Thursday, August 16, 2007

An Immigration Manifesto

I discovered the Norwegian website HonestThinking last year when they started referencing and linking to Fjordman’s posts at Gates of Vienna. They are one of the best cultural affairs websites around, not just in Norway, but anywhere in the world.

HonestThinking particularly focuses on the immigration issues facing the West, and the dangers posed by radical Islam. It has recently posted a lucid manifesto on this topic, which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Notice that the authors encourage republication, so readers are invited to pass this on.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Other publications (websites, newspapers, magazines, etc.) are encouraged to republish this manifesto. Permission to do so is granted provided (a) that the manifesto is published verbatim in its entirety, including its pre- and postscript, and (b) that HonestThinking is acknowledged as the source.

Immigration manifesto

1. It is a moral duty to promote human rights all over the world.
2. The concept of human rights must not be confused with any particular legal implementation or formulation of that concept, since such explications could contain internal inconsistencies or imply consequences that would cause conflict with the previous tenet.
3. The worth of a human being is independent of his or her gender, religion, ethnic background, sexual preferences, culture, language, and other such markers.
4. Cooperation across cultural, language, religious, and ethnic borders is desirable and necessary.
5. Even so, culture, language, religion, and ethnicity are instrumental in establishing each individual’s identity, and thus central in forming his or her sense of belonging and loyalty. Any policy aimed at sustainability must take this into account.
6. It is therefore legitimate for any sovereign state to implement restrictions towards non-citizens in such a way that control over its demographic development is retained.
7. It is unacceptable, without foregoing careful consideration and proper democratic processes, that political dispositions be made to alter the demographic composition of a state in such a way that its stability, its inner cohesion, and the mutual loyalty of its population be threatened.
- - - - - - - - -
The immigration policies currently in vogue in most Western countries show increasing signs of being unsustainable, and the associated problems are likely to grow ever more severe in the coming years. This is one of the largest ethical dilemmas of our time. We therefore believe the entire foundation for the prevailing regime needs to be reconsidered, and submit this manifesto as a starting point for reasoning about these challenges.

We are apprehensive of individuals, organizations, and other legal entities that try to quench free and open debate on the above issues, and regard such political actors as having little or no legitimacy in questions of democracy and human rights. Moreover, ideologies and political movements whose goals are irreconcilable with the above tenets should be considered devoid of moral and intellectual integrity, unless they are able to justify said discrepancy.

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, Ph.D., editor, HonestThinking
Jens Tomas Anfindsen, Ph.D., editor, HonestThinking


Hat tip: Fjordman.

14 comments:

Profitsbeard said...

A wordy and legalistically over-dense way of saying:

Every country needs to defend its own existence in any manner it sees fit.

___________________________________

Cultures exist for their own benefit.

Committing cultural suicide to look tolerant is absurd.

No one has a right to enter another country except legally.

No one has a right to stay in another country without the permission of the people in that country.

Uncontrolled immigration is national hara-kiri.

The ideologies of potential immigrants need to be examined before they are allowed enter a nation.

Just in case the believers in said ideology are intending to destroy that country and culture of their hosts because of the ideological tenets of the infil-traitors.

Phanarath said...

I liked number 7, but I rewrote the others so they would fit my views. I hope you will like them.

1. It is a moral duty to become our true selves and not try to prevent others from doing the same.
2. The concept of human rights is a confused idea of what it means to be human. Legal implementation or formulation of that concept will only lead to miss use and tyranny
3. The worth of a human being is independent of anything. But if we are to even consider talking about human worth, we cannot exclude any parts of the human being in such considerations.
4. Cooperation across cultural, language, religious, and ethnic borders should be handled with most care, and should never be entered lightly.
5. Culture, language, religion, and ethnicity can, in their destructive form, be instrumental in establishing each individual’s slave condition and they can also be central in forming sense of belonging and loyalty. These things have been the prime reasons for war and conflict trough out history and in the present.
6. It is the duty of any sovereign state to keep its people safe and to implement restrictions towards non-citizens in such a way that control over its demographic development is retained, in order to ensure that safety.
7. It is unacceptable, without foregoing careful consideration and proper democratic processes, that political dispositions be made to alter the demographic composition of a state in such a way that its stability, its inner cohesion, and the mutual loyalty of its population be threatened.

R. Hartman said...

On the surface I applaud their initiative. However, to many words. As sson as you start itemizing the definition of liberty, anything you missed can and will be used against you.

To me, the definition of libertarianism is sufficient, which is basically a summary of the US constitution:
Anyone has the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, provided he does not infringe that same right of anyone else.

This means violence, coersion and fraude will not be allowed. It doesn't matter whether or not the 'other' person is an immigrant, a native, or somewhere in between. True freedom means anybody can go live anywher they please, but they cannot expect others to be their slaves; i.e. they got to work for their living and pursue their own happiness, without forcing their beliefs or opinions upon others.

A libertarian society works by means of individual liberty, voluntary agreements between people and free trade. It's all based on that simple definition.

The more rules you define, the more limitations you introduce. An objectivist society is based on moral values.

Geraldo said...

1. It is a moral duty to promote human rights all over the world.
Who promote that?
Who define that?
What is the scope of "all over the world"?
It is to a nation build a state that respects its own population.

2. The concept of human rights .....
My concept of human rights is very very narrow.
Only should be human rights what the state has no right to do on you.
All those warrants in human rights wich depend on the work and wealth of others are totalitarian bullshit. (nobody has obligation to give you anything. The only right you have is to seat on the sidewalk and die of starvation). Its only use is to confuse and permit attacks on the narrow human rights, the only thats matters.

3. in 2

4. is necessary?. I agree
Is desirable? why? They onl way it is desirable is when it is necessary.

5. Culture, culture, and culture. It is the culture that define the way you interact with others. The interaction between people of diferent cultures is a very sensitive matters. It requires reciprocal aknowlegement. (ex. The confusions between the first boers in Southern Africa and natives about cattle trade)

6. put it simple: Any state may defend himself of any kind of invasion.

7. It is unacceptable. No way!

---

R.Hartman is an idealist who doesnot understand that is libertarianism only could work if there is one culture all over the world with no nations and no state.

gun-totin-wacko said...

RH:

You say "True freedom means anybody can go live anywher they please, but they cannot expect others to be their slaves; i.e. they got to work for their living and pursue their own happiness, without forcing their beliefs or opinions upon others."
************

So what you are saying is that someone can come illegally into the US or Britain, for instance, as long as they just "do their own thing"? They have no obligation to learn the local language, or make any effort to assimilate? In fact, following your logic, any attempt to convince them to "blend in" would be the locals- ie the folks already living there, who are citizens of the country- "forcing their beliefs or opinions upon others."

Sorry. You started out well, but you lost me there. Taking your point to it's extreme, if one Mexican family sneaks across the border and winds up in a given place- a place where no other Hispanic person lives- then nobody has the right to expect them to learn English or even pay taxes. The kids should be taught in Spanish, lest they become "slaves", regardless of the extra costs to the school district. And then, of course, more and more come in, and eventually the locals are pushed out by crime, poverty, and a hostile environment. But hey- they have the right to move elsewhere, too, right?

On a personal level, cultural independence is great. I don't care what god you pray to- even the sky-god of the desert-what language you speak in the home, and so on, but if you are in my country I think you should learn the language.

It's always an irony that people in Europe (and the elitist left over here as well) look down on Americans for not speaking other languages because it's "disrespectful" and proof of cultural arrogance, but then everyone gets uppity when some of us state that we think immigrants here should speak English.

AWOL Civilization said...

Gun-totin-wacko, you hit the nail on the head regarding the hypocrisy over learning languages. That's the underlying hypocrisy of multiculturalism: it's only "multi" when it works against us.

R. Hartman said...

@gun-totin-wacko
"So what you are saying is that someone can come illegally into the US or Britain, for instance, as long as they just "do their own thing"? They have no obligation to learn the local language, or make any effort to assimilate? In fact, following your logic, any attempt to convince them to "blend in" would be the locals- ie the folks already living there, who are citizens of the country- "forcing their beliefs or opinions upon others.""

Essentially, you are correct. But having said that, you're also wrong, which will become clear once you think about it.

In a truly free world, 'illegal' immigrants don't exist, only immigrants. And as there's no welfare state, the immigrant will need to set up a business or a trade in his chosen venue, in order to make a living. Now how well would that business thrive if the immigrant does not adapt to his new environment? If he does not learn the language, he cannot deal with his customers, nor with his suppliers. If he doesn't adapt to local customs, he will be avoided by the locals.

You're thinking along the lines of big government, and there's your flaw. "The kids should be taught in Spanish, lest they become "slaves"" is a totally invalid statement, as is enslaves the locals to teach the kids in Spanish. The kids are forced to learn the local language to survive. As such, you could say the kids are their parent's slaves, but that's also not true. The important point is that the IMMIGRANT chose voluntarily to immigrate, and hence the IMMIGRANT has to learn the language of and adpat to his new environment. It's a consequence of his voluntary choice.

I resent your remark "that people in Europe [...] look down on Americans for not speaking other languages because it's "disrespectful" and proof of cultural arrogance" as I never indicated such sentiments. However, I can see where it comes from, and again, its base is big government and, to be fair, mainly the leftist do-gooders that feel they need to 'help' everybody at other people's expense, without any recognition for the capabilities of the 'helped'. And yes, native English speakers do tend to be lazy, but I'll come to that.

My stance on this is simple: Anybody should have proper command of his native language, plus an acceptable command of English. Yes, that's very convenient for the English, Americans and Autralians, but that's how it is. Anybody complaining that the English have an easy time falls into the leftist trap of envy. Granted, Spanish is also considered to be a world language, but all great inventions have come from the English speaking world, so a lot of techspeak is English already. Anyone moving elsewhere has to learn the local language of his chosen location. So an American moving to The Netherlands will have to learn Dutch, as a consequence of his voluntary decision.

The reproach of "arrogance" you refer to is caused by the fact that native English speaker are encouraged to be lazy in learning a foreign language, as almost everybody speaks English anyway, so why should they adapt? And the fact that many foreigners find it interesting or useful to practice their English helps them in no little way.

It's big government that forces native non-English speakers to adapt to immigrants, by providing 26-language translations of all government flyers to anyone interested. THAT's the basis of your outrage. The argument is: how can immigrants follow the rules if they don't know the rules? And that's the biggest croq of sh*t you can give. The rules should be available in the local language only. If the immigrant doesn't understand them and thus gets fined or even arrested: tough luck. It's HIS responsibility to make sure he knows the rules, not the govenment's. I think we agree on that.

I could go on like this for some time, but Individual Freedom requires a whole other way of thinking. And it's not easy to be consequent. Contradictions do not exist. If you encounter one, check your premises; at least one of them must be wrong. Individual Freedom involves individual responsibility, and the voluntary interaction between free people. That's also why Geraldo's bottom remark misses the mark.

I was under the impression Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was compulsory reading in American education, which should prepare Americans better than others.

If you don't know it, try and get hold of a copy; it's really worth while.

Geraldo said...

To HR

Think it better. I just said your ideas only are aplicable if there is in the whole world one culture, with all the people organized in one way, without us vs them, so nobody is stranger nowhere. like you say, if foreigners came in great number and settle in one place it would be the original settlers who would fit them. A question: in case of misunderstanding between newcomers and oldcomers which, as they are not the same, law would they aply.

A remark with a real case:

Cabo Verde, a former portuguese colony, is small country in a vulcanic arquipelago West off Africa. It has no natural ressources that can feed parasiting elites so it had to turn to good governation, devellop a democracy and is one of the few places in Africa that is worth living in. Ilegal imigrants from main Africa already went to Cabo Verde.

R. Hartman said...

In extremo, you are correct. But in reality, this would never be the case. Like I said, government in a libertarian state is limited to the protection of freedom. If a group of newcomers would be big enough to create a seperate settlement, as in colonization, that would not be immigration, but invasion. That's an act of war, and you defend by expelling them.

And as 'master of the house', you can determine which people you allow into your country, just like the local discotheque owner keeps known troublemakers out. Discrimination? Or sound judgement? As I pointed out in my response to gun-toting-wacko, immigrants must adapt, so local law takes precedence. The newcomer made a concious choice for moving to his new environment, out of free will, so he'll have to accept the consequences. If not, he will be expelled again and declared persona non grata. And by 'expelled' I don't mean drop off at the nearest busstop, like in Europe.

On your example: why do this immigrants go to Cabo Verde? To help build a future and extend wealth? Or to loot, try and profit from the wealth without putting in their own effort? A productive population extends wealth for everyone. It does not matter where the workers come from, as long as they contribute to the economy. But if they move to a location, only to reap the profits, in fact enslaving the locals for their pursuit of happiness, they will be expelled.

It all comes down to the three basic rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you can pursue your happiness better somewhere else, go there, and work for it. Don't bother the locals with your culture, if it's different, you chose to enter that other culture. It's your choice, your responsibility. If you can't handle the responsibility, you don't deserve the freedom to choose, hence, you don't get to immigrate.

R. Hartman said...

gun-totin-wacko, Geraldo,
I just found this link on the subject: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4620

It's from Dr. Harry Binswanger, a longtime associate of Ayn Rand and a professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Geraldo said...

This is exactly the ideologic mixt that seeks to destroy european countries.


WELFARE

why this exception? One may not came to USA to live on welfare but mat fall in a situation he needs it, why denieing him this right. The autor accept Clinton solution but carefully avoid mentionig where does this exception came from. and what else lyes behind.

OVERCROWDING

This one is funny, the same people some time ago wanted put limits on economic grow because ressources limitation and other reasons now came with this? Where the ressources in USA for all this people (water, food, etc). I am not american but isnot there a great area of desert?

One problem, and a big one, is that only democratic countries open its borders. Non democratic countries would "export" their population to democratic countries.

THE VALUE OF IMIGRANTS

"Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children."

Some are and many are not. Imigrants bring with them their culture wich may not fit a modern industrialized and tecnologic country. In UK problems of corruption among police oficers of asian background for exemple. Gang rapes bye asian or african youth in several european countries. Riots in France by youth who didnot grab education oportunities given by France and now find themselves jobless. And other problems such as the danes found with Danica White cargo ship seized by pirates near somaly waters.

R. Hartman said...

Geraldo,

You do have some points here, but you skip the most important factor: government. Well, actually, two: government and the environment mob. There's no lack of resources. The proclaimed lack of resources is caused by the environment mafia, that will not allow natural resources to be utilized for the benefit of mankind. They oppose to everything, just for the sake of opposing. Nuclear energy: clean, safe, no CO2 (irrelevant, but hey), plenty available. Water can be obtained by building desalting units, plenty of salt water in the oceans. Crop revenue can be vastly increased by GMO. GMO can do other stuff as well, which is another reason for minimal government. Resources are NOT a problem.

Porsche builds a hybrid Cayenne SUV, under environment mob pressure (bad idea, environment wise, the Prius is worse than a Hummer, counting production and demolition) but GreenPeace is upset: the clean Porsche is 180kg havier than the standard one. They want to ban SUVs, not get clean ones.

The Clinton solution is the 5 year delay before being entitled to welfare. During those 5 years, the immigrant pays for services he cannot receive. Again, it's government, that interferes where it should not. The 5 years is arbitrary, and aimed to be a reasonable period that a looter can't abridge.

Countries "exporting" their population (typically Islamic as they breed like the backward culture they represent sees fit, aimed at demographic takeover) are to be considered hostile, and thus banned. The article clearly mentions individual immigration for personal improvement, like I did, not imperialism in disguise.

"Imigrants bring with them their culture..."
True, but, again, bad example. Big government makes this possible. The appeasement towards non-natives, noticably Islam, is all based on political correctness, not on moral correctness. At the same time, I, wanting to by a nice gated golf-court community property in Florida, and sell my services on the Tampa ICT market, am not allowed into the country.

In a free world, this could never occur. Immigrants need to adapt to their guest culture, or go home, as argued previously. I feel I could blend in with the Americans like a native. Probably work on the language a bit, still, but I've actually been encouraged to move there, as I'm direct and quality driven, and hate the political mumbo jumbo.

The Danica White was seized under the guns of American and, specifically, French warships, which did not have the guts to follow the pirates into Somalian waters and kill them off, as if a failed state like Somalia deserved to be respected like an equal of the free West. You don't negotiate with criminals, you don't respect criminals. If criminals seize someone else's property, you take it back. Holding back is being politically correct, but totally immoral.

As for the riots in France (and the gang rapes in (specifically) Sweden): again, government does not defend the natives, which should be their first and foremost priority. They appease rather than confront.

It all seems to be based on the Frankfurter Schule of Cultural Marxism: the more unstable a country gets, the more its citizens live in a state of anguish. That provides a cry for government intervention, and, hence, more power to the government. And that's what's any government is after.

I wrote a story on Het Vrije Volk, a Dutch blog, how a green party got trapped in its own web, called "Principles of the Left". Too much to translate here (I may do on my blog once I find the time) but essentially it's about how leftist GroenLinks in Utrecht blocked progress in city development and even got a motion accepted that no trees may ever be felled unless a building permit is final.

Now GroenLinks is in power in Utrecht, and the inner city needs revamping. The same guy that put forward the motion is now felling trees while there's nothings that even remotely looks like a building permit. Reminded of his own motion, he states blatantly: "Well, I'm in power now, so I need to act. Delays cost a lot of money in lawsuits and stuff". But what about your motion? "Well, it was useful, 'cause it got attention for the trees. But I was in opposition then, and while in opposition you'll do anything to stop the ones in power...".

And that, my friends, is the left for you. Never mind the interest of the citizens you are supposed to represent. Makes me want to throw up...

Sleep well, and be safe.

Geraldo said...

I dont skip governement, nor country, state or nation and the relation between them. A state that doesnot exist for nation(s) is but a parasiting entity that grows like a cancerous tumor.


"The Clinton solution is the 5 year delay before being entitled to welfare. During those 5 years, the immigrant pays for services he cannot receive. Again, it's government, that interferes where it should not. The 5 years is arbitrary, and aimed to be a reasonable period that a looter can't abridge."

I still dont understand if you agree on these 5 year delay. It should be noted that if there where not that delay people would benefit from something they dont paid for.

If there is universal human rights that are universal, people of USA (for exemple) have rights that is exclusive for them (Us citizenship, voting, being electd, serving army, etc) but not for people of other cointries, who have rhese special citizenship rights in other countries. Maybe Robert A. Heinlein is right, only those who have served the country should vote. There is another right that have been banned in western countries but still exist in many more countries (not western), administativ jobs exclusively for nationals of the country. Maybe this ban is unwise or has been too widely and unwisely applied

There is another right it is worth mencioning. In your country, as in some countries but not in others, there is a huge wealth that was built and paid by your ancestors, roads, railways, dams, schools, hospitals, bridges, universities, labs, ports, industries, etc that economic activities in your country relye on to provide its inhabitants wealth. By allowing foreigners to settle in your country you allow them to beneficit from they contributed not for. If you allow more people to came in, all the inhabitants of your country will have to pay for building more of these comodities to acomode everybody.
You may say if there were a population increase you all would be paying too. But in this you would be paying for your descendents.

---
These guys of Groenlinks is a liar who lied to electors to be elected. The usual to leftsht politicians. In my country we have one too who lied to be elected then made the contrary of what he said. What happened in Utrcht was not an accident but is the normal behavour now. You should read an article of Fjordman "a culture of lies" in Brussels Journal.

R. Hartman said...

"I dont skip governement..."
What I meant was that most of your arguments against my case are totally valid, but only inside the stranglehold of current government. As soon as you throw out the current role of government, most of your arguments are gone as well, as there validity is created by government restrictions.

"I still dont understand if you agree on these 5 year delay"
From my earlier posts I would have thougt my position is clear: I'm against it. I think it's great the US imposes it, and wish NL would do the same, but only in the context of the current welfare state. As soon as you abolish the welfare state, there's no need for arbitrary delays, as there's nothing to loot from, neither initially nor after the delay.

"If there is universal human rights..."
There are only three universal human rights: tghe right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A fourth right is considered by some that of property, but that's tricky. You only have the right to keep your earnings, which is different from a 'right to property' as it does not specuify the need to have earned it. These three right are negative rights, natural rights.

The right to vote, citizenship etc. are not negative rights, these are positive rights, granted by other people. So to whom these are assigned is arbitrary.

"...only those who have served the country should vote..."
That would be a much better citerium, but again: who'd be the ones to judgw that? Arafat was granted the Peace Nobel price, while being a terrorist. So judgement there was flawed, to state it mildly. In the past, census voting has been used, wher only people paying taxes were allowed to vote. This system at least prevents the leftist looters to take a majority vote and enslave the productive to the needs of the looters.

"Maybe this ban is unwise..."
Not maybe, but absolutely. It opens the door to 5th column infiltration, and is being used as such, no doubt about it.

"...there is a huge wealth that was built and paid by your ancestors..."
Well, I'm paying for it as well.

"By allowing foreigners to settle in your country you allow them to beneficit from they contributed not for"
Exactly. That's why I'm against the welfare state, that enslaves the productive to the benefit of the lazy. There's no justification for a welfare state, or socialism, whatsoever. If you want to be ensured against unemployment, insure yourself on the private market, by contract. Same for health insurance, house insurance, etc. You decide whether you want to pay the premium. If not, you cannot claim. Individual responsibility.

If you really cannot earn a living, rely on private charity. That has always worked very well, until the government started undermining it with its egalitarian policies.

"What happened in Utrcht was not an accident but is the normal behavour now"
I'm aware of that. What made it special, and caused me to write about it, was that it was so openly admitted, without any embarrassment at all. I'm well aquainted with Fjordman's writings, and while I do not agree on every detail, his analyst capacity is very good, causing him to hit the nail on the head again and again.

I'll look up this particualr one. Thanks.