I don't have a lot of time to write this blog post, so forgive me if there end up being a hole or two.
On Facebook, a friend used a status update to initiate a conversation about the immigration of Syrian refugees. Naturally, I participated.
During the course of this conversation, a woman interjected and told me to "Open my arms and my home to them [the Syrian refugees], leave mine alone!"
Leave aside that I have no interest in her arms or her home. What could this woman think she means by this? It is a complete and utter contradiction. If I open my arms and my home to Syrian refugees, that implies that they have immigrated to the United States. That is what I want, but not what she wants. I'm okay with this - is she? No, of course not. The mere fact that I argue in favor of immigration is what she considers to be "failing to leave her [arms and home?] alone." So, can I open my home to immigrants, or can't I?
This is a frequent logical error made by immigration restrictionists. As per that recent Lew Rockwell article that's been making the rounds on social media, the restrictionists only ever consider the opinions of their fellow restrictionists, never the immigration advocates. So when they argue that immigration "is an assault on private property," what they really mean is that it is an assault on how they want to dictate the use of public property, despite the fact that many Americans feel otherwise. In short, they just want what they say to go, even though there is a broad range of opinion out there on immigration. Why would one opinion trump all the others? "Because it's the majority!"
Okay, so then the majority can take away your ability to make a contract with another person? I hope you're prepared to live with the consequences of that policy.