Some libertarian on Twitter said that my arguments against immigration were bad. I hadn’t by that time made any, except to point out his utilitarian argument that measles rates had not visibly increased was a non sequitur. Yet in honor of his request I said:
My argument is I don’t want them. This is my home, not theirs, and they are not welcome.
That is all the argument I need.
This blew up. Somehow the libertarian contingent found it, and the Open Borders people, and I received many replies. Most were of the screaming rage category. “Nazi” was the nicest name I was called. “Woke” was the strangest. No reply was thoughtful, but some replies did have some content. So, even though I owe nobody an explanation, I here generously answer the most common counter-arguments.
These counters are not the exact wording, but summaries. You’ll recognize the species in each case.
Whites Sticking Up For Themselves Is Woke
Blacks (or any other group) looking out for their own people is not woke. Woke is rampant egalitarianism. Woke is saying there is no difference between, say, blacks and whites, and that any difference that exists must be the fault of whites, who therefore must be punished and have what is theirs taken (by government force) and given to those who do not have.
Woke is therefore Open Borders, for the same reason.
But again, blacks do nothing wrong per se, and even do much that is right, by looking out for their own. Whites do wrong by constant hand-wringing and wailing blacks aren’t equal to whites. The obvious and real problem is woke whites, and the worst of these, like fat James Lindsay, are those bizarrely slinging “woke” at their enemies, with no comprehension what the word means.
I don’t mean to focus solely on black-white relations, but on any group-to-group interaction. My looking out for my own people is not woke, for I claim the opposite of egalitarianism. My people are superior to other peoples at being what they are, and their peoples are superior to mine in being what they are. Just as men are superior to women at being men, and women superior to men at being women. Reality is recognizing these superiorities—and of course weaknesses—and negotiating their interactions at the borders, whether actual or metaphorical.
All egalitarians are frightened into hersteria by the word superior.
The Land You Claim Is Yours Is Stolen
Not one person who uses this false stolen-land argument thinks it through. It is pure vice signaling.
First, the land was not stolen, as history teaches. Second, even if it was, then everybody who is now here has to give it up to whoever it was they say it was stolen from. This includes those making the stolen-land argument, who must also be evicted.
Who the land is given to will be some designated people or peoples. Which is an acknowledgement there are differences in peoples, which the egalitarian denies. The whole thing is idiotic.
Measles Rates Aren’t Up & Just Think Of The Soaring GDP
I reject all utilitarian arguments used in service of moral ones outright. One fellow showed me a CBO model which argued that each immigrant added such-and-such number of dollars to the GDP or economy or something.
First, all models only say what they are told to say. The CBO told its model to say “Adding immigrants increases money” (or whatever). Its model then concluded “Adding immigrants increases money”. The model is therefore no evidence at all of the morality of Open Borders.
Second, adding immigrants means giving immigrants what we now have, even if everybody’s paycheck increases. An immigrant can’t have nothing of what’s ours, for they at least take up space, which is ours. I do not own them this.
That’s Your Opinion, Briggs. I Vote For Open Borders. Now Where Are We?
The Voting Fallacy says that right and wrong can be decided by vote. This fallacy is necessarily beloved in a democracy, which teaches people that right and wrong are what “the people” decide. That’s just silly, as all experience proves. Endless loud propaganda is the direct result of this fallacy.
In any case, the idea our people can be dispossessed because 50 + epsilon percent say they should be is preposterous. Majority vote only works in small matters.
So Don’t Take Migrants Into Your House. We’ll Move Them Next Door
Curiously, many assumed I do not own a home, or that I am on welfare, which they posited as the reason for my dissatisfaction, and therefore my argument on these matters should not count.
The most charitable response is to say this is incoherent, and that if it were true I was suffering, then I would be because of our Open Borders policy, and that I’m not allowed to criticize that which afflicts me does not follow.
In any case, to say that all that concerns me is what is between my four walls is, I would have thought, plainly ridiculous. Have libertarians never had to venture outside? Have they been to, say, downtown Minneapolis? How anybody can make arguments like this is proof enough democracy will always fail.
What Makes You Think Deporting All Immigrants Will Guarantee A “Functioning Healthy Society”
Given that diversity plus proximity equals violence, turmoil, and conflict, what I can guarantee is less of all that. And to allow my people to decide their own fate, without they themselves asked to assimilate to immigrants cultures, as we see is happening in, say, the UK.
Your Home Is Not The Entire Country And You Don’t Speak For The Rest Of Us
Yes, it is. And yes, I do. It is you who do not speak for us. You speak for those who are not us.
You Are Not A Christian
Yes, I am. Are you?
You’re Xenophobic
It’s better to say I’m my-own-people-ophilic (is there a Greek word for this?).
Who Are You To Decide?
I am me. I say enough: no more. Somebody has to say when. This is my home, not theirs. I say when.
I think I hit all the main ones. Did I miss any?
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
- Robert Heinlein
I would prefer you as my neighbour over any altruist.
'It’s better to say I’m my-own-people-ophilic (is there a Greek word for this?).'
Oikophile?
Great article