How restrictionists abandon individual liberty, embrace collective ownership, and call it realism.
The Collectivist Argument
Collectivism is the problem with the restrictionist side of the immigration debate.
My argument is not with Republicans or neocons. Their philosophy opposes mine. I would love for them to hear my argument and change their minds, but that’s not my intended audience.
My issue is with so-called libertarians, especially the ones I joined forces with when we were calling for national divorce.
Their argument is “we” cannot allow millions of people to flood “our” borders and drain “our” coffers.
They are basically making a “for the public good” argument to restrict travel on individuals as well as condoning public ownership of property.
When confronted with the hypocrisy, they argue, “It would be great to abolish government and public property but we must live in the real world.”
The public good is the same justification progressives use to argue for gun bans or vaccine mandates or compulsory education.
The “Real World” Defense
Yet I (thankfully) never hear any of my government-property libertarian friends argue for better and less restrictive gun laws. They argue for the abolition of gun laws and support the individual’s right to bear arms.
This leaves the “for the public good” and “the real world” argument festering with hypocrisy.
And when you throw in our common stance on abolishing income taxes, ending drug prohibition, and at least at one time abolishing the national government and facilitating a peaceful national divorce, it’s hard to find a charitable way to read their position on immigration.
What Does “We” Mean?
The argument boils down to “we are a country and we have resources that must be allocated to our citizens.”
What does it mean to be a country in this instance? As far as I can tell, it means we live under the rule of the same government.
What else? Is it culture?
Culture and Commonality
I raise hogs and cattle for a living. Do I share more of a culture with a Washington politician, a Silicon Valley tech mogul, a New York Wall Street executive, or a Mexican farmer or a Nigerian cabbie?
There is far more to culture than our jobs. But in my experience, values align much more with the hardworking and off-the-books immigrant than many established subjects of the crown.
Religion?
Again, I tend to find commonality more with the immigrant than the average suburbanite.
Even if he is a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, and I am a Christian, I find we have a more traditional fervor for faith and devotion than the average pop-culture American.
Now if we localize that, things change a bit. I live in a mixed community with a slight black American majority and I believe we have a culture of food, language, and faith that is shared. But just 30 miles in any direction and that begins to change.
Maybe we are the ones who don’t fit whatever argument they might make about the shared culture. So why not take our property and cast us aside? Oh because we were born inside lines designated as territory of the crown?
The Contradiction
If you call yourself a libertarian who wants national divorce, how is that a coherent position? I would love to hear from you and I am open for a public debate.
About the Author
Mike Shaner is the founder of Black Market Cattle Company and River Cade Farms. He writes about faith, liberty, food freedom, family, self-reliance, rural life, and building outside centralized systems.