I had the pleasure of reading a rather interesting article from the Foundation for Economic Education, titled Excluding Foreigners Is Much More Authoritarian than Censorship
It looks at the main ways of excluding foreigners in Western societies, categorized as so:
(Quotation from the article below)
- Murder. Round up the members of group X and wipe them out. If they make any converts, murder them, too.
- Sterilize. Round up the members of group X and destroy their ability to have children. This does nothing to reduce their currentpoor behavior, but — in the absence of rapid conversion — ensures group X will eventually become extinct.
- Exclude. Enact immigration restrictions to keep members of group X out of your country. This does nothing to undo the harm that group X currently inflicts. Nor does it prevent the harm future generations of X will inflict. But it does effectively contain the social damage group X inflicts.
- Brainwash. Subject members of group X, or perhaps just their children, to mandatory “re-education” to suppress — or at least dilute — their identity.
- Censor. Forcibly silence members of group X to prevent them from spreading their identity by speaking or writing.
- Disenfranchise. Deny members of group X the right to vote so the political system ignores their wishes.
Mercifully, the first two measures — murder and sterilization — are now extremely unpopular. Indeed, groups inclined to mass murder and forced sterilization now top our lists of people who are a blight on society.
The last three measures — brainwashing, censorship, and disenfranchisement — are only slightly more accepted. […]
Lest you conclude toleration has triumphed, however, note that virtually every country enthusiastically uses method #3 — exclusion. Contrary to anti-immigration propaganda, existing restrictions are very strict; that’s why human smuggling prices are so high and only a tiny fraction of would-be migrants actually come. Countries don’t just bar criminals or suspected terrorists. “Cultural differences” alone are a common rationale for exclusion.
It’s tempting to say, “Civilized countries avoid draconian policies in favor of milder approaches,” but that’s flatly false. Countries avoid both draconian and mild approaches, while using method #3 to the hilt.
Christian societies who follow Biblical Law would let the decision on who is welcomed and who isn’t be set by the actual communities in question: but as a rule of thumb, you are welcome to come – IF you don’t violate the laws of the nation, and can pay your own way.
(Or have a local willingly pay for you – and by willingly, I mean out of his own pocketbook, not by forcible taxation.)
For more details, I point to Bojidar Marinov’s article , Lew Rockwell on Immigration: The Mild Statism of Secular Libertarianism. (A really good read, by the way. Complex, deep, to the marrow. For example, observe one of his asides:
(And the truth is, Stalin’s plan didn’t work anyway. A superior culture is not destroyed that easily. He could resettle Russians in, but he could not force those individual Russians to remain faithful to his directives. Today, most of those Russians don’t want to return back to “mother Russia,” and prefer to be part of that very culture which they were meant to destroy. Rothbard and Rockwell have a reason to celebrate: individualism defeats collectivism ten times out of ten. No need to change your ideology and compromise your ethical and intellectual integrity because of the puny plans of some temporary dictator. This is where the optimism of my postmillennial eschatology is of importance. Both men could have learned a lot from Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony in this regard.)
What Marinov wrote is quite true, and a reason to celebrate: if your culture is as strong and fertile as a Christian nation, obedient to God, would be. And if Western Europe and their secular, sterile, childless and present-oriented culture is destroyed by Muslim immigrants who – despite their illiteracy – bear children and are strongly future-oriented, at least when it comes to grinding infidels under their heels? Well, the superior, more disciplined culture would have won there, too…
Anyways: back to the article.
If you doubt exclusion is harsher than brainwashing, censorship, or disenfranchisement, just ask yourself: How many would-be migrants would decline a green card if they were warned, “If you come, your whole family must attend weekly citizenship classes,” “If you come, you have to keep your beliefs to yourself,” or “If you come, you can’t vote.” Indeed, it’s unclear that sterilization is harsher than exclusion. Plenty of Third Worlders and refugees would gladly go under the knife to get a green card.
When modern human beings ponder ways to deal with allegedly unpleasant out-groups, an analogous uncanny moral valley emerges. Everything from murder to denying the vote seems abhorrent. Except, of course, for immigration restrictions, which almost everyone accepts without shame despite the immense harm they inflict on hundreds of millions of innocent people.
Out of Mind
What’s going on? I see a severe case of “out of sight, out of mind.” Immigration restrictions don’t bother us much because the people we harm aren’t here yet. All of the other measures, in contrast, have visible targets. This also explains, of course, why immigration debates focus so much on amnesty for current illegal immigrants, rather than higher quotas for legal immigrants. The former group feels more human than the latter.
Personally, though I’m far closer to the civil libertarian than the authoritarian, I draw a fine line between disenfranchisement and everything higher up the list. As Jason Brennan powerfully argues in his forthcoming Against Democracy, democracy has only instrumental value. Voting isn’t about doing what you want with what you own; it’s about doing what you want with what other people own. And as poll taxes show, most people barely value the right to vote anyway; how many people would pay even $100 to vote this year? The upshot: If group X is genuinely “screwing up society,” depriving group X of the right to vote would be unobjectionable. Anything harsher, though, is uncivilized.
This is surprisingly close to the Biblical position, where only Godly Christian family men are to rule the nation.
As such, pagans are to be excluded from government: while they may chose not to challenge the Law of God publicly, they do not truly respect the Source of the Law: King Jesus Christ, and His Law-Word as inscripturated in the Old and New Testaments.
And I have far greater trust in even the ordinary Biblical Christian believer & churchgoer – even a poor-but-Godfearing Black sharecropper in the Deep South – when it comes to justice, equality under the Law, protecting liberty, and restraining evil – than any number of smooth-talking sophisticated pagans, atheists, and/or sociopathic Jihadi.
Nations that fear God need not fear immigrants, as they would enforce His law to the full. By definition, such enforcement protects liberty while driving evil back to the impotent shadows and under the rocks it crawled from.