I know for some of you this is getting old, but someone has to do the dirty work.
Jacob Hornberger has a piece entitled “A Strong Government Equals a Weak Nation.”
If this is correct – and I agree with it completely – then what would a government that desires to be “strong” want to accomplish? Before answering the question, let’s clarify the term “nation”:
A nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them — including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. By comparison, a nation is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.
Consider what unhampered, open borders would do to such a “nation.” I guess it depends – do the immigrants share “common characteristics” such as “language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity”? Or do the immigrants come with substantially different characteristics than the existing population?
For the most part, immigrants during the first 150 years of the American experience held characteristics common to the general population; for the most part, immigrants of the last 50 years of the American experience did not.
So…what would a government that desires to be “strong” choose to do about the “nation” that it governs? It isn’t a trick question; Jacob gave the answer right in his headline.
What does this suggest about libertarians who advocate for open borders? Either it suggests that they also advocate for strong government or it suggests that they cannot get beyond elementary thinking in libertarian theory or application.
Which is it, Jacob?