Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis

Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis

By Duncan Whitmore

Both the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the US President have elevated the topic of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Leftist, liberal elites – previously so sure they would arrive easily at their vision of an open, borderless world – have been scalded now that the lid has been lifted from the bubbling cauldron of the needs of ordinary, everyday citizens seeking to preserve their jobs and the culture of their homelands.

It is high time that this vitriolic, divisive and – frankly – often quite tiresome issue is put to rest. That, alas, is unlikely to happen, particularly as the political globalists seem content to plough on with their vision of open borders through the looming UN Global Compact for Migration. Listening to the mainstream arguments (or at least to how the leftist/liberal media chooses to portray them), one would be forgiven for thinking that the immigration question needs to be met by an all or nothing answer – i.e. that it is either an unqualified good or an unqualified bad. We are led to believe that it is a contest between liberals, or self-styled “progressives”, clamouring for fully porous borders on the one hand, versus elderly, conservative, racist bigots who supposedly want to keep everyone out and preserve England’s green and pleasant land for white faces.

The falsehood of this dichotomy is obvious to almost anyone who is not of the liberal-left, and, in fact, a “sensible” view on immigration is quite prevalent – that it is possible to be in favour of permitted, but regulated immigration, allowing some people to cross the border as immigrants to come and live and work in the territory of the state while denying that privilege to others. It is also recognised that immigration is economically beneficial in some situations, but not in others – i.e. when immigrants are highly skilled and productive instead of welfare consumers.

The task of this essay is to sharpen this “sensible” view with Austro-libertarian theory. We will begin by outlining the core libertarian theory concerning immigration before examining a key area for contention among libertarians – whether, in a world populated by states, any particular state should restrict or otherwise control movements across the border by persons who are not considered to be citizens of that particular state and whether this is in accordance with libertarian theory. We will then move on to exploring the economic and cultural implications of immigration policies. Continue reading

Paris: A Few Political Points to Make

Paris: A Few Political Points to Make
Keir Martland
(14th November 2015)

I disagree that it is crude to make a political point out of atrocities such as that in Paris yesterday. Bad politics causes these attacks and better politics can prevent them. Here are a few political points I’d like to make.

In the first place, most of us have imperfect information about the events of last night. I was flicking back and forth from Sky to BBC, who, in turn, were getting their most reliable information from BFM. Even as I write, the death toll is disputed as is the question of whether the terrorists definitely were Muslims.

Continue reading

Community? What Community?

Community? What Community?
By Neil Lock

In recent months, borders and migration have been much in the news. This is a subject, on which I find myself disagreeing with traditionalists, conservatives and even many libertarians. For, as I wrote in an essay on the Libertarian Alliance (LA) forum back in 2013 [1]: “I favour not so much open borders, as no borders – at least, no political borders, and so no barriers to migration.”

So, a few months ago I set myself to try to understand more fully the ideas of those on the other side of this issue. I owe thanks, first, to Keir Martland for his part in a most illuminating discussion in a comment thread on the LA website in late July. And second, to John Kersey for his clear enunciation of a traditionalist position in his speech to the Traditional Britain Group on 12th September 2015 [2]. This essay is, in part, a reply to John’s views as there expressed. Continue reading

HOLA, Ann Coulter!

Ilana Mercer

“Adios America” is the apropos title of Ann Coulter’s latest book. It details how mass immigration is killing America, as Bill O’Reilly would say (or still will). Adios means farewell in Spanish. Hola is the opposite. Immigration patriots bid a hearty hello to Ann Coulter, as she takes over and takes the battle to the enemy.

The big gun has arrived. Continue reading

The ‘We Need To Have A Conversation’ Malarkey

Ilana Mercer

You know just how scholarly a policy paper is when it is studded with a clichéd expression like “we need to have a conversation about …” The pop-phrase is familiar from these farcical usages:

“We need to have a conversation about race”—when, in reality, we do nothing but subject ourselves to a one-way browbeating about imagined slights committed against the pigmentally burdened. Continue reading

He knows he is right

David Davis

Phil” “Woolas”, described as an “Interior Ministry Commisar”, knows he is right. Footballer-sized “bonuses”, compensating for the very real risks to life and limb which are faced daily by “immigration” “officials”, are clearly the right thing to offer.

Mere soldiers, fighting and risking actual corporeal death in far countries about which we know rather a lot, and mere bankers, trying to plug the BOP-gap by the simple act of attempting to earn profits for their banks and their shareholders, are a mere nothing by comparison.

His remark was obviously intended for internal departmental consumption primarily, which simply adds to the evidence that he, and the rest of the Enemy Class, will have to go.

The bastards are plainly not interested in the fates of the rest of us at all, which just confirms my hypothesis that they have turned themselves into droids which are the way they are, on purpose.

"I thought he was Lavrenti Beria, until I discovered..."

To stop them getting in…or us getting out?

David Davis

BAe Systems (I thought it was on OUR side?) is developing UAVs (drones) to “patrol the coastline”, to deal with “smuggling” and “illegal immigrants”. Never thought I would hear the term “Police Aviation” used seriously and without irony.

Does not sound very libertarian to me.

If you have nothing to hide...

...then you have nothing to fear...

As the man said once… “very interrrrresting” …