A brief (and not at all comprehensive) survey of the beginning of this essay:
The essay seems to begin by trying to make the reader afraid (comparing modern society to the Fall of Rome, for instance), which… whatever. There are plenty of lessons to be drawn from history – that’s the virtue of the discipline – but I don’t know how much insight the migrations of Germanic barbarians sheds on 21st Century immigration. Or at least, any worthwhile comparison would require a ton of research and argument, and not the supremely superficial treatment here. Thus, this seems mostly to serve an emotional purpose, though Powell means to use it to offset the traditional American ideal of immigration being regarded as an important and laudable aspect of our history.
Still: “immigration” could be good or bad, from various standpoints and in different historical settings? It isn’t always an unvarnished blessing? Sure. Why not.
Then Powell seeks to defuse the idea that opposition to “open borders” is racist. I’ve no problem with that – I don’t think that advocacy of immigration laws necessarily has anything to do with racism (even if some advocates of those laws are racist).
Then he raises Binswanger as “the most prominent Objectivist advocating completely open borders.” I’ll just go with that – I don’t keep up with those things. Though, having read through this section previously, I have to say that, while considering myself an “open border” proponent, I don’t like Binswanger’s position as cited here, for some of the same reasons Powell raises.
Powell discusses some of the other Objectivist intellectuals supporting “open borders” before savaging Yaron Brook at length for appearing to change his own position on this issue (from “open borders” to completely restrictive against Muslims) without acknowledging that any change has taken place. Seriously, Powell is supremely harsh against Brook, finally concluding that Brook’s position “changes slightly or radically each week.”
Finally, Powell looks to Ayn Rand, lamenting that she never wrote about immigration but citing that she did touch on the subject during a speech, and appeared to support “open borders” at that time. (Or something like it, at least; the direct quote taken from her is: “How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were?”)
Powell finds that Rand’s quoted stance on immigration is at least somewhat related to ignorance (“she was not fully educated about every single issue in American history”) and that other quotes on other subjects show that Rand should be sympathetic to a (more) restrictive immigration policy. Here he invokes Rand’s regrettable remarks about Native American Indians (or at least, I regret them) as well as a general swipe against “the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, and the cannibals.”
Whatever we think about Rand’s choice to put those three groups together like that, or whether we see any significant differences between, say, a Buddhist (as some of my more pleasant in-laws are), and a cannibal (which they are not, to the best of my knowledge), Powell invites us to imagine such people coming into the United States “in the hundreds of thousands or millions.”
Having concluded that Rand was dismissive of the idea of American Indians having “inalienable rights to continue their savagery” (which is perhaps just a touch misinformed in certain respects), he wonders whether modern savages should be considered to have such things as “the right to contract.”
So, if I’m following this (and I might not be, I’ll admit), I think that we’ve thus far concluded that some groups of people have individual rights… and others do not. Is that it?
Powell then introduces Objectivists who champion a “selective immigration position,” counting himself among that number.
He sets his position against Binswanger’s, which is accounted to hold that there ought be no restrictions against immigration whatsoever, even in the case of a criminal escaping justice or a member of a terrorist group. Insofar as that reflects Binswanger’s position, I think it’s clearly flawed – but then, I think that’s a straw man of a stronger possible open borders position, which I myself attempted to outline in this thread.
Powell continues to raise specters about Binswanger’s position, including that it would not allow air defense (against another possible 9/11), which again, would suffice to sink his position (if it reflects it accurately, which I cannot at present say), but seems a straw man version of the “open borders” stance I would take. I believe it is possible to support both immigration, and criminal and military self-defense. A border open to immigration need not be unmonitored; there can still be an immigration process, even if there is no quota.
Powell takes a moment to talk about the nature of countries, and how it is proper to deal with other countries as units (as opposed to dealing with individuals, as individuals). He says that this “is not ‘collectivism,’ but an expression of the reality of international politics.” So I guess that clears that up. He seems to imply that this is also the case made for “the interment of enemy aliens during wartime, despite their guilt or innocence,” so that’s yet another wonderful policy linked to this overall platform.
I can only wonder if Powell is already thinking about the essay he would write to defend the internment of American Muslims, if Trump ever stumbled over such a notion. And if you’ve ever wondered how a civilized society sinks into absolute nightmare, this is practically a primer. Powell is linking – if implicitly – restrictive immigration, internment camps, and the European conquest of North America, which was in many respects genocidal. He is making a case, again implicitly, at least, that there are groups of people who do not have individual rights, because they are cultural savages. (Like… Buddhists?) This isn’t midnight in America yet, folks, but the shadows are growing long.
Then Powell discusses “subversion,” saying that it’s not the case that force is alone “aggression.” I’ll leave it for others (for now at least) to relate this to Rand’s arguments about force and rights more broadly (is there anything left?). But for Powell’s part, he claims that “if you want a free polity, you must maintain a culture of freedom.”
Given the context of such a remark in this essay, I think the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that Powell believes that the government ought to intervene to produce/defend/maintain this “culture of freedom.” So that would include restricting “subversive” culture, presumably, and… what…? Supporting the creation of pro-freedom culture? Is this both censorship and propaganda we’re talking about?
But of course, Powell casts himself only as talking about immigration. He just wants to stop the “subversive element” at the door, and does not seem interested as to whether his ideas have any further implication. What to do about homegrown subversives? (Who I would imagine could be just as dangerous as those born elsewhere…) That isn’t addressed here, and I’m not certain Powell has even stopped to think about the potential consequences of his platform.
One specific “subversive element” Powell discusses is the Muslim Brotherhood, and secret documents discovered which purport to detail a conspiracy on their part to undermine Western Civilization.
Now look, maybe that’s true. I have no idea. But reading this account, I must say, reminded me strongly of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But if Powell is aware of such historical parallels, he doesn’t seem bothered by it, concluding that Islam is engaged in “civilizational jihad.” (So are some Mexicans, whom Powell has as trying to retake the Southwest United States in “a very long-term strategy…through immigration and cultural change.”)
So you see, this is war. It’s war when people move here, pretending to be peaceful, because really they’re plotting to overthrow our way of life.
Against this peaceful war, Powell recommends the border as “self-defense.” Quoting Peter Schwartz, Powell cites that “freedom is the end to which all other political actions are the means.” Thus, if some person “desiring entrance [into a country] will not further the goal of keeping that country free,” Powell concludes that he can rightly be excluded. Not because he is “riding in a battle tank or carrying a rifle,” but because he is “a person from an incompatible culture.”
And once again, I know that Powell sees himself as talking solely about “foreign policy,” but can we take a moment to wonder… if people who have not initiated the use of force can be judged as “subversive” and “culturally incompatible,” such that they forfeit their rights, and if “freedom is the end to which all other political actions are the means,” then why shouldn’t this also be an argument for domestic action?
Why not start rounding people up for having the wrong beliefs?
I’m now on p. 20 (of 69) and I’m done. (For now at least.) This essay is terrifying.
I guess it’s one thing I’ll say for what’s going on in the world right now: it’s really clarifying where people stand on some pretty fundamental issues.