Poor Bernie Sanders. After provoking the ire of black activists, the beleaguered socialist from Vermont has incurred the wrath of the polemical far-left site Vox. So what was Sanders’ latest “ugly” transgression? He entertains the radical notion that open borders is a bad deal for American workers, and that the US should look after its own people:
So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. “Open borders?” he interjected. “No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. “I think from a moral responsibility, we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty,” he conceded, “but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”
Dylan Matthews, the gadfly who penned the article, seems intent on validating the argument that leftists serve as useful idiots for the 1% that they supposedly oppose. This article is so ridiculously quixotic and replete with bizarre leftist internationalism that a part of me thinks Keith Preston wrote it as a way to parody “totalitarian humanism.” Just check out this passage (emphasis mine):
There are two problems with Sanders’s view on this, one empirical and one moral. He’s wrong about what the effects of an open-border policy would be on American workers, and he’s wrong in treating Americans’ lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.
Yes, you read that right; apparently, caring more about your fellow countrymen than every person on the planet is anathema to leftists like Matthews. I know that I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but yet again I challenge you to find sizable numbers of pundits in non-white countries who espouse such nonsense. But anyway, the reason why nations and societies exist is to look after their own, and even the leftist economist Dean Baker rightly chides Matthews for his absurd logic. As the tweeter at the bottom named Aaron put it, Sanders isn’t “running for president of the world.”
Matthews only further compounds his fatuousness by citing this ridiculous thought experiment:
The philosopher Michael Huemer has a great thought experiment making this point. Imagine a man, Marvin, is starving to death, and goes to a marketplace to buy bread. Another man, Sam, forcibly stops him and prevents him from buying bread. Marvin starves to death.
That’s wrong, right? And it’s still wrong if the harm caused is less severe. Say Marvin isn’t going to the marketplace to buy bread, but instead to sell it. If he sells it at that particular marketplace, he will make 15 times more money than if he sold it at the other marketplace in town. But Sam stops him, by force, from selling at the lucrative marketplace, forcing him to settle for the other market, where he makes 15 times less.
The analogy is not exactly subtle: Marvin is a potential immigrant (in this case from Nigeria; recall that moving from Nigeria to the US raises an average migrant’s earnings 15-fold), and Sam is a US border patrol agent. If you think Sam is hurting Marvin by barring him from selling bread from the good market, you’ve got to think that border agents are hurting immigrants by keeping them from coming to work in the US.
For starters, there’s an obvious difference between citizens living within a nation and outsiders who intend to move in. To curtail the rights of your own citizens is certainly wrong; nations, on the other hand, have no obligation to tend to any and all needs of myriad outsiders. Otherwise, they cease being nations.
There’s a far better and more apt analogy, which Dota gave me during one of our more recent conversations. Let’s imagine that there’s an altruistic, civic-minded young liberal woman living in San Francisco. Understandably, she wants to address the plight of the city’s burgeoning homeless population. What are her options? On the one hand, she could donate money to support food drives for the homeless, lobby the city to construct more shelters, and advocate for laws that protect the homeless from abuse. Or, she could invite as many homeless people as possible to live with her, while encouraging her friends to do the same.
Essentially, Dylan Matthews would have the US exercise the latter option, with little regard for living space or boundaries. Unsurprisingly, the results would be just as disastrous. If one actually gives a crap about remedying the penury of the 3rd world, then there are better ways to do so than opening the floodgates. Just as supporting homeless causes is a more sensible course of action than allowing them to move in, tackling international poverty and violence is a better option than allowing the masses of the (non-white) world to inundate the country. Instead of pressuring our elites to alter their destructive foreign policy and harmful international trade agreements, leftist shills for open borders want to pass the costs of 3rd world destitution onto regular white Americans.
Obviously, open borders is sheer lunacy and highly detrimental to the lives of white Americans. That’s why its proponents can only invoke “humanitarian” arguments or tout its supposed economic benefits by citing libertarians such as Bryan Caplan. If mass immigration were really so wonderful, it wouldn’t require constant cheerleading.
At the same time, I have nothing against immigrants themselves, and I don’t condemn Latinos and Asians for wanting to improve their lives. Instead, I denounce white elites and their lackeys such as Dylan Matthews. They are the reason why whites are poised to become a minority by 2042; they are the ones responsible for the flourishing of cultural leftism. Suicidal white humanism – along with its many adherents – are the true enemies within.
We must continue to thoroughly discredit their ideas, and at the bare minimum ensure that they do not infect other white people with their loony logic.