Thoughts on Independence, Sovereignty and Autonomy
by Lee Enochs
Last week, on June 23, 2016, one of the most momentous political and economic developments in our lifetime occurred in the United Kingdom.
A referendum – a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part – was held on Thursday 23 June, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union.
Leave won by 52% to 48%.
The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting. It was the highest turnout in a UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election.
“Brexit” is a word that has become used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU – merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit, in a same way as a Greek exit from the EU was dubbed Grexit in the past.
Now, there are many factors why the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. Many voters believed the leaders of the E.U. had become too powerful and unaccountable to the British people whose government was sending over 350 million pounds to Brussels each week.
Another determining factor for the Brexit result was immigration. Many people in the U.K. believed that the staggering sum of of over 330,000 was far too many for the U.K. to handle.
Brexit is also about the U.K. charting its own destiny as many voters believed that they were giving up England’s autonomy and sovereignty by being part of the E.U.
During the weeks leading up to the Brexit vote, President Obama attempted to intervene in the political affairs of the United Kingdom and said that the U.K. would be punished in trade negotiations by the U.S. if they voted to exit the E.U.
Needless to say, Obama’s attempt at interference in another nation’s political affairs did not go over too well at all in the United Kingdom as many voters there rejected Obama’s globalism and intervention into their sovereign affairs.
I personally believe that we Americans need to reject Obama and Hillary Clinton’s globalism, the a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence.
I also believe the notion of open borders and unlimited immigration is dangerous to America’s identity and national security and will be writing about this in the near future.
Controlled borders restrict migration by non-citizens. Several arguments for controlled borders and against open borders are as follows:
John Hospers in the Journal of Libertarian Studies published by the Mises Institute argues against Open Borders for the following reasons,
The right of one person necessarily entails the obligation of another person or persons. If you have a right to life, I have the obligation not to kill you; if you have a right of free speech, I have the obligation not to stop you from speaking. The first half would be pointless without the second. If any given person has the right to enter the United States, who is it that has the obligation? Every person in the United States? Or only the person whose property the immigrant wishes to inhabit? Or perhaps, no one person in the United States, only the U.S. government, even if no individual in the U. S. wants him
Some other reasons why we should reject Open Borders:
That controlled borders encourage responsible policies in relation to population and birth rates for countries by preventing high population and high birth rate countries from disgorging their people onto other low population and low birth rate countries.
That open borders can be a threat to security and public safety. The threats to security and public safety can sometimes manifest themselves many decades after the initial immigration.
That large scale migration across open borders can result in demographic changes that can result in demographic shifts that change a country’s political power structures in favor of the new demographic and against the existing people of a region or country
That open borders can lead to infrastructure deficit in a country. This occurs when large scale migration occurs but the infrastructure to support that migration does not get built.