Taking Michelle Catlin’s Challenge

If you can not tell by now, I’m not a giant fan of right-wing-populist-nationalism. However, they are having a bit of a moment right now so I figured I might as well address them.

Recently, I and a few others have argued with Twitter user Michelle Catlin regarding how necessary government is. One thing she keeps saying we need government for is to stop mass immigration. When people like myself point out they — by her own admission — have done a bad job at this, she then demands that we come up with a better way to do something we’re against.

This led to this challenge:

Challenge for ancaps. If you think the state is not efficient enough to stop mass migration then provide me with a proven alternative that would protect the entire territory of Europe from mass migration.

Why The Question Is Nonsense In The First Place

Obviously, this question has one fatal flaw, we aren’t the ones asking for immigration restriction.

Allow me to give you an example: I know for a fact Catlin is against the socialist idea of workers owning the means of production. If she were to point out that no socialist government has successfully removed the means of production to anything but the state, would she also be forced to explain how she would personally give it to the workers? Of course not!

No one has to defend something they don’t agree with. Pointing out that your method doesn’t do as intended does not mean that I have to support the policy in general. In fact, it tends to mean the exact opposite.

This is one of another “conventional wisdom,” they teach you in school that really needs to end. No, not all criticism needs to be constructive. I certainly would not give Joseph Stalin “constructive criticism,” on how to better implement communism. Nor would I give Kim Jong Un any “constructive criticism,” on how to be a better authoritarian leader. Some ideas are simply wrong, and I will not treat them as anything else.

The question also ignores why government immigration restrictions do not work. It’s because all forms of prohibition do not work. Might I remind you that government can not even restrict drugs — inanimate objects — from crossing the border.

There was an episode of Penn and Teller: Bullshit where they hire illegal immigrants to build a wall and see if they can go over, under, or through it first. They managed to do all three in less than a minute.

This was a satire of the border fence proposed by then President George W. Bush, however considering the current president ran on doing just this, it’s another example of satire becoming reality.

By the way, let’s see how that fence worked out:

So what effect did the first 550 miles have? Not much, suggests an analysis by economists at Dartmouth and Stanford Universities. Arrests at the southern border dropped after the fence was built, but this cannot be attributed to the wall, since those years also saw a deep recession. Still, by using a confidential data source — the ID cards issued by the Mexican government, through its consulate, to its citizens living as immigrants in America, many of them illegally — the economists have isolated the effect of the new fencing on migration flows. And they calculate that it reduced the number of Mexican citizens living in America by only 0.6%.

Well, what do you know? It turns out that prohibition of anything — including other human beings — doesn’t work.

Now For The Answer

You more than likely remember those “open borders begins at home,” memes that many passed around a while ago.

However, these images make an important case that I will make it a minute.

Before we continue, I think we should define “mass migration,” just to make it clear what I’m talking about. Here’s how she defines her stance on immigration in an article posted on Medium:

I’m a firm nationalist on the issue of immigration. I believe that fundamentally a nation exists as a sovereign entity with a cultural heritage that deserves to be preserved. As such I support border control and the ability for the nation to choose who gets in or not. To go more in detail I believe immigration should never be above a level where it can lead to the ethnic majority seeing a decline or possible replacement level. Next I believe a point system is a very suitable idea similar to one in Australia where you need a certain amount of points related to things like age, assimilation, language, qualifications, ect for skilled immigration. Finally I believe in a zero tolerance policy where criminal immigrants should be deported. I’m also firmly against any form of illegal immigration and a pathway to citizenship for them.

(Side note: If Michelle is such a Dutch nationalist why does she Tweet in English?)

Now, allow me to ask you a simple question: Would you invite someone into your house who did not speak your language? Would you not kick someone out as soon as possible if you saw someone come into your house without permission? And I could go on.

Spare me the fear mongering about “economic zones.” (A buzz word they throw out anyone who dares suggest the economy which can be measured and studied is more important than the vague term known as “culture.”) Give me one example of any “economic zone,” throughout human history. While we’re at it, give me one capitalist society that banned not letting people into your house.

This would also help stop crime. Tell me, have you ever tried getting a job with any kind of criminal convictions? I hope not (for a number of reasons)! Studies have found it to be near impossible.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not debating if that should be the case or not. However, this is once again an example of the free market harming those who engage in bad behavior.

Mitt Romney talked about “voluntary deportation,” while running for President back in 2012. The problem there wasn’t the idea, it was that the free market already does that. Why do you think so many immigrants went back to where they came from during the United States Great Depression?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how the free market works for everyone.