Part Two: Open Borders anyone?

Introduction: as this is being written, a court in the UK town of Epping found that a local hotel could not house asylum seekers. Since then, another seven councils, including two labour councils are considering similar legal action. Many politicians in both major parties are now voicing their opposition to the use of hotels for asylum seekers. This is putting the Home Office in the UK in a very difficult position. Are we reaching a breaking point now in the UK with the challenges of processing and housing asylum seekers. Will there be even more demonstrations in the coming weeks?

The article in freemovement.co.uk referenced in the 1^st article does raise some questions. If, as the article says, the Conservative government has been responsible for allowing so many “boat people” to come to the country, why has it done that? Could more be done to stop these people arriving on our shores and placing huge burdens on the government and British society as a whole. Has it improved during the Labour government? Also is it possible that these people are being allowed to come to the U.K. to serve deeper and more nefarious agendas. This will be explored in the next articles.

The website referred to above has many interesting articles on a very complex subject but the term free movement is similar to that of open borders. I am not sure if it is meant to be the same thing but there is a school of thought that believes all borders should be open, to allow the free flow of people to go where they wish. This obviously flies in the face of national borders and the rights of a country to control who may come into their country. It may sound really nice on the surface but what could be the consequences of this. One argument can be made now that many of the refugees and asylum seekers come from countries devastated as a result of Western imperialism – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan come to mind. Also, who wouldn’t look for opportunities elsewhere if possible and the history of Western exploitation is part of this equation. However, many “refugees” now are as much economically motivated as anything else and now we have the smuggling gangs facilitating it. So open borders sounds all hunky dory in an ideal world, but this is not our reality. Also we have seen how in the United States, President Trump has made the specter of illegal immigration a central theme in his political agenda, and even though he has capitalized on this for political reasons, he has a point. If you have borders but don’t enforce them, then why have the borders. Further arguments have been made by Trump and others that many thousands of immigrants have been allowed into the USA, allowed to become quasi legal and then integrated into society as a way to undermine the Republican party and ultimately to change the demographics of the country. Is this true?

One author who put the argument forward of open borders is Rutger Bregman, in his book, Utopia for Realists. He focuses on 3 main ideas:

1. Universal Basic Income (UBI).

2. Open borders (free movement of citizens between all states)

3. A working week of 15 hours.

I read the book and of course, being somewhat of an idealist, I liked it. This was a few years ago, before we saw yet another head of the hydra headed serpent of the deep state during Covid, when suddenly the now infamous quote came to the surface via the World Economic Forum: “You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy.” They say it was a theoretical argument looking at a possible idealized future, but for many it has become a red light for the ever- encroaching digital control matrix forming around us. From Vaccine passes, digital ID, Central Bank Digital Currencies, “hate” speech prosecutions, control of social media platforms, prison sentences for thoughts and speech, 15-minute cities etc. The list is growing. Sam Altman of Open AI fame is saying we may need a Universal Basic Income soon as there will be fewer jobs with all the AI advances. But with UBI comes a digital ID and digital money, not real money!

So, a universal basic income may be great as long as there are no strings attached, but of course, government will not be able to resist pulling a lot of strings. For those of a more libertarian mindset, having government dole out pocket money is fundamentally anathema to a moral human life. Unless one takes responsibility for one’s own life, the moral integrity of one’s life is compromised. Of course a responsible society looks after those that cannot look after themselves but it should stop there. A culture of dependency upon the state for one’s life is no real life and undermines real autonomy. Bregman does make a good argument how it can work to bring the poorest people out of poverty, but then one should also look at the fundamental economic and social structures that make that happen and how in the latter stage of capitalism with the ever widening gap of uber-rich and poor, and the middle being squeezed, what we are seeing is in the inevitable decline of all the advances that Bregman mentions in the 20^th century and the overall improvement in people’s lives. Nothing lasts forever and a UBI may benefit some but not the whole. On top of that, the rapid decline of democratic accountability and brazen authoritarian impulses seen in so-called democracies leaves little confidence that there won’t be many strings attached.

Open borders also sounds very nice and Bregman makes a point that immigrants tend to benefit society, work harder, do jobs others won’t do any longer and add to society as well as benefit themselves. He doesn’t so much look into the impact of thousands/millions of somewhat educated young people, especially men, paying their way to the UK. and other countries and leaving behind their own country where they could benefit their societies by staying and working there. While there is still so much economic disparity between countries of the world, open borders will lead to a one-way street of immigrants coming to Europe from the Middle East, South Asia, South America and Africa, ultimately leading to a state of saturation. Are citizens in Europe justified in being concerned at seeing so many immigrants of a different culture and religion, that they feel their own cultural identity is threatened. So far, it has largely worked but is there a limit and have we now reached that limit as more and more demonstrations occur, serious criminal activities such as child grooming, prostitution gangs, increased violence etc., are seen and also how this is now being politically manipulated to foment a more “populist” and reactionary intolerance toward immigrants. Is the fear of immigrants also now being used to manipulate people. Or are people’s concerns that the influx of hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Christian countries slowly but surely eroding the indigenous culture and will it eventually lead to the “Muslimization” of these countries?

Bregman’s argument is predicated on certain assumptions and generalizations. He argues that implementing a UBI would further extend all the advances made in Western societies in the last two hundred years, where millions have been brought out of poverty and now lead productive lives. His argument is a classic liberal one and it is not as if he is wrong but it is relative. By using the West as the example of progress, he doesn’t consider how other cultures in different parts of the world may have different ways to measure progress. He is coming from a particular perspective of individual liberties and freedoms, which ties in the UBI and open borders, but he does not consider as much the impact of bringing into a country hundreds of thousands of people of very different cultures and religions and the impact this may have on countries, their cultures and values.

In an interesting essay called The Path of European Self-Destruction in the Unz Review on the rise and fall of western societies and the balance between the individual rights of a citizen and the collective responsibilities, identity and cultural norms of society, the writer explores how liberal values evolved over two thousand years from the Greeks onward, with a developing focus on individual autonomy and rights and the development of societies through the prism of individual liberties. This was most clearly elucidated in the writings of British economist, John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government in 1689. Of course a balance needs to be made between individual rights and liberal values with larger responsibilities to society but the author is making a case now that in the latter stages of liberalism, a gross imbalance has evolved where individualism and what can be called the ideas of cultural Marxism have become overly emphasized, creating the somewhat ironic situation in which liberal values of autonomy and freedom of speech are only allowed when people conform to what is now seen as politically acceptable. This has been seen during Covid and now in the ongoing culture wars and issues such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), all identity issues, but fraught with ideological conformity and suppression of those who don’t conform.

The author compares this liberal model to that of German Historicism, which prior to the two world wars tended to focus more on the significance of cultural identity and collective values, essentially conservative values of belonging and in recognizing one’s role in the larger context of family, nation, authority and cultural identity. However, the author makes the case that in 19^th century Germany that prevailing idea did not lead to any less freedoms and autonomy than in Anglo French and Anglo American ideas which focused more on the individual. However, these German values were essentially destroyed after WW2 in the process of so-called denazification which also involved imposing some part of cultural amnesia where the past was erased and the ideas of German historicism linked unfairly with Nazism.

The author quotes the following book: Ricardo Duchesne’s Greatness and Ruin, and in which the following quotes are made:

Before the rise of Western Civilization, the human world was one of intense kinship relationships characterized by a corresponding psychology that was clannish, conformist, deferential, and highly context sensitive, without the ability to detach objects and persons from particular settings, and thus without the ability to generate abstract concepts and think analytically.

Things began to change with the development of the Indo-European aristocratic warrior band not based on kinship — a social institution in which warriors could compete for glory and reputation. In Greece during the classical era, the power of kinship was further broken in favor of civic bonds that allowed for the rise of self-government through deliberative assemblies that rewarded talent independently of family connections. Such developments were a precondition for the discovery of a rational mind present (at least potentially) in each individual man — a locus of thought independent of social relations and subjective feelings, and capable of grasping objective truth.

The rise of Western individualism and self-consciousness was thus well under way in classical times, and they continued to develop and strengthen for many centuries thereafter. By Locke’s time, individualism was so well-developed in Northern Europe that it had come to be taken for granted. The way was thus open for a new speculative teaching that imagined radical individualism as the native and natural condition of the human race.

Despite the seriousness of this fundamental error, the central role liberalism grants the human individual makes it a quintessentially European doctrine. It is impossible to imagine the theory of an individualistic “state of nature” and subsequent establishment of political society by means of a “social contract” originating in a non-Western kinship-based society such as China. As Dr. Duchesne writes: “Liberalism is almost epigenetically rooted in the historically evolved psychology of Europeans.”

Liberalism grew, flourished, and developed many subvarieties, influencing Western institutions for the next two and a half centuries without ever appearing to threaten our civilization with destruction. One important variant was the moderate republican liberalism of Thomas Jefferson, with its recognition of the primacy of the public good over private interests and fear of the corrupting influence of uncontrolled commerce. As the author notes, the relatively benign effects of early liberalism were due to its having been developed when the vast majority of people [still lived] in an unchanging landscape dominated by the alternation of the seasons, going to church, creating large families in customary ways, rarely moving out of their place of birth. . . . Liberalism “worked” because it was sustained by important nonliberal qualities from the past.

In his description of German historicism, the author quotes Dr Dushesne as saying:

Among the leading traits of German intellectual life in the 19th century was a widespread concern with history. As Dr. Duchesne explains, German scholars emphasized “the critical analysis of historical documents” and a “commitment to factual accuracy,” while promoting “the professionalization and specialization of history as a university discipline.” This concern eventually resulted in an entire new school of thought called “German historicism.” One of its exponents, Friedrich Meinecke, considered it his country’s greatest contribution to Western thought since the Reformation and “the highest stage in the understanding of things human attained by man.” In Dr. Duchesne’s words, historicism provided Europeans with a historical consciousness by explaining how humans are historically conditioned, not within history conceived as a linear progression following universal scientific laws, but as members of a particular land, nation, and culture. There is no universal “man.” Humans can only be understood in terms of their unique history and customs.

Historicism does not attempt to apply the methods of natural sciences onto human affairs or to force history into a linear process of progress with universal objectives. Every country and culture should be seen in context to its own identity and culture and not to be imposed with an overarching philosophy. This is important now, as what we are seeing in the world of the late stage of the Anglo-American Empire is the imposition of the idea of conformity to one set of cultural values which are to imposed upon all others. Even politically and militarily the concept of the Responsibility 2 Protect (R2P) is a doctrine of cultural and military supremacy of one idea of how things should be in a unipolar world order. What we are seeing now in the world is the attempt of the Western Empire (USA/NATO/EUROPE/ISRAEL) attempting to maintain its hegemony onto the world. Embedded in this agenda are the fundamental Western myths of the supremacy of Western civilization. It is the same myth that is allowing Israel to commit genocide over the Palestinians, and which makes many in the West who identify with Judeo/Christian ideologies to justify the genocide.

In the article, historicism is seen as recognizing responsibilities as much as rights and that experience is contextual to one’s environment, culture, national identity, a pattern woven over millennia. We are not mere isolated individuals in the sea of life but intimately connected to our history and culture. This apparently is what is emphasized in the views of historicism.

These ideas and concepts are somewhat new to me, not being particularly well versed in German history, but reading the article makes sense. I have always personally emphasized freedom of speech and individual rights and having lived in both the UK and the USA, these values have been seen as central. That has also impacted my views on “nationalism,” being seen more in a negative context, and of course the history of racism in many countries, and the tensions this is now bringing as mostly illegal immigration reaches boiling point.

Bregman makes the same assumptions which form the base of UBI and Open Borders and in so doing denies the validity and importance of individual countries with their own unique culture and identity. He is attempting to impose universal values, but ones with a distinctly Western viewpoint. In the current tensions being seen with the “boat people” in the UK and the larger challenges of immigration in Europe and beyond, there is a clear delineation between those who believe in a form of open borders and the “rights” of immigrants to seek a new life in another country, even if doing so illegally, and those who are very unhappy with the erosion of culture and national identity and the economic and political instabilities now being seen as a result of this influx of people. Up until now, Europe has effectively absorbed millions of immigrants, most who are victims of political upheaval in their own countries, but now more so, “opportunistic” immigrants, simply seeking a better life. This is now polarizing many people in Europe and is also being exploited by different political persuasions, the “right” rebelling against loss of identity, but with the specter of rascism not far away, and the “left” inheriting the contradictions of universal rights and freedoms but buying into a globalized view of the world which actually threatens ordinary working people in their own countries. The more privileged midde-class, often more sympathetic to the ideology of “wokeness” and “inclusivity” may not be so impacted by the influx of many immigrants. Their lifestyles may protect them but working class are more vulnerable and it is these people who are now demonstrating and rebelling against the immigrant situation.

In two important recent decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the case of Bangladesh immigrants was heard, who were denied asylum based on the grounds that their country was considered to provide a sufficient level of protection. The CJEU determined though that this determination of “safe” can only be made if said country is safe for ALL its residents. This determination may make it that much harder to expel any asylum seeker from anywhere as which country is safe for ALL its residents. In another case, two Indian immigrants were refused accommodation in Ireland based on the fact that there was no room in reception centres. The court found that this was no reason not to accept them and told the Irish government they had to accept them. There may be merits to the cases but one of the main points is that the CJEU is eroding the power of national governments to decide for themselves their own immigration policy.

Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “there is no such thing as society,” in which she was attempting to curtail the “nanny state” and in theory lessen dependence upon the state. This led to massive privatization and the damages that has since been done to the UK. While her instinct to restrict the powers of an overbearing government were appropriate, she simply replaced it with an overbearing privatized state, one which is just as exploitative of ordinary people. While she was wrong to use that terminology as society and culture are very much part of the same thing and very real, as the ideas of German historicism explore, the example of Britain now in facing a challenge to what it means to be British has to be acknowledged.

Personally, I have been more sympathetic to the “rights” of people to seek better lives and the plights they find themselves in, often as a result of the actions of Western governments and corporations that continue to undermine and exploit different countries. I also feel that Britain has greatly benefitted from immigration of millions to the country, mostly from former colonies in the 1950s onward. Britain is a much more interesting place, but is there a limit now? Also, when looking at the struggle over the last hundreds of years to reduce the power of the Christian church over people’s lives in Europe, the last thing we may need is another form of religious authoritarianism in Britain in the name of Islam, and immigrants who have very little in common with Western culture and values and the challenges this brings.

But that leads us to look at Enoch Powell and his famous speech in Birmingham, UK in 1968 when he prophesized “Rivers of Blood” as a result of immigration. He was wrong then, but is he wrong now and what led him to make this speech. More to come.

---