Skip to content

Collectivist Cognitive Dissonance on the Immigration Issue

When it comes to the immigration issue, some conservatives and libertarians believe that “open borders” are a “suicide pact.” They seem to support the feds’ enforcement of artificial government borders, at the expense of private property and private property rights.

The real libertarian view on this immigration issue includes the ideas of freedom, self-ownership and private property. For example, the businessman owns his own business and has a right to hire anyone he wants from anywhere in the world that he determines to be the best qualified for the job, not according to what the government determines, or what a bureaucrat says.

And the individual owns one’s own life and has the freedom to go to where the individual determines is the best place to make a better life for oneself and one’s family. Freedom is you doing what you believe is right, without having to get the permission of the government, whether you are the businessman hiring workers or the worker finding work.

As long as one doesn’t violate the person or property of others, of course. It’s not complicated. Don’t steal, don’t defraud, don’t trespass on private property.

And that’s where the conservatives come in with their collectivist nationalism stuff, in which they really don’t support the ideas of private property and private property rights. These collectivist nationalists and conservatives believe that the entire territory of “America” is collectively owned, by the citizens. If you don’t have “citizenship” and you are here without the government’s permission then you are an “intruder.” Never mind that some private property owners or business owners want to have the widest selection of workers from which to choose to work for them. To the collectivist nationalists and conservatives, private property owners don’t really fully own their property. The government has the final say as to who may or may not enter “your” property.

Besides private property, it’s also a freedom issue here. Don’t all human beings have an unalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Some people believe that those words from the Declaration of Independence only apply to “American citizens.” They don’t seem to understand that “unalienable” refers to rights which preexist the formation of any government or any nation, or any artificial political borders. So, if there are “natural rights,” or unalienable rights, then all human beings have them.

With so many millions of Americans who say they believe in “freedom” and the unalienable rights as referred to in the Declaration of Independence, really it’s “freedom for me but not for thee,” sadly. Having “citizenship” to them is like belonging to a private club. I even heard one collectivist conservative talk radio personality Jeff Kuhner refer to us Americans as being one family and that “illegal immigrants” are “breaking into our home” and we have a right to exclude them or “arrest the trespassers.” Like Ann Coulter, he is yet another conservative who doesn’t believe in private property rights.

The conservatives do a lot of contortionist acts in their defense of collectivist ownership of a territory, and the collective may exclude “outsiders,” even though there are many private inhabitants of the territory who want to willingly invite foreigners onto their property. (I’m not talking about political entities such as “sanctuary cities,” but private property such as restaurants, hotels and other businesses, and apartment buildings owned by private landlords who want to rent to responsible workers who will pay the rent, regardless of government permission slips.)

Sadly, the leftists don’t get those ideas either. The leftists want to bring in the “third world,” which also includes new voters for the Democrat Party to further “tax” the producers and steal more from them and give everyone a “guaranteed income.”

However, the conservatives borrow from the Left their envy and covetousness of the entrepreneur’s earnings and productivity. The conservatives believe that only “Americans” (government-authorized “citizens”) are entitled to find employment or start businesses in America, not unauthorized foreigners. So the conservatives also have that entitlement mentality like those on the Left.

And another thing with the conservatives like Ann Coulter and anti-private property libertarians, they are so concerned about the crime that “illegals” bring with them to the U.S., and constantly and obsessively cite this or that violent assault or murder committed by an unauthorized immigrant. But they remain quiet about those crimes committed by American citizens. It really has to do with the “foreigner” status of someone.

And if they are so concerned about crime, then why don’t the conservatives discuss the right to self-defense of victims, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Sure, they bring up those issues when the gun control issue is in the news. But they aren’t discussing those things at other times, or in the context of this alleged terrible crime wave being caused by “illegals.” It really has to do with foreigners, in my view.

And another point the conservatives and some libertarians make about the “illegal immigration” issue is that the foreigners come in and get on welfare (although some of them do). Why don’t conservatives ever discuss the problem of the welfare state? They never say on those ignorant talk radio discussions to get rid of the welfare state.

This is because the conservatives support the welfare state. They support Social Security, in which the government steals money from Ann Coulter to take care of Mr. Smith’s grandmother down the street, which is essentially what Social Security is: a redistribution of wealth scheme. The same with Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest. No, the issue with the collectivist-minded conservatives is foreigners.

Not only do the conservatives (and some “libertarians,” by the way) support welfare and don’t seem to care as much about the right of the people to self-defense and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but especially with immigration controls they support central planning. That is what these government-imposed immigration controls are, an example of central planning. Jacob Hornberger explained how immigration controls are a part of socialist central planning:

Many people are surprised to learn that immigration controls are a socialist program … it also encompasses programs that engage in central planning.

What is central planning? It is when the government plans, directs, and controls some aspect of economic activity. A government board, department, legislative body, or agency plans, in a top-down, command-and-control manner the economic activities of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.

The problem is that there is no way that the planner can competently make decisions regarding supply and demand. That’s because market conditions, as reflected by people’s perceptions, wishes, desires, valuations, supplies, and demands, are changing on a minute-by-minute basis. There is no way that the planner can know about all these changes in real time and factor them into his planning decisions. The Nobel Prize winning Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek called this phenomenon the “pretense of knowledge” and the “fatal conceit” of the planner.

Just as with the drug war’s unjust laws, the enforcement of which violates the rights of innocent people, statist immigration central planning imposes unjust laws, the enforcement of which violates the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of innocent people, as Tom Knapp noted.

And the anti-foreigner activists and pundits live in a fantasy land, in which building a government wall on the government border will “protect” them from foreigners. Ask the people of the former East Germany how they liked their government wall. So, when the wall is built, what will a President Hillary do with it? Hmmm?

One prominent libertarian, Lew Rockwell, seemed to write favorably about Ludwig von Mises’s view of nationalism, culture and “open borders.”

Only if we lived in a completely laissez-faire world would the immigration problem come to an end. Then people would be free to associate, or not to associate, as they wish. Until then, people who wish to restrict immigration in order to preserve their own language and culture aren’t unreasonable, according to Mises.

The problem with America preserving a culture is that the U.S. as it stands now is just too damn big.

When the early Americans founded America, they had just the original 13 colonies/states, and while many people believed in the idea of “manifest destiny,” the further expansion of the United States of America in its claim of territory across North America, some did not.

You would think that the so-called founders would view Europe as a guide — with Italy and its own separate culture and language, England with its own separate language and culture, Spain, Germany, and so on.

Just where is the cultural unity between the people of New York and the people of Wyoming? Or between the people of California and the people of Mississippi? So culturally, political expansionism is just unrealistic.

The early Americans just didn’t see how a future of attempting to combine many states, spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles and accumulating several hundred million people, would naturally experience cultural conflicts — let alone the idea of such a large territory being under the ruling control legally and politically of a single centralized power structure in Washington, what a BAD idea THAT was!

The U.S. is just too damn big, it shouldn’t be ruled by a small elite in Washington, and the people of this territory need to decentralize and get rid of Washington altogether. They need to rediscover the importance of private property and voluntary association. Let the people themselves control who enters and who does not enter their property, not the government!

Published inUncategorized