Is immigration really a terrifying threat to our safety? Or perhaps it is yet another source of fear the power elites use to maintain control.
There are two paradigms of thought which are both based on premises the government hands down.
One seems independent enough; that borders are statist, and therefore bad. The government has no business restricting freedom of movement (which is true), so they should stop oppressing foreigners and let them in, whatever the consequences.
The other opinion is that while open borders would be great, even ideal, the current state is such that we must restrict access… using the state. If we want to be safe, and not have immigrants leaching off the system, we have got to keep them out!
And the latter is generally the fear that Trump promotes, including in Tuesday’s speech to Congress. The idea is that illegal immigrants are flooding across the border, on a murdering rampage. If we don’t stop them from coming in, and kick out those already here, the system might collapse under their weight, and your family might be murdered.
Yet according to the PEW Research Center, illegal immigration has largely stabilized, and some studies suggest illegal immigrants are statistically less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens.
On the other hand, in America, our behavior is restricted by government. If we could really do as we please on private property, then we could take actions to reduce our risk if it turned out immigrants do introduce new dangers.
But in America, it is considered discrimination to refuse service. And it is increasingly, it is the citizen’s job to do police work in preventing crimes, lest we wind up in the government cross-hairs for “harboring” criminals.
This fear leads to more power for the U.S. policing agencies, and more money that the government gets to spend on your behalf. And by now who hasn’t seen the mass of videos from random rights-violating “immigration” checkpoints within U.S. borders?
The government doesn’t care which of their prefabricated opinions you hold, because each one gives them more power.
Government is too Incompetent to Process Immigrants
So about the idea that the government is too incompetent to take in immigrants, and it would burden the system.
Remind me who will be keeping them out?
Oh that’s right, government.
And what has government prohibition of peaceful action always led to? Corruption, and selective enforcement.
The drugs, criminals, and terrorists are still going to get through, it will just be the ones that government chooses.
Especially since the Department of Homeland Security is loosening hiring standards for Border Patrol in an effort to find 6,000 extra agents that President Trump has authorized. I guess we are going quantity over quality.
If government is too incompetent and corrupt to let the right immigrants in, it is definitely too dysfunctional and sketchy to keep the right immigrants out.
If the argument for keeping them out is to not further burden the welfare/ entitlement state, I am afraid we are well beyond that. And expanding government agencies burdens the system as well.
You’re an Immigrant
Have you heard this one: “You don’t like immigrants? Well guess what, your ancestors are immigrants, maybe the Native Americans shouldn’t have let them in?!”
The proper response: “Uh, yeah, the Native Americans shouldn’t have let them in! Look how it turned out for them!”
Of all the comebacks to wanting to ban immigrants, this one is the most perplexing. Why would you use an example that ended in utter disaster for the native population when supporting immigration?
In fact, had the Native Americans had the ability to erect a yuuge beautiful wall between them and the Europeans, maybe they would have fared a little better.
In John M. Barry’s book Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul, Roger Williams is quoted about a tribal meeting he attended, where the Narragansetts and Pequot discussed joining together for war against the English.
The Natives feared the immigrants–the English–would “overspread their country, and would deprive them thereof in time, if they were suffered to grow and increase… the English were minded to destroy all Indians.”
And that prediction basically came true.
So if you support an open borders policy, maybe steer clear of the Native American metaphor.
Private Property Solves Everything
When private property comes into play, it is very clear who make the rules: the property owner. If you want to build a twenty foot electrified wall around your estate, you should be able to do that.
Many Americans have nothing in common except public land the government presides over, and pretends belongs to all of us. It doesn’t, they just want us to pay for it, and pay for their “stewardship” of the nation.
So the government created this involuntary group of citizens who now all need to decide on common policy. This causes fear, anger, and frustration.
If voluntary groups were to form the bedrock of society, there would be a million different immigration policies. We would see which ones worked and which ones caused disaster. We could experiment with governing principles, and implement the best.
So is the issue immigration, or is the issue free association and private property?
We have to peel away the layers before we understand these issues were all created by government forcing us into a group. The issue of immigration is only an issue because the government never gains consent of those it forces to do things.
This is one of those issues where the best solution is internal, in our minds. Clear your mind of the state. Let go of the fear and anger that they attempt to inject into us. If you cannot control something, let it go.
But don’t construe this to think I am suggesting we are powerless. I just think the solutions are not going to happen on the southern federal border.
The government wants you to look over there, and the solution is much closer to home.
Why bother fighting over it? Both ways are wrong, because the current structure of society is wrong. The entire premise is wrong.
Do you think any power elite really cares if Mexicans get in or not?
Why not focus efforts locally? Decentralize the power structure, and strengthen property rights.
Pit the states against the federal government. Live in the cities, states, and countries which best fit your ideas of immigration, which may be entirely different than the two options the feds give you to ponder over.
This is a power tactic, to limit the available options so that whatever you choose, it works for the oppressor.
The premises should never have been accepted. Reject the government premises on the immigration issue, and the cloud surrounding the debate begins to dissolve.
Do you agree? Comment with where you fall on the issue.