies of freedom, and unfortunately many of them are.
James Waterton wrote:
I agree with R C Dean; – I am favour of open borders in principle. However, this is not compatible with a modern welfare state, for obvious reasons. Immigration is clearly not a chicken or egg issue; the welfare state must be dismantled before we start talking about deregulating immigration.
Or maybe the other way round: Unrestricted immigration might be a big help to abolish the welfare state (which would live longer and become bigger with closed borders). Why not taking the immigration issue and use it as ammo against tax-funded welfare?
Well, yes, Morken. Dieing does rather put a stop to the disease now, doesn’t it?
I don’t think what’s left of liberty would survive the illness of open borders plus welfare statism. While governments may give up payouts, they will never give up taxing. We would probably end up in a situation much like China under Mao’s great improvements where everything is centrally controlled and results don’t matter.
A totalitarian government survives until toppled from the outside. It’s intrinsic weakness is not an obstacle against its own subjects. And I don’t see anything ‘outside’ to topple us that would be any improvement.
What your are saying is the equivalent of telling someone with a broken leg to just exercise more. Yes, exercise is good. But not for a broken leg.
Scott: The role of Devil’s Advocate…it can be nothing else, does not become you…or have you been at the Retsina again? No threats to our society on the horizon? Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Whom I invite onto my property or sell my real estate to is none of your business, commies.
– Josh
What a patently foolish and unthought wisecrack, Josh.
If you had paused for even a second before that brain spasm, you would have realized that your harboring a fugitive murderer is clearly other people’s business and your selling your property in exchange for stolen goods is also clearly other people’s business.
Why don’t you just sit quietly and listen to more thoughtful people debate. Thinking is obviously not your strong suit.
I’m glad to see you point out that many libertarians do not stand up for the right of people to live where they choose. I’m so glad I was able to move from Texas to So. Calif.–it was the defining decision of my life. I don’t want to deny anyone that freedom. Stand up to the xenophobes!
out. I don’t want my country full of people who despise ‘my’ culture and are scrabbling away trying to destroy it.
Ah well maybe there is a difference in our situations. I have never felt fully part of the culture of my native country. And though it has malevolent people trying, and succeeding, to destroy those things I do really like about it, they are fellow natives, not immigrants – who most of them came here in order to enjoy the same legendary and fast-vanishing freedoms.
The only anti-immigrant policy that would make a significant difference to the survival of English liberty would be a bar on Scots in public life.
Dear Midwesterner,
Are illegal immigrants murderers? Would you like to punish them or treat them in the same way?
– Josh, wondering if you’re doing any thinking yourself
Apparently if Scott mentions ‘immigration’ it seems to thought of in the same way as ‘Islamicism’, ‘criminality’ and ‘illegal’, or maybe that is just a more narrow commentariat view.
I was always brought up to understand that permitting other cultures into our society serves to educate us better about that area, and thus assists us in opening up and strengthening commercial links with that country; my parents always used the phrase that ‘alloys make the strongest metal’.
Blaming migrants/refugees for crime has always been something that our society has done, from the 1930’s when Jews fleeing Germany and Austria settled in and around the East End through to Kosovan Albanian refugees fleeing to England in 1999. What does intrigue me about some of the comments here is that there seems to be little or no distinction between ethnologies – all immigrants equal bad – in a way that Oswald Moseley would have applauded. I regret that I have a sneaking suspicion that these same individuals are also in favour of trade sanctions and tariffs against other states.
Josh, you made a blanket sweeping assertion, You followed it with an expletive that was either a transparent insult or an even more stupid assertion. Your statement is so undefensible and obviously false, it’s ludicrous.
Now, you apparently don’t understand what it was you said. Or maybe, in an effort to look less foolish, your trying to backpedal from that statement with even more dishonest and plain stupid insults.
Like I said, thinking isn’t your strong point.
STFU.
Julian, the distinction doesn’t need to be made by “ethnology”, if by that you mean ‘race’. If by “ethnology” you mean culture and what parts of it they intend to keep and what parts leave behind, then you are wrong, a very strong distinction is being made.
The refusal to make a distinction by culture is all on the pro-unlimited immigration side.
Laura – Well so California is obviously the right place for you, Laura, being as how you’re a fruitcake. Texas and California are in the same country. The United States – just to make things clear to you. If I’m French, I can move from the Languedoc to Burgundy. If I’m British, I can move from Edinburgh to Dorset. If I’m an illiterate Pakistani (in other words, a foreigner with no right of abode) who has no skills that are of any use to an advanced society and I believe, as my religion demands I must, that people who don’t adhere to this religion and my rules must either be converted or killed, the United Kingdom and any other Western pot of gold has the right to say, “Get lost, Mohammad.”
Julian, I don’t think anyone here has been condemning immigration per se. We have been condemning the admittance of a destructive cult bent on dominating our civilisation. They have already had a highly destructive impact. No one is against Estonian nannies or plumbers from Malta.
It has never been made clearer that libertarians are merely anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Sorry, damaged justice, I don’t understand that. What part of the argument are you contributing to, and on which side?
Even the most illiberal of our commentators don’t appear to be in favour of slavery. Us libertarian types would prefer to move society in the general direction of anarchy, it is true, but that doesn’t mean we want to go all the way. Less policing and no slaves at all, please.
What Verity said.
Damaged Justice (???): Damaged brain.
Interesting analysis there, “damaged justice”. By ‘interesting’, I mean uncomprehending and obtuse.
It would, but those attracted by the lure of living off the efforts of the productive – like flies to shit – are indicating that they’re fixing to impose their own. Opening the floodgates to such people is a suicidal move if one is concerned with personal liberty. As much as I despise it, I’d choose the modern welfare state over Sharia in a heartbeat.
No, the welfare state has to go first. This is no pipe-dream – in most Western states, social security as we know it will at some point collapse under the weight of many millions of undercapitalised retirees.
damaged justice, you may have a point worthy of debate but you were so cryptic that I’m not certain of what you said.
If you said what I think you said, I disagree. But it is something I’ve given serious thought to. And I’ll grant that there are cases where that is not entirely untrue.
Julian, I wrote a thoughful reply. Keep an eye on the spot between April 23 at 12:58PM and 1:22PM. We’ll have to see if the censors decide to release it.
I think s/he’s on your side, Guy.
Meanwhile, The Telegraph, which increasingly seems to be written by some of the brighter students at the local nursery school, reports on a new threat from the religion of peace in the person of Osama bin Liner. As The Telegraph puts it in a nutshell: “Al-Jazeera has aired a tape allegedly featuring Osama bin Laden, in which he issues an ominous threat apparently justifying attacks on civilians.” Thanks for letting us know the threat is “ominous”, Telegraph; we were at risk of dismissing it as mischievous tomfoolery.
Julian “What does intrigue me about some of the comments here is that there seems to be little or no distinction between ethnologies – all immigrants equal bad – in a way that Oswald Moseley would have applauded”
No, its the opposite that is true. People like Scott and Guy say ALL immigrants are equally good, thats what I argue against.
Clearly immigrants like Adriana are good for the country (as far as I can tell from reading blogs), but people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Link) who supports “female genital mutilation, wife-beating, the execution of homosexuals, destruction of the Jewish people, suicide bombing of innocent civilians, and the punishment of rape victims who do not dress with sufficient modesty.” are not good for this country, indeed could be considered a threat.
If we have open borders we cannot distinguish who is good and who is not.
You’re not the only one who has noticed that of late Verity. Perhaps its the apprentice scheme, that the office juniors only get to write online while the more senior correspondents get to see their names in print.
The immigration debate in the US is actually being done in a fairly sane way. The discussion is not about legal immigration but about whether or not it is a good idea to have 12 million illegals in the US. I am in favour of legal immigration but in favour of the illegal version.
It is an affront to those who played by rules and went through the innumerable, mind-numbing and sometimes idiotic process of getting into a country legally.
Would that the debate on immigration in the UK be less dictated by people wanting to tar anyone to the right of them racist and more about the nature of the immigration. Only the most insane would suggest it a good idea to allow people into the country who want to destroy it.
Other than a couple of the opinion columnists, the only writer I truly respect at The Telegraph is reporter Rajiv Sayeel. But even then, they don’t give him enough important stories to write. He is a superb investigative reporter.
Clearly immigrants like Adriana are good for the country… but people like Yusuf al-Qaradaw… are not… If we have open borders we cannot distinguish who is good and who is not.
Dave, could you, or perhaps someone else who feels similarly, clarify what would be your proposed policy? How would you decide who should be allowed to come in and work and who not? Or do you suggest that all (including Adriana) should not be allowed in so that Yusuf may also be kept out?
Simon – Well, shy and retiring though I am, I will have a go.
The Ozzies have a point system that works very well. It is completely neutral. I would adopt it wholesale, except, for ancient European countries that already have achieving, technically brilliant populations, I would add another requirement on top of education, demonstrable skills that are demonstrably needed, etc., and that would be a test of ability to fit in to what is, for Islamics, an alien culture.
This would mean near fluency in English, willingness to jettison the sinister burqa and its offshoots; a signed agreement that they will never ask for public swimming pools to be closed to people of indigenous (or any other) faiths nor ever, ever, ever have the impertinence to demand single sex swimming; boys will learn to open doors for girls and value the half of the world that is female; they will not try to import polygamy, although if they do, this will be grounds for deportation without appeal. And similar. No point in demanding they swear on their koran because they are allowed to swear a lie on the koran if it’s to further their cult. So just a straight forward witnessed signature and a video of them signing.
Having said all this, we already have free movement of people from the European continent into Britain, so ambitious, productive and clever (and beautiful) people like Arianna will not be turned away anyway; and we don’t need any more Islamics, so frankly, it’s moot.
Why, thank you Verity, much of our system does work very well indeed. The only part that is really really broken is the part where the government tries to work out how many jobs aussies are going to be too lazy or uneducated to do next year, and seeks to admit that many doctors, nurses, car-washers or what have you to meet the gap.
Of course, they get it right every time… er NOT.
But more seriously, we are damned lucky to live here and not there, basically!!
Except that you can get round the Australian points system by investing AU$100,000 in government bonds. Now I wouldn’t spend one red cent on any government but it strikes me that drug dealers and terrorists might have that sort of money available if they really needed to get into a country.
Interesting, Julian Taylor, and you are quite right. Do they have to show the provenance of this money?
Verity, thank you for your frank reply. I was very interested by it and with your permission, I would like to ask some questions. As I understand it your added conditions apply to all potential migrants, not just muslim ones. Is that right?
near fluency in English – Is this something that applies only to the UK, or do you think that it should be normal for all countries to demand near fluency in their native languages before giving entrance to migrant workers?
never ask for public swimming pools to be closed – would this not infringe free speach?
boys will learn to open doors for girls – are you kidding? How would you enforce that?
not try to import polygamy – Could you explain what you have against polygamy?
Simon , its tough to get the right policy, thats why I think we should have a limit on the number immigrants per year instead of open borders, then the changes don’t happen too fast and we have time to react to any problems that might arise.
Then if someone is causing trouble they can be kicked out, which you can’t do with open borders because they will come back.
Would you seriously not try to stop people with views like al-Qaradaw immigrating to this country? wouldn’t want him living next to my daughter (if I had one).
Its not a matter of individualism, because one guy with these views don’t really matter since its not going to affect the culture of the country, but if thousands of them came to live in your neighboorhood they could seriously reduce liberty for the people of this country in a variety of ways. Cartoon protests for example, the British press was afraid to publish we all know it, and they had reason to be afraid.
I’m not saying all Muslims or all Arabs have views similar to his, but clearly some do, Qaradaw is actually considered a moderate.
Simon Cranshaw, you are one of those silly, patronising men who, when an issue regarding the other sex arises, raises his eyebrows conspiriatorily above his drink to meet the eye of another man. This strikes me as so gay, but never mind, I usually like gay men. Although not the patronising ones.
“Near fluency in English – Is this something that applies only to the UK, or do you think that it should be normal for all countries to demand near fluency in their native languages before giving entrance to migrant workers?” Your semi-sentence is a little overwrought, but let me say this: we are talking of the Anglosphere. Yes, they should be almost fluent in our language before they get in. Such fluency will discourage clinging to their ghettoes of throwback primitivism in our countries, and encouraging their children to do the same.
I’m glad to see you point out that many libertarians do not stand up for the right of people to live where they choose.
Libertarians are emphatically opposed to allowing people to live wherever they choose, seeing as how libertarians are all in favor of property rights.
As for immigration policy, many of us regard the combination of open borders, multiculturalism, a welfare state, and unfettered democracy as a recipe for unmitigated disaster. In the absence of the latter three, open borders becomes at least a possibility, but we are a long way from achieving that happy state.
Dave, I appreciate your point. I can certainly understand a policy to refuse entry to terrorists or those who would preach hate. However it seems unfair to extend such prohibitions to others simply because they share the same religion. Even if you were to do so, there is still a lot of other people out there. Would you accept that it would be better to have more easy entry for others from the non-Muslim world?
Verity, I had only meant to be polite. Reading it back, I can see I was overly so, but I had not meant to be patronising. I apologise if I caused offence. My questions are serious and I’m really trying to understand the views of others on this topic. If language proficiency is a requirement for entry then again, some of my colleagues would not be allowed into Japan. I would imagine you would know people that would not be allowed into Mexico. Would that be fair? And if not, why is the Anglosphere different?
Except that you can get round the Australian points system by investing AU$100,000 in government bonds.
Gosh, I didn’t know that. Makes the US Green Card by investment look very expensive.
I’m not sure its true. I suspect the 100,000 AUD government bond thing may well be an urban myth – (though I do admit I am not certain).
I think there may be points concessions for demonstrating a financial self sufficiency and thus “proving” that the applicant will not be a burden on the state. Also I think demonstrating a willingness to invest significant funds in business (and thus assist in employment creation) may also accrue a large number of points.
I doubt simply buying govt bonds would be sufficient in and of itself.
I recruit staff from all over the world and the number of hurdles we have to clear before employing a non EU citizen is boggling. Let me be clear i’m not recruiting for a carwash on the ring road, but world class scientists. it seems to me if we find the best, (and we should be able to decide what constitutes the best) then we should be able to employee them with out wasting time and money.
A$100,000 is only about US$75,000. And it’s a not a fee. You don’t have to give it up. You just have to prove that you can support yourself should you be unable to find work for several months or a year.
Yes, Simon Cranshaw, I think anyone of working age – meaning coming to seek employment – should have a degree of mastery of the language. What is so harsh about that? How are you going to deal with the phone company, the electricity company, the immigration department, the police, etc? – never mind fill in a job application and attend an interview – if you can’t speak the language? If you can’t speak the language, that means you intend to move straight into the ghetto and use the council’s and local hospital’s Urdu intepreter to get yourself onto the British taxpayers’ payroll.
Requiring a reasonable command of the language is eminently sane.
Simon Cranshaw – I don’t care if the Muzzies squat around their houses complaining that the swimming pools being for mixed bathing. I don’t care if they complain at the mosque. What I would disallow is any official request to get the culture of the country changed. If this infringes on their free speech, let them get out the Atlas and seek a more accommodating country. One of their own hellholes, for example.
Simon, no its not about not liking Muslims, there are plently of other people with wacky ideas. All I am saying is I think we should slow down so we can react to the changes that are happening, and not have a crazy open border which could see massive changes to our country in a very short space of time, some of which might cause a lot of problems and a big loss of liberty rather than the increase in liberty that you want.
Ofcourse if ‘Employer’ wants to bring in scientists with special talent then I’m all for that. There are very few people like that by proportion to the number of people in the world, and they are not likely to be a threat to liberty.
Verity if you care so much about the English language why are you living in Mexico? 🙂
Dave: Verity if you care so much about the English language … Explain please.
I said people who go and live in other countries should speak the language. That means, duh, immigrants to the Anglosphere should have enough of a command of ENGLISH to be able to deal with the eletricity company, the phone company, banks, ask directions, etc. They should be able to deal, however simplisticly, in the language of the country they have adopted. People who move to a Hispanic country should be able to get around these basic requirements in SPANISH. People who move to Japan should be able to speak basic JAPANESE. If they’re too stupid to learn the rudiments of the language of the country, they are totally pointless and are in the country for one reason: to get themselves on the welfare tit.
Midwesterner wrote:
I don’t think what’s left of liberty would survive the illness of open borders plus welfare statism. While governments may give up payouts, they will never give up taxing. We would probably end up in a situation much like China under Mao’s great improvements where everything is centrally controlled and results don’t matter.
I fail to see how this could happen.
Why would open borders increase the powers of the central state?
Midwesterner wrote:
A totalitarian government survives until toppled from the outside. It’s intrinsic weakness is not an obstacle against its own subjects. And I don’t see anything ‘outside’ to topple us that would be any improvement.
It could also implode from within (like USSR or Somalia). But I also don’t see anything to topple from within.
Because open borders undeniably increase pressures on states. Every one here so far agrees on that. And all states respond to threat by taking more power and control. I wasn’t even aware that was a doubt.
Are you suggesting that a system of government that killed millions of its citizens is somehow vulnerable to them in the absence of outside pressure? Somehow, I don’t think so. It was external pressure what did it. It was the presence of a border!
Had there been no area outside Soviet control to flee to, nothing would ever have changed. It is borders that allow the free countries to flourish and despotic regimes to sink. Whenever a border separates a free country from a not free one, what happens? The not free one declines the free one grows stronger.
Without controlled borders, the not free countries export their failure and import sustainance.
Should just read
Midwesterner wrote:
Because open borders undeniably increase pressures on states. Every one here so far agrees on that.
I don’t understand. What kind of pressure create open borders? The only pressure I can think of is fear of the locals that they could become a minority. But how likely is that? Is this really a danger?
And all states respond to threat by taking more power and control. I wasn’t even aware that was a doubt.
That is not in doubt. It is undisputed that this is the usual tendency of all states.
Are you suggesting that a system of government that killed millions of its citizens is somehow vulnerable to them in the absence of outside pressure? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Mmh, don’t know. I would say the main factor was the economic downfall which dead-regulated nepotistic statist economies always experience sooner or later.
It was external pressure what did it. It was the presence of a border!
The presence of a border prolonged the life of those socialist entities. Without their closed borders they would have collapsed earlier, especially East Germany. They closed the border exactly for the purpose of regime life prolongation.
Had there been no area outside Soviet control, nothing would ever have changed. It is borders that allow the free countries to flourish and despotic regimes to sink. Whenever a border separates a free country from a not free one, what happens? The not free one declines the free one grows stronger.
I don’t see what this has to do with a closed border. You would have the same freedom accelerating process if the border would be just a line on the ground (which marks the boundary of e.g. Soviet influenced area).
Without controlled borders, the not free countries export their failure and import sustainance.
Yeah, this happens. Does the effect of this really justify controlled borders or isn’t it rather negligible?
I think you misunderstood what I meant. The openness of borders creates pressures on the governments of those states whether it is people coming in or leaving. If borders cannot be closed (and usually even if the can), the response of threatened governments is to exert more control on what they can. Namely, their citizens.
“Economic downfall” is a meaningless expression without an ‘other side of the border’ for comparison. Wealth or poverty is always a relative perception, not an absolute threshold.
No. They would have been a half assed failure like Mexico instead of the total failure they were. The speed of their failure was accelerated by the tightness of their borders. Not the other way around.
It’s simple logic. If free states are good and makes things better, and totalitarian states are bad and make things worse, then segregating them must make free states better and the totalitarian states worse, and the inverse is also true. To believe anything else is to believe that there is a beneficial synergy between totalitarianism and freedom, and therefore there is something good about totalitarianism. I don’t buy that.
You would not and do not have “the same freedom accelerating process if the border would be just a line on the ground”. Systems seek equilibrium. It’s natural. That’s why markets work so well. Segregating weak and destructive systems from strong and self correcting ones hastens the demise of the weak ones while only making the strong system stronger.
I’ll say it again because it is so important.
“Without controlled borders, the not free countries export their failure and import sustainance.”
Do you really think North Korea would be closer to failing and South Korea would be more successful, if they had an open border between them?
Of course not. They would have moved toward averaging out the amount of success and the amount of failure. And more importantly, toward averaging out the amount of freedom and the amount of servitude. Is that a good thing?
Permanent expat re immigrants:
“bring unacceptable cultural/religious baggage into a secular host country & seek to impose “Laws”
There’s a few homegrowns like that called…socialists.
I am an immigrant but I would challenge you to even spot my norwegian accent or any nasty cultural baggage (apart from always being the last one to leave a party). I can be as british as you and most people don’t notice differently. Should anglophile immigrants not be allowed?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick and should really call myself an expat? 🙂
The wholly estimable and talented Fjordman, who no longer blogs, is making a guest appearance at The Gates of Vienna, where he addresses immigration of Muslims into Europe.
It’s a longish, well-written and well-argued piece (Link), so get your coffee or tea and settle in for a thoughtful, if depressing read. Hat tip: LGF.
Why don’t buy those who are concerned about illegal immigration the whole border strip and enforce that nobody trespasses over their property? Similar strategy like those who buy rainforest to protect it.
Private property and the right to include and exclude as one sees fit is the answer to all those problems. Empowering the central state even more is always the worst choice. Friends of liberty have to push for any reduction of state activity on any front at any time, for less state always means less crime and aggression. Government activity must be reduced whenever and wherever it can.
Where is democracy in all this.
Have the British people ever been asked directly whether they want mass immigration, or a multicultural society.
The answer is no.
Why do many say the British people should be asked via referendum about the EU Constitution, or the Pound Sterling, but no-one ever thinks to ask them about Immigration.