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
Why does everyone always complain about “not being quoted in context”?
My comment was directly below your comment. How much more in context can it be?
You lumped immigration together with the illegal act of crossing the border. I stated they’re not the same thing.
Okay, Fred,..many thanks for the kind response, and I’ll send the unmarked bills in small denominations as agreed, okay? Now, let’s pull up a prayer rug that was left by one of your guests on the border and chat…
The source for the numbers was Texas Governor Rick Perry. As to where he got the numbers from, I can’t say but I defer to the Governor for knowledge of what’s going on in his state. Unless I’m reading you wrong here, Fred, I think you mistake something in your calculation. You break it down to 600 homicides in five years from a population of 10-30 million, but remember please, these are homicides confined to the state of Texas. If there are 10-30 million illegals in the country, you’ve left the other 47 lower states out of the equation. Your point about playing games with stats is well taken, but in this instance, the 3,000 homicides were in only one state.
By the way, I mentioned the term, “non-peaceful homicides,” to highlight the fact that, A) homicides are by nature non-peaceful, which B) stands in contrast with your contention that, “…people who come to America to work and live in freedom andpeace andbe productive.”
I notice you didn’t mention the 8,000 sexual assaults. Why not?
Not quite. Several of them overstayed their visas, but, according to ABC News, based on research from National Review:
“Almost all of the hijacker’s visas were issued in Saudi Arabia, at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh or the U.S. Consulate in Jedda. Terrorist ties aside, the applications themselves should have raised red flags, say experts. The forms are incomplete and often incomprehensible — yet that didn’t stop any of the 15 terrorists for whom the visa applications were obtained from coming to the United States.”
And please, Fred, I know what I’m arguing for, and it isn’t an end to all immigration or tourist visas. Rather, it’s increased scrutiny. Had proper scrutiny been exercised early on, as noted above, the 9/11 attacks might have been averted.
Surely we can agree that there is a difference between a conscientious effort to know who is attempting to gain entry into the country and arguing against all immigration or travel, yes? To say that we must be careful that we are not rolling out the red carpet for the enemy is not the same as that no one can come in. With the greatest respect, you’re making some mental leaps here that are gold medal material, but do not in any way follow my thoughts. I promise to stop calling you Surely.
Would you advise Prime Minister Netanyahu to open Israel’s borders then?
As Skipsul said so well, BRAVO!!
The economy is one thing — and I’m very concerned about it and how the impact of illegals is affecting it (if it is) — but let’s talk about the micro-economy of American lower class families and people who have lost jobs and are almost locked out of the market now. The overall economy can do well and the distribution of that economy can be wildly erratic and pain-inducing for some of the least among us. These are the people that I worry about. A job is the greatest of the values that can be called American values.
Beware of airline passengers who haven’t changed their underwear for a coupla weeks.
Fred has honed his apologetic skills arguing in favor of homosexual marriage and abortion. It’s not surprising that his reasoning on immigration is all whet.
I’m one of them. I believe all people have the same set of natural rights, but I haven’t convinced myself, yet, that this implies that every foreigner who wants to, and can, come to the U.S. has a right to do so.
Dave was just trying to make the contrast between your claim of peaceful immigrants and the reality of (some) homicidal immigrants explicit. Putting “non-peaceful” in parentheses would’ve made his point slightly clearer.
Were the United States to admit as immigrants every person who wanted to come from, say, the Middle East, what would then be the chances of actualising any libertarian ideals?
That obscures the difference between a reasonable precaution and an absolute precaution. Yes, border security isn’t going to be perfect, but it’s a reasonable precaution. And the fact that the 9/11 guys came in a different way doesn’t prove that, therefore, all security is useless.
If a burglar “really wants” to get in, he will, but that doesn’t mean that locking your door is useless. It deters most, if not all, of the people who might consider robbing your house.
I have stayed out of these two discussions as my options are very non lenient. I think every single person, visitors, students, tourist, refugees, migrant workers, and immigrants, should be screened thoroughly along with profiling. Every single person should be followed up on as to whether they went back to their country, at the time indicated or have a legal right to stay. At the first sign of anti-Americanism ship them back to where they came from. We already have “no go zones” in Michigan and Southern CA. Probably other places I don’t know about. All these, “celebrate other countries’ holidays” is bull pucky. Swarms of streets with Mexicans, Muslims, and other cultures wanting to destroy American culture need to be stopped. Several states have had to implement laws to keep Sharia laws out of there systems. Any time a muslim is offended by one of our laws, send him/her right back to where they have their own laws. Sorry, but the idea of millions of these people from what ever country coming here to change our constitution makes me ill. People who desire to come here and do so legally, are welcome.
The big problem for people like Fred Cole is that no one wants his little thought experiment to get a real tryout because if it turns out to be a bad thing — like most people with common sense think it is — then we can’t reverse course. It’s not worth the very real risk.
Libertarians are a lot like socialists and communists in their intellectual pretensions. These ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them. (h/t Orwell, Reagan)
I asked Fred that question in his response to Mark Krikorian, but Fred did not reply (unless I overlooked it).
Many (most?) of the arguments have focused on the criminals making it into the United States by illegal means. And Dave Carter mentioned the 9/11 hijackers as an argument to to have more secure borders. That’s not the primary reason why we should not only enforce the laws we have, but also have an even more restrictive legal immigration system.
First, I’d like to address the 9/11 hijackers argument against an open borders policy. The main reason we were vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks wasn’t a flawed immigration enforcement system, it wasn’t even the lack of security during airport checkin. It was the official advice given to passengers whenever a hijacking occurred: don’t resist. That and not securing the cockpit of the plane. Changing the immigration policy towards millions of people based on 19 individuals’s actions is ludicrous. With an even more secure border, I have no doubt that getting 19 people into the country to perform the hijackings, or even finding American citizens to do it, was still do-able by a determined Osama Bin Laden or other terrorist with the resources and drive.
The reason we need to secure our borders and restrict immigration is to assimilate the legal immigrants we already have. We need at least a twenty year break from all this.
And though we take pretty good care of them, we do have our own poor in the United States. Our poor don’t live in poverty only because we support them. And most of the illegals crossing our southern border will probably never assimilate. They have problems doing so from the countries they come from. A significant percentage (most?) can’t read in their own language. We are expanding our permanent underclass with all the social divisions that implies.
So while I certainly care about the dangerous people we’re letting in under false pretenses, that’s acually not the primary reason that concerns me. And the open border types are probably right. As a percentage, the number of violent criminals is probably only a significant minority. Most of the people coming into the country illegally ARE coming in for a better life and for otherwise legitimate reasons. I’m not unsympathetic. We just cannot take everyone who wants to come, whether the reasons are good ones or not.
I’ll offer a poor analogy.
A few years ago Yale admitted Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, a member of the Taliban, to be a full-time student. As there are 5,300 undergraduates at Yale, Hashemi’s presence there will not noticeably change the character of the institution, unless he blows it up or kills a bunch of people, neither of which is that far-fetched.
But I digress. Suppose Yale admits 100 more Taliban. Now the character of the institution is likely to change, as they have sufficient numbers to start lobbying for halal food in the dining halls, and breaks during the day for prayer.
By the time 200 Taliban are admitted, it’s time for a Taliban-only dormitory, an Islamic Studies program, and a movement to hire a reasonable number of Islamic faculty. When the Taliban reach 25% of the entire student body, the idea of asking all female students to wear burkas will be broached. All university signs and documents will be published in both English and Pashto. Criticism of Islam will be forbidden.
And thus does a university, or a nation, commit suicide.
The notion of open borders is about as sensible as Esperanto. Less so, come to think of it.
Besides, what is occurring on our southern border is not immigration, but an invasion. And it should be treated as such.
Few open borders types have even been to the border, much less lived there. It’s always easy to dismiss concerns over border security when you and yours aren’t the ones adversely affected.
Isn’t Mr. Carter engaged in the same kind of ‘damage control’ that a husband uses when he comments to his wife:
“Is it possible that you left something out of the recipe when you cooked this tripe, because everything that you have ever prepared for me before has always tasted scrumptious?”
Okay. This is where you and I differ, Dave. The words of any politician, especially statistics, are suspect to me. Doubly so if they are running for president.
I wasn’t the only one who was suspicious of this claim. The good people at PolitiFact investigated this claim rather thoroughly and found it to be inaccurate.
A couple of things. First, obviously, I realize that you’re not arguing for an end to immigration and tourism, but rather that you could use the same rationale as you’re offering to do so.
Second, like I said, they entered legally. They didn’t swim across a river to coyote across the desert, they came in, on planes, and had their passports stamped.
Third, yeah, if proper scrutiny, etc. But the thing is, if the government is scrutinizing, they’re going to do boneheaded things and let the wrong people in. Always remember that the whole of the government has no more competence than the Post Office.
That is an amazing and classic gag. Clean. Always gets a laugh. Works through the element of surprise. It feels very vaudeville. Just doesn’t work in text form.
My whole point, Dave, was not that you were arguing against freedom of travel (obviously), but that you could just as easily take those rationales you were offering and do so.
That’s kinda apples to oranges, Dave…
But I would say that stronger cross cultural links and more freedom of movement might, ggenerally speaking, produce better results. But I’d rather we not go off on that tangent. Israeli-Palestinian stuff is beyond my depth.
That’s the thing. This isn’t some grand experiment. We pretty much had open immigration for most of the history of the republic.
It wasn’t until 1986 that it was even illegal to employ an illegal immigrant. Somehow the republic survived two centuries without that alleged existential necessity.
Yeah, man. That’s exactly it. That’s exactly what I was saying with that.