Fear of Immigration is Socialism’s fault

Something set Andy Bolton off on an epic Twitter rant:


  1. “These small-minded little Englanders taint the very culture they profess to protect, they pollute the well of political debate.”


    Also, the mention of Owen Jones is something I concur. OJ can spot an issue, but I can diverge on causes, means and ends, though not always all at the same time.



    1. A ‘little Englander’ was originally an insult levelled at anti-imperialist liberals.

      ‘they pollute the well of political debate’

      The problem is that the use of such sweeping ad hominems, like asserting that people who disagree with you hate immigrants, really does poison the well of political debate.



      1. So does conflation, extrapolation and mis-use of terms.

        Maybe I was mistaken, but I did not see the statement against a mass, but against specific people who exhibit aggression against someone wishing free association.


  2. There are two legitimate questions to ask about immigration – and biological “race” is not one of them.

    The first question is the “tribal” one – are the newcomers loyal to the people they are coming to join or ate they loyal to the people they left (what Norman T. calls the “cricket test” – although that is a very bad name for it). Were, for example, the Norse settlers loyal to Anglo Saxon England or were they loyal to the “Viking” cause? Not a biological question (they were the same “race”) a LOYALITY question.

    For example a free migration policy for Israel would be suicide (libertarianism should not be a suicide pact) – a second holocaust (another six million dead Jews) as Islamic “immigrants” would turn on the Jews (and Christians) as soon as their numbers made victory likely.

    Ditto the United States (and American private citizens) would be insane to allow people in who are loyal to the Mexican flag and regard the ownership of the land itself (in Texas and elsewhere) are illegitimate – who hold that the land was not “justly acquired”.

    A “free migration” policy with people who are not loyal to the place (the people) they are going to, is a form of suicide (as it will lead to the deaths of the host community), but that is nothing to do with biological “race” and everything to do with loyalty.

    Even in the 19th century immigrants to Britain who made it clear they were NOT loyal to Queen Victoria and the British nation could be removed – and rightly so (one should not allow enemies inside the gates).

    The Welfare State question is secondary – but still very important.

    For example, the people of Texas did not want to pay for the education of illegal immigrant children – the Supreme Court MADE them do so (against their will).

    And the taxpayers of California (remember most immigrants to California do not pay much State or Federal tax) did not want to pay for Welfare State benefits for illegal immigrants – but the State courts MADE them do so (against their will).

    It is stuff like this (not people having brown skin) that causes resentment in most taxpayers.

    And then to see the people one is paying for waving the Mexican flag and gloating about the coming destruction of the United States……..

    As for Britain – those who can not see a difference between the former Bishop of Rochester coming from Pakistan and Islamists coming from Pakistan are beyond reason.

    Clue – who should be let in, and who should NOT be let in has got NOTHING to do with skin colour.



  3. Paul: Yes, exactly.

    I will add: There are those who spit on “the Protestant work ethic” as being born of those dreadful po-faced people, the American Puritans (and before them, the Calvinists of England). But the fact is that survival does, usually, include a need to work. Depending upon the physical climate, the technology available, and the type and state of the economy generally, that work may be physically hard indeed. And, of course, require long hours.

    And even where it isn’t so hard physically, it may be dreadfully hard psychically (for any given particular person, at least). And require long hours, sometimes at hours that are actually painful for the particular person to keep.

    And even where it’s somewhere between reasonably congenial and downright passionately loved, it may be “hard” in the sense of requiring great mental labor (or physical, for that matter), and focus, and time, effort, even dedication.

    And any of these jobs may also be physically dangerous, of course, or even a known source of harm. For instance working in the woollen mills or the mines or anywhere where one must inhale large quantities of lung-destroying particulates. (One of the wonders of modern technology is that many of these jobs are easier on the lungs than formerly.)

    It’s probably true that a great many people, if they had their druthers, would be in another line of work, or at least employed elsewhere, for fewer hours (or none at all) at higher pay. But we all live in the real world, and that requires us to exercise ourselves to feed ourselves somehow. “Hard work” is what enables us to live at a higher standard, or even to live at all.

    The failure to recognize this seems to me to be one of the causes of “immigrants are taking our jobs!” by “doing work Americans [at least] won’t do.”

    Socialism, in the sense that what one produces rightly belongs to everyone — or at least, more realistically if cynically, does NOT rightly belong to the producer — reinforces this outlook. (Partly because people tend to see that it means “you are responsible for me,” but not the logically-inescapable converse. Or some rather convoluted variation on this that comes down to the same thing: For instance, the Proud Progressive does not see that those in his preferred Victim Group are responsible for persons in the other Victim Groups.)



  4. Paul says “Clue – who should be let in, and who should NOT be let in.”

    Surely the prohibition of free movement of people across state borders is one of the most pernicious state prohibitions. Preventing people from living and working where they want to is as bad as stealing their money in taxation, banning their speech or dictating what they may ingest in their bodies.

    I don’t see how a libertarian can support ANY immigration controls.



    1. Ken if you are not going to read my full comment – why should I bother to type it all out again? If you support invasion and genocide that is up to you – personally I do not.



      1. What about when a state, or collection of states, says “you people deserve this piece of land because you believe your sky god said you own it” and allows the continued persecution of the indigenous population?


    2. “Preventing people from living and working where they want to….”

      Does that mean I have to let anyone who wants to, wander into my back yard and set up camp or a shack or a mansion there to live in?

      Shoot. At least if he moves into my house, he won’t wreck the view. And I guess, actually, according to some theories of libertarianism he has a perfect right to do that.



  5. Julie – I do not think your new e.mail address is working (could you not go back to a conventional one?). I see no other way, other than a public forum on which you have subscribed to the comment thread, to tell you this.



  6. A “free migration” policy with people who are not loyal to the place (the people) they are going to, is a form of suicide (as it will lead to the deaths of the host community)

    Paul, I read your comments all right.

    It was just that they sounded like a philosophical fig leaf designed to cover a little Englander mentality. Borders are no more legitimate than are anything else the state imposes.

    Does that mean I have to let anyone who wants to, wander into my back yard and set up camp or a shack or a mansion there to live in?

    Julie, your back yard is your property and of course you are free to enjoy it and keep others off it if you wish. But what we were talking about was immigration controls and I was advocating the free movement of population and labour. Immigrants should be expected to support themselves, obey our laws and respect property rights.

    Libertarians can either accept or reject the legitimacy of government and state as it currently exists. However it is hypocritical to boo when it oppresses us in a way we don’t like but cheer it on when it suits our prejudices to see it oppress someone else.



    1. I repeat my previous words – about Israel and elsewhere (including Britain). To allow the “free migration” of unlimited numbers of persons who are not loyal to the place (the people – the nation) they are going to, is to endorse invasion and genocide.



    2. First, all the property in my country is held either privately or by the government as trustee of the people jointly. In other words, I am a part-owner of all “public lands.” Now, that’s the theory and I’ll be the first to start listing the theoretical problems as well as noting that in practice our Federal government doesn’t seem to be entirely on-board with that. Nevertheless, as libertarians we need to be working FIRST to get our government under control. Only when that has happened (at least to a very large degree) will we be able to admit on a come-as-you-are basis.

      Therefore, people who immigrate here against our laws ARE transgressing property rights of individual people. And you better believe they don’t care whether the land they cross is “public” or private. Ranchers along the southern border have huge problems with trespassing illegals. They set up camps, they even fire on ranchers who dare to cross their own land. They have, I believe, been known to kill ranchers in or near their own houses.

      Second, the welfare system here does draw them; and the Democratic party, which is famously corrupt and election-stealing, and the Left, do all they can to make coming here as attractive as possible simply in order to capture an unbeatably-large voting bloc. These are two of the areas in which we have to get the government back under control somehow, before we can think about Global Libertopia.

      Many (I do not say, nor believe, it is the majority; but that actually doesn’t matter) of the illegal immigrants to my country are or quickly become criminals of the usual sort. Or consider MS-13.

      They are also likely to bring disease with them, as a known fact. Diseases we had thought we wouldn’t have to fight again are making us sick and sometimes killing us. Two examples: smallpox and whooping cough.

      That alone should make us wary of whom we let in. Yes, we might occasionally receive a legally-entering visitor who happens to be carrying a serious disease, but at least the chances are, or were at any rate, remote. But now there are whole communities of these people entering unvetted.

      Now, Libertarianism’s core principle is, Do Not Take What Is Not Yours. It should be openly so stated. No person has a “right” to be where he’s not wanted, unless that place is unclaimed. Joe Blow has no more of a “right” to come into my and my playmates’ sandbox without our say-so than I have to go into your and your friends’ sandbox without your say-so. Or into anybody else’s, without his or their permission. I and mine, you and yours, or they and theirs are perfectly in the right to claim an unclaimed patch of sand, put plank retaining walls around it, and draft two or three of the kids to inform other kids that “this place is taken.”

      Sometimes circumstances are such that a people sees fit to allow all newcomers in, unconditionally — or so the legend goes. It might have been true of what had been the individual Thirteen Colonies, in the very short interim before they became States under the Constitution. To that I cannot speak. Nor do I know what British policy toward immigrants was in the time before the Revolution.

      Third, it should be obvious that cultural or social outlook, conventions, mores, traditions, and policies can all be overwhelmed and destroyed by an invading culture hostile to the original. This has happened time and again in history. Eventually some sort of Christian culture and norms overcame those of the Romans, and I mean the actual Romans, not the ones in outlier near-east lands, nor “foreigners” in general. Christianity did not believe in killing for sport, for instance. But when Islamic culture and tradition start beheading Christians and Jews in Christian and Jewish societies in the ME, this also will be criminally hostile culture killing the local people.

      To allow such people freedom to make libertarianism impossible is libertarian suicide, yes. And yes, I DO believe in “innocent until proven guilty”; but I also believe in not being foolish and in not expecting everyone world-wide, and especially those constituting certain groups, to be libertarians.



    1. Hi Ken,

      I’m a lurker. I hope you’re not in the wrong place, because if you are then so am I. I agree it’s disheartening to read some of this confusion. I *think* it might help you if you know that Paul Marks is not a libertarian in any meaningful way. He’s just a total troll. He is a part of a tyrannical system and as such, it’s a bit like having Tony Blair or David Cameron at a libertarian meet-up, and being surprised and saddened when the repeat the party line.

      Libertarians believe in open borders. If socialist or croneyist neighborhoods must exist in the world, then people must be able to vote with their feet. There is no other way to prevent a free society from becoming a minarchist hell on earth. We know for a fact that this works, because free markets have provided benefit in direct relationship to how free they are. Because “consumers” (that’s a horrible name for a person with a freedom of choice) are able to punish bad business just by choosing not to buy shitty products, everyone benefits. We know this would work for society at large.

      Anyone who argues against open borders and claims to be for freedom is a shill of the tyranical system, trying to muddy the watters.



      1. It is pretty obvious to me that both a minarchy and an anarchy both require a cultural acceptance of certain norms in order to preserve the operation of the political constitution (for want of a better phrase).

        I think Paul is talking about a legitimate problem, which is that immigration from people that will not accept those norms might endanger them, especially if they are neither written down nor encoded into workings of a political institution. Given the welfare system is decentralised and contributions made voluntary, I would support open borders without qualification, except that opinion of mine does not contain a solution to the problem of maintaining the consensus. I admire the “Free State Project”, for example, but I would not want an “Un-free State Project” to be set up in my jurisdiction.

        Does Paul talk about this in the same terms that I would? No he does not, but it is a legitimate point.


      2. “It is pretty obvious to me that both a minarchy and an anarchy both require a cultural acceptance of certain norms in order to preserve the operation of the political constitution”

        Anarchist much less so than minarchists. There is an economics of law. And it is economics that should dominate a legal system not culture.

        In any case, these norms would simply require to let other people alone with their property. That is a very minimalistic consent. I don’t see any culture out there that would cause a serious challenge to this consent, let alone one that could immigrate in such large numbers to make a difference. One could of course point to our culture that has produced a high tax police state as an example. But I don’t think that would be right. Most people are actually libertarians in their private life, because in their private life they are actually dealing with the economics of what is right and wrong. It is political systems that bring out the bad in people.

        If someone makes this argument as an argument in favour of borders, they would need to come up with some serious evidence that there is a conspiracy like that out there. And then they would need to show that the best way of dealing with it are immigration controls that limit the freedom of everyone. It strikes me that the best way of dealing with criminals is, to deal with them individually and not collectively punish everyone.


    2. “Open borders” to private property of landowners in Texas? Prevented, by Federal government “Civil Rights” regulations, from defending their own land against invaders.

      If you believe in that sort of thing Ken, or in Barack Obama’s private army of SOCIAL JUSTICE illegal immigrants whom he intends to (illegally and unconstitutionally) “legalise” as part of his plan to destroy (sorry “fundamentally transform”) the United States of America – then you are indeed (I hope) in the wrong place.

      “Open borders” is like an open gate in a city wall.

      The gates should indeed be open to friends – such as the former Bishop of Rochester who was born and brought up in Pakistan. His brown skin is irrelevant.

      But the gates should be firmly closed (not “open”) to foes, for example, the army of followers of Mohammed who intend to destroy the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, indeed the entire Western world (the whole “infidel” world).

      Gates (borders) should be open to friends (who intend no aggression against persons and property) and firmly CLOSED to foes – who do indeed intend aggression against the persons and property of others.

      That is called the “non aggression principle” – you may have heard of it.

      I do not need to wait till someone actually shoots me (or burns my house down) to defend myself against them. When an incoming “tribe” is clearly of hostile intent the settled “tribe” (people, nation) may defend themselves against them – by keeping them OUT.

      For a person to, for example, pretend that he is in favour of “open borders” in the case of Israel but AGAINST a new holocaust (the deaths of another six million, plus, Jews) is the peak of intellectual dishonesty. As the former would inevitably lead to the latter.

      Libertarianism is not a suicide pact and neither is it about endorsing genocide.



      1. Oh dear.

        The gates should indeed be open to friends – such as the former Bishop of Rochester

        So who decides who is the friend and who is the enemy? You I suppose, Paul?

        But the gates should be firmly closed (not “open”) to foes, for example, the army of followers of Mohammed

        And is your decision to be made entirely according to their religious beliefs? So you mean no Muslims at all? What about Mormons?

        I do not need to wait till someone actually shoots me (or burns my house down) to defend myself against them. When an incoming “tribe” is clearly of hostile intent the settled “tribe” (people, nation) may defend themselves against them – by keeping them OUT.

        A tiny proportion of immigrants shoot people or burn down houses (as do a tiny proportion of the indigenous population). In the case of the UK, most immigrants come here to work and improve their lives by earning money.That’s good, both for the individuals and the state.

        Of course immigrants should be, and are, subject to the rule of law but I’m afraid that in your fear and hysteria above you have accused them of thought crime (and that’s not good!!!).


      2. Ken – as you refuse to face reality (about Islam – or about anything else), there is no good reason for me to waste any more time on you.


  7. “Arguably” better educated… hmmm, dubious. Our education system, for much of the population (especially lower classes) is pretty dire and churns out ignorant illiterates.



  8. Seriously, our education system has left much of the working class, not to mention what we could call the “underclass” de-skilled, illiterate and pig ignorant. The rotten elements of our culture and the way our welfare state currently works has also instilled a laziness and misplaced sense of entitlement. It is little wonder businesses are happy to hire better educated, better motivated and harder working migrants. A bigger issue is educating people better and offering them the opportunity to gain the skills they need to compete.



  9. Conquest and genocide are not “free association”.

    I have stood, or rather crouched down, on borders and seen the sort of people who want to cross them – for example the savage groups of Syria.

    Britain must not allow more hostile population groups into this island – because it is a rather difficult task to get them out once they are established, the “we were born here” argument.

    It one wishes to prevent Civil War (if one thinks that Civil War is a bad thing), then not importing a hostile population, that has no loyalty (indeed is actively hostile to) to the “infidel” nation they are going to, would be sensible.



  10. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius was sincerely dedicated to peace and had not one ounce of “racism” in him – yet he spent his time at war against intruding population groups, and rightly so (the alternative being cities reduced to ashes and dried blood). An individual or single family who sincerely wish to become part of another nation is one thing – a population group that wishes to replace an existing one is quite another.

    The Emperor Theodosius was praised by the poets for his “wisdom” in coming to terms with the Goths, allowing them to settle – engage in “free association”. He was anything but wise.

    And for those wedded to the comforting “transformation” thesis (spread by modern E.U. type “liberals”)……

    Perhaps a look at the little 2005 book by Bryan Ward-Perkins “The Fall of Rome: And The End Of Civilisation” might be of use to you.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s