When one ventures to opposite sides of the immigration universe at openborders.info, he/ she can find the following case for open borders: immigration restrictions should be removed because they; “arbitrarily discriminate against people based on their place of birth, and enforce these restrictions coercively.”
In other words, nation-states selectively granting citizenship or immigration to people based on their birthplace represents a random, unfair system bereft of good reason or logic.
While this contention doesn’t consider the practical implications of higher immigration, it is an interesting counter-argument for those inhabiting the anti-immigration Right: who are you to deny a poor Somali the right to migrate, when you were born into the privileged, wealthy West? And why should factors such as birthplace, national ties, and ancestry that are beyond our personal control, shape the here and now?
Contrary to this well-intended position, unchosen factors do indeed matter. For whether an animal willingly chose and embraced the life of a lion or zebra is unimportant, when basic behavioral, physiological and physical differences are at play. The same holds true for humans, in a multitude of ways.
For when someone is born in a particular country, this will commonly shape their geopolitical and religious views. For instance, those born and raised in Israeli territory are likely to have a pro- Israel, pro- Judaism bent, whereas those born and raised in Palestine are likely to take up an anti-Israel, pro- Islam bent. Comparable differences can be observed in modern rivalries between Indians and Pakistanis as well as those historically waged between European groups, such as the Germans and French. On a cultural level, those born in South- East Asia have a lax culture towards eating dogs, whereas Westerners consider these practices close to cannibalism.
As discussed in previous posts, ancestry directs far-reaching in-group preferences driven by biology. Moreover, when groups come into close proximity with genetically different groups, this can lead to competition, rivalry and conflict. Different races also have different average IQ’s, which have dramatic implications for civilizational development. When considering the United States example, it is likely that low IQ/ high IQ populations mixed together will bring not only socioeconomic problems but greater community tension.
Culture, religion and race aside, there is something profoundly meaningful about a person’s place of birth. Humans aren’t dropped out of the sky through some random occurrence. Rather, we are the combined legacies of our ancestors who came before we and humans gain a particular pride, identity, and tradition from them. Western Civilisation exists because our ancestors created it for future descendants, as long-term considerations have always been present. Such thinking can easily be observed today be it from the Left who wish to protect future generations from climate change, or the Right who seeks to protect future generations from mass immigration. As eloquently put by Douglas Murray; “What you have inherited, you do not have the right to give away.”
Put simply, groups do have the heritable right to pursue their own interests, to the relative exclusion of others. For it is only this way the sacred civilizational pact between the dead, living, and yet to be born can be fulfilled.
It must always be remembered that the definition of anything, will come to the exclusion of other things. In an ethnic context, if we are incapable of concisely defining what Australian, British or Italian people are and respond accordingly, such distinct groups will cease to exist. And to downplay the authenticity of our own and therefore survival prospects is entirely detached from the innate will to survive.
To some, this reality of generational inheritance may be unfair to individuals today who live in war-torn Mogadishu. But feelings of guilt can never justify the annihilation of groups which have successfully existed for hundreds of years, as open borders would indubitably inflict upon Western Civilisation. In truth, Westerners claiming generational ownership over their own lands is no less abstract than Aboriginals representing the cultural, historical and linguistic ways of their ancestors. Further, the tolerance of intolerance inevitably leads to the collapse of tolerance itself: a blunt reality to those who prefer Western norms over third world norms, yet remain incapable of taking necessary protective action.
The concept of private property additionally validates the sovereign rights of unique peoples and the righteousness of borders.
Private property orders ours lives and personal items, so that the “nasty, brutish and short” state of nature described by Hobbs, is avoided. Private property also harnesses the human drive for power in such a way as to facilitate nature, and minimize potential harm to innocent individuals.
Similarly, nations are more than boundaries haphazardly drawn up on a map. Nations are instead the collective ownership of citizens that pay taxes, contribute to a civic order and in return are permitted to vote, receive government services and truly flourish as part of this broader community. Just as individuals possess the right to lock their doors at night and determine the rules of their house, nations possess an analogous right to do the same on ancestral and national grounds towards immigration, irrespective of if these characteristics were chosen.