This is what we have seen happen in Canada with a Lib/NDP government in last 10 years! Let’s hope Canadian Elbow’s Up Voters wake up soon……

This is a hard article for me to write. It involves a career-long error of believing in an open border, a position I pushed in writing and speaking. I now completely reject that view. It seems like I have an intellectual and public responsibility to explain my change of mind.
Apologies to readers who find my prose tendentious and pointless because you already understand. Perhaps you can read the following as a descriptive lesson in how ideology that floats above reality can lead even earnest and intelligent people into absurdity.
My earliest belief in open borders came in college, animated by a belief in the capacity and moral obligation of America to absorb all comers. Yes, waves of immigration can cause social, economic, and demographic disruption but it is nothing that a free people with free institutions cannot handle.
My understanding of history seemed to bear this out. We are a nation of immigrants if you go back far enough, and my own roots trace to the earliest Colonial days. My ancestors migrated to Texas and helped clear the path for waves of German immigrants. Later in the 19th century, the United States absorbed vast numbers of Irish and Italians before closing the border in the early 1920s, with tragic results. I saw no reason for any policy but open borders.
I was in Texas at the time and plenty of people in border areas knew of the problems. I simply did not listen to them, writing off the complaints of landowners, city officials, and people on the ground dealing with crime and expense as kvetchers who did not believe in human rights.
This view is one I held throughout my career, as I rallied around the free migrationist position as the consistent application of the principle of liberty and human rights. The complications herein—most revolving around the meaning of citizenship and what it implies—were not on my mind.
The first dent in this worldview came with the first rumblings about the problem of the welfare state. Can we really just absorb an infinite number of people and put them on public welfare? This is obviously untenable. The research is pretty clear that a society that attempts such a thing will be torn asunder. A native population cannot be leaned upon to fund the lifestyles of foreign migrants without giving rise to grave population aggrievement and roiling fury.
The rationalistic solution to this problem is rather simple. Cut off the welfare benefits. Problem solved. Except that it is not that simple. New residents flooding in, even without welfare, stress public infrastructure with new demands for housing, schools, highways, and much more, and it is simply impossible not to see a way out of this without taxing the native born.
My own view had been shaken but not broken by such reflections.
There is a much more substantial and difficult problem that comes with uncontrolled immigration. It comes down to the right to vote, which is to say, the capacity of a people to manage the shape and character of the government under which they live. With the 14th Amendment and the current interpretations of the law—which are likely wrong—any child born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen and entitled to the vote when he comes of age. This introduces a serious issue for politics.
In this constitutional republic, there is but one method by which political leaders are selected. That is the election. Without truth and integrity in elections—in the very plebiscite that drives forward the whole of the American experiment on people’s government—all is lost. This also turns out to be a vulnerability that can be manipulated by bad actors. In other words, the party in power might be tempted to use the franchise as a method of gaming the system to remain in power.
This is a technical point but it bears on the matter at hand. In 1994, Murray Rothbard wrote an article that I somehow wrongly dismissed at the time but which is crucial for understanding the political dynamic at work here. He arrived at his topic by examining recently released Soviet archives. They revealed how Joseph Stalin had sent waves of Russian immigrants to capture territories as a means of securing Soviet control over the fullness of his empire.
Realizing this, Rothbard saw for the first time how emigration and immigration policy can be deployed by a despotic ruler to fasten control over a recalcitrant population. He further wrote that if this can happen under totalitarian rule where there is no real pretense of democracy, how much easier might it be in constitutional republics that revere the vote and place them at the heart of governance?
How does this apply to the United States? Consider the case of the state of California. For many decades dating far back, it was a conservative and Republican-voting state. That changed in the 1990s thanks mostly to massive changes in demographics. Immigrant populations were not the whole reason, and plenty of new residents voted Republican, but, at the margin, it made the decisive difference. California switched completely, thus changing the fortunes of the Democrats at the national level and making life far more difficult for the Republicans.
Watching all this unfold tempted Democrats with a problematic moral hazard. Maybe they can repeat this all over the country. Maybe allowing waves upon waves of unchecked immigration will disturb the voting patterns of Red states so substantially that the Democrats can gain a foothold in places that would have only reliably voted Republican forever. This is, sadly, precisely what seems to have happened from 2021–2024 when the borders were flung open.
Watching all of this spread out should have caused anyone with a dedication to liberty and honest government to rethink a free immigrationist position. What we watched happen looked like the manipulation of a system—not just any system but the central nervous system of the whole of the American experiment that comes down to honest elections.
Seeing all over this unfold should challenge every idealist who thinks that all arguments are solved by the invocation of human rights. This was not about freedom, in effect it’s just the opposite.
There is a final problem we must confront. What is a nation? There are many factors that are part of the answer but the fundamental one relates to the way a people have come to exercise some degree of control of the system under which they live.
There is a national plebiscite, but no global plebiscite. Global government means zero citizen control. That’s why nations are essential to freedom.
The globalists favor weakening the nation precisely because they want to weaken citizen control of government. Opening borders is part of the scheme—not as an expression of freedom but rather as a device to weaken the people’s freedom and replace them with forms of government over which they have no control.
There is no getting around it: a free people absolutely must have nations, which in turn requires some vision concerning what constitutes citizenship, what citizenship entails, the means by which one can call himself a citizen, and some method of excluding non-citizens from participating in elections. Without all those pieces in place, freedom itself is lost to a new globalist command center.
Many people within my own ideological circles saw this much earlier than I did. I knew them long before I came around: Peter Brimelow, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ralph Raico, Milton Friedman, and F.A. Hayek.
For certain, I am disturbed when I see videos of ICE enforcers invading businesses and towns and arresting nice people and deporting them. I don’t want to see that happen to anyone, and I sincerely wish we had a better system for dealing with this. The problem that the Trump administration is required to address should never have come about in the first place.
There should be better guest worker programs. We need clearer standards for gaining citizenship. Birthright citizenship was never supposed to be implied by the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court needs to throw it out. Ideally, we would have a broad and welcoming policy that did not compromise citizen safety and the integrity of the American institutions, nor can be manipulated by cynical ploys.
There are plenty of legitimate debates about the standards of immigration and the methods of enforcement. I have unsettled views on many of these matters. All that said, we should and must dispense with this crazy delusion of the open-borders position. It is a path to political manipulation, social disruption, and finally tyranny. It cannot be permitted, and I admit to deep embarrassment that it took so long for me to see it.

https://tinyurl.com/4rdbj8ua