Friday, September 6, 2013

Should Immigration Policy Be Based on Individualism or Collectivism?

The Real Question Is: Egalitarianism or Selectivism?

Championing an immigration policy that takes account of group demographic characteristics makes me guilty of empirical thinking.  Does it also make me guilty of collectivist thinking? If so, then anyone who advocates age of consent laws is guilty, too.  So is anyone who grants even the potential for a legitimate war waged by one nation against another.

Immigration policy is a branch of foreign policy. It pertains to a nation's relationship to other nations, which are collective entities. It's not feasible to judge every person in the world individually. No one self-identifies as a future rapist on immigration forms. But the immigrant populations responsible for disproportionate quantities of rapes are identifiable.

Western civilization is being raped, is being replaced, is committing cultural suicide in the name of egalitarian non-judgmentalism.  If we know that people from Muslim country X are consistently more prone to be rapists, terrorists and moochers than people from Free country Y, then is an “individualist” morally obligated to act as though the two populations are equal?

If so, then “individualism” serves as a Trojan Horse for egalitarianism – which prescribes a single collective value judgment to be heaped upon all humanity. 

Those who recognize individual differences and act accordingly – but pretend not to notice patterns of differences among groups of individuals – are operating on the premise that trees exist but forests don’t.  A well-functioning mind not only processes the particulars it perceives; it also categorizes them.  It forms concepts of types of trees, cars, dogs…and humans.  A rational individual judges based on his values.  I value liberty and judge individual and group threats to it negatively.

I seek to prevent my country from being overrun by tribalistic aggressors, through a selective immigration policy that takes probabilities into account.  If that’s collectivism, then so be it.  Only a farcical form of individualism would require individuals who value their freedoms to stand idly by and allow themselves to be slowly conquered by leftist-aiding Islamists, who state explicitly that their aim is undermine and destroy Western freedoms through demographic conquest.

If individuals inhabiting a geographical area can justly form a government for the purpose of securing their individual liberties, then there is no such thing as an open-ended “individual right” of foreigners to become citizens at will, irrespective of the consequences they impose on the liberties of the inhabitants.  Rather, it is the job of government to discriminate among all residency seekers – on any individual or group basis that is relevant to the objective of ensuring that immigration inflows don't cause a net erosion of liberties.  


  1. "You're a fascist, collectivist leftist, marxistwhowantstodestroythefamily. This is Hegelian dialectic at its finest."

    - RockingMrE

  2. Concepts exist, it's that simple. There are individual things, and there are concepts under which individuals fall. Rand was a jew and shit philosopher working hard to try and find a way to hate both the Nazis and the Communists, and hating concepts as applied to humans is her way.

    To be judged individually, is to be judged from the group of which you come, all individual lizards are lizards.

    1. "Rand was a jew and shit philosopher working hard to try and find a way to hate both the Nazis and the Communists"

      I don't think we're going to learn anything from you, somehow.

  3. Jan Helfeld is not a collectivist. Joke of the day?

  4. There is a real issue here for libertarians, and one which can not be easily dismissed by ideological reasoning. Theoretically, we ought to judge people as individuals. Theoretically, a high-IQ Somali ought to have the same opportunity to immigrate as a high-IQ Swede (or Afrikaner, or Chinese, or whatever). However, there are several things which mitigate against this:

    * An individual contains a certain genetic lineage. It just may be that the 115 IQ Somali is an outlier whose children will revert to the mean, while the 115 IQ Swede is part of a family of Nobel winners.

    * People act differently when part of a collective than they do as individuals. To use that proverbial Somali (and I do not mean to pick on that country), he may be an outstanding fellow and upstanding citizen. But how does he act as part of a family or clan or gang? Does he promote his own group interests which are antithetical to liberty--say by supporting affirmative action or demanding Big Government programs? If he does not get his way, does he start burning cars?

    * I do not want to dismiss concerns about Muslim promotion of Sharia Law. It just may be that they are exaggerated, but how does the Objectivist antipathy to religion as being inherently irrational fit in with welcoming large numbers of immigrants who are philosophically opposed to the concept of the secular state?

    * The importation of Somalis is in part a program to radically change the nature of the country. They are being moved into traditionally white communities as a means to bring "diversity," and "diversity" is the codeword for affirmative action and governmental indoctrination. i.e., as understood by the government/liberal establishment, mass third world migration is to be part of a radical program of collectivism.

    Finally, let me note that if we are to open the gates to immigration, then we ought to give high priority to whites who want to bail out on black majority rule countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, and perhaps to Christians who want to escape persecution in Islamic countries.

    1. I agree that high priority should be given to Boers of SA

  5. Immigration policy, as a private property question, should simply be based on the expressed wishes of the natives. If they're sensible they'll act in their own self-interest. When those known opinions are ignored, what follows is not immigration, it's invasion.

    In the modern West we really don't have the luxury of debating the finer points of how we might best apply libertarian philosophy to this or that issue. We are already invaded, colonized, owned by people to whom European norms of individual freedom are completely alien.

    That's what happens when your politicians start to believe in abstractions scripted by the self-serving members of other nations. It isn't much of a shock.

  6. Did you know you can create short links with AdFly and get cash from every visit to your short links.