My stance on immigration is that neither the United States nor especially Europe benefit from mass migrations of foreigners on their territory, and that as long as we have a state, we may as well direct it to limit immigration.

But isn’t there a tension between this view and my proposal to abolish the standing army? With no military to provide deterrence, what if Mexico, say, invades, not even with any intent to conquer America but simply to allow unrestricted immigration?

This is not a universal or fundamental problem but one that arises because there exist considerable wealth disparities between nations. However, the poor nations are poor because of their inferior political systems. Their difficulties are entirely man-made and can be easily, if there is sufficient will, fixed. If the entire world embraced laissez-faire capitalism, the presently poor counties would quickly catch up. Then there would be no severe immigration pressures on the wealthier countries. All national borders could be made as completely porous as the borders between, say, Ohio and Pennsylvania. People would move from one country to another as unpredictably and individually, as opposed to en masse, as today they move from one US state or city to another.

However, if I had to choose between no military + mass migrations and current military + limited immigration, I’d pick the former. So, I’m biting the bullet and doubling down on the proposal to abolish of the standing army, navy, and everything else.

Categories: Immigration


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *