The truth about open borders
Immigration policy is one of the most highly contested topics in America, with hyperbole, name-calling, and anger replacing logic in most quarters.
Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America or the influx of migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the arguments for and against remain the same – indicating that cultural differences are not a consideration for those who believe in maintaining or expanding current policies.
Libertarians have claimed that a government actively keeping immigrants out would be committing state violence, violating the non-aggression principle held by most in the party. However, when we account for the nearly universally held LP belief that the government should not own land, we find a deep problem in the concept of open borders: it is the rejection of private property.
Even if a private citizen or employer, as would be more common, invited a non-American into the country, the result would still be a violation of private property, given the immigrant’s inevitable movement through privately held and maintained land.
As of 2020, 64 percent of Americans want to maintain or decrease immigration. When Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act passed, it did so under the guise that “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs,” it was a lie – as shown in the graph below. This act was not consensual, though we now are trained by media to believe the process of deceit is virtuous.
Non-consensual diversification ( diversifying with majority disapproval) has a long history. When Stalin resettled Russians in Estonia, there was no thought of bringing the Baltic people the glories of diversity. Rather, the act was an attempt to destroy existing culture and make the Estonians less likely to cause the empire a problem.
As a thought experiment, picture millions of Americans on the shores of Thailand, demanding to be let in. Certainly, the long and storied traditions and culture of the state would be in severe jeopardy. A media afraid to bring up immigration would report a massive increase in diabetes and obesity, wondering how it could have happened. No moralist alive or dead would call on the Thai people to voluntarily destroy their culture for some such movement.
In the West, we are inundated with the idea that rejection of immigration increases is a form of phobia. As is commonly argued by proponents of open borders, American insecurities and ignorance have made it that accepting “shifting demographics” causes internal tension, as if the occurrence of shifting is an act of nature and out of the control of man. The vile nomenclature is completely analogous to a rapist holding someone down and explaining that “making love” has nothing to do with rape.
For the more rational follower of rhetoric, we hear that America and Europe will NEED these new people ( forget diversity, we need tax sheep) simply to pay the taxes needed for society to maintain. Without even getting into the extreme waste we see in taxes or a Libertarian view on the reduction of government, does this idea even make sense?
Whether we’re talking about the Czech Republic, Yugoslavia, Germany’s Turkish worker program, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, or the United States, integration of large number leading to a net increase in tax revenue has never occurred. In all attempts during the 20th century, the costs of integration have massively outweighed any tax increase created. To suggest the possibility of achieving a net-positive effect from immigration is a theory with remarkably little evidence for such a commonly practiced policy.
Immigrant Voting Patterns
Could you imagine simultaneously respecting democracy while importing a group from out of the country that will vote overwhelmingly for a specific ideology? It’s tricky, right?
By looking at even third and higher generations, there is no doubt that a continued influx of Mexican and South American immigrants will lead to a more collectivist society than is traditional in the United States. The result would be the antithesis of libertarian values.
The public spoke many years ago. The problem is that no one is listening.