Skip to content

Conservatives Love Socialism: Immigration

Last week there was another thought-provoking post by Jacob Hornberger on the immigration issue. He notes how conservatives tend to abandon their alleged advocacy of private property when they try to suggest that America’s territory has some sort of common ownership and the American people have a right via the U.S. government to restrict travel across the borders.

Conservatives often use the national-home argument to justify their support of a system of immigration controls. They say that America is a “national home,” one owned and controlled by the U.S. government. As the owner of the “home,” the argument goes, the U.S. government has the “right” to lock the door and determine who to let into its home. Conservatives sometimes say to me, “You lock your front door, Jacob, and you don’t let everyone into your home. Why shouldn’t the federal government have the ‘right’ to do the same with our home?”

In fact, I heard these same exact words uttered by talk radio personality Jeff Kuhner just this morning. If you’ve heard Michael Savage, you probably have heard Jeff Kuhner filling in for him. But now Kuhner has his own local show in Boston, so he can bless Bostonians with his own fingernails-against-the-chalkboard nationalism idiocy.

Anyway, Hornberger goes on to write that America is not a “national home,” but a society of private property, in which the private property owners have a right to invite whomever they want onto their own private property, or to exclude anyone they want from their property. That applies to our homes, businesses, etc.

But Kuhner and his idol Donald Trump, et al. don’t get this concept. They seem to think that the whole territory is communally owned by the people, which would negate the idea of private property. And given that these so-called conservatives are collectivists and authoritarians, they obediently support the U.S. government in Washington as the true owner-caretaker of the territory as a whole. When either the centralized government or the entire population of “citizens” have ownership of the territory, then they have a de facto ownership of everything within the territory, in my view.

And I am going to go further than what Jacob Hornberger writes (as I have done so previously), regarding the socialism aspect of the nationalists’ policies of collective ownership of the territory. Yes, it actually is the nationalists and conservatives who are the socialists on this issue, while the libertarian advocates of “open borders” are the capitalists, the advocates of free markets. (However, those on the Left who want government sanctuary cities and government-forced welfare for immigrants are the other side of the same socialist coin, not free market.)

Socialism being government ownership of the means of production, and given that one of the most important means of production is the people, the nationalists like Kuhner and Trump support all the socialist government controls which attempt to control the movements of millions of people, which is impossible.

The nationalists and conservatives say that foreigners must get a government bureaucrat’s permission or authorization to go somewhere to work. But, if one must have government authorization to do what you want to do, then that means you are not the owner of your own life and your labor. The government is the de facto owner.

And the same thing applies to when a business owner must get government permission or authorization to hire someone that businessman wants to hire. That means the government is really the ultimate owner of the business. Ownership is control. If the owner-on-paper businessman really were the owner of his business, then he is the ultimate decider on whom to hire and whom not to hire. So these certainly are socialist policies of government, they are authoritarian and disrespectful to private property rights and the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Some people such as the nationalism fanatics say that one must have “citizenship” to be able to “get in to the country,” and otherwise are “breaking into the country,” etc. And they compare that to a burglar breaking into your home. But those are two different things, as mentioned above. But the idea of citizenship itself is government ownership of the people. To have “citizenship” means that you have government authorization, which is what socialism is. So, these concepts and policies of nationalism and citizenship really are policies of socialism. They certainly are not policies of free market capitalism.

One last thing about the conservatives is their short-sightedness. They see that there is an immigration problem, and so they support all these socialist government controls. They never seem to ask what is causing the problem in the first place. One major cause is the war on drugs, which is itself another socialist scheme. Another problem the conservatives refuse to address is the welfare state. A system of forced income-theft and wealth redistribution is immoral and in fact, criminal. But conservatives don’t want to get rid of the welfare state, because they believe in it, because they love socialism.

And finally, some people call the government immigration controls and the drug war “fascist” policies, with their police state and all that. And they are fascist policies. Fascism is a system of government controls although property and industry are still privately owned. However, as I have stated, ownership is control, and if you supposedly own property or a business, and in fact own your life and your labor, if you don’t control those things and the government is the final and ultimate authority with control, then you don’t really own those things. The government is the de facto owner, so really fascism is just a form of socialism with the pretense of private ownership.

Published inAuthoritarianismFree marketImmigrationPrivate propertySocialism