Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Of Sovereignty and Survival
Yesterday, while perusing the headlines that chronicle the self mutilation that is US foreign policy under Barack Obama, I paused to look in on friends and topics here on Ricochet, wherein I found that our own Fred Cole has stirred the pudding, so to speak. I have a great deal of affection for Fred and his lovely wife, both of whom I had the pleasure of meeting last year at a Ricochet gathering in Las Vegas. A one-man distillery of compelling argument and straightforward prose, Fred has a gift for being simultaneously provocative and good-natured, so I hope I will not run afoul of his good graces when I paraphrase Bill Buckley in saying that while I’d like to take Fred’s stance on immigration seriously, I’m afraid that doing so would insult his intelligence.
I remember several years ago, while driving to southern California where I had hoped to visit with Rob Long during a layover in Fontana (the schedules didn’t work out), calling him with my revelation that the folks at Rand McNally (the road atlas people) were actually communists. This was due to the fact that, while the highways on their maps appeared straight and simple, the reality was a convoluted, twisted, coagulated mess that had no resemblance at all to the neat lines in their little book, hearkening to the oft-repeated critique that while communism looked plausible on paper, the reality of its application was catastrophic.
Similarly, the experience of reading just one of Fred’s pristine declarations that, “We’re talking about people who come to America to work and live in freedom and peace and be productive,” just after reading elsewhere that people who crossed illegally into Texas over the last five years have accounted for over 3,000 non-peaceful homicides and over 8,000 decidedly unfree sexual assaults, is one that induces the sort of intellectual whiplash one normally associates with a speech by Nancy Pelosi (which alone ought to give Fred considerable pause).
Now, I’m under no illusion that my friend will change his basic position, nor that I am likely to change mine, but I would like to gain some clarity from Fred on how he sees the practical side of things, where ideology meets flesh and blood as it were. Specifically, when asked about how to address the criminal element in the many comments that ensued from his post, Fred answered:
Won’t criminals make themselves known through criminal actions? A bank robber comes in and robs a bank, we catch him. If he comes and stops robbing banks, he’s not a problem. The percentage of criminals is so tiny (and so disproportionately reported by a sensationalist media, btw), that it’s not really worth presuming the guilt of all.
To which one notes that it took an even smaller percentage, just 19 Islamic barbarians to be exact, to kill thousands of innocents in an unprecedented attack on American soil on 9/11. And since they hadn’t flown airplanes into buildings before, may we assume that they were entitled to Fred’s presumption of freedom, peace, and productivity? This is not, by the way, an idle question given that among those currently entering our porous southern border are people from Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Syria, among others. On the contrary, to assume benign intentions on their part is to assign a level of divine providence that I believe runs contrary to Fred’s religious skepticism.
As I write these words, Israel is under relentless rocket attack, even as Hamas tries to infiltrate the country’s borders via tunnels and any other means they can find. Elsewhere, Vladimir Putin, having already taken Crimea, looks lasciviously at Ukraine, while China becomes more aggressive in the South China Sea, prompting concern from Vietnam, amongst others. As Fred might say, “History is replete” with examples of the evil aggression of one nation against another, of people against people, and yes, of individual against individual. It’s the reason ancient cities walled themselves in against marauding forces, and the reason why we lock our doors at night.
To allow unchecked and unfiltered access to a country where handouts currently outnumber productive opportunities is to invite economic calamity for sure; but to assume the most benevolent of intentions of one and all is to whistle past the graveyard of history, where vulnerability is exploited and the defenseless are assaulted.
In the days following the 9//11 attacks, I remember how infuriating it was to see my fellow citizens look up nervously when they heard aircraft overhead, as if to verity whether or not the plane showed friendly intentions. It was infuriating because I, along with others, had spent time in any number of hellholes, watching the skies warily, always knowing the most direct route to the nearest bunker, gas mask, and chemical gear, so that our friends and family back home wouldn’t have to live that way. To throw open the doors and lay out the welcome mat to our enemies is not only to negate the work of generations of those who stood between America and those who would do her ill; it is to negate the reason for national defense in the first place. Why not level the Pentagon and seed the ground there with pansies while we’re at it?
When challenged on the subject of sovereignty in his next post, Fred wrote passionately (he can do no other) that, “…I’m a free person. I’m sovereign over myself.” Well, yes, and without the means to defend that sovereignty, his declaration is only so much rhetorical extravagance, mere puffery that sounds good but is of no practical consequence. The average Frenchman was sovereign on May 9, 1940, the day before Germany laid siege to France in an action whose first casualty was individual sovereignty. Freedom, in order to exist, must be defended, a concept I’m sure my friend understands, though I hope he will explain how he has contrived to transcend human history and human nature itself by welcoming into our midst those who have vowed to destroy us.
Published in General
Thanks Dave.
The parts in bold are incompatible with each other, just as Fred’s position on immigration is incompatible with US sovereignty.
If we had no reason to suspect that anyone was trying to kill us, then excessive border-scrutiny might be a sign of paranoia. But we know there are significant numbers of enemies who would enter the country to kill Americans. And, like it or not, the border is the main leverage point, the portal, through which we control entry into the country. While not every immigrant is a determined terrorist, the border is our main leverage point for catching the ones who are determined terrorists.
Oh not necessarily, at least as far as Fred’s general approach. The first phrase outlines Fred’s general style, with the second highlighting what I see as problematic in this specific instance. A generally good driver can still run into a ditch once in a great while.
In my opinion, Fred steers straight into the ditch in high gear when it comes to national security and foreign policy.
[continued below]
Recall what Fred thought about Russia annexing Crimea:
I provided the link to Fred’s post about Ukraine above, but I should note that Fred started his post by stating that he thought Russia was wrong to take Crimea. Great! Except Fred does not really believe that nations have the right to protect their borders from other nations.
I think Putin’s actions clearly demonstrate that he disagrees with Fred that invading more neighboring countries would trigger WW3. When America and Europe is unwilling to defend their allies, then tyrants like Putin take note.
A generally good writer can run you off the road with flair and style that has you nodding your head until you can’t because the airbag just deployed.
Please God help me not to earn a post like this from Mr. Carter…
Fred reminds me why I enjoyed the company of the members of Libertarian Party in college, but resolved never to join the Libertarian Party.
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” – George Orwell
The Mother Hive
Dave, Thank you for this response to the open borders idea. Wow. And Wow again. Especially this:
“. . . the headlines that chronicle the self-mutilation that is U.S. foreign policy under Barack Obama”
I admire the Judeo-Christian impulse to have an open border. To help anyone knocking on the door. I truly do. And I love the idea that our great nation has an infinite capacity to generate wealth.
What I see instead is an expanding impoverished underclass.
I believe America is a family before it is anything else, and before we try to help others, we really need to make sure everyone already here is accounted for and okay.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, in Massachusetts, we had 6,000 “unaccompanied minors” in our state trying to finish high school–those are the teenagers we could count because they were registered in high schools–before Deval Patrick agreed to take 2,000 more off of Obama’s hands.
Honestly, I think Harvard should take them all. It was their bright idea, and they have the housing and medical care facilities. They’ll have to learn about supervising teenagers, but they’re smart.
BRAVO!
Perhaps your significant clarity will have a positive affect on Fred. I have, as well, had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of the estimable Mr. Cole. I will have to say, though that he has the significant drawback of being – how shall I put this delicately – somewhat young. I suspect he has never run head-on into any of the serious negative impacts which might arise out of his 200-proof Libertarianism.
I would be interested to know what his reaction is to 3 persons on the terrorist watch list being caught crossing the border illegally a month ago. That’s more like seeing an accident across the Interstate median as opposed to ones own head-on collision.
Thanks for your articulate and persuasive input into one of our prominent in-house cat-fights, Mr. Well-Betrothed.
(I didn’t intend the “cat-fight” pun, but I like it.)
I note that the supposed deleterious economic effects of immigration, illegal or otherwise, on the US economy which are basically assumed to be true, are in fact in debate and not at all as clear as nativists would have us believe.
Link
Link
Link
Immigration is not the same thing as illegally entering the country in order to get on wellfare.
Are we still talking about this? Don’t you people know that on one of the Housewives shows this week one “lady” threw her prosthetic leg at another? You should be talking about that instead of this.
So you concede your entire argument has no basis in reality then?
Obama is today proposing that Hondurans be eligible for refugee status and be brought here in order to spare them the trip across Mexico. As our immigration laws are now inoperative, I must ask if there is there any limiting principle, or may anyone, from anywhere be brought here upon demand? Alinsky anyone?
Contrast the treatment of US Boy Scouts (also qualifying as “children” last I checked) in Alaska to illegal invaders by border patrol agents. The Scouts were intimidated and held at gunpoint for taking a photograph. What is going on here? I can only list two possibilities: complete failure of governance or intentional subversion of national sovereignty. In what country may I present myself as a refugee. I am surely now an alien in my native land.
If anybody ever gets a chance to meet Dave Carter in person, I’m going to warn you in advance that he is just a wonderful guy. He’s a guy that, even when he vigorously agrees with you and eviscerates your argument, you know its done with love and kindness.
If nothing else, we’ve had a lively week of discussions here on Ricochet about this subject. Lots of back and forth. Lotsofenergy.
Don’t worry, Dave. I take no offense. My position, I’ll admit is an extreme one. Am I a dreamer? Yes. Am I radical? Yes. Am I practical? Always. My position is very extreme and has brought forth extreme reactions.
I also need to say that:
1. If my position is the same as the Democrats and/or “liberals” in the government and the Congress, that’s sure as hell news to me. Would that they were as freedom loving as I. They maintain and perpetuate the horrible and restrictive system we already have in place.
2. Please don’t mistake my extreme (very extreme) position position as representing that of anyone other than myself. Most libertarians, while sharing my values, are far less extreme.
I’ve obviously got to reply to a couple of things here.
Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that these numbers are accurate. Not that Dave would intentionally use bad numbers, but the thing about political debates is we tend to get flooded with… creative statistics. Things can vary wildly depending on what and how you count.
So let’s assume those numbers are accurate. A homicide is when any person kills another. I sink a hatchet into your head, that’s a homicide. I run you over with my car when you step out in front of it and you die, that’s also a homicide. I’m not sure what a non-peaceful homicide is. If that’s Dave’s euphemism for a murder, okay. If “non-peaceful homicide” comes from his statistic’s source, that’s highly suspect, because it leaves lots of room to play.
Over five years. That’s just people who crossed into Texas? How was this number calculated?
I’m not saying the number is made up, I’m curious about the source.
But okay, let’s call in 3,000 murders. In five years. That’s 600 per year. The illegal population is estimated at anywhere between 10 million to 30 million (another highly suspect stat) depending on who you talk to. That’s the stat from a few years ago before the economy tanked and a lot of them left. So let’s call it 10 million. 600 murders a year, out of ten million people seems like not a lot.
Detroit has a population of about 700,000 and they had 333 murders, so if you shipped out the whole population and replaced it with illegal immigrants, it would be safer. Really? No, of course not, but my point is that it’s easy to play games with statistics.
By and large, people come to the US from Mexico to work. That’s the whole point. In any large enough population you’re going to have a percentage of murderers. I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole but you have to consider that
1. When you make it almost impossible for unskilled workers to the US legally, they have to come here illegally.
2. They turn to criminals to help them get in. Those criminals create problems of their own.
But they do that because we’ve made it almost impossible for unskilled workers to enter the US legally. When we had the Bracero program, a legal way for lots of unskilled immigrants to enter the US, there was almost no illegal immigration and all the associated problems that come with the illegality.
Frankly, they entered the United States legally. What you’re making is an argument against any and all immigration, or frankly, even tourist visas. Frankly, anybody could come in from Canada and hijack a plane.
Or any American could do it. But our country and our legal system rightly functions on the presumption of innocence.
Now, as far as dangerous Islamists coming in from Mexico, where the hell are they all? I’m young enough that I’ve only been paying attention to politics for the last 20 years or so. But that whole time the border with Mexico has been a political issue. According to the immigration restrictionists it’s an open border out there. It’s been 13 years since 9/11. Where are all the terrorists streaming in?
Shouldn’t there have been thousands of them and hundreds of attacks?
But the 9/11 hijackers didn’t come in that way. They came in on tourist visas on airplanes, they didn’t huff it through the Mexican wilderness andthen swimacross a river.
This is not to say that it couldn’t happen, butwehad restrictions in place and it didn’t stop them. It’d be a hell of a lot easier to fly into Montreal, drive south for an hour, find a patch of woods and walk into the Untied States. More expensive but stillplausible would be to buy a fake Canadian passport and drive in. The law isn’t magic and it’s not going to stop a highly motivated person.
What you’re leaving out of that is the economic benefit of immigrants, even unskilled ones. An immigrant comes into the US, gets a job, works, earns money and then spends that money. They have to have a place to live and they have to eat and they use other services. So they’re generating economic productivity in the form of their labor and they’re generating demands for goods and services here in the US while doing it. (And to head someone off before they say it, no that’s not Keynesianism because it’s not taking things out of the economy to generate the demand.)
Again, you’re making an argument against any and all immigration or even travel to the US. Because anybody who comes in could be an enemy of the US. You’re making an argument against free trade, because any trade could benefit those enemies.
Turn that around. Rather than isolation, free trade, free exchange of capital, free exchange of people, free exchange of culture, brings nations closer together. The US and Canada have the largest unguarded border in the world. Do we have common culture? Sure. Do we have common language? Mostly. Quebec is an odd bird, but when I’m driving on I-87 every day the Quebec license plates concern me less than the ones from Mass or NJ. A war between the US and Canada is unthinkable. Why? Because our two nations are so, so close to one another. Close relationships between nations, even “enemy” nations, generally speaking, mean more peace. (So sayeth Fred Cole the “isolationist.”)
Beautifully said.
OK, so we’re talking about immigration of unskilled workers, which is to say, increasing the available supply of unskilled workers. Increased supply => Decreased cost => increased demand. (And for this particular thought experiment, making no distinction between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants)
Do you expect that the increased demand will be greater than the increased supply? And, to connect with our current reality: Do you expect that the decreased cost of unskilled labor (that is, the decreased compensation to each of those individual workers) would have any effect at all on those non-immigrants who were already here, and were on some sort of public assistance, either because they could not find a job at all or (perhaps more likely?) the unskilled-labor job they *could* find paid less than the level at which they were/are considered entitled to public assistance?