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
Then we’re on the same page.
In what way is it different? Either a nation has the right to protect and control its borders, or it doesn’t. You are rejecting the example of Israel because it refutes your thesis, which was already weak to start with. More “freedom of movement” over Israel’s borders does not produce anything but suicide bombers and Hamas death squads. The reason is that Hamas does not care about your libertarian-anarcho-capitalist fantasy. They just want to kill Jews.
Flashback:
What is the point that I’m missing? That criminals consort with other criminals?
Those drug cartels exist because of the War on Drugs. So yeah, we should end the War on Drugs, then drugs would sell at free market prices, instead of being higher because they are illicit and those drug cartels that are enormous criminal organizations would be cut off from their revenue source.
I am not sure that this is really a tangent. You have argued that you have natural rights to free movement and free association. That the government should not be able to limit these rights. The question posed by the Israeli-Palestinian example is this , is there any situation in which you would agree that governments can and/or should control borders, thereby limiting rights to free movement and association.
That our enemies will cross our southern border.
At some point, one must accept that,
‘A man convinced against his will,
Is of the same opinion, still.’
The continued relapse to “well we had open borders in the past, therefore we should today” seems to ignore how much the world has changed in 200 years.
Just to cite one example of the perils of unsecured borders in the days of modern travel: Disease
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/28/ebola-potential-to-spread/13267909/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/northern-virginia-ground-zero-for-kissing-bug-disease/374383/
How about the more virulent TB strains coming in now? We used to screen infected immigrants out for this and a host of other diseases.
You make an excellent point.
Thirty years after my own arrival here, I made that memorable visit to the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island. There we read about the immigrants, fresh off the ship that had brought them to the ‘New World’; some of whom would not pass the physical exam. These hapless folk faced the double jeopardy of being separated from their more robust family members AND the daunting prospect of embarking on the lonely journey back from whence they came. Some had the resources and resolve to try again; others never could.
“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.”
(And from another comment)
“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.”
I see. So this is a reductio ad absurdum approach, …but it doesn’t quite hit the mark, does it? If you’re saying that my arguments could be used to advanced an end to tourism, travel, etc., but you realize that I’m not advancing those policies, then I would suggest you go find someone who is advancing those policies and rebut them. I don’t, however, think I’m engaging in any hyperbole when I say that you are advocating zero scrutiny of who comes into this country, yes? So at the risk of sounding pedantic, to say that my criticism of your being willing to throw open the doors with no safeguards at all, is somehow an argument for closing the doors to everyone, period, is on the order my saying that your having placed locks on the doors of the Cole residence constitutes your argument against freedom of association with the human race.
“…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. …”
On the basis of which we should dismantle the local police since they do boneheaded things, and dismantle the Department of Defense because they can raise boneheadedness to an art form (I know, …I’ve seen it). The point is that there are certain core functions of government, and at the federal level, those functions revolve around keeping citizens alive and free, which is difficult to do if you open your borders to your enemies.
Speaking of which:
Would you advise Prime Minister Netanyahu to open Israel’s borders then?
“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.”
Not quite, my friend,…that the apples reside on different sides of the ocean didn’t figure into your sweeping contention that individuals, not nations, should simply go where they wish without restriction. Now, I can understand why you hesitate to apply your prescription to Israel, and why you are qualifying your statement with “might,” and “generally speaking,” etc., because you and I both know that if your policy became law in Israel, Israel would cease to exist. But are the individuals over there, whether they wear a yarmulke or a suicide vest, no less entitled to such rights of individual sovereignty as you claim for yourself? Shouldn’t Israel welcome the terrorists, even if they are sporting the suicide vest as they saunter across the border, since they manifestly haven’t blown anything up yet? What you outline, Fred, are human rights, …at least your interpretation of them, and they are either universal or not. It’s a little late for qualifiers, unless you are ready to endorse my contention that we welcome into our midst those who have sworn our destruction, at our peril.
As outlined previously, Fred does believe Israel should open its borders and allow terrorists in. To paraphrase, Fred would say,
Fred Cole seems not to have a clue about Islam. Maybe he should start with the following video, Three Things About Islam:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/07/three-things-about-islam-video.html