It’s amazing how much the “closed border” crowd has in common with the “gun control” crowd, in how they think, in how they feel, and in how they talk. Here are just a few examples:
A: “Opponents of gun control just want to ignore the problem of gun violence!”
B: “Open border advocates just want to ignore the problems of immigration!”
False. Advocates of freedom acknowledge and recognize the problem of violent aggression, but (unlike those who whine to the state to “do something”) realize that the correct and moral response to immoral aggression is not to become an aggressor yourself.
A: “People who talk about gun rights just don’t care about innocent people dying!”
B: “People who want open borders just don’t care about innocent people dying!”
Both groups do the intellectually dishonest and downright stupid routine of implying that if you oppose whatever widespread violent aggression they think will stop certain injustice, then that means you must want innocent people to suffer. If you don’t cheer for their authoritarian solutions, they will declare that you just “don’t care” about preventing injustice. Again, this is a classic statist ruse, used to try to justify all sorts of governmental controls.
A: “Not all gun owners are bad, but we still need to regulate them all!”
B: “Not all immigrants are bad, but we still need to regulate them all!”
It is also classic statist-think to want to violently control entire categories of people based upon what you think some individuals in those categories might later do. Actual anarchists know that defensive force is justified only when used against actual individual aggressors.
A: “This is a crisis, and we have to do something!”
B: “This is a crisis, and we have to do something!”
The agendas of both groups are driven by emotional alarmism, which scares proponents into setting aside anything resembling principles while demanding authoritarian “solutions.” Both also ignore the fact that the problems are mainly the result of “government” actions, and both continue to propose more “government” power as the solution.
A: “If it makes me safer, then I advocate gun control!”
B: “If it makes me safer, then I advocate closed borders!”
Both groups are also willing and eager to violate the rights of others, and to have the state initiate violence against others, if they think that doing so will serve their own safety and interests. (Of course, that describes every statist.)
A: “Look at these statisics! Look what guns cause!”
B: “Look at these statistics! Look what immigration causes!”
Both groups are eager to remove responsibility from individuals, and to instead blame—and politically “punish”—huge categories of people, most of whom haven’t harmed anyone. And they will use statistics, trends and patterns to try to justify this.
A: “I advocate gun control.”
B: “I advocate closed borders.”
In most cases, both rely heavily on vague political euphemisms, where the statism violence they condone is hidden under layers of rhetoric and propaganda fluff. “Gun control” is a euphemism for state violence—carried out, ironically, by men with guns—and “closed borders” is a euphemism for other state violence used to keep people from crossing arbitrary, imaginary lines.
A: “People who have illegal guns should be prosecuted!”
B: “People who are here illegally should be deported!”
Both groups do the common statist routine of condoning state aggression, and then using the “legality” of such aggression to condemn the victims of that aggression. This is another classic statist tactic: demand that “the law” prohibit this or that, and then declare that those who disobey such “laws” are automatically bad. (This would be analogous to demanding laws supporting slavery, and then condemning the Underground Railroad because they are “breaking the law.”)
A: “People can still come here, as long as they do it legally!”
B: “People can still own guns, as long as they do it legally!”
Along the same lines, both groups talk and act as if the mere act of immigrating, or the mere act of having a gun, is not actually the evil thing they oppose. No, the evil they oppose is doing either of those things without the permission of politicians. If someone submits to the layers of bureaucracy, complying with all manner of “government” regulations and restrictions, paying fees and filling out forms, then it’s okay for them to immigrate or own a gun. Of course, to think that the morality of an action depends upon governmental permission is an unmistakable sign that one’s position is entirely authoritarian and statist in nature.
A: “We need this to save our country from disaster!”
B: “We need this to save our country from disaster!”
In addition to constant fear-mongering, both groups also do the “ends-justifies-the-means” routine, implying that the overall good that their favorite form of “government” violence would (supposedly) serve justifies the initiation of violence against millions of people they don’t know.
Both groups also seem to overlook the fact that they are also condoning violations of their own rights and freedoms. The “gun control” crowd is cheering to have the state limit their own ability to defend themselves, and the “closed border” crowd is cheering to have the state limit their own freedom of movement.
But the ultimate irony is that the “closed border” crowd—whose position is 100% collectivist and 100% authoritarian—accuses others of being “leftists” or even “communists” for opposing the initiation of violence against anyone trying to step across a line, the only significance of which is that it defines the territorial jurisdiction of a ruling class. “Closed borders” is a euphemism for “government” agents using “government” violence to enforce “government” “laws” related to “government” borders, in the name of protecting some supposed nationalistic, collective interests.
To advocate “closed borders” is to whine to Big Daddy Government to use widespread violence to benefit the human cattle on one human livestock farm (“country”), at the expense of all the other human cattle on all the other human livestock farms. And you can't really get more collectivist, more authoritarian, more statist, or more communistic than that. To look at this (below), and think, “Yes, this is what freedom looks like, and anyone who opposes this is a communist!” shows just how scared, irrational and philosophically misguided the border-fetish crowd has become.
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "larken@larkenrose.com" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)