Oxymoron: Illegal Immigration

From the point of view of natural ethics, the phrase "Illegal Immigration" is an oxymoron. How can migration not simply be a process of the natural order? The very notion of its legality is elitist. It denies natural competition and open organic markets, and it continues the unnatural notion that regions should be dominated by large centralized governments around which we must assemble boundaries.

Migration is simply an inevitable behavior and if you stand in its way the few are "protected" at the expense of the many. Now, this elitist behavior too is inevitable when resources are scarce - it is necessary for species survival, perhaps.

But what scarce resource do we protect? Are they tangible resources unprotected by other laws? Or are they intangible notions, such as "competition" and "security?" Or is it simply the irrational notion of keeping foreign ideas out?

I suggest this last case is the fact of the matter. Protectionist principles develop on the basis of protecting conventions. Rather that being motivated by threats to physical security our motivations concerning immigrants come from threats to the security of our concepts.

I prefer to believe that it is not large communal gatherings that aid species survival but rather the dispersal of small groups and individuals, and their freedom of movement. The fittest of these win, that's all.

This is a variation on the Lao Tzu "the bigger thief" principle. He says that if we lock things up, bind them, so that they appear secured, we only make it easier for the bigger thief to steal them. And so it is with species survival. If you assemble everyone within a tightly secure space, you will not survive the bigger threats to our species. The current administration's attitude to global warming being a case in point.

By allowing free movement and easy human migration we allow perfect action, the action of natural principles. Allegiance is dynamically assigned and as long as no central authority imposes unnatural restriction the product must be good and productive.

I accept that this is a positive view about the nature of our species, and I am an optimist in this regard. I have heard several people offer the pessimistic view, people are natural hoarders and violent protectionists, they say. I simply cannot accept such a view of our species. It is a superficial view because its basis is the behavior of people trapped in our current environments, unbalanced by ethics that are simple inventions, and using a language that sustains them.