One of the most persistent divides between traditional conservatives and their libertarian/anarcho-capitalist counterparts involves a fundamental philosophical disagreement about immigration. While most conservatives view immigration primarily through the lens of preserving American culture by only accepting those immigrants who are assimilable and will tangibly benefit our society in the future, a view expressed repeatedly during debates over illegal immigration in this country, many libertarians view the subject in an altogether different light. For them, the question is not so much whether a particular cohort of immigrants will be an asset to the United States but whether we have any right to prevent them from settling in this country in the first place, which many answer in the negative.

Libertarians extol the primacy of individual rights, which in this case entails the right to emigrate from your country of birth whenever you so desire-something that I don’t think any conservative would take issue with-and to immigrate to whatever country you want to live and/or work in for an extended period of time, which is where the divide between the two camps emerges. Libertarians view the issue as one of freedom of association-and by extension, contract-wherein willing employers, such as large agribusinesses and meatpacking plants, seek out willing employees coming from nations with under-performing economies that can’t meet the personal and financial needs of their citizens. They believe that the nexus between trade and unfettered migration is inextricable, if not completely self-evident, and that the two can not be severed if a nation hopes to grow its economy. While this may well be true as a matter of law, there are numerous holes in this thesis intellectually, which opponents of open borders-even anarcho-capitalists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe-have exposed through well-researched arguments of their own.

However, underlying the debate over whether immigration and settlement is a natural right is the assumption that all libertarians/anarcho-capitalists agree on the immigration issue, which is not as much of  a given as it would seem on the surface of things. One of the things that I’ve attempted to do with American Rattlesnake is debunk commonly held assumptions about immigration issues, and the assumption that libertarians all subscribe to Gary Johnson’s point of view is one that needs to be reexamined. There are many libertarians and  anarcho-capitalists who recognize both the practical difficulties and existential problems inherent in society based upon unfettered immigration, especially one with the vast social welfare apparatus of the United States. One of the chief exponents of the view that welfare programs need to be curtailed in order to solve the immigration problem is Gary Johnson’s opponent in the Republican presidential race, Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has repeatedly emphasized the need to do away with the generous, taxpayer subsidized social welfare programs that-while not serving as the initial magnet-provide incentives for illegal aliens to extend their stay in this country indefinitely. The population density of legal immigrants is also heavily correlated with the availability of welfare benefits. Even acclaimed economist Milton Friedman, who held a rather benign view of immigration in general, emphasized the incompatibility of a welfare state with unfettered immigration.

The same opinion is held by many libertarians today, including self-professed constitutionalist Andrew Napolitano, who views Arizona’s landmark immigration law primarily through the prism of the Constitution’s supremacy clause and potential violations of the 4th Amendment via racial or ethnic profiling by law enforcement officers. I’m not sure that the Constitutional objection to statewide laws is dispositive, because-as Andrew McCarthy has pointed out repeatedly in National Review-there is no precedent for prohibiting states from enforcing laws that are consistent with federal statutes. Furthermore, if we look to the broader issue of legal immigration, there’s nothing to suggest that the men who drafted the United States Constitution supported the sort of unfettered immigration we have endured since passage of the Hart-Celler Act fundamentally altered this nation’s demographic destiny. This is a concept that is seldom grasped by arm-chair commentators on immigration these days, whose default option is to repeat the platitudinous-not to mention, factually incorrect-bromide that we are a “nation of immigrants.” What they neglect to mention is that most this nation’s founding fathers would have been implacably opposed to the present lassez-faire system of immigration, a fact that Thomas Woods-as anti-statist an individual as you’ll find among academics-expertly limns in this Human Events column published during the height of the amnesty debate in Washington D.C.

Yet, even if we were to concede that there’s no firm historical or Constitutional foundation for this nation’s current open borders policies, can it not be argued that there is a compelling moral case for the views espoused by those at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Cato Institute, Reasonoids, and other trendy, beltway cosmotarians? You would definitely think so if you took their arguments at face value. The notion that we have no moral basis for barring certain immigrants from entry into the United States is certainly widespread in certain libertarian circles, but I don’t believe that makes the idea, ipso facto, libertarian. Julian Simon, in a 1998 essay published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, articulated the perspective felt by many that individual autonomy takes precedence over other “public” goods, including our national borders. In an anarcho-capitalist reality, nation-states would not exist, therefore deciding who should or should not be admitted to your nation would be a moot point.

But while it might seem logical that freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of contract-and at its most essential level, the individual him or herself-are all prioritized over the wishes and feelings of citizens who have a vested interested in preserving the character of their nation, there are those that don’t think these competing values are necessarily mutually exclusive. In a persuasive essay written for Lew Rockwell several years ago, N. Stephan Kinsella made a very compelling argument that while the disposition of property in our society is unjust-insofar as the state has no right to expropriate land that rightfully belongs to individuals-so long as that property is entrusted to the state it has a responsibility to act as caretaker for the rightful owners. In this case, it has the responsibility to prevent the ingress of people that citizens do not want to welcome into their country. While those who are opposed to communitarianism in even its most minimal form might reject Kinsella’s public pool analogy, I think he makes a convincing case that some prophylactic measures need to be enforced to prevent the exploitation of your property-even if it’s already been subjected to theft by the state.

There are many cogent arguments against the current trendy libertarian support for open borders, several of them outlined by the first presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, John Hospers, in paper published by the Journal of Libertarian Studies over a decade ago entitled A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders. The concluding paragraph of the essay is especially perceptive in its analysis of the problem:

Occasionally, we hear the phrase “limousine liberals” used to describe the members of the liberal establishment who send their children to expensive private schools while consigning all the others to the public school system, which educates these children so little that by the time they finish the eighth grade they can barely read and write or do simple arithmetic, or make correct change in a drug store. It would be equally appropriate, however, to describe some other people as ”limousine libertarians” —those who pontificate about open borders while remaining detached from the scenes that their “idealism” generates. They would do well to reflect, in their ivory towers, on whether the freedom they profess for those who are immigrants, if it occurs at all, is to be brought about at the expense of the freedom of those who are not.

This passage describes, in a nut shell, the quintessence of cosmotarianism, and why most Americans-and even some in the libertarian movement-continue to reject it. I could post the most meticulously researched George Borjas journal article, the most statistically devastating backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, or the most irrefutable essay by Mahattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald. And although all of these sources are invaluable in the fight to define the terms of this debate, they wouldn’t hold a candle to the self-evident fact that none of the greatest exponents and defenders of open borders, be it Tamar Jacoby, or Jason Riley, or Nick Gillespie, abide by their own exhortations. None of these individuals partake of the glorious mosaic which their unyielding ideology has done so much to create.

You won’t find many Reason Magazine editors or Cato Institute scholars living in Bergenfield, New Jersey, Maywood, California, or Eagle Pass, Texas. Why, you might ask? Because they would rather pass off the tremendous costs of their bankrupt philosophy onto ordinary Americans than to admit that they might just be wrong. These people are insulated from unfettered immigration’s worst effects, including chronic unemployment, violent crime, and environmentally devasting pollution from Arizona to California and throughout the country. They have the luxury of ignoring the impact of this country’s changing demographic profile while promoting the patently absurd notion that our open borders are a boon to all but the small percentage of high school dropouts.

What’s more, they make the equally ludicrous assertion-outlined in the Caplan speech above-that importing millions of unskilled, uneducated immigrants, who will be dependent upon costly government services, from quasi-socialist nations will expand this nation’s economic liberty. Forget the fact that we now enjoy less economic freedom than our northern neighbors, a development concurrent with the greatest expansion of immigration in this country’s history, the entire premise underlying this concept is flawed. You do not build a prosperous, 21st century, post-industrial society around foreigners from countries with low human capital. And the amount of time, energy and economic resources that need to be shifted in order to improve the educational prospects and earning potential of these immigrants, e.g. the billions funneled into ESL programs each year, is so cost prohibitive that it outweighs whatever benefits can be gleaned from such an arrangement.

Another seeming inconsistency in the archetypal libertarian solution to our immigration problem is the reluctance of most libertarians to support any sort of relief for American taxpayers who are tasked with paying for millions of illegal aliens and immigrants who are dependent upon costly social services. Particularly, public schooling and emergency health care. Invoking Friedman’s argument once again, we find that while many libertarians will concede that dependency upon welfare programs is a bad thing they will do nothing to limit access to these programs by illegal aliens or permanent residents. To the contrary, if any such bill-which is immigration neutral-is proffered, they will stalwartly oppose it. Just ask new Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who supports the DREAM Act, despite the fact that taxpayers would be subsidizing the in-state tuition discounts of its recipients. Paleolibertarian writer Ilana Mercer deftly skewers  purported libertarians who routinely call for the abolition of the welfare state while adding a proviso that excludes immigrants and illegal aliens from the fiscal demands of their libertopia.

True believers in liberty, like Mercer and the late Murray N. Rothbard, recognize the inherent contradiction in persuading your fellow Americans to reject the embrace of the state while simultaneously welcoming millions of non-Americans into the country who prefer a larger and more intrusive government in almost every respect into our society. They realize that the banal platitudes used to support unfettered immigration are grossly inaccurate, if not transparent lies. They also realize that the interests of the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the hospitality industry do not necessarily coincide with the interests of the free market, and that to a large extent our current immigration policy is another form of corporate welfare, which putative libertarians would be quick to denounce in any other context. The time-saving, productivity-increasing technological innovations that would normally be welcomed by these same individuals are rejected by those who apparently think pre-industrial stoop labor is the best method of improving  our agricultural production. Finally, they recognize that the  utopian, globalist conception of freedom-where people living in Gabon or the Hadhramaut have just as much say in how we are governed as American citizens living in New York-contravenes the distinctively American, Constitutional, federalist, representative republic designed by this nation’s founding fathers.

In short, the issue before the house is not whether it is an abandonment of principle for libertarians to embrace sensible immigration restrictions, it’s why institutional libertarians representing organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation have stifled an honest, open intellectual debate about this subject. Even as the negative repercussions of our government’s devotion to open borders become harder to ignore for all but the most oblivious, the gatekeepers of respectable opinion on this subject continue to narrow the parameters of discussion to their own narrow, ahistorical perspective. I don’t expect that to change any time in the near future, but those of us who want an intellectually honest debate about the most important issue of our time can at least begin to clarify its terms, if for no other reason than to educate those novices interested in how mass immigration has impacted our society who are asking themselves how they should view these changes from a liberty-oriented perspective.

As we gather together with loved ones-or not so loved ones-to give thanks, or express regret, perhaps it’s a good time to put things into perspective. A few days ago an acquaintance posted a cartoon to Facebook often used to lampoon those of us who are not open borders fetishists by predisposition. I’m referring, of course, to this gem. Although his position on immigration is utterly deplorable, as illustrated by this interview with the indomitable Mickey Kaus, I have to give credit to Nick Gillespie for his astute observations about the insipidity of editorial cartooning. The aforementioned cartoon, which I can only assume is attempting to depict interaction between the Wampanoag and early Plymouth settlers, is no exception.

Leaving aside the distinction  between settlers and immigrants that is consciously overlooked by the cartoonist, there’s also the the not-so-subtle implication that unfettered immigration is to be welcomed because we, i.e. the descendents of European colonists, live in a country that used to be populated exclusively by indigenous Indian tribes. There are so many things wrong with this illogical notion that I don’t have time to enumerate all of its shortcomings in this entry, but let’s start with the bizarre premise that there was ever a time or period in modern society where the concept of sovereign territory didn’t exist. This is not only historically inaccurate-as the many protracted, sanguinary conflicts between Puritan colonists and American Indian tribes attest to-but also insidious. It is built upon the assumption that private property does not exist-which is what the open borders mentality is predicated upon, even among its ostensibly libertarian exponents-and that you are not entitled to your life and livelihood if any outsider, no matter how dubious his or her claims, wants to exploit it.  

The logical end-point is the sacrifice of your life in order to placate some altruistic ideal, founded upon myths and misconceptions propounded by the open borders dogmatists. If you want to see where this fuzzy thinking leads, I suggest you look into a riveting documentary about the Wampanoag broadcast on the PBS series Independent Lens. In We Still Live Here, director Ann Makepeace traces the recovery of the Wampanoag language by a small group of tribespeople living in Southeastern Massachusetts. The fact that their language was extinct for over a century is attributable to the loss of their land, an elementary, ineluctable concept that open borders enthusiasts fail to or refuse to grasp. A concept that, however, is perfectly illustrated by this video. A cartoon short by the defunct cartoon series run on Current TV, I think it embodies the foolishness undergirding the open borders philosophy. 

For a lesson in why new immigrants aren’t assimilating, check out Mark Krikorian’s latest contribution to The Corner. 

The debt crisis currently afflicting the developed world, particularly Western European nations like Greece and Italy, has been the top news story for much of this year. However, even as we debate whether Greece should remain part of the European Union, or whether Silvio Berlusconi should be forced to resign, you might recall that just last year one of the most widely covered subjects was Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy’s decision to deport thousands of Gypsies living in France. Notwithstanding the overwrought and inapt comparisons to policies pursued by Nazi Germany, the repatriation of these individuals did raise the intriguing question of whether multiculturalism and open borders had been rejected by those Europeans upon whom these dogmas had been forced over the past half century. 

I bring this up today because I recently read an essay published in Taki Mag by Gavin McInnes which reexamines the issue of Gyspy culture from a distinctly negative perspective, but which can be applied more generally to many of the unwelcome changes that Europeans and Americans are forced to accept under the rubric of multiculturalism. The notion that we should uncritically embrace every exotic, imported cultural practice or custom-and that we should modify our laws and beliefs in doing so-is an attitude that prevails among elite opinion. The insanity of this philosophy is vividly illustrated in a piece  by New York Times columnist John Tierney, explored in some detail in Bill McGowan’s illuminating work Gray Lady Down, which tries to dispassionately weigh the pros and cons of female genital mutilation. 

Whether it’s the fetishization of migrants from the Balkans encamped outside of large European cities, or the indulgent attitude our media displays towards unassimilable Muslim refugees from Somalia, the fact remains that the chasm which exists between the public and its ostensible leaders is vast. Kudos to Gavin McInnes for pointing out an unspoken, yet ineluctable, truth in this regard.

A few observations about last night’s Republican presidential debate, at least as it pertains to the subjects of immigration and border control:

-Newt Gingrich, despite his previous record of supporting amnesty, acquitted himself quite well. At least, rhetorically. His suggestion that American citizens be able to review prospective immigrants, although impractical in theory, does put the emphasis of immigration in the right place. Namely, in the hands of Americans who are seeking the best and the brightest, rather than simply empowering those who want to settle in this country. Millions, perhaps billions, of individuals would immigrate to the United States if afforded the opportunity, but I think it’s our responsibility to consider the opinions of all Americans, naturalized and native-born citizens alike, rather than simply assume that every single person seeking to come here is doing so in good faith. 

-Herman Cain nicely defused the accusation that he’s a xenophobic vigilante, vis-a-vis the issue of border control, by explaining that he favored the construction of fences as well as welcoming new, legal immigrants who sought to contribute to American society. He noted that you can be both generous and firm on this issue, and that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I also thought he tackled the amnesty question with aplomb, noting that there does exist a “path to citizenship,” which entails immigrating to this country legally. It would have been nice if he had coupled this with pragmatic suggestions about how to eliminate much of the byzantine federal bureaucracy that currently impedes the process for highly talented, law-abiding foreign nationals.

-Ron Paul continued to attempt a precarious balancing act which entails pandering to the liberal, open borders faction among libertarians, while retaining some of the pro-enforcement, hawkish, paleocons who have supported past campaigns. Personally, I don’t think he succeeded. Yes, the welfare state is an attractive nuisance to people from across the globe, and is a huge part of any discussion, but to merely focus on that aspect to the neglect of every other problem unfettered immigration poses-particularly the allocation of scarce resources-is misguided. And although I agree with Rep. Paul that employers are put in an unenviable position-punished for employing illegals yet also prohibited from inquiring into their legal status in many instances-I do believe that a sovereign government has a right to determine who is and is not admitted to its country. And as long as states can Constitutionally establish labor laws, I think it’s hard to proclaim that they don’t also have the ability to proscribe the employment of people who are living in this country illegally.

-Jon Huntsman attempted to run away from his uniformly dreadful record on immigration and immigration enforcement issues to no avail. I suppose he should be credited for at least rhetorically stepping away from the default Bush/McCain stance, although I doubt his sincerity.

Other than that, there’s not much to be said about last night’s Republican presidential primary debate as far as immigration is concerned. We didn’t hear many new proposals, and despite some good answers regarding illegal immigration, there was not enough focus on proactive approaches to reducing immigration levels to a sustainable level in the near future. For a brief recap on what was said at the debate, check out the Twitter stream of Numbers USA, the nation’s premiere, grassroots organization lobbying on behalf of immigration enforcement and reform.

I have to preface this post by admitting that I’m not the greatest admirer of Paul Mulshine, long-time columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger. However, he penned a Thanksgiving Day column that caught my eye because it addresses many of the same issues you’ve seen tackled on this site.

The title, of course, is sarcastic, but beneath the veneer of caustic humor is the reality of a world created to minimize the freedoms you enjoy as a citizen while maximizing the liberties and opportunities of people whose way of life is antithetical to everything you believe in. In the example provided by Mulshine, the United Kingdom is being gradually erased as imported Islamists exercise dominion over native Englishmen and women, who can no longer exercise their free will. But as he points out in his column, the same problems could soon be facing the United States if open borders politicians-such as Governor Christie-have their way. 

Check out the column, it’s one of the few written by Mulshine in recent years that I find myself in full agreement with.

One of the few salutory effects of unfettered immigration to the West from developing and third world nations is the growing awareness among previously skeptical observers-even among certain parts of the left wing intelligentsia-that open borders might not be such an unqualified good.

A perfect illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the form of Salman Rushdie. World-renowned novelist, much-vilified apostate, liberal icon, and Muslim bete noire, Rushdie gave a fascinating interview to the U.K. Independent several years ago, the highlight of which was his surprising declaration about his own ambivalent feelings regarding Great Britain’s post-Thatcher immigration policies. Having been burned in effigy and the target of openly murderous rallies held in his adopted nation by people who also came from the Indian subcontinent, it’s not surprising that Mr. Rushdie has had second thoughts about the impact of mass Islamic immigration to countries that had heretofore been wholly Judeo-Christian in nature. This skepticism has of course been expressed by conservative writers before, most eloquently by Christopher Caldwell in his book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe and Mark Steyn in his groundbreaking work, America Alone.

But the fact that Rushdie, an outspoken liberal, is expressing similar thoughts is worth examining. The idea that foreigners are completely reshaping the face of European civilization is no longer merely a frightful specter raised by right wing followers of Enoch Powell, but a reality on the ground, vividly illustrated by the routine demonstrations staged by Islamic supremacists in the heart of London, and reflected in the new literature of Great Britain, such as the novels Brick Lane and White Teeth. Even the former (Socialist) chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt, has declared that the post-war gastarbeiter (guest-worker) program implemented in his country was a colossal mistake.

It seems that nearly every sector of society has become aware, however reluctantly, of the costs of mass immigration. The problem is that the people who benefit from the current system, namely, the political interests that reap the benefit of internal discord and marginalized citizens of previously cohesive nation-states, don’t want to change it. That’s where citizen-activism comes in. The fight to derail amnesty in this country, and to turn back the tide of Islamic immigration in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe, began as a people’s movement and needs to expand its reach if we are ever to hope of returning to a normal state of affairs.

Although public expressions by intellectuals who’ve realized the folly of open borders is a welcome addition to this debate, this is at its core a debate that’s driven by the public. We need to divest the powers that be of the authority to usher in millions of immigrants that will fundamentlly alter our constitutional republic. British children shouldn’t have to grow up in a nation where Koran-wielding fanatics from Pakistan can forbid them from expressing their thoughts, and American teenagers shouldn’t be forced to hide their country’s flag out of fear that they will be assaulted by people who shouldn’t be in the first place.

So I say, “three cheers for Salman Rushdie!”

The truth is that many people living in this country reject the concept that illegal aliens should be welcomed and embraced by our society. They refuse to accept the notion that millions of unskilled, poorly educated, non-English-speaking immigrants are an asset to our country. They reject the notion that we should welcome them anyway out of a spirit of false egalitarianism and misplaced compassion. They do not want to be told that they’re racist, intolerant xenophobes for merely wanting existing laws to be enforced, or for asking that our cities not become teeming megalopolises, such as Beijing and Mexico City.

The problem is that their voices have been largely ignored in a city, state, and country where too many elected officials support sanctuary city laws, unfettered mass immigration, and the defiance of federal immigration laws intended to maintain the integrity of our borders.

That is why American-Rattlesnake.org came into being, and why, with your support, it will thrive in the coming days. We want to amplify the voice of the silent majority, both in the New York metropolitan area and within the country at large, which sees the status quo of de facto amnesty as untenable, and wants the United States to adopt a smarter, saner immigration policy. An immigration policy that is not determined by divisive ethnic advocacy groups, opportunistic immigration attorneys, and corrupt political operatives, but by the citizenry of the United States, informed by a healthy respect for the U.S. Constitution.

In that capacity, American-Rattlesnake.org will work with local and national immigration reform and anti-amnesty political and educational organizations to highlight the issues at stake, and to pressure our legislators, corporate leaders, and political candidates to listen to the voice of the people at whose pleasure they ostensibly serve.

This is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history, and we have an opportunity to seize it if we choose to do so. We can emulate the example of the state of Arizona, and demand that our nation’s laws be respected, or we can allow this moment to slip away, and allow the continued anarchy of open borders to grow unabated and swallow us whole. The choice is simple, but we have to act upon it. That’s what this project is all about.

Action!

Let’s start today.

A  discussion panel on the subject of SB 1070 was held by the Cato Institute recently. Although the discussion itself ran along fairly predictable lines, Mark Krikorian has some fascinating observations about the participants and audience.

A very interesting debate about immigration took place this weekend on the John Stossel Show between Wall Street Journal editor Jason Riley and the Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald. I’ll let you decide who bests whom.