Immigration

Further advantages could be gained in the field of labour migration. At present leftist policy is directed explicitly or implicitly at increasing legal and illegal immigration rates to the developed capitalist states. Conflict between the State of Arizona and the Obama administration has reached the courts on this matter. Agreement on the conflict resolution proposals presented here could help reduce tension in such matters, since it would include changes to the leftist mindset most especially in its relation to the American republic.

The central consideration in this regard is to procure recognition from the Left firstly that the chief concern of American revolutionary radicalism in establishing the Bill of Rights was as a safeguard against the ‘natural tendency of government to gain ground against liberty’ and with this the development of autocracy and aristocracy. The ultimate danger of such tendencies is that the forces of tyranny may be strengthened and those of republicanism weakened and eventually fatally undermined. The founders were correct in this regard: the greatest danger to government by consent is the development of tyranny most especially by stealth. Counterposed to this on the Left is the Marxist postulate that the state will ‘wither away’ once socialism has been established. These Marxist beliefs are wrong, and indeed childish. They arise from the impractical, speculative and abstract nature of Marxist analysis which the Left must be brought to realize is far inferior to the approach taken by American revolutionary radicalism. It is better to be safe regarding the self evident truths of common sense than sorry, forever. Given the increasingly favourable economic conditions that are developing for global integration of government Caesarist solutions are being made ever more possible, and through the ‘perverted lights of modern science,’ ever more likely to be permanent. In this context the hope that such dangers will disappear because the state will wither away is unacceptable, irrational and dangerous.

Yet it is precisely such an unacceptable, irrational and dangerous course upon which the hard left is set. Their big idea is that communism can be established despite setbacks by concentrating on global integration, since this will provide better opportunities to gain power by disrupting conservative ideology, which is mainly nationalist in orientation. Measures to facilitate global integration are being pushed through the legislative and executive procedures of whatever state the left can exert influence upon. It is claimed that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement between Canada, the USA and Mexico does not affect national sovereignty. It remains to be seen whether such reassurances are any more reliable than those given concerning the European Union. Present day radicalism views the USA as an exploitative power which has acquired a disproportionately high share of global resources, and which should correspondingly open its borders to unlimited immigration. This, so ‘useful idiot’ leftists reason, will in the long term result in a more equitable distribution of wealth among the global workforce. The hard left see advantages to be gained from destabilizing the cultural homogeneity of the developed states through escalation of ethnic tensions, an increase in narco gangsterism, and with this, greater opportunities for the conspiratorial use of unaccountable forms of political violence.

Conservative views of immigration in general lack coherence though they are in greater accord with what may be broadly termed the contemporary standards of American common sense. A more coherently scientific view based on the original perspective of enlightenment revolutionary radicalism is that the American republic must guard against unsustainable rates of immigration which, in a world where tyranny still holds significant power and influence, could lead to ruin. This was Jefferson’s view and it was also that of Latin American revolutionary leaders of the period, some of whom considered the American republican experiment simply too far in advance of the cultural capacities of their own societies to emulate. They sought to promote immigration to their own countries only from the North American and European continents based on the assumption that such citizens would be more likely to enhance the political stability and economic growth of their new republican ventures.

Given concerns regarding the threat to the American free state now posed by the forces of tyranny these considerations demonstrate that it is not merely in the ‘national’ interest of the USA that immigration is brought under control but that it is in the general democratic interest of all nations that the security of this free state and accordingly the US Bill of Rights are preserved against all direct and indirect threats to subvert them, including those posed by unlimited immigration. It is in the general democratic interest that rights to trial by jury and armed self defence are firmly established throughout the world before unlimited migration can take place. It is in the interests of totalitarianism that unlimited migration takes place across US borders before these rights are firmly established throughout the world. Therein lies the rub. The leftist dogma that the USA is an ‘imperialist’ power may or may not contain elements of truth, but even if such claims are partially correct (they are most definitely not wholly correct) such considerations are far outweighed by its role as the first and only state to have established democracy in its modern form without the assistance of any other democratic nation state. If there is a meeting of minds upon the conflict resolution strategy indicated here, then the immigration issue in Arizona will be managed in accordance with the general democratic interest.

Next: Ancient Right
Previous: Conflict Resolution
Back to Democracy and the Second Amendment Index