Certain academics and some globalization proponents are making the argument that people have, as a Right of Humanity, the right to free movement and migration. While most Americans who advocate open borders are not familiar with this concept; they are being used as “useful idiots” by the free migration crowd whose fundamental purpose is the creation of a world government.
The Right of Migration is predicated upon the idea that humanity, as the height of existence, has a basic human right to travel, live and work where ever they choose. A Utopian ideal at best, this doctrine does not acknowledge the sovereignty of nation states as an instrument of social stability. Or, simply put, the right to migration cannot, by its definition, allow nation states to provide the safety and stability necessary for orderly human existence. There is no universally shared culture – and no way to ensure that cultures and societies as developed by people, can continue in the face of unrestricted migration.
Whether we want to admit it or not, the world is ruled by the aggressive use of force. Nations that are willing to use aggressive force attack their neighbors just as schoolyard bullies pick on other kids. Cultures that are willing to be aggressive overwhelm their neighboring cultures. This is the way of the world – always has been and always will be. It is this reality that likely led to the formation of the first government type of organizations in the earliest days of human society. Even hunter – gatherer bands would have likely combined resources to defend their territory from others migrating into that territory to protect the food supply of the band. Self preservation, with the goal of survival of the species, is probably the most fundamental instincts in all animals.
As humanity transitioned from nomadic hunter – gatherer to agrarian economies, the need for protection and stability became more important. Hunter – gatherers could go to new areas to search for food. Agrarians need to stay until their crops are ready to harvest and store against the winter. And once that food was stored, the agrarians would want to stay near their food. Migrating peoples could decimate an agrarian community by eating all of a winter’s worth of food in a few days or weeks. Unrestricted migration became an existential threat to established societies as human economy became more settled and more specialized and in response, people began to band together for mutual defense and protection. Hence, the origins of governments.
Although nations in the developed world, and large portions of nations in the Third World have progressed well beyond basic agrarian economies, the threat to economic (food, clothing and shelter) stability becomes, maybe more, serious as economies become more advanced and more specialized (consumers being farther removed from the origins of production.) At any point in time a nation has only a limited amount of resources. There is only so much food, so many houses, so many coats available in a nation at any given time. Unrestricted migration can create shortages in all of these resources. Unrestricted migration threatens modern economic stability just as seriously as it threatened simple agrarian societies and hunter – gatherer bands.
Two of the basic purposes of all governments are to provide security from invading armies and to create and maintain social order and stability. (Essentially, defense army and police forces.) The social contract between the governed and the governors is sacrosanct. That social contract may be vastly different between nations, but each nation has some form of that contract. Some are written some are not; but all are real and all must be fulfilled. When any government ceases to protect its subjects or citizens from invading armies or allows economic and social chaos, that government loses its legitimacy and will be replaced through revolution. There can be no social or economic stability with unrestricted migration.
Let us consider for a moment just two of the differences between contemporary American society and “Hispanic” and Moslem cultures. In Mexico and many Central American countries dog fighting and cock fighting are acceptable past times. In many Moslem countries, polygamy and pedophilia (girls as young as 8 being forced into marriages with older men) are culturally acceptable. Are these behaviors that we want in our country? Are these behaviors that we want our children and grandchildren exposed to? Besides the threat to economic stability, unrestricted migration threatens existing social conventions. These are real issues that need to be addressed.
The rate of legal immigration must be predicated upon the need for additional workers in the economy and the rate of assimilation. Between waves of legal immigration, there has to be time for those new immigrants to assimilate into the host country’s culture. It may take 2 generations for that assimilation to take place. There was virtually no immigration into the United States from the early 1920s until the mid 11960s, following the great flood of legal immigration during the last half of the 19th century. By the 1960s, all of those previous immigrants and their children and grandchildren had become Americans – culturally as well as legally. Unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration offers no protection for existing culture.
The more liberal (for want of a better word) among us who favor open borders seem to think that Americans can provide a good living for anyone in the world who can make it here. I see it differently. Charity should begin at home. As I write this, there are about 93 MILLION Americans without jobs. Fully 1/3 of Americans over the age of 16 are out of work. The social contract between Americans and the Federal Government requires that every American citizen who is willing to work has a job. That portion of the contract cannot be fulfilled with unrestricted migration.
This is the real unemployment number – 32.7% unemployed.
The mainstream news media and the morons in government crow about the economy creating 150,000 jobs in a month. At that rate, it would take 626 months to put all of these people back to work. Six hundred twenty-six months is 52 years. Our economy, our nation our treasuries, public and private, cannot continue to carry 93 million unemployed Americans and millions of illegal migrants. There is always a straw that breaks the camels back.
We have thousands of wounded warriors and other veterans who are homeless, jobless, living on the streets unable to get the medical care that they need. Our government, our society must care for these before we worry about people in the far-flung corners of the Earth. There is something wrong with bringing people into this country to work when we have more than 30% unemployment. There is something almost obscene about feeding, clothing and housing people who break the laws of our country to come here, while our heroes and wounded warriors do without fundamental life necessities. We should take care of our own, before we open our borders to a flood of non-citizens.
It is not racist, nor xenophobic, nor Islamophobic to believe that our Government should control the borders and control who comes into this country. Quite the contrary it is only common sense to believe that our preservation as a society and as an economy should be protected by our Government. Immigrants who migrate legally are expected to assimilate and become part of the ever-evolving American culture. We are a nation of immigrants, but we must protect our citizens before we allow more migrants into our nation. It is not racist – it is a matter of self-preservation.
