Wednesday, April 20, 2016

The "Natual Law" Argument for Open Borders, with a Refutation

Immigration is the most important issue for the United States right now, which I why I support Trump. Most of the other candidates either advocate virtual open borders, or seem to consider the issue trivial in comparison to their fetishes about tax cuts or wedding cakes for homosexuals. There are two factions of libertarians on the subjects. There's the common-sense faction, to which I belong, that wants the country preserved in at least its current form, in order to keep the few freedoms we still have left, and then there's the open-borders group, that either thinks the country will magically preserve itself, or that thinks "countries" are irrelevant. And there there's the faction that derives its position, more or less, from the idea that everybody has the right to go anywhere. My correspondent below seems to belong to that group.

He subscribes to the "natural law ethic" and wrote the following in support of his position. My comments are interspersed in italics:

Many of us who support open borders do so, not because we are cultural Marxists or multiculturalists, but because:

1) We don't believe ends justify means. The fact that you don't like someone's "culture" does not authorize you to violently prevent him from exercising his natural and God-given right to peacefully travel from one inch of dirt to another. Besides, how could you possibly know such a thing before you have even met someone, since every man's culture is unique to him?

We know what immigrants in the aggregate will be like from what they've made of their countries of origin, and by "profiing" them in general. We know that immigrants from White, Christian, European countries tend to be a net plus, and all others not to be a good fit. And of course ends do justify means, and everybody else behaves as though they do, despite what they say they believe.

2) Popular defenses of culture are almost always masks for racism or some other species of rank bigotry. No region of the world is culturally monolithic, and culture in its deepest sense really is unique to every individual, who shares various elements of his culture with various persons.

No, they're not. Sometimes they're rational recognition that some cultures are much better than others. And all individuals belong to cultures, and when they immigrate, they bring their cultures along with them.

3) We're grown-up and rational and can distinguish between those elements of our culture which are mere personal preference and those which, in principle, are not unique to our culture at all but are universally and objectively good, true, and beautiful.

Yes, we can. And inviting immigrants who are not grown up and rational is not a good idea, is it?

4) We're intelligent , mature, and confident that those aspects of our culture which are objectively good, true, and beautiful, can be defended without resort to aggressive violence, through education, debate, propaganda, and sheer example. We'll defend these objective goods with force when they are violently assaulted, but not before.

And then it will be too late. Ask the Greeks of Anatolia. Ask the German women and children raped by "Syrian refugees." Education, debate, propaganda, and sheer example take a long time to influence people who are perfectly comfortable with they way the already are, and who thiink you're weak and vulnerable, and fools to let them in, and who's to say they're wrong, what with multiculturalism and all?

5) We have no rational grounds for believing that immigrants, especially those from other *Western* nations -- NEWSFLASH: Contrary to racist, anti-Catholic Whig mythology, Latin Americans are Westerns, just as the once-hated Irish, Italians, Germans, and Slavs were and are.

This sentence seems to be incomplete. But I think I know where it's going. First, some Latin Americana are Westerners, some are not. Many have a culture that is Amerindian only slightly modified by Western influence. There's no need for horror quotes around Western. We pretty much know who's Western and who isn't. Yes, there have been anti-Catholic sentiments in this country, for various reasons, not necessarily related to any racism. Many Americans feared that too much Catholic immigration would result in anti-Protestantism, which was a real phenomenon in many Catholic countries. And many Slavs, of course, come from countries with little or no tradition of economic or intellectual freedom, so it's hardly irrational to be cautious about mass Slavic immigration, is it?

6) What the hell does "our culture" even mean anymore? Leftism, multiculturalism, nativism, warfare/welfare statism, the abortion license, homosexualism, genderism, rampant ponography, secularism, etc.? Are these the values we need defending against Latin American and Middle Eastern immigrants? Who the heck are any of the racist-libertarians to dictate to other people what their "culture" is or must be?

Our culture has indeed deteriorated as the writer suggests, and that indicates that maybe we need a moratorium on immigration to prevent it from deteriorating further. I guarantee that more immigration from Latin America and Muslim countries isn't going to make us less multicultural or do away with warfare/welfare statism. Our loss of freedom isn't going to be reversed by accepting millions of immigrants with no concept of freedom in the first place.

7) Authentic culture is something that is formed organically and spontaneously -- yes, even through immigration. Authentic cultu  [Well, hell. The cut-and-paste messed up. I don't have the rest of this. If the original writer will contact me, I'll add the rest. I can't find it on the net.]
Quibcag: Sonora Kashima of Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3" (特例措置団体ステラ女学院高等科C3 is always ready to defend her borders.


  1. The simple point is they won't defend themselves because they can't. They don't own a gun even when not living in a gun-free zone, and if they did, they won't practice.

    You only find liberty where there are good people with guns.

    That, and libertarians are trying to dictate the NAP in a democracy where the NAP is antithetical to those cultures. If you won't force the NAP, then you won't have your libertarian culture.

  2. Natural law does not create ANY positive rights and, as such, there can be no such thing as a right to travel in the natural law sense of the word "right."

  3. Sometimes they're rational recognition that some cultures are much better than others. And all individuals belong to cultures, and when they immigrate, they bring their cultures along with them.
    One of these cities was literally hit with a nuclear bomb, one of these cities was hit by Africans. Which one would you like to live in now?

  4. Backtrack, MI. Twenty years ago it was an acceptable, working class town. Today, it looks like some third-world hell hole. Coincidently, it has become majority Muhammidan in the last twenty years as well. No borders is fine as long as you want to be an illiterate mud brick maker (or a lib/prog politician)

  5. Anybody says to you, "Race is a social construct." Tell them that "Society is a racial construct.", cause it is. Where there are Mexicans its Mexico. Where there are jews there is vice, crime and corruption. Where the White Man hangs his hat, that place has a future. Do not give pearls to swine. White women have a fetish for dangerous worthless useless creatures. Give 'em a cat, and do what needs to be done. Your grandchildren will thank you for it.

  6. When Western men go to immigrant countries (countries whose main exports are immigrants), they're missionaries. When immigrants go to Western countries, they're jihadists.