For the social engineering technocrats mass migration serves as a weapon for the de-nationalisation of society.

That is why they are trying to negate the moral authority of a People and of a Nation

Opponents of Populism criticise this movement’s embrace of patriotism and of the nation. Cosmopolitan politicians and commentators go so far as to denounce such territorial attachments as backward and they insist that borders and the status of citizenship are outdated and artificial concepts. They often advocate migration as an antidote to the prevalence of national consciousness and contend that national cultures are inferior to multiculturalism.

From a globalist-cosmopolitan perspective it is essential to deny the moral significance of borders to promote their wider objective of de-legitimating the status of the nation and the sovereignty of its people. The unbounding of foundational political categories such as sovereignty, nation, citizenship and democracy depends on emptying borders of moral content. In practice, the project of de-legitimating borders ignores their meaning for people who inhabit within the territory they demarcate and one-sidedly adopts the standpoint of those prevented from crossing into it.

The moral condemnation of national borders alleges that the demarcation of territorial space unjustly excludes the ‘other’. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen is frequently portrayed as unfair and immoral. Loyalty to a nation is decried as an outdated prejudice

Migration recast as an antidote to majoritarian pressures

Back in the 19^th century, the liberal philosopher, J.S. Mill pointed out in his Considerations on Representative Government (1861) He pointed out that ‘the common sympathies’ of fellow nationals eased political co-operation among them, whereas a lack of ‘fellow-feeling’ and common culture was bound to inhibit the formation of public opinion. For Mill the nation provided the common bond that underpinned democracy. The fellow-feeling alluded to by Mill is the outcome of a relatively homogeneous public. A society, which lacks internal cultural divisions is more likely to have a more powerful sense of community and place than one that is made up of different cultural groups. That is why cosmopolitan thinkers prefer a heterogenous society to a homogenous one. The language with which they transmit this preference is one that constantly creates an association between homogeneity and racism and xenophobia.

Since the twentieth century opponents of immigration argued against migrants by pointing to its supposed corrosive cultural impact on prevailing community life. Anti-immigrant groups have mobilised opposition to the free movement of people on the grounds that mass immigration represents a threat to the American or British or French way of life. Until recently advocates of immigration tended to reject the very premise of the analysis of their opponents and insisted that their claims of cultural disruptions were exaggerated. In face of anti-immigrant opposition, they insisted that immigration would not fundamentally alter the character of the host society. Moreover, they claimed that if handled well, the newly arrived migrants would swiftly adapt and embrace the nation’s culture.

In recent decades the terms of the debate have fundamentally altered. Both sides of the debate now acknowledge an undeniable truth, which is that the impact of mass immigration on society is likely to be disruptive and will not leave the prevailing way of life untouched. Indeed, some argue that migrants can help the society renew itself and change itself for the better. The real debate in the current era is whether this disruption and its social and cultural consequences of immigration are positive or negative. Opponents of immigration tend to perceive the downside of the mass movement of people on their society. Many supporters of immigration now accept the argument that mass migration will change the character of their society – but now assert that this transformation is on balance a welcome development. From this standpoint immigration is perceived as positive and a welcome instrument of social engineering. As the French social commentators, Pascal Bruckner observed, the migrant is portrayed as ‘both the epitome of oppression and the source of our salvation’[i].

In any discussion of the impact of immigration on the character of society it is important to consider its implications for a self-determining political community. As the social scientist, David Miller points out that ‘when immigrants are admitted, their presence will over a period change the composition of the citizen body or, in other words the “self” in “self-determination”. Consequently, it is entirely possible that this could ‘significantly change the decisions that the demos takes, because immigrants will not simply replicate the indigenous population with respect to their beliefs, values, interests, cultural preferences, and so forth’[ii]. For some such a shift in the composition of a political community maybe desirable but for the original body of citizens it can mean the diminishing of their capacity to control what happens to their community in the future. In other words, the power of citizens to control their future is significantly undermined by mass migration.

Increasingly arguments supporting mass migration are not so much focused on the virtues of free movement but about its positive effect on society. These positive effects are frequently communicated through the language of economics. But often – and this is a relatively new development – they are now valued precisely because of their transformative effects on national culture. This valuation of immigration as an instrument of social engineering underpinned the statement made by the president of the European Commission, Claude Juncker when he declared that ‘borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians’[iii]. In this statement Juncker coupled his condemnation of borders with a call for supporting for migrants. But he was not simply interested in demonstrating solidarity with migrants. His denunciation of borders was linked to his hostility towards the nation state and movements that supported it. Which is why in his next breath Juncker argued that ‘we have to fight nationalism and block the avenue of populism’. His statement highlighted his way of indicating his animosity towards majoritarian democracy.

Historically liberal supporters of open borders were motivated by their valuation of the human aspiration for the freedom of movement and mobility. In the current era, the target of many of those who are hostile to borders is not so much the obstacle they represent to the movement of people but its protection of the nation state and national cultures. It is not the liberal valuation of freedom of movement but the rejection of the status of national sovereignty, mass democracy and of the authority of the nation state that inspired Juncker and other advocates of the cosmopolitan world view.

The social and cultural arguments for the social engineering project promoted by the anti-border lobby are rarely made explicit and in public debates they tend to be couched in the language of economic benefits. Instead, they state their arguments through the advocacy of diversity. For a significant section of the western elite diversity has become value in its own right because of their estrangement from the values and historical institutions of their own society. From their perspective diversity is celebrated not simply as an appreciation of cultural difference but because it is seen as inherently superior to the traditions of their own society.

In previous times advocates of change promoted a political ideology like liberalism, communism or socialism to bring about desired objectives. In the contemporary era – where social engineering displaced ideology – some opt for diversity as the motor of change. The former American Vice-President Joe Bidden expressed this sentiment in a statement welcoming the former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to Washington. Bidden stated that ‘those of us of European stock’ will be a minority by 2017 and concluded ‘that’s a good thing’[iv]. But why should a change in the ethnic or cultural composition of a society be a ‘good thing’ or for that matter a ‘bad thing’? Why should a shift in a demographic balance have an important normative content?

Biden answered this question at an earlier speech given in Morocco in December 2014. He explained that the impending minority status of Americans of European stock was a ‘good thing’ because it would make America into a stronger nation. ‘The secret that people don't know is our diversity is the reason for our incredible strength’, he stated[v]. Not democracy, not the constitution, not its liberal ethos, not its creativity and entrepreneurship – the secret of America’s strength is its diversity!

Of course, a society open to the movement of people may well benefit from the mixing of cultures and ideas. But when diversity is transformed into a stand-alone medium for change it can turn into a political weapon used to by-pass the national will. For Juncker, getting rid of national borders served the project of promoting a European federal state. Diversity is the antidote to nationalism and to majoritarian democracy.

The transformation of the traditional liberal argument for open borders into support for social engineering should make all tolerant people to be weary of the rhetoric that surrounds migration and diversity. The use of migration as a weapon against national sovereignty has a wholly corrosive consequence of provoking cultural confusion and uncertainty. A democratic perspective must uphold national sovereignty and recognise the authoritative status of the prevailing national culture. To disregard the special status of national institutions and the culture it represents serves as an invitation to a state of permanent confusion and disorientation.

A sense of belonging and a flourishing democracy go hand in hand

The sense of belonging to a particular people and bounded to a common space constitutes an important source of solidarity and possesses a moral significance for members of a national community. The consciousness of solidarity and the quality of common attachments acquires greater moral depth when as Miller noted, ‘the political community conceives of itself as extended in time, indeed often as reaching back into antiquity’[vi]. Duties and responsibilities owned to one another based on such connections are seen as both an inheritance from the past and a legacy to be passed on to future generations.

In reality, however, the cosmopolitan de-nationalization of citizenship empties it of both meaning and content. The principle and exercise of citizenship is fundamental to the workings of a democratic society. Citizens possess important political rights, and also have responsibilities and duties towards other members of their community. Though the possession of citizenship through birth may seem arbitrary, nevertheless it should be seen as an inheritance that citizen shares with others. That common inheritance amongst members of a nation state provides the foundation for solidarity between members of a community.

Identification with the nation helps citizens – old and new – acquire a sense of intergenerational continuity, which provides a bond that offers a sense of permanence and confidence. Historically, democrats of all shades of opinion recognized the importance of intergenerational continuity for the flourishing of civic society. Indeed, without the bonds supplied by intergenerational and other forms of community ties, it is difficult to establish a stable democratic polity. As the political theorist Bernard Yack explains,, ‘contingencies of shared memory and identity’ are the foundations on which ‘individual rights and political freedoms are exercised’[vii]. Solidarity between people and the flourishing of a regime of social justice requires that individuals understand the boundaries within which they engage with one another. If we are to ‘talk sense about social justice we must know what the relevant social and geographical boundaries are’, notes the political theorist Margaret Canovan[viii], cautioning critics of national identity that:

‘nations are not just common worlds; they are inherited common worlds, sustained by the facts of birth and the mythology of blood… this natal element in political allegiance is crucially important, and is regularly forgotten by political theorists anxious to recommend a non-national version of political community[ix]

As the philosopher Hannah Arendt explained, the inheritance of a common world binds people together in manner that allows them to identify with one another and with their public institutions. This forging of a relationship facilitates citizens to solidarise with one another and take responsibility for the welfare and future of their society.

Criticism of national sovereignty and the status of citizenship is often made through appealing to the superiority of universal and humanitarian values. However, universalism becomes a caricature of itself when it is transformed into a metaphysical force that stands above the prevailing institutions through which human beings make sense of the world. Humanity does not live above or beyond the boundaries and institutions it created through great struggle and effort.

Whatever the motives behind the project of de-territorialising citizenship and weakening national sovereignty, it represents a grave threat to democracy and public life. Whatever one thinks of national borders, there can be no democratic public life outside their confines. It is only as citizens interacting with one another, within a clearly geographically bounded entity, that democratic decision-making can work. The demos has always existed in a bounded space. The nation state and its boundaries are not an obstacle to the development of the spirit of democracy – on the contrary, they are necessary for its realisation. Solidarity, trust, and the willingness to distribute social goods are accomplishments that are best achieved through a clearly-bounded common world where people understand their duties and obligations to one another

Identification with people born into a common world is the main way that solidarity can acquire a dynamic public character. People exercising citizenship rights have interests that are specific to their circumstances, and which provide the foundation of their solidarity. If they were to dispossess themselves of those interests, they would unwittingly destroy the public space within which they are able to act as responsible citizens.

---

[i] Pascal Bruckner ‘Europe’s Virtues Will Be Its Undoing’, Quilette, 14 September, 2019,https://quillette.com/2019/09/14/europes-virtues-will-be-its-undoing/

[ii] Miller, D. (2016) Strangers In Our Midst: The Philosophy of Immigration, Harvard University Press : Cambridge, Mass, pp. 62 & 63.

[iii] Cited in Michael Savage ‘Borders are worst invention ever, declares Juncker’, The Times, 23 August 2016.

[iv] Paul Beddard, ‘Biden says whites a minority in 2017, Census says 2044’, Washington Examiner, 30 June 2015, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/biden-says-whites-a-minority-in-2017-census-says-2044/article/2567351

[v] Steve Peacock ‘Biden boasts end of Caucasian majority in U.S.’, WND, 7 December 2014.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/biden-boasts-end-of-caucasian-majority-in-u-s/

[vi] Miller (2017) p.27.

[vii] Yack, B. (2012) Nation and Individual, University of Chicago Press : Chicago. p.37.

[viii] Canovan, M. (1996) Nationhood and Political Theory, Edward Elgar Press :Cheltenham, p.28.

[ix] Canovan, M (1999) ‘Is there an Arendtian case for the nation state?’, Contemporary Politics, vol.5, no.2. p.108.