So, mainstream libertarians (otherwise known as white democrats who aren’t as excited about taxes) are coming out in droves to bitch and moan about Trump’s new executive order concerning Islamic immigration. I’m writing this with a small caveat; I make little mention of Libertarians themselves, but this is designed for that particular audience. A group so enamored with reason and evidence either gets to acknowledge the facts discussed here or drop their principles. There is no moderate position; the chaff will be separated from the wheat.
The first and most vociferous objection is a legal question, arguing the president doesn’t have the authority to dictate immigration policies to any extent. Wrong! Anyone alive and thinking during the Carter years knows that’s a lie: whether they admit it or not. A total shutdown of visas issued to Iranians was enacted with humanitarian exceptions (I wonder if a certain religious minority in that region could be given such an exception?).
Second is this bullshit idea that Islam is not a threat in terms of political violence based on the raw numbers of deaths caused by Islamic operatives in the nation. This is a particular absurdity because Muslims consist of only 1-2% of the general population.
Of course, we wouldn’t want to do anything so rational as examining the global threat an ideology poses to evaluate whether it has a place in our society!
It’s completely ridiculous to evaluate any of this without adjusting for population. If a dangerous ideology doesn’t have much of a presence within the country, of course the country doesn’t suffer as much from the ideology! There’s a rarity of tiger attacks occurring in daycare centers, and it’s not because tigers are harmless. You can’t argue against a barrier to a threat based on the effectiveness of the barrier.
A few more examples to drive this home:
“Why shouldn’t we pour gasoline all over the floor? Do you know how few house fires we’ve had?”
“Why shouldn’t we let the bears out of the cage? Do you know how few people have been mauled in this zoo?”
“Why shouldn’t we blow a hole in the levy? Do you know how few floods we’ve had?”
“Why shouldn’t we take the brakes out of the car? Do you know how few crashes we’ve been in?
You get the idea.
Why not actually look at the impact of countries having gone through a wave of Islamic immigration? If only we had such an example to study!
This gets more and more convenient by the second. The Muslim population in Europe is far more statistically significant, and here we examine migrants over represented in crime (shocking!). Islam is a dangerous ideology and the fidelity of a person to its precepts is the primary factor in either their support or participation in violent and immoral activities. It’s not the magic dirt of the Middle East that makes these people violent, it’s ideology and genetics (a comparison of IQ by nation can be found here). We’re doing a pretty good job of killing off what would be decent handlers ready to put the boot on the neck of Islamic radicals in the countries they lead, but that’s a topic for another time.
Another objection is that the ban is somehow unethical. Without reiterating everything I’ve said above (which is more than enough to debunk any such moronic notion) I’ll bring to light a simple fact.
No one has the right to this country. Few people are preferable in terms of ethnic and ethical compatibility, both essential. Fewer still come from populations with a mean of IQ sufficient to prevent any issues stemming from the natural second and third generation regression to said mean ( as noted by Jason Richwine). Libertarians and self avowed “Classical Liberals” should be especially opposed to the flooding of the nation with the most historically authoritarian religion in the history of mankind. I wouldn’t expect much consistency on that front, given that they’re mostly controlled opposition anyways (and the ones that aren’t are contrarians circle jerking over how “not mainstream” they are).
The final objection is a minor but fundamentally annoying one. The assertion that Trump is bypassing Congress on a number of these issues is correct, and not at all unethical. Libertarians would be happy to get gang raped to death in a gay brothel so long as a majority vote said it was ok, but normal people have more reservations about results than method; as they should. Libertarians need to understand this fundamental point: moral results trump immoral methods.
The end justifies the memes.