Some lunatic by the name of Alex Tabarrok has published an article to the Atlantic, calling for the abolition of national borders altogether, based on some ridiculous form of morality that somehow those of us who are born in functioning, first world countries are just “luckier” than those who weren’t, and aren’t anymore deserving to live here than those who weren’t.
Meanwhile, on his twitter account, he brings up an interesting point about how there are now “no-go zones” in Europe for Jews, because so many Jew hating Muslims are now living in European countries, and are becoming violent towards European Jews.
He’s literally calling for a type of immigration policy, while at the same time, speaking out against the effects said immigration policy is actually having. The whole thing is yet another blatant example of what Orwell referred to as “doublethink“, in which a person can hold two blatantly contradictory views simultaneously, and believe both of them to be true.
The sad thing is, what he’s saying isn’t really extreme in this age. It might sound like he’s saying something that’s completely out there, but the reality is, the modern system of mass immigration, in which people from virtually any part of the world are free to come in to first world societies, shows that borders already don’t mean all that much as it is. All this guy is doing is calling for them to speed up the process of what’s already happening. And sure, if a bunch of ISIS terrorists, or Somalian rapists come into Europe… who cares? It is apparently our moral duty to let them in, just because we’re lucky enough to have ancestors who built countries that are actually worth living in.
To paraphrase Rousseau, man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged. Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.
Not every place in the world is equally well-suited to mass economic activity. Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly. Variations in wealth and income created by these differences are magnified by governments that suppress entrepreneurship and promote religious intolerance, gender discrimination, or other bigotry. Closed borders compound these injustices, cementing inequality into place and sentencing their victims to a life of penury.
It’s hilarious that he brings up that point about nature’s bounty, when Europe (which dominated the world for centuries, and is still situated near the top today) has less natural resources than most other parts of the world. Meanwhile, the Middle East has all that oil. Africa has more gold and diamonds than anywhere else. These third world countries have an abundance of “nature’s bounty” but are too incompetent to actually use the potential wealth they generate, to actually improve their.
As for those oppressive governments, wouldn’t a completely open borders policy allow people like those who run these oppressive governments to come into our countries as well?
The overwhelming majority of would-be immigrants want little more than to make a better life for themselves and their families by moving to economic opportunity and participating in peaceful, voluntary trade. But lawmakers and heads of state quash these dreams with state-sanctioned violence—forced repatriation, involuntary detention, or worse—often while paying lip service to “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
It doesn’t matter if the “overwhelming majority” (allegedly, citation needed) are like that. How can first world countries look after all of them? Are we seriously supposed to throw open our borders, and allow the entire third world in? To let them depopulate the third world altogether, while overpopulating the first world? It’s not as if the first world countries have some kind of magic aura about them that makes them work better. The reason the work, is because of the people who live in them, and made them what they are. The third world countries are disasters, because of the people who inhabit them. Therefore, it’s simply an obvious reality, that allowing every single third world person (who greatly outnumber us as it is, and who breed faster than us) into our countries, will just lead to them turning first world countries into third world countries like the ones they came from.
We can see this in Zimbabwe, which went from being a first world country under people of white European descent, to a third world country under people of black African descent. We can see it in Detroit, which went from being one of the most industrialised cities in the world when it had a white European majority, to being the poorest city in America, when the demographic shifted to an African American one.
We can see it in Haiti. Under French colonial rule, Haiti was a prosperous colony, known as “the jewel of the Caribbean”. When the black former slaves took over it in the Haitian Revolution, they quickly turned it into an African style hellhole. It gets even more obvious looking at Haiti when you consider its history ever since. In 1915, the poverty ridden hellhole was occupied by America. They stayed there until 1934, and during that time, they built schools, hospitals, roads, and maintained stability in the country. By the time they left, they had created a country that could potentially allow for a first world standard of living. Instead, as soon as they handed back control to the Haitians, they destroyed the country all over again. In 1959, fearing the spread of Communism (as had happened in Cuba), and with the Haitian economy in tatters, America once again took an interest in aiding the country. Sure enough, once again, Haiti went to hell soon after. By 1991, a military dictatorship was in place, and in 1994, the US occupied the country YET AGAIN. Again, America stabilised the country, handed power back over, and again, the country declined soon after. The reason why this is happening should be quite obvious, but instead of outright stating it, I’ll just let people figure it out for themselves. And when they do figure it out for themselves, I hope they realise that this is the future of Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, if ever an entirely open borders policy is ever brought in.
The rest of the article just kind of rambles on about all the alleged benefits these people would somehow bring to our countries, as well as insisting it’s morally wrong for us to keep them out (because somehow, creating a society where our own descendants are at the mercy of a bunch of primitive savages, is the moral thing to do). I really don’t feel like going through the rest of it, but the link is there to check out, and I’m sure the stupidity and insanity of it, will be self evident.