The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New Podcasts on Nationalism and Immigration/Border Issues
One is an interview for the new Argue with Me podcast series, and the other is part of Michael Liebowitz's Rational Egoist series.
Two podcast interviews I recently did are now available on Youtube. The first is an interview about nationalism which is part of Gerry Bourdeau's new Argue with Me podcast series. It is about the critique of nationalism outlined in my recent National Affairs article, "The Case Against Nationalism" (coauthored with Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh):
We discuss what nationalism is, why it's awful (including some ways in which it is similar to socialism), and potential alternatives to it.
The Argue With Me series is relatively new. But Bourdeau has already posted interviews with several prominent (mostly libertarian or libertarian-leaning) economists and political theorists, including David Friedman and Chris Freiman. Check it out.
The second podcast is about the legal and moral dimensions of the current situation at the US southern border. It is part of Michael Liebowitz's Rational Egoist podcast series.
We cover a number of issues, including whether illegal migration qualifies as "invasion" (subject of a notable recent court decision that came down only after we filmed this), the conflict between Texas and the federal government, and how to address the border situation in accordance with libertarian principles (and liberal ones, more generally).
Along the way, we also discuss a couple of really awful legal arguments that have gotten a considerable attention on Twitter/X (e.g.—claims that private citizens who house migrants are somehow violating the Third Amendment). The useful lesson here is that the fact that someone is a Twitter "influencer" with a large following, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. This is true of the right-wing "influencers" we discuss in the podcast, but it's also true of many left-wing ones, as well.
I outlined my take on what to do with the border situation in greater detail in this USA Today article (coauthored with David Bier). See also this post on why the supposed "migrant crisis" is in in fact primarily caused by migration restrictions and regulations banning most asylum seekers from working legally (exclusionary zoning is also a significant contributing factor in some cities).
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
99% of these people are economic migrants, and have no grounds for asylum. And you know it!
Of course nationalism is bad: many have said so for the past 57 years… and are now even more vocal in the International Court of Justice. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-icj-court-hearings-gaza-hamas-18680f6ce9d8508d59c006780e23b346
Shall we all band together to put an end to Israeli nationalism? Or is that a form of nationalism which must be allowed to thrive?
Shall we band together to open the borders of the Ukraine and Israel, allowing Russians and Arabs full access to the territories? Or are these special cases where borders must be strictly policed, perhaps even with “buffer zones” in adjacent territories?
“Nationalism is bad — except for fake Palestinian nationalism.”
Somin, of course, thinks any and all should be able to declare themselves American citizens. They should be able to cross our border with no vetting, demand tax-payer funded housing, medical care, and room&board. As long as they do not demand Somin turn over his home and bank accounts to the invaders, then other Americans should just welcome their new neighbors of murderers, rapists, and robbers. To do otherwise means you are a racist, xenophobic, nationalist. Also, orangemanbad.
Hey we are only increasing our debt by one trillion dollars every three months. What’s a few billion or trillion more to support our new demanding over-lords.
Cindy, of course, is not literate. You can search Prof. Somin’s whole post for the word “citizen” or “naturalize” or any variant, and the only mention is mocking a Cindy-caliber stupid claim about “private citizens who house migrants.”
If you look at someone from south of the border and think “murderer, rapist, robber,” then, yeah, you are a racist, xenophobic, nationalist.
Putin told you to write that, yeah?
No. Putin is an extreme racial nationalist like you.
I’m not a racial nationalist, thanks. Racism is just DEI.
But you DEFINITELY want to make it easier for Russian and Chinese agents to enter America illegally.
Well, you’re nothing but a paid Putin troll. But the opinions you express and purport to hold are pure racial nationalism.
Again with your projecting. Did Putin tell you to do that to cover for your open-borders pretext to help get foreign agents into the United States and undermine its national security.
Nothing I said has anything to do with race, either. That’s just another one of your diversionary tactics.
You know that, with your comprehensive social re-engineering project, you’re no different from the Jacobins and Soviets of old, yeah? No wonder you’re on team Russia. You have no empirical grounds or skills, and you don’t really care what the consequences will be for the United States.
Admit it: you’re a subversive aimed at undermining America’s laws, culture and wellbeing.
This podcast was co-sponsored by Putin, Xi, and Al Qaeda.
Want to cover up the clear national security threat posed by open borders? Dismiss as nationalistic or ‘phobic’ what are clearly tools for subverting and undermining America’s laws and society (let alone its middle and working classes).
Is such subversion not a clear form of treason? Is it not a clear way to empower and aid America’s enemies?
No such threat.
How much did Putin pay you to say that?
Why is it that MAGA always boil down to “I know you are but what am I?”
You’re just projecting. I’m the one opposed to letting Putin’s agents enter freely and easily into the West. You want to open the door for him AND deny that that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Admit it: you support the subversion of US law and should be disbarred.
A non-exhaustive taxonomy of schemes of social organization, in descending order of menace to liberty:
1. Anarchy: the war of each against all—life nasty, brutish, and short.
2. Totalitarian imperialistic menaces: the Third Reich; the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere; the Soviet Union; the Belgian Congo.
3. Older, less empowered, hence slightly more benign versions of the above: the Roman Empire; the Mongol Empire;
4. Feudal governance under religious control: the pre-Reformation Catholic Church; stateless Muslim dominionism today.
5. Early nationalisms under royal sovereignty: England, France and Spain.
6. Nationalistic imperialism: the British Empire; the Dutch East India Company; the French Empire; the Spanish Empire; U.S. imperialism and Manifest Destiny; Putin’s Russia (But note: trending toward instantaneous valence shift into category 2 above.)
7. Loose dynastic regional control: the Byzantine Empire; the Mughal Empire.
8. The modern U.S.: despite capitalistic excess, and American Exceptionalism.
9. Deteriorated post-colonial nationalisms: Great Britain, France and Spain today.
10. Unambitious modern nationalisms: Canada; post-Viking Scandinavia; New Zealand; Italy; the Czech Republic (lately, Czechia).
11. Unorganized tribalism, in its less menacing manifestations, typically found previously in less-developed regions, typically now in decline: the Shoshone tribe as seen by Louis and Clark; the Coeur d’Alene Indians in the late 19th century, doubtless with many other examples formerly scattered on all the continents and throughout Oceania.
Note: No spot on the list for libertarianism, which is a characteristic style of critique, but lacks any theory of government.
.
Of course there is such a thing as libertarian (or classic-liberal) theory of government. Our government used to operate according to this theory, before statists subverted the Founders’ design.
And, pace Prof. Somin, this theory of government does not require open borders:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2006/12/libertarianism-one-country-john-derbyshire/
Always good to quote the guy fired from National Review for being too racist! Especially having him conservativesplain what libertarianism is.
It is possible that they are both wrong, that nationalism must exist because no one else ever looks after rights and duties (not saying they all do though) and you either have nations in the plural or one big SuperStructure, which is actually a nation also but with the worst features of nationalism molded into an iron fist of cruelty.
So many public intellectuals have pointed out the falsity of both positions.
Lately : Unjust Justice: Against the Tyranny of International Law
by Chantal Delsol
“The biblical God could not have dispersed men except in view of a positive good (for them) …What good? …traditionally for all cultures, evil mean separation—dia-bolos –while unity always declared itself as a good. …There is an anthropology detectable in the biblical text, an anthropology that through the centuries remained that of Christian civilization. An answer to the question can be drawn from it. In this anthropology man is viewed as a being who becomes, who is never fully completed but is always coming to be. In other words, he is a being with a beginning and a finality. …His true dream is not directed toward that which is here below. In this earthly realm, therefore, a “perfect” unity could only be a false unity.”
― Chantal Delsol, Unjust Justice: Against the Tyranny of International Law
Laken Riley could not be reached for comment.
Joe sixpack: We the people of the United States own our country and have the right to control our borders and decide what level of immigration there will be.
Ilya Somin: You own your home and can say who may enter, but the people of the united states do not own this country.
Joe sixpack: Well, who does own it? No One? Everyone on the planet? The elites?
Ilya Somin: We are not sure but we know it is not the people of the united states, that would be fascism.
Joe Sixpack: The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence say otherwise. But enough of what you disagree with regarding nationalism, tell us what you see as the ideal political system. Would it be globalism? Anarchy? What do you propose as a replacement for nation states?