Facts on Open Immigration
It is important to look at facts. I only had to google "nations with open borders" and choose these citations from the many links offered. As this is a forum for Objectivists, allow me to suggest a cautionary argument from Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binwanger. Answering a student's question, Peikoff warned against "monism" attempting to derive all truths from A is A by pure logic. Answering another question about the hierarchy of knowledge, Peikoff said that you cannot make metaphysics antecedent to epistemology: reason and reality must always be tied to each other. So, too, here I point out that Harry Binswanger's blogpost advocating for open immigration does describe the United States of the near-capitalist 19th century, We had open borders. We also defended our national sovereignty against the United Kingdom (and lesser threats). Similarly, living as I do in Texas, when we were a republic, we declared and then defended our sovereignty in part specifically to have open immigration.
A Harsh Climate Calls for Banishment of the Needy
The key to Svalbard’s status as probably Europe’s closest thing to a crime-free society, according to the governor, is that unemployment is in effect illegal. “If you don’t have a job, you can’t live here,” Mr. Ingero said, noting that the jobless are swiftly deported. Retirees are sent away, too, unless they can prove they have sufficient means to support themselves.
Although governed by Norway, a country that prides itself on offering cradle-to-grave state support for its needy citizens, Svalbard, an archipelago of islands in the high Arctic, embraces a model that is closer to the vision of Ayn Rand than the Scandinavian norm of generous welfare protection.Even Longyearbyen’s socialist mayor, Christin Kristoffersen, a member of the Labour Party, wants the town — named after an American industrialist, John Munro Longyear, who founded it in 1906 — to stay off limits to all but the able-bodied and gainfully employed. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/wo...
How Open Borders Died in Five Countries
By Bryan Caplan
https://www.econlib.org/how-open-bord...
This is a summary from a free market perspective of this journal article:
"Immigration Policy Prior to the 1930s: Labor Markets, Policy Interactions, and Globalization Backlash" by Ashley S. Timmer and Jeffrey G. Williams
Population and Development Review
Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 739-771
The Case for Immigation
IN his novel “Exit West”, Mohsin Hamid describes a world very like our own, but which is suddenly changed by the appearance of mysterious doors. A dark-skinned man falls out of an Australian woman’s wardrobe in Sydney. Filipino women emerge from the back door of a bar into the alleyways of Tokyo. As the incidents multiply and scores of people from poor countries walk through the doors into richer ones, rich-world inhabitants respond with violent resistance. Governments crack down hard on the new arrivals. But it is not long before they are overwhelmed by their sheer number and abandon efforts to repel them. The world settles into an uneasy new equilibrium. Shantytowns emerge on the slopes of San Francisco Bay. Conflicts in war-torn places burn out for want of civilians to kill and exploit.
Mr Hamid’s story comes close to what many advocates of open borders believe the world would look like if people were free to move wherever they wanted: fairer, freer, with more opportunities for a larger number of people. But it also nods to the fears many people have about unfettered migration: uncertainty, disorder, violence. Would such a world be a dream or a nightmare? The answer depends on whom you ask.
https://www.economist.com/open-future...
A Harsh Climate Calls for Banishment of the Needy
The key to Svalbard’s status as probably Europe’s closest thing to a crime-free society, according to the governor, is that unemployment is in effect illegal. “If you don’t have a job, you can’t live here,” Mr. Ingero said, noting that the jobless are swiftly deported. Retirees are sent away, too, unless they can prove they have sufficient means to support themselves.
Although governed by Norway, a country that prides itself on offering cradle-to-grave state support for its needy citizens, Svalbard, an archipelago of islands in the high Arctic, embraces a model that is closer to the vision of Ayn Rand than the Scandinavian norm of generous welfare protection.Even Longyearbyen’s socialist mayor, Christin Kristoffersen, a member of the Labour Party, wants the town — named after an American industrialist, John Munro Longyear, who founded it in 1906 — to stay off limits to all but the able-bodied and gainfully employed. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/wo...
How Open Borders Died in Five Countries
By Bryan Caplan
https://www.econlib.org/how-open-bord...
This is a summary from a free market perspective of this journal article:
"Immigration Policy Prior to the 1930s: Labor Markets, Policy Interactions, and Globalization Backlash" by Ashley S. Timmer and Jeffrey G. Williams
Population and Development Review
Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 739-771
The Case for Immigation
IN his novel “Exit West”, Mohsin Hamid describes a world very like our own, but which is suddenly changed by the appearance of mysterious doors. A dark-skinned man falls out of an Australian woman’s wardrobe in Sydney. Filipino women emerge from the back door of a bar into the alleyways of Tokyo. As the incidents multiply and scores of people from poor countries walk through the doors into richer ones, rich-world inhabitants respond with violent resistance. Governments crack down hard on the new arrivals. But it is not long before they are overwhelmed by their sheer number and abandon efforts to repel them. The world settles into an uneasy new equilibrium. Shantytowns emerge on the slopes of San Francisco Bay. Conflicts in war-torn places burn out for want of civilians to kill and exploit.
Mr Hamid’s story comes close to what many advocates of open borders believe the world would look like if people were free to move wherever they wanted: fairer, freer, with more opportunities for a larger number of people. But it also nods to the fears many people have about unfettered migration: uncertainty, disorder, violence. Would such a world be a dream or a nightmare? The answer depends on whom you ask.
https://www.economist.com/open-future...
Isreal knows this when it not only passed the "law of return" which allows Jews anywhere to move there and become citizens but at the same time deny the Palestinians a right to return for their decedents. It is an acknowledgement that the makeup of the population will determine the future culture and the laws.
One cannot sit secure in your private property, even it if extends to an entire valley that you invite people to come and live in with no concern over the makeup of the population at large. That population has the ability to overturn whatever protections you have and seize your property through unhindered democracy.
This is the ultimate flaw in any "gulch" scenario because new immigrants, and even descendants, can decide that it's unfair for people to 'hoard' resources and send the police that they control to make things more 'fair'.
By definition, people who come to America leave their old cultures behind. Over a couple of generations, all ties to the old country have evaporated.
Millions of non-citizen immigrants served in US armed forces. Some did that for love of their adopted nation. Many served in order to obtain citizenship. One man who served in World War I was denied citizenship solely on the basis of his race:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_.... Asians were not allowed to become citizens. Period. (Their culture was too alien. The millions of them would flood our shores and overewhelm our Anglo-Saxon heritage -- or so it was claimed at the time.). But the funny thing - if such things can be funny - is that under Jim Crow, Asians who were ineligible for citizenship were allowed to ride in railway cars with white people. That is just an example of the irrational consequences that inevitably derive from irrational premises.
If you want to make a case for closing the border - and thus sealing us in - you need to be consistent in logic and the logic must be based on facts.
The article you linked to at http://www.hbletter.com/what-is-natio... promoting "open borders" with no restrictions at all is not a standard which must be refuted to justify any restriction. That article is arm-chair philosophizing trying to rationalize a sweeping policy without regard to facts and the real problems.
Such a believer could not honestly take Galts' Oath.
There are religions that are so esoteric that understanding with words is probably impossible, yet the adherants can lead peaceful, tolerant and productive lives. Consider the Yazidis, recent victims of ISIS/IL in Iraq, the religion seems weird and primitive to me but even if that is correct it would not prevent them becoming good citizens.
This is analogous to the older immigration criterion of preventing the mentally ill because they are a threat ranging from their own actions to a burden to be cared for. Religious zealots such as we have seen from the Muslim world are so out of the bounds of ability to think and act rationally and civilly that they are a form of mental illness and an obvious threat.
Likewise, the zealots seeking Sharia law or terrorism come under the categories of both a criminal threat and Immigration laws "excluding and deporting aliens who advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence" -- except that the problem is broader now because large enough numbers coming into a country do not require the crude violence. When allowed to congregate in untouchable ghettos, let alone vote, their danger is more fundamental than 1920s anarchists as followers of Kropotkin.
But even some Muslims are civilized professionals who should not be excluded because of religious belief. More difficult is the consequences of what they would become in large enough numbers changing the form of government.
You need to objectively understand the United States of America and its culture. Many Christians (and others) place religious precepts above civil law. First, by military customs and courtesies, no flag ever flies higher than the American flag, except the chaplain's pennant when services are being held. That shows that American civil law is subordinate to religion.
Moreover, some in America refuse to serve in the military on religious grounds: "thou shallt not kill" and "turn the other cheek" and all that. They are conscientious objectors above civil law. And you do not need religion for that. Objectivists - nominally atheists - have also refused to answer the call to selective service on "philosophical" grounds. What is the difference between philosophy and religion? Is there a test? Maybe it is like obscenity: you cannot define it, but know it when you see it.
On the other hand, there are those in the military, especially at the USAF Academy, who force fundamentalist Protestant religion on those under their command.
And at the same time, I serve with Muslims who adhere to all customs and courtesies, including shaving their beards and moustaches as directed by orders for proper wear.
So, it does not matter which religious group you may seem "to come from" as perceived by an outsider, but, basically, and objectively, what kind of individual you are. What is your test for that?
Hmm. Individual Buddhists may be violent and warlike, it is not a characteristic of their culture or religion. Are there sayings of Buddha, or the commentaries or other texts that promote or advocate violence?
If I wanted to argue against this aspect of Buddhism I would note the failure of India's ruling class, mainly Buddhist at the time, to stop the Islamic onslaught. Some historians put the resultant death count at hundreds of millions. Resistance to aggression may be violent but would be described usually as rational.
About Christianity. I recall- throw the money men out of the temple, and I come with a sword. Have I missed anything substantial?
Christians are to be commended for resisting aggression in three decisive battles- Tours (y732), Lepanto (y1571), Vienna (y1683). But now (y2018), Europe and the West are in cultural decay, leaders of the big Christian denominations are complicit. The same enemy is winning and open borders are their prime weapon.
Thanks for the USA culture enlightenment about the chaplain's flag, I am suitably horrified.
(ewv elaboration noted - thanks)
There is the conscientious objector relief from military service for citizens. Good. But would you allow in those who will not serve in your military but will join death-cult militia overseas, who will not stand for the judge in court and do not recognize that court, who say that women not dressed to their standards are fresh meat so deserve rape, and so on? (Most of) Such positions are taken from the central text which is sealed, being not history, not guidelines, but commands.
'It is not the group but the kind of individual', sounds good but I do not follow. Freckles or skin color are no guide of character, but is religion like freckles, or is it chosen or accepted? Should communists, fascists or mafia members be individually evaluated with current and avowed memberships and loyalty not admissable as evidence?
Where a flag is does not "show that American civil law is subordinate to religion". Flags are symbolic at ceremonies, not "civil law". There have been incidents of religious privilege over law that should not exist, and some religious conservatives advocate that as a principle, but American civil law is not "subordinate to religion" and ceremonial flags do not show otherwise.
MikeMarotta: "... some in America refuse to serve in the military on religious grounds: 'thou shallt not kill' and 'turn the other cheek' and all that. They are conscientious objectors above civil law. And you do not need religion for that. Objectivists - nominally atheists - have also refused to answer the call to selective service on 'philosophical' grounds."
There has been no requirement to serve in the military in the US since conscription was abolished nearly half a century ago in 1973, and therefore there is no conscientious objector status required or recognized to refuse to serve. (Those already enlisted voluntarily may apply for non-combatant status under some circumstances.)
"Conscientious objection" to stay out before conscription was abolished did require belief in religion as "a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by an orthodox belief in God" as the basis for opposing "all wars"; there was no recognized "selective conscientious objector status" for a particular war regardless of religious belief, and no conscientious objector status at all for non-religious reasons. "Registration" for the draft is still required in case Congress re-instates it, and if the draft is re-instated a recognized religious belief opposing all wars is the standard that will still apply for conscientious objector status unless the law is changed. It is highly unlikely that the requirement to oppose all wars would be removed, or that philosophical objections, especially non-religious, to conscription would be recognized for anything but grounds for imprisonment.
Religion is a crude form of philosophy, characterized by faith and belief in the supernatural. You don't have to see it to know that principle. Some more comprehensive philosophers (like Augustine as an extreme example) have combined both.
Prison is internal exile. Russia had and has Siberia. We could externally exile all law-breakers at some level, say, three felonies, or whatever. We have Amreican bases in the Antarctic, we have Alaska. Have yiou ever been to west Texas? Miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
So, we could let everyone come to the Land of Opportunity, but if you break the laws, then out (or in) you go.
But if you have objective laws for the control of immigration, please offer them.
Harry Binswanger did not engage in "armchair philosophizing." He presented part of a conceptual framework for understanding the problem, by separating sovereignty from immigration. The intersection would be what you propose: laws regulating immigration. Please propose them.
It ignores all the well-known problems, including even terrorists, criminal gangs, forced welfare state redistribution, and the threat of an influx from a world population, with no concept of American individualism, outnumbering us by more than 10 to 1 in our own country. It even throws in the standard utopian 'libertarian" argument blaming all criminal problems on "the drug war".
Its rationalism is the opposite of Ayn Rand's reality-based insights and principles. That is why the article is "armchair philosophizing" -- except including the word "philosophy" may be too generous.
There are many problems in implementing rational immigration laws, ranging from identifying criminals and terrorists to the uphill battle against the left in this country that insists on making this country a multiculturalist international welfare central through any means possible, including an invasion by invitation bringing in enough illiterates to vote for socialism in order to overthrow what is left of our country. None of that is addressed by rationalizing that government "jurisdiction" does not include protecting the borders unless a foreign government tries to impose its own laws here.
"... do you have any objective "degree and kind of restrictions" based on "what kind of people are coming for what purpose and in what numbers"? "
and
"... by separating sovereignty from immigration. The intersection would be what you propose: laws regulating immigration. Please propose them."
The principle we start with is the defense of the rights of the individual against an obvious threat to the ability to have a nation that maintains its sovereignty in protecting the rights of the citizens, not anarchy. As in any law, the solution is not discovering and proving an intrinsicist solution; formulating proper laws involves options and ranges in many realms, in this case ranging from how to identify criminals and terrorists crossing the border, to how to limit the shear numbers of people that can be reasonably tolerated. Self defense against expanding international, multiculturalist welfare statism under the guise of immigration is a much broader problem because it is invasion by invitation by the left within our own country.
But the first step now in this context is to reject the false premise that Harry Binswanger's rationalism for "open border" anarchy with a so-called "conceptual framework" "separating sovereignty from immigration" is valid, let alone the default position requiring a burden of proof to overthrow. It is rationalistic irrelevancy.,
You evade the challenge by saying that it is too complicated for you to consider. Well, ok, we can accept that. You have no idea what you mean by what you propose. You just have a feeling that the border needs to be protected against incursion -- and I can agree with that much - but you refuse to identify any essential distinguishing characteristics of an incursion or invasion.
You complain but you cite no facts. Allow me to provide some factual groundwork for a rational discussion.
Part 3: 1820-1959
Early records relating to immigration originated in regional customhouses. The U.S. Customs Service conducted its business by designating collection districts. Each district had a headquarters port with a customhouse and a collector of customs, the chief officer of the district.
An act of March 2, 1819 (3 Stat. 489) required the captain or master of a vessel arriving at a port in the United States or any of its territories from a foreign country to submit a list of passengers to the collector of customs, beginning January 1, 1820. The act also required that the collector submit a quarterly report or abstract, consisting of copies of these passenger lists, to the Secretary of State, who was required to submit such information at each session of Congress. After 1874, collectors forwarded only statistical reports to the Treasury Department. The lists themselves were retained by the collector of customs. Customs records were maintained primarily for statistical purposes.
On August 3, 1882, Congress passed the first Federal law regulating immigration (22 Stat. 214-215); the Secretary of the Treasury had general supervision over it between 1882 and 1891. The Office of Superintendent of Immigration in the Department of the Treasury was established under an act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1085), and was later designated a bureau in 1895 with responsibility for administering the alien contract-labor laws. In 1900 administration of the Chinese-exclusion laws was added.
https://www.archives.gov/research/imm...
In fact, the United States had 328 ports of entry. We look at Ellis Island and we can read the archived records. But as shown above during the great age of near laissez faire, such records were rare. Harbor masters submitted abstracts and statistical summaries to Washington. Did criminals and terrorists come here? Probably. They were dealt with as you stated in your reply to Lucky as individuals who had committed crimes -- when they commited crimes.. So, you contradict yourself: you admit that the government can only act in retaliation against those who violate the rights of others, but you want to pre-emptorally prevent the entry of such people into America ahead of their actions.
On the other hand, I have provided facts and reasons to explain them.
"Border anarchy" means no laws governing crossing the border. That is what "open borders" means, anything goes at the border. Harry Binswanger advocates a "policy of absolutely open immigration, without border patrols, border police, border checks, or passports. After a phase-in period, entry into the U.S. would be unrestricted, unregulated, and unscreened." He says "Amnesty for Illegal aliens is not enough, they deserve an apology." That is open border anarchism.
That characterization of his position is not a "smear" and not "tossing out the word 'anarchy' very freely", it's from his own words on his own blog, which could not be clearer. His position is an embarrassment to Objectivism -- only because of his reputation for his association; otherwise no one would care. It is not what Ayn Rand supported, for good reason. The right to migrate does not imply open border anarchy.
Contrary to your sweeping personal accusations I did not say immigration is "too complicated" for me "to consider", I do not "have no idea what I mean," which is not "just a feeling", I have not "refused to identify" anything, rejecting anarchism is not "contradictory" and does not "preemptorally" violate the rights of innocent people, and I do not "complain but cite no facts" -- all as anyone can read for himself in the several posts I have written about the topic on this forum for years, including this thread, and which is considerably more than irrelevant historical pendantry claimed to be "factual groundwork for rational discussion" in supposed contrast to my posts.
People who come to America do not leave their old cultures behind. Most large cities have enclaves where the population, stores, signs, etc. are all from the old country. A bit of this doesn't cause too much trouble and gives us nice restaurants, but becoming American used to be more important to immigrants than it is today.
And the other issue is that Socialism looks like a really good system of government when the shelves of the stores are full of goods. A flood of people to implement that Socialism and get those goods would then result in the logical consequences -- no one would put goods on the shelves anymore.
I think immigration is essential, and having people who have the gumption to leave their homes to make a future in a new place is good for us. But we either must allow everyone on the planet who wants to come here do so, or we have to have some rules -- and follow them.
You seem to be of the "y'all come" approach. Do you have any feeling for how many people would immigrate if everyone could. This is no longer the era of steamships, almost everyone on the planet is 48 hours or less from the U.S.
www.linkedin/pulse/amendment-promote-free-enterprise-concord-green/ .
N: "I also do not see the Norwegian Islands method as "workable". Do they have to pay taxes, and do those taxes simply fund their locale, current needs and nothing else? I have not found a government on earth yet that does that, so if these guys do, they should be held up as a shining example."
People who live in the town of Longyearbyen on the Svalbard Island pay taxes to the government of Norway like everyone else in Norway. Read the article. Google more for yourself if you are not satisfied. But the fact is that the town has its own ordinances. As mentioned in the article, everyone in Norway gets a basic income. But if you are a retired Norwegian citizen and your Norwegian retirement does not pay the rent in Longyearbyen, then you cannot stay. They have no free rent, no free food. But given that, they do have open immigration. And if you read the article, you will see that it even extends to visas that get you through the airport in Oslo. Open immigration does not mean open welfare -- or (as in William Shipley's nightmare scenario) having hordes of people voting to take your property -- aside from the actual normal way of doing in Norway (:-)
N:Look at the effects of illegals: Groups use them for voting, (even when it is illegal) they want to give them drivers licenses (when they cannot be held legally responsible, because they are not citizens)...
But look at the history of the Irish in America. Are you suggesting that our nation was destroyed by Tammany Hall? Corrupt as the "bandwagon" of liquor on the way to the polling place was, it was largely irrelevant in the big scheme of things. Have you seen The Godfather or read the book? "Don't get one of our judges, give it to a Jewish judge," said Don Corlenone. And yet, we had Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito. Do you think that Anthony Kennedy was a corrupt Irish Catholic on the Tammany Hall bandwagon? All you present comes down to xenophobia. The fact is that ethnicity, however perceived by the first generation of co-ethnics, simply erodes in a complex, capitalist, urban environment.
N:This all ties together, and the people pushing the open borders are the same ones with "sanctuary cities and states" and get the sheeple to vote for them with promises of continued programs like state retirement programs that are bigger than any company ones, free stuff and people educated to believe the state is the answer to anything.
Absolutely not true was the original essay cited at top comes from Harry Binswanger, an Objectivist who does not propose more free stuff.
"You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed? (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)" --
https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/...
Do you think that Ayn Rand wanted free stuff for everyone?
N: they are all engineered to support a disruptive social change that shatters all existing norms, so the people running that show can reshape it in their own image."
That is two arguements in one sentence. The first is that you are opposed to disruptive social change, whatever that means. I trust that you are not opposed to the disruptive social change caused by capitalism. Silicon Valley was just the modern expression of steel mills and railroads. Railroads tore the very fabric of village life by destroying the town clock and replacing it with "railroad time" the time zones we have today. I can imagine 19th century conservatives being horrified by that. Is that your complaint?
The second part of that is the more cogent. You are opposed to "the people running that show [who] can reshape it in their own image." What you mean is "they" have a plan. Maybe "they" do, but it is not "in their image." Do you think that Hillary Clinton wants to create a world of billionaires? Ayn Rand did. I do not that "their image" (whatever that may be for each one individually) is what "they" want. Among "them" may be many back-to-the-land village idiots. But those people can be found in the Right as well. The anti-capitalist mentality crosses party lines. The radical left is just another kind of alt-right. They are both opposed to bourgeois society.
N: I don't get a cerebral about philosophy,"
I am disappointed to learn that about you.
MikeMarotta: "Absolutely not true was the original essay cited at top comes from Harry Binswanger, an Objectivist who does not propose more free stuff."
Harry Binswanger has no influence on and does not represent the sanctuary cities-open borders movement, which is predominantly leftist multiculturalist-welfare statist. Most individualists do not support "open borders" (including Ayn Rand).
MikeMarotta quoting Ayn Rand: "'You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed? (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)" --https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/...
"Do you think that Ayn Rand wanted free stuff for everyone?"
This statement by Ayn Rand has been discussed several times on this forum and does not mean "open borders". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
In opposing "closed borders" for economic protectionism Ayn Rand did not advocate today's "open borders" leftist movement. Banning all or most immigration from everywhere (or some specific region like Russia or China) for economic protectionism or racism - versus allowing anyone to come in any numbers for any motive under border anarchy - is a false alternative.
Ayn Rand was responding to a question on immigration and economic protectionism, not the principles of immigration in general, and not today's problems of screening out terrorists and gangs, multiculturalism, welfare magnetism, and what amounts to an invasion by enormous numbers of illiterates who do not understand or support American individualism and would replace it with tribalism (by invitation from the American left).
Protecting against those threats to the rights of the individual while allowing immigration with essentially no other restrictions is neither "open borders" nor "closed borders". The right to immigrate -- fleeing stagnation and oppression to live where one wants in physical reality (anywhere on earth for now) does not mean anarchy or taking over a relatively free country for collectivism/statism.
I like the notion of arctic because I imagine their being no spoils of looting them. Their wealth is in using technology. As long as they keep the spirit of liberty, they keep creating wealth, and it’s easier to trade with them than to try to steal their stuff. I imagine them having no standing army but rather citizen’s with arms, repair kits, and medical kits, that can be called on a moment’s notice. It’s basically what I think America was supposed to be.
The TV show Fortuitude takes place in Svalbard and was filmed in eastern Iceland. I liked the first part of it, but I stopped watching it when it took on more horror qualities.
Technology has transformed life on earth. Back in those days when some nations encouraged inward migration, the cost of travel was ~ ten times higher than it is now. Package deal tourism started for the middle class, then for the working hoi polloi. Now mass migration is affordable.
Look at the pics of passengers in evening dress on the Titanic, and then of the lower deck migrants who may or may not have owned a suitcase. Journeys that once took weeks now take hours. Ways of thinking from the age when thousands a year could cross the Atlantic have to change when that figure could be millions.
The motivations are the same as they have always been - work, better pay, to escape discrimination, to flee from massacre, to colonize and to conquer. But now the numbers are far larger.
Can people cooperate to form a nation? Yes they do and they will whether it is legit in your philosophy or not.
Can those people require the state to protect them from colonization, real or imagined? Again yes, unless there is a powerful state that will ignore the people.
There is no way out, a government that allows unrestricted migration will fall, the kindest way is by peaceful internal protest. If this fails, the next kindest is violent rebellion. If this fails, the nation will be conquered.
"Those who do not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it."
Lucky: "There is no way out, a government that allows unrestricted migration will fall, the kindest way is by peaceful internal protest. If this fails, the next kindest is violent rebellion. If this fails, the nation will be conquered.". The article by Bryan Caplain looked at five cases of open immigration. Did any of those nations fall into chaos as a result? Has any?
The fact that technology has made travel easy also means that communication erases national borders. Go to Wikipedia and look at the list of Technology Centers around the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
and then look at the list of rocket launching platforms around the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
If you want more of that, then you want more freedom. That is an argument worth having. Free trade and free minds means open borders for the free flow of goods, services, information, and people.
Sweden- no-go areas for police or even fire fighting services, large scale rioting and burning of motor vehicles while police watch but do not intervene, sexual assault and rape now three times that of 10 years ago, the cultural identity of perpetrators forbidden to be reported.
Germany- since 2016, public events such as New Year celebrations curtailed or very heavily policed with women no longer free to travel alone or in small groups.
France, large no-go areas, mass riots with vehicle burning and no police intervention. (The current large riot is not largely new migrants but an outcome of government pandering to EU ideology, the people are resisting?).
UK- Rotherham (1,400 child victims in this town), Rochdale, Oxford, Peterborough, Aylesbury, Bristol, Telford, Halifax, Keighley, Banbury, Newcastle, Derby, Huddersfield .. young women raped, beaten and trafficked, some of them children. Hundreds of cases. Authorities- police, social welfare, schools, will not act. A 12 yo girl was forcibly removed from her care home, staff acquiesed. Parents arrested for trying to rescue daughters from warehouses. An 8yo girl asked to be in a school project group that spoke English, police were called, the girl was interrogated and held even after school closed for the day. Quoting Churchill can lead to arrest. Anyone making general criticism leads to their condemnation as racist.
Those who you may not criticize are they who control you.
Liberty, freedom, free trade, free minds, therefore open borders.. Does not follow ..
To quote Churchill:
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
I would like to live in a gated community of like minded people who would agree to a set of principles before buying properties within the gates, and who would also agree to sell only to other people who also agreed to the same set. That is kind of the situation with an HOA. Again, no unfettered immigration would be allowed.
Expand it to a whole town, and things can get difficult when there are common places like parks and streets. But, they could be privately owned also, eliminating the problems.
It possibly could be the case that this idea would not work anymore as it was expanded in scope with more and more people. Issues could arise if some people violated the rules- what to do with them.
In any event, this is an interesting discussion, but I dont see much changing in the real world, at least so long as I am still here.
Assimilation is failing in the U.S. because of our generous welfare programs. Without the incentive to learn English and join a diverse workforce, it is no longer unusual to find second, and even third generation residents whose primary language is other than English. Immigrant enclaves used to be a result of prejudice, but now they are seen as a way of retaining one's culture, even when the practices of those non-American cultures are abusive. Honor killings among Middle Eastern cultures in America are uncomfortably commonplace. Female genital mutilation takes place with regularity among Muslim-African enclaves here in the U.S., in spite of condemnation of the practice by American Imams.
Sanctuary cities save no one except the gangs and cartel members, who savagely abuse the innocent in their own cultural enclaves. These thugs aren't being held accountable because witnesses won't testify against them for fear of their own lives.
Open borders are a path to the destruction of order and affluence. In South and Central America alone there are 35 million who wish to relocate to the U.S., and if the caravans are seen as a promising way to achieve that goal, we will be swamped by hordes of takers.
N:" "It's your country, you own it, you broke it, you fix it". That is also a root cause reason for the "open border" argument, they have been told of wonderland, and invited in, by people who do not plan on doing anything to help them."
If I were a Rohingya and I had a snowball's chance in hell of coming to America, why would I pass that up for the chance to fix Myanmar? I mean, I agree, Myanmar needs fixing, but I place that burden on the shoulders of others. But it is not up to the individual to "fix" society. That is a collectivist way of looking at the problem. In fact, it is the very complaint that you voiced above. "... so the people running that show can reshape it in their own image."
N: "... and invited in, by people who do not plan on doing anything to help them."
Well, that is not exactly true. It is just that the plans to help are massive govenmentalist programs that cannot work, as opposed to the more direct voluntary community-based social organizations of the 19th century. Those, too, however, were the creations of altruists. That underscores some of the problems with this discussion. In the later 19th and early 20th centuries when the doors to immigration were being closed, you had to have a sponsor, someone who would accept responsibility for your not becoming a "public charge." (Only native-born Americans were allowed to be public charges.) Typically, that was a family member. Now, however, the anti-immigrationists are opposed to "serial immigration" where family members bring each other over, even though that was the norm 100 years ago.