Seeing Like a State. Roderick, Austro-Athenian Empire (2010-07-03).
I was just watching part of a Congressional presentation on C-Span honouring the slaves who built the u.s. capitol – not by making restitution to their heirs, of course, but by setting up some sort of plaque. What especially bugged me was the speakers' continual references to expressing "thanks" and…(Linked Sunday 2010-07-04.)
July 4 thoughts. Thoreau, Unqualified Offerings (2010-07-03).
By Thoreau First, I should preface this by saying that I just went through a DUI checkpoint. A dozen cops standing around at a low-traffic intersection, and I'll bet that a lot of them are collecting overtime for this. Interestingly, he didn't ask me "Have you had anything to drink…(Linked Sunday 2010-07-04.)
The America John Boehner Grew Up In. Matthew Yglesias (2010-07-04). Conservatism Vs. The Past (Cont’d.) (Linked Sunday 2010-07-04.)
Homeland Security Works For Disney Now? Announces Shut Down Of Movie Sites At Disney. Mike Masnick, Techdirt (2010-06-30).
Well, here we go. Remember how, a few months back, we noted how odd it was that the Justice Department (which, of course, employs many former RIAA/MPAA/BSA lawyers) was designating a special task force to fight copyright infringement? After all, copyright infringement is mostly a civil issue, between two private…(Linked Sunday 2010-07-04.)
Sumner Time Blues. Roderick, Austro-Athenian Empire (2010-07-04).
William Graham Sumner said lots of things I like. (See, for example, his "Conquest of the United States by Spain.") The following (which I apparently transcribed a couple of decades ago and just came across today) isn't one of them: [H]ow are we to appreciate the work of the Constitution-makers?…(Linked Sunday 2010-07-04.)
feministhulk: HULK NOT DOWN WITH COMPLACENCY IN THE FACE OF HEGEMONY. IF THAT’S “JUST THE WAY IT IS,” LET’S FUCK IT UP! Twitter / feministhulk (2010-07-04).
feministhulk: HULK NOT DOWN WITH COMPLACENCY IN THE FACE OF HEGEMONY. IF THAT’S “JUST THE WAY IT IS,” LET’S FUCK IT UP!(Linked Sunday 2010-07-04.)
On Celebrating Your Freedom... Radley Balko, The Agitator (2010-07-04).
Libertarian activists Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller have been arrested for filming police in Greenfield, Massachusetts.(Linked Monday 2010-07-05.)
More on Immigration. Sheldon Richman, Free Association (2010-07-03).
I’m sick of all the pro-immigration articles showing how good immigrants can be for us. It’s not that the arguments are wrong. They’re just not terribly relevant to the essential issue — the freedom of people to move without permission, unmolested by governments or private individuals. Emphasizing how good immigration…(Linked Monday 2010-07-05.)
The Political Animal. Cafe Hayek (2010-07-05).
Here's a letter to DC news-radio station WTOP: In this morning's 6 am hour, your Capitol Hill reporter, Dave McConnell, excused Sen. Robert Byrd's long-ago active membership in the KKK as simply being "something that had to be done in West Virginia back then to get ahead in politics." No…(Linked Monday 2010-07-05.)
Blogs and peer review. Eric Crampton, Offsetting Behaviour (2010-06-30).
I had coffee with Bryce Edwards over the weekend. His two year old is a week younger than ours; good times were had by all. But we both pondered what the New Zealand academic evaluation mechanism – the Performance Based Research Fund – will make of our blogging when we’re…(Linked Monday 2010-07-05.)
Let 560 Nations Bloom – Within the Boundaries of the U.S. flowidealism, Let A Thousand Nations Bloom (2010-07-02).
This post by Michael Strong is part of Secession Week 2010: Federalism and Secession Arguably the simplist and most immediate path for "Letting a Thousand Nations Bloom" is to support tribal sovereignty movements around the world, especially in the Common Law nations of the Anglosphere like the U.S. Other colonialist European…(Linked Monday 2010-07-05.)
Allowing people into a nation who do not identify themselves as part of that nation–who do not speak the language, who do not observe the holidays, who do not know or care about the history and ideals and cultural icons–is simply suicidal.
I’m sure that all of you properly assimilated Americans realized that June 14th is Flag Day — a commemoration of the military colors of the Union, first established by the rabid segregationist, anti-feminist, and President Woodrow Wilson. And I hope that you all have observed this holiday in a manner befitting the solemnity of the occasion, and the importance of such cultural icons to the flourishing — indeed, the survival — of so great a nation.
So perish all compromises with tyranny! And let all the people say, Amen! —William Lloyd Garrison
Freedom is irrelevant. Assimilation is inevitable.
The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters' cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don't speak English or participate fully in American life?
Clearly, therefore, we need to keep shooting immigrants, mercilessly and unrelentingly:
We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. … We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
And also to ensure that everybody (except, of course, for Americans) has to go through years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Just, you know, to be fair:
Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.
It’s a good thing that there are principled libertarian lawmakers like Ron Paul to stand up against the right of landowners to invite Mexicans onto their property without a permission slip from the government, and to demand that laws for discriminating against workers or tenants on the basis of nationality be respected.
I mean, Jesus, if we don’t keep shooting immigrants who won’t
assimilate, we might actually end up with more than one language commonly spoken in this country. ¡Que desastre! You don’t want to end up like Switzerland, do you?
Over at Positive Liberty, Timothy Sandefur and Jason Kuznicki seem intent on retreading an argument over immigration that I last saw in the clash of the fascists between Sam Huntington and David Brooks almost exactly two years ago. Here’s Sandefur, who apparently believes that he’s explaining a problem:
The illegal immigration problem is so severe in Southern California that it is difficult for people elsewhere in the country, including even Northern Californians, to really understand what's going on. Whole areas of Southern California are now virtually Mexico. The population of illegal immigrants is enormous, and climbing steadily, at the rates of at least hundreds per day.
I’m still waiting to find out what the problem is, but Sandefur apparently believes he’s intimated at least part of it just by telling us that parts of Southern California are now, in some unspecified sense, like Mexico. (Well, so?)
Here’s what Sandefur takes to be the most serious objection to Mexicans moving in without permission slips from the federal government:
The most serious, to me, is philosophical. You cannot have a free society among people who do not understand the cultural and philosophical framework of freedom. Allowing people into a nation who do not identify themselves as part of that nation–who do not speak the language, who do not observe the holidays, who do not know or care about the history and ideals and cultural icons–is simply suicidal.
Of course, it is almost certainly true that freedom requires a certain cultural and philosophical framework, and it would be good if everybody adhered to it. But I’m baffled by the suggestion that speaking the prevalent language, observing the prevalent holidays, or knowing or caring about the history and ideals and cultural icons of whatever country you intend to move to are essential parts of that cultural and philosophical framework. There’s no special affinity between liberty and monolinguism, between freedom and observing any particular theo-nationalist liturgical calendar, or between autonomy and being interested or well-versed in any particular part of the history of the foreign land that you are moving to. (I’d suggest, if anything, that having to negotiate many different languages, many different cultures, many different understandings of history and pop culture, can be just as conducive to freedom, if not more conducive to freedom, as any sort of constructed nationalism.)
But this is ultimately beside the point anyway. Even if failing to learn English was a dreadful threat to the prospects of liberty; even if not celebrating Veterans’ Day or Flag Day or Arbor Day were an ominous step towards totalitarianism, it would provide absolutely no justification whatever for using force to stop people from traveling to property where they are welcomed by the owner (either out of hospitality, or because they pay rent, or because they are prepared to buy it for themselves). Certain kinds of bad thoughts may very well be corrosive to liberty, but there’s no libertarian justification in restraining, beating, shooting,
detaining, jailing, or exiling somebody just for having bad thoughts. Neither you nor the government has any right to force people off of property onto which they have been invited, even if you think that their presence is a looming danger to the future of liberty in America, unless they have actually done or threatened real violence to somebody else. Vices are not crimes, and only crimes can justly be resisted by force.
That argument seems simple, and obvious. So why don’t more advocates of immigration just stick to their guns and make it? Perhaps it’s understandable that non-libertarians don’t make it, but what about libertarians? Why does Kuznicki take this to be the most natural line of response to Sandefur?
Freedom is irrelevant. Assimilation is inevitable.
Subsequent evidence runs against Jefferson's prediction. The United States has absorbed substantial waves of Irish, East European, and East Asian immigrants, none of whom came from countries or cultures that habituated them to freedom. Many spoke little or no English and were almost wholly ignorant of the American system. Yet after a generation or two — and often much sooner — they turned out pretty much like any other group of Americans.
What we are experiencing now is entirely within the bounds of the demographic precedents set by these other groups: As a proportion of the general population, the number of immigrants today is roughly on par with levels that we have experienced in the past, as this (intentionally?) misleading graph actually demonstrates quite well (hint: look at the percentages).
Given the demographic similarities and historical precedents, I have little reason to fear that Latinos will somehow be different — unless, that is, we give them incentives not to assimilate.
What legitimate reason has the United States government to care whether or not Latin@s assimilate or don’t assimilate? What legitimate reason have we got to make the decision whether or not to use force to stop immigrants (or to exile them from their current homes) on the basis of whether or not they are willing to
assimilate to the surrounding culture? Maybe they will and maybe they won’t; but whatever the virtues or vices of declining to assimilate, it’s not a hanging crime, and neither you nor anybody else has the person to destroy a person’s livelihood, clap them into irons, and force them back out of the country over it. Neither you, nor anybody else, has the right to harass, shove, restrain, beat, or shoot people to stop them from entering the country over it. The only issue here is the freedom of movement of the immigrant, and the property rights of whoever owns the property where the immigrant is staying. (If the immigrant is trespassing, of course, there are already laws against that; it has nothing in particular to do with immigration.) Sandefur, for his part, thinks he has a reply to this. Here it is:
First, it must be kept very clear that no person has a natural right to enter another country against the will of those citizens. A person has a natural right to leave his [sic] own country, no doubt. But a political society is an agreement among people for purposes of the common defense, and the people therefore have the right to decide whether or not to allow others in. So long as they do not make that decision on an arbitrary basis, they have the right to refuse to extend citizenship or entry to others if they wish. So no person has the right to force his [sic] way into the another nation and demand to be accepted.
If Sandefur were right about this, it would provide a basis for taking things like
assimilation into account when you’re setting immigration policy. If it were a matter of resisting people trying to
force her way in against the will of people who have a right to keep them out, then you might very well think that any number of factors might be good reasons for stopping them rather than
letting them in.
But he’s not right; that’s not what this is about. The appeal is nothing more than overt, garden-variety political collectivism, which tricks itself out in a few of the rhetorical cadences of property rights while actually assaulting those property rights in the name of collective coercion of innocent individual people. Sandefur would have The People
decide whether or not to allow others in, but in a way that systematically denies individual people the right to decide whether or not to allow others in to their own property. Of course, there is no natural right to enter another person’s land against the will of that person (that’s just trespassing). But I take it we’re not talking about trespassing law here. We’re talking about an immigrant who’s made arrangements for a place to stay with a willing landlord — through the hospitality of people she knows, or by paying rent for the space, or by buying it for herself from the previous owner. Who is, therefore, welcomed by the owners of the property. The only people
deciding not to allow her in are, ex hypothesi, people other than the owners, third parties — nativist voters, opportunistic legislators, La Migra, or whoever else — who think that force of numbers or the writ of The Law gives them some kind of right to impose their decisions on other people’s property.
There are political theories that would approve of this kind of bullying and coercion — as long as it had the right majoritarian or authoritarian backing. But libertarianism is not one of them. If I invite a Mexican worker into my home, she or he has got a right to stay there as long as I (and my landlord) permit it. If a local factory gives her a job, she’s got a right to work there as long as she and the employer want her to continue. If she’s happy to keep speaking Spanish and I’m happy to let her stay without speaking English, then she still has a right to stay. If she’ll work on Dead Prez Day and the factory is happy for her to work on it, then she still has a right to stay. There is no way for La Migra to butt in, whether she is willing to
assimilate or not, without mounting an assault on both her and on my rights to do as I please with my own home, or the factory’s rights to hire whom they please. Whether or not Mexican workers are interested in
assimilating to any particular local culture is interesting only as an empirical question, a matter of idle sociological curiosity. It has absolutely no bearing on the question of right, because your ideas about culture don’t trump my right to my own land, and they don’t trump her life, liberty, or livelihood. Period.
When the topic is immigration policy, please just shut up about cultural assimilation. Whether it is happening or not, and whether it ought to happen or not, it is completely irrelevant to the course of (in)action that the government ought to pursue.
- GT 2004-03-22: Freedom is irrelevant. Assimilation is inevitable.
- Comment (2006-03-27) on Wizbang: Criminals threaten to strike: why is this considered bad?, on
the fundamental issue in all this.