Open Borders

[Anti Federalist]

Open Borders

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/open-borders/#more-546210

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Writes Ralph Raico:

Lew, the headlines have been full of reports of the ship lost at sea off the coast of Libya, filled with as many as 900 people seeking to reach Europe. Nearly all are feared drowned.

It turns out that this is just a sample of thousands of refugees who have set out to cross the Mediterranean in the past year alone. Some have been rescued, mainly by the Italian navy, most have been lost at sea.

The migrants come from as far away as Syria, now wracked by a civil war abetted by the United States and the Saudis, who aim to overthrow the dictator Assad. The great majority though are from northern and sub-Saharan Africa. They congregate in Libya, which has become scene of complete lawlessness and a haven for rings of human traffickers who exploit the desperate migrants.

Although no one has cared to mention it so far, this is a perfect example of blowback.

Until 2011, Libya was ruled by the erratic strongman, Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi displeased the western powers, principally Britain, France, and the United States. They supported anti-Gaddafi rebels, going so far as to bomb and devastate his forces. In October, he was captured and executed.

The US Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, has had an interview taped, available online, where she happily laughs, “We came, we saw, he died.”

The downfall of Gaddafi’s tight authoritarian regime was the necessary condition for the massive refugee crisis we see today.

For many of us, this crisis will bring to mind the book of the French writer, Jean Raspail, The Camp of the Saints. It was published in 1973, the first edition in English appeared two years later. All the Great and the Good savaged it as hateful, xenophobic, and foolishly paranoid. As you know, our own Charles Burris has stated, “It is unquestionably the most powerful novel I have ever read.”

Raspail was a prominent figure in French literary circles, a contrarian in that milieu, who proudly proclaimed himself “a man of the right.” What he elegantly describes in his demographic dystopia is the end of the West.

A huge flotilla is approaching the French Mediterranean coast, with a million of the huddled masses from the slums of Calcutta, seeking a better life for themselves in the affluent West. Half-hearted attempts to block their passage are denounced by the Great and the Good as unchristian, sheer hateful racism.

The flotilla lands, and in the novel’s central metaphor, the Ganges comes to Provence.

Provence, a land so pleasant and attractive that the Romans, who covered it with villas and towns, roads and aqueducts, called it simply the Province.

The current inheritors of this ancient terrain are abashed, guilt-ridden over their affluence. The envious invaders, on the other hand, are adamant and single-minded. Aided by a fifth column, the multitude of Third-Worlders already present as servants and laborers, they take over the homes and estates of the French, who flounder and retreat before them.

Now the floodgates open, and masses of the underprivileged and oppressed stream into France and then across western Europe. The Europeans are psychologically defenseless. Their priests and pastors, their elite academics and media spokesmen, all the Great and the Good have convinced them. They know themselves to be guilty of centuries of ruthless imperialism and racist oppression, of having wreaked death and destruction throughout the world. The white race is indeed, what Susan Sontag called it: “the cancer of humanity.”

The last holdouts are the Swiss. But threatened by The International Community, Switzerland finally surrenders and opens its borders.

Radio Luxembourg plays Mozart until it, too, like every other independent voice, is forced to close down.

A very sad and depressing book, Lew. But some say a very prescient book as well.

[Southron]

Sounds like our future. Although some people seem to think these migrants will assist in ushering in Libertopia.

[idiom]

Sounds like our future. Although some people seem to think these migrants will assist in ushering in Libertopia.

Are you questioning our Utopia??!?!

Freedom results in all people behaving with 100% good intentions towards one another, and rainbows and unicorns!

[Ender]

Are you questioning our Utopia??!?!

Freedom results in all people behaving with 100% good intentions towards one another, and rainbows and unicorns!

Yeah! Just like the Europeans treated the American Indians, right?

[William Tell]

Sounds like our future. Although some people seem to think these migrants will assist in ushering in Libertopia.

Indeed, lets allow millions of people from socialist and communist countries to come here. They will automatically be converted to anarcho-capitalism, change their entire worldviews, and everyone will live happily ever after. What could possibly go wrong?

[otherone]

Are you questioning our Utopia??!?!

Freedom results in all people behaving with 100% good intentions towards one another, and rainbows and unicorns!

Thank God we're not free. Can't afford to feed the unicorns I already got.

[angelatc]

Yeah! Just like the Europeans treated the American Indians, right?

Perhaps the lesson here is that the American Indians should have had a different immigration policy.

[Pericles]

in the 17th Century, this would be referred to as the "leveling of society".

[Christian Liberty]

Indeed, lets allow millions of people from socialist and communist and communist countries to come here. They will automatically be converted to anarcho-capitalism, change their entire worldviews, and everyone will live happily ever after. What could possibly go wrong?


Where's the Biblical basis for preventing people from crossing borders? I support open borders and franchise limited to property owners.

[otherone]

Perhaps the lesson here is that the American Indians should have had a different immigration policy.

The Indians downfall was they were anti-vaxxers.

[William Tell]

Where's the Biblical basis for preventing people from crossing borders? I support open borders and franchise limited to property owners.

First of all, I am not opposed to people crossing borders, especially refuges. On the other hand, I certainly don't think you have to allow Pancho Villa to ride into New Mexico. I am opposed to America being turned more socialistic, I have seen enough polls and data to be convinced that on average, amnesty and citizenship for large numbers at a tiem will be a loss for liberty.

That is because we live in a Republic, which is being subverted, the voters have power, whoever they are. The ancient tribes of Israel did not have this problem. Because the Law of Moses set up a tribal system of government. Large numbers of foreigners could not take control of local property and government.

The biblical notion of property ownership was very different. Land stayed within the tribe. Land of the children of Asher stayed with the children of Asher, the same with Judah, etc. Foreigners were also forbidden to be chosen as king. When you "sold" 50 acres of land in ancient Israel, it was really a lease, until the year of Jubilee. At that time, it reverted back to you, or your children if you were dead by then. Or your cousins, etc, if you had no children.

I think foreigners might possibly have been allowed to own a house in the cities. But Israelites controlled the farmland, the breadbasket, and heart of their economy at the time. Israelites had a monopoly on certain functions. Because of this, their nation did not have some of the problems we could potentially face here.

Under the American system of government (hypothetically) if you had total open borders, and granted citizenship to everyone who came, our country and government could be legally taken over by 350,000,000 people from India. Then of course, they could change the governmental system.

The Bible says to be kind to the sojourner, it does not say you must allow them to be involved with your system of government, or take over your society.

People who say that because the bible commands you to be nice to the stranger, you must allow everyone the right to vote and full citizenship or whatever, are simply wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

First of all, I am not opposed to people crossing borders, especially refuges. I am opposed to America being turned more socialistic, I have seen enough polls and data to be convinced that on average, amnesty and citizenship for large numbers at a tiem will be a loss for liberty.

That is because we live in a Republic, which is being subverted, the voters have power, whoever they are. The ancient tribes of Israel did not have this problem. Because the Law of Moses set up a tribal system of government. Large numbers of foreigners could not take control of local property and government.

The biblical notion of property ownership was very different. Land stayed within the tribe. Land of the children of Asher stayed with the children of Asher, the same with Judah, etc. Foreigners were also forbidden to be chosen as king. When you "sold" 50 acres of land in ancient Israel, it was really a lease, until the year of Jubilee. At that time, it reverted back to you, or your children if you were dead by then. Or your cousins, etc, if you had no children.

I think foreigners might possibly have been allowed to own a house in the cities. But Israelites controlled the farmland, the breadbasket, and heart of their economy at the time. Israelites had a monopoly on certain functions. Because of this, their nation did not have some of the problems we could potentially face here.

Under the American system of government (hypothetically) if you had total open borders, and granted citizenship to everyone who came, our country and government could be legally taken over by 350,000,000 people from India. Then of course, they could change the governmental system.

The Bible says to be kind to the sojourner, it does not say you must allow them to be involved with your system of government, or take over your society.

People who say that because the bible commands you to be nice to the stranger, you must allow everyone the right to vote and full citizenship or whatever, are simply wrong.

My argument isn't so much based on the "be kind to the stranger". My argument is more based on Deuteronomy 4 and the viewpoint that its illegitimate for men to make laws which aren't either stated or implied as criminal laws in scripture.

I can see the point about letting everyone vote, but I don't see why its an issue if you limit citizenship and voting rights to property owners, abolish welfare, and let anyone who wants to cross the border to work do so.

[Ender]

The Indians downfall was they were anti-vaxxers.


BROWN anti-vaxxers. ;)

[Ender]

Also- I have never understood the cry about becoming socialist because of immigrants. If we had our act together and did not have a socialist gov when they got here, there would be minimal problems.

[otherone]

Also- I have never understood the cry about becoming socialist because of immigrants. If we had our act together and did not have a socialist gov when they got here, there would be minimal problems.

The state requires more serfs and the current ones are getting jealous.

[idiom]

The Indians downfall was they were anti-vaxxers.

Cow pox inoculations would have saved a bunch of them.

[idiom]

Where's the Biblical basis for preventing people from crossing borders? I support open borders and franchise limited to property owners.

Pssh.


The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me cross over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” 6 they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’” If he said, “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.

[angelatc]

BROWN anti-vaxxers. ;)

If the smallpox vaccine had been available to the Indians, those blankets would have just been blankets.

[AuH20]

Also- I have never understood the cry about becoming socialist because of immigrants. If we had our act together and did not have a socialist gov when they got here, there would be minimal problems.

That's why immigration worked in the 1900s. Now it doesn't.

[The Rebel Poet]

First of all, I am not opposed to people crossing borders, especially refuges. On the other hand, I certainly don't think you have to allow Pancho Villa to ride into New Mexico. I am opposed to America being turned more socialistic, I have seen enough polls and data to be convinced that on average, amnesty and citizenship for large numbers at a tiem will be a loss for liberty.

That is because we live in a Republic, which is being subverted, the voters have power, whoever they are. The ancient tribes of Israel did not have this problem. Because the Law of Moses set up a tribal system of government. Large numbers of foreigners could not take control of local property and government.

The biblical notion of property ownership was very different. Land stayed within the tribe. Land of the children of Asher stayed with the children of Asher, the same with Judah, etc. Foreigners were also forbidden to be chosen as king. When you "sold" 50 acres of land in ancient Israel, it was really a lease, until the year of Jubilee. At that time, it reverted back to you, or your children if you were dead by then. Or your cousins, etc, if you had no children.

I think foreigners might possibly have been allowed to own a house in the cities. But Israelites controlled the farmland, the breadbasket, and heart of their economy at the time. Israelites had a monopoly on certain functions. Because of this, their nation did not have some of the problems we could potentially face here.

Under the American system of government (hypothetically) if you had total open borders, and granted citizenship to everyone who came, our country and government could be legally taken over by 350,000,000 people from India. Then of course, they could change the governmental system.

The Bible says to be kind to the sojourner, it does not say you must allow them to be involved with your system of government, or take over your society.

People who say that because the bible commands you to be nice to the stranger, you must allow everyone the right to vote and full citizenship or whatever, are simply wrong.
I think you need to clarify the distinction between foreigners and sojourners. The bible uses the words separately. I think sojourners are temporary visitors (like migrant workers or vacationers or people passing through on their way to Canada) while foreigners are permanent citizens of foreign birth.

Now, you are absolutely right about the land being owned permanently by the family and Jubilee etc, but let me ask you: what if an ancient Greek decided to worship Yahweh and move to Israel to live in a country where His laws were being followed. He can only rent land, so he does, then he dies and his kids have the farm. But the next year is Jubilee, and the land reverts to it's family owners. They can't buy some other land, because that reverts too. Do they have to be homeless wanderers in Israel? Do they get kicked out of the country altogether? How do foreigners become citizens and land owners, biblically?

[The Rebel Poet]

Where's the Biblical basis for preventing people from crossing borders? I support open borders and franchise limited to property owners.
Pssh.
The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me cross over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” 6 they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’” If he said, “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.

Historical event ≠ Law.

I'm not trying to argue that you're wrong, but your argument is invalid. Let me show what I mean:


Where's the Biblical basis for incestuous rape? I support consent for sex and limited to non-siblings.
Pssh.
But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, “Come to bed with me, my sister.” 12 “No, my brother!” she said to him. “Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. 13 What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.” 14 But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her.

Perhaps you can clarify or provide another reference.

[The Rebel Poet]

If the smallpox vaccine had been available to the Indians, those blankets would have just been blankets.
I think you're confused. Those blankets WERE vaccines. The Europeans were trying to help the ignorant primitives with modern medicinal techniques by giving them the best protection available at the time: The Blankcine, a patented system to blank out all illnesses and create a global utopia where no one ever dies using blankets with a harmless strain of the virus. The reason so many of the Indians died from smallpox is because of the 20% of anti-blanxxers. Herd immunity can't withstand so many free-riders.

[nobody's_hero]

Perhaps the lesson here is that the American Indians should have had a different immigration policy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIoP18Grfp8

[alucard13mm]

That's why immigration worked in the 1900s. Now it doesn't.

In the 1900s, people starved and died if they didnt work or adapt. These days, you can go on welfare and sometimes get more money than what minimum wage would make by sitting on your ass.

[Brian4Liberty]

From Rothbard - Nations by Consent:


Open Borders, or the Camp of the Saints Problem

The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an
accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare
state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent
assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increas-
ingly swamped. 1 began to rethink my views on immigration when, as
the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been
encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the
cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to
dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail's anti-immigration novel The Camp
of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to
move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal
ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural
national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have inten-
sified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail's concerns any longer.

[timosman]

The Indians downfall was they were anti-vaxxers.

Their problem was they did not experience sexual repression, so they could not fathom the depths of deceit the westerners would go to in order to take their land. They were smoking weed and generally happy. They actually thought the westerners were envy of their culture. What a bunch of dummies. :rolleyes:

[JustinTime]

Also- I have never understood the cry about becoming socialist because of immigrants. If we had our act together and did not have a socialist gov when they got here, there would be minimal problems.

Well we don't have our act together.