I happen to embrace the term, rather than run from it. If we’re being precise with our language and defining it properly, then isolationism ought to be the goal of any person who understands the routine and predictable fallibility of government. It is a philosophy grounded in historical fact, one based on a multitude of experiences which all point to the extremely limited ability of governments to accomplish their ends.

Real isolationism thus seeks not the walling off of America from the rest of the world and its problems, but instead, to isolate only the American government from inserting itself into those problems, thereby creating a bigger shitstorm than already exists. But those who create the political lexicon today have turned the term on its head in Orwellian fashion.

The folks who tar others with the isolationist label need to look inward, for it is they who seek to do the isolating. They wish to isolate you from just about everything you stand to come in contact with, both of the living and non-living variety. From the people you associate with, the places you go, what you eat, who you sleep with, where you go to school, and how you medicate yourself, to what you read, watch, hear, and think — the real isolationists seek to control virtually every conceivable human action and interaction. There is nothing the real isolationists don’t wish to restrict, license, tax, or require you to get their permission for. These isolationists, the true ones, are your Congressmen, their administrative minions, and all of their constituents who loudly support them and play their game. They’re here to define your entire life for you, starting on day one.

Nowhere is this paternalistic mindset more starkly exhibited than in today’s immigration debate. The Central American children crossing the border are presented by the isolationists as your enemy, when in fact, it is the American government that turns the children into something resembling a threat.

A recent parody song by Ray Stevens highlights the real American isolationist worldview plainly, and without any of the political-speak that you hear on the nightly news. If only the Fox News talking heads would be this straightforward about their position. Stevens mocks America as the country that hands out “goodies” to all who illegally cross its border. It is apparently lost on Stevens that the ones actually handing out the goodies are the politicians themselves, always with their hand in your wallet. No songs about them, however. As long as Stevens’ Medicare tab is being paid, he’s just fine with the political thievery.

If government handouts are the root problem, the solution is logical — eliminate government, the very source of the handouts. And as Murray Rothbard said, “[o]nly wholesale flailing away with a meat axe could possibly do justice to the task [of cutting government].” But again, that’s the solution only if the goodies are your real problem.

If brown-skinned children are your real problem, then by all means, demonizing them, building a wall, and militarizing the border all seem like appropriate responses. Why would Ray Stevens, or any who share his isolationist views, wish to attack the root (government welfarism) when their real issue is with the foreigners themselves?

Stevens’ song continues by giving examples of other countries that handle border issues by jailing, beating and killing illegal entrants. “Imagine that!” he says, as if these are things America should aspire to. That line of reasoning speaks for itself, and is unfortunately all too common in most Law and Order types.

And no isolationist’s ravings about immigration would be complete without the boneheaded economic argument. You know, the one that says immigrants will take your job if you don’t turn them away at the border, as if you have some kind of entitlement to lifetime employment. Is that attitude not welfare dependency in its purest form?

Professor Donald Boudreaux has destroyed the economic argument against immigration beautifully on his blog. Taken to its absurd but logical extreme, if walling off a territory to prevent competition from flowing in were an economic benefit, then why not apply it on a state level, or even the city, neighborhood or household level?  Wall yourself and your family off from the rest of the world and produce everything in-house. See what kind of prosperity results.

I’ll continue to embrace isolationism as long as the political class is defining the term, but I long for the day when we can call a spade a spade. Yes, it is the government that is the real isolator. Immigration is just one small facet of their isolationist attitude. There are countless other ways in which government seeks to cut you off from the entire world around you.

Hearing that all this was going down just blocks away from where I live, I joined up with some of my local activist friends at a union hall to help out the victims any way I could. When we arrived at the station, we were met with a long line of exclusively adult female immigrants, some holding the hands of small children. Clothes, water, and the use of a cell phone to call family members were the three big items in demand. ICE drops them off at the station without a change of clothes or a bus ticket, so they’ve got to find a way to get clean, hydrated, and procure a ride all in the space of a few hours. The amazing volunteers who helped out that day managed to provide them with all of the above and more, and even though most of the immigrants were limited to washing off in the Greyhound bathroom and forgoing a meal on the bus ride back, they couldn’t have been more appreciative and kind.

This was my first time volunteering with a radical community, and if I wasn’t already convinced of the potential of Direct Action, this experience did it for me.

The very phrase “direct action”- being a deliberate term associated with anti-authoritarian movements – conjures up scenes of aggression and violence against state institutions: Black rows of masked protesters wielding molotovs, improvised raids on animal testing facilities, even communist attempts to “disrupt the flow of capital” are all valid instances of direct action. But to limit the phrase to only its most dramatic manifestations is a mistake. Voltairine de Cleyre said of Direct Action circa 1912:

 Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative experiments are essentially direct action.

This all-encompassing conception of Direct Action is the most meaningful, because it acknowledges how peaceful, voluntary cooperation toward a given goal can best achieve desired outcomes.

To examine the efficacy of this direct approach, consider the steps one must take to achieve something within the confines of the political system. For instance, you could always vote for the most promising presidential candidate. Going this route, if you’re very lucky, your vote has a “1 in 10 million chance of determining the national election outcome.” Even if you’re one of the lucky few, your candidate will most likely break his more appealing promises, whether he vowed to free political prisoners or you’re reading his lips about “no new taxes.” Aside from the purely theatrical ritual of voting, the very systems underlying politics cause blockage. Bloated bureaucracy and red tape backs up the process and absorbs any genuine attempt at meaningful change. Party members, even at the local level, must “play the game” and play up to special interests if they want to survive the cutthroat world of corruption and nepotism. If there ever was any genuine intent to begin with, it is quickly swept under the rug to make way for “moving the needle forward” and other such nihilistic rallying cries of Whiggish progress for progress’s sake.

The spirit of Direct Action is inherently anti-authoritarian as it bypasses the arbitrary thresholds of negotiation and concession that come packaged with politics. There’s no need to beg politicians for a drink when you can, as David Graeber puts it, “dig the well yourself”.

But behind the tactical and ethical consistency of Direct Action in community volunteering, there’s the invaluable bonus of personally connecting with those in need. The sheer sincerity of helping others is a humbling experience, and for me, the Greyhound station was a sharp moment of clarity when my anarchist principles were more than words bound to the page by logic and rhetoric: They took shape in a way that brought vastly different individuals together for a crucial cause. I went hoping that I could be a part of that cause – I never knew it would become such a big part of me.

Few aspects of the modern state are more irritating than the control of borders. Our movements are circumscribed by the nationalistic regimentation of migration and travel. This makes it more difficult to vote with your feet. One polity may be particularly oppressive, but the entrance requirements of another can be rather repressive too. This renders it more difficult to escape unjust conditions and reside in a more just area.

I am only here on a visit, but I could very well be migrating to another country sometime in the future. It will be a nightmare to go through this again with different immigration authorities. One of my fears relates to how they will treat my computer and other valuable items. I could be stopped for my political activites too. It would be the restriction of my liberty based upon a political disagreement.

Nation-states have other major disadvantages, but the restriction of movement is definitely one of the worst. A basic human right includes the liberty to move about without arbitrary restrictions on said movement. What could be more arbitrary than imaginary lines drawn in the sand by military and police power? Not much! All such borders are political fictions that benefit ruling classes.

Border restrictions especially hurt lower class people who need to get to a better locality. Such individuals are out to create a better life for themselves and deserve our moral support. They are the ones with the least amount of resources to fight immigration laws. The laws are thus biased against lower income people. They are the most restricted and affected by them.

Strong border controls allow rulers to pick and choose who enters a given territory. It priliveges some people at the expense of others. The individuals who have political connections are at an advantage relative to those who don’t. A base of support can thus be created and cultivated amongst the immigrant populace. Let’s work to open the borders and end nation-states.

Parlando con americani, ho notato che molti di loro non hanno simpatia per i detenuti. Appongono agli immigrati il marchio di “illegali” e usano ciò come scusa per ignorare la violazione dei loro diritti umani. Gli esseri umani non possono essere “illegali”. Chiamarli così significa disumanizzare i migranti con una tossica ideologia razzista. Le azioni possono essere pericolose, o anche criminali. Ma cosa c’è di criminale nel fatto di migrare in sé? I migranti senza documenti sono solo persone che vanno a vivere all’estero, per lavorare, mantenere le proprie famiglie e intraprendere pacificamente azioni commerciali e di collaborazione con altre persone. Questo non è un crimine. Propriamente intese, le migrazioni contribuiscono alla fioritura di una società libera. Aggiungete a ciò che la maggioranza degli immigrati nei centri di detenzione non è stata condannata per alcun crimine.

È chi imprigiona e opprime gli immigrati che commette una serie di crimini nel nome dell’autorità statale. Prendete, ad esempio, l’idea di alimentare a forza gli scioperanti della fame. L’alimentazione forzata è universalmente considerata una tortura; è stata giudicata crudele e inumana da associazioni come la Croce Rossa Internazionale, l’Associazione Medica Mondiale e le Nazioni Unite. Per definizione, alimentare a forza chi fa lo sciopero della fame significa violarne brutalmente e dolorosamente la libertà corporale al fine di sopprimerne la capacità di espressione politica.

Ma la criminalità dei centri di detenzione degli immigrati non finisce qui. C’è anche il fatto che gli immigrati vengono trattenuti indefinitamente per cosiddette “procedure civili”. Non essendo accusati di un crimine, non gli si riconosce il diritto ad essere rappresentati legalmente. Nel 2010, l’84% di loro era privo di avvocato. Questa non è giustizia. È un rapimento aprocessuale ammantato di legalità.

Spesso questa detenzione priva di accusa, giudizio e rappresentanza legale avviene per profitto. Il Northwest Detention Center, dove avviene lo sciopero della fame, è gestito in regime di “privatizzazione” dal Gruppo GEO. Come altri profittatori carcerari, quale la Corrections Corporation of America e la Management and Training Corporation, il Gruppo GEO estrae profitti osceni dal governo per tenere esseri umani in gabbia. Invece di fornire beni e servizi a chi vorrebbe comprarli, i profittatori carcerari offrono violenza di stato in cambio di denaro estorto alla popolazione attraverso l’obbligo delle tasse.

In tutto il mondo, i governi usano le frontiere come scusa per violare i diritti e fare violenza criminale. Il Canada, ad esempio, mette dentro gli immigrati per un tempo indefinito semplicemente perché sono immigrati. I detenuti sono spesso tenuti in isolamento, riconosciuto a livello internazionale come una forma di tortura.

Lo stato di Israele manda i rifugiati africani a un enorme campo di prigionia. Questi rifugiati sono soggetti a violenza e discriminazione aggressiva per via del clima di razzismo paranoico che porta a temere gli africani come “infiltrati” in grado di minare la demografia ebraica di Israele.

In tutto il mondo gli stati rapiscono, ingabbiano, torturano e deportano migranti e rifugiati, e la brutalità delle restrizioni all’immigrazione non finisce qui. Sotto governi oppressivi, le frontiere servono anche a tenere intrappolati gli abitanti, impedendo loro di scappare a violente atrocità. Molti rifugiati lesbiche, gay, bisessuali e transgender, ad esempio, sfuggono alla repressione omofobica dello stato russo solo per ritrovarsi intrappolati nella tagliola della burocrazia immigratoria.

La crisi ucraina è similmente esacerbata da restrizioni all’immigrazione, che intrappolano gli ucraini nel fuoco incrociato del conflitto. Come ha fatto notare recentemente Sheldon Richman,

“Gli ucraini che, temporaneamente o permanentemente, vogliono uscire dal loro ambiente pericoloso, dovrebbero essere liberi di trasferirsi negli Stati Uniti. Mettiamola così: Come osiamo noi americani confinare gli ucraini in una situazione da cui vorrebbero disperatamente scappare?”

Gli immigrati sono spesso accusati di comportamenti criminali. Ma in fatto di politica immigratoria il vero crimine è quello perpetrato dallo stato. Lo stato rapisce, tortura e depreda, e tutto per difendere delle linee tracciate su delle mappe. E così dà la possibilità ad altri stati di opprimere brutalmente i soggetti intrappolati. Tutti gli stati sono attività criminali, e tra le armi più pericolose di cui dispongono ci sono le frontiere.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

When I talk to many Americans about this hunger strike, many lack sympathy with the detainees. They brand immigrants as “illegals” and use this as an excuse to ignore violations of their human rights.  Human beings cannot be “illegal.” To refer to them as such dehumanizes migrants through a toxic and racist ideology.  A person’s actions may be harmful, or even criminal. But what is criminal about migrating? All undocumented immigrants have done is travel to a new country to live, work, support their families and engage in peaceful commerce and association with people. That’s no crime. Properly understood, migration is part of what makes a free society flourish. Moreover, the majority of immigrants held in detention centers have not been convicted of any crime.

Meanwhile, those who detain and repress immigrants engage in a litany of violent crimes enabled through state authority. Take their plot to force feed the hunger strikers, for example. Force feeding is widely considered torture and has been deemed cruel and inhumane by organizations including International Red Cross, the World Medical Association and the United Nations. By definition, force feeding hunger strikers involves brutally and painfully violating their bodily autonomy in order to suppress their political speech.

But the criminality of the immigration detention system doesn’t end there. Immigrant detainees are held indefinitely in supposedly “civil proceedings.” They are not charged with crimes nor are their rights to legal representation honored. As of 2010, 84% of detained immigrants were not represented by a lawyer. This is not justice. It is due-process-free kidnapping under the color of law.

This detention without charges, trial, or representation often occurs for profit. The Northwest Detention Center, where the hunger strikers are held, is operated in “privatized” fashion by GEO Group. Like other prison profiteers such as Corrections Corporation of America and the Management and Training Corporation, GEO Group extracts obscene profits from government for locking human beings in cages. Rather than providing goods and services people want to buy, prison profiteers engage in state violence in exchange for money plundered from the people through coercive taxation.

Throughout the world, governments use borders as an excuse to violate rights and engage in criminal violence. For example, the Canadian state cages immigrants indefinitely simply for being immigrants. They frequently hold these detainees in solitary confinement, which is internationally recognized as a form of torture.

Meanwhile, the Israeli state has been sending African refugees to a massive prison camp. These refugees are subjected to violence and rampant discrimination motivated by a climate of paranoid racism in which Africans are feared as “infiltrators” that may undermine the Jewish demographics of Israel.

States throughout the world kidnap, cage, torture, and deport migrants and refugees, but the brutality of immigration restrictions doesn’t end there. Borders trap people under oppressive governments, preventing them from fleeing violent atrocities. For example, many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender refugees flee the Russian state’s homophobic repression only to find themselves ensnared in the coercive clutches of immigration bureaucracies.

Similarly, the crisis in Ukraine is exacerbated by immigration restrictions, which trap Ukrainians in the crossfire of the conflict. As Sheldon Richman recently put it,

“Ukrainians who want to get out of their dicey neighborhood, whether permanently or temporarily, should be free to move to the United States. Look at it this way: How dare we Americans confine Ukrainians to a condition they might desperately wish to escape?”

Immigrants are often smeared with accusations of criminality. But the real crimes in immigration policy are perpetrated by states. States kidnap, torture, and plunder in order to enforce lines drawn on maps. And in doing so, they enable other states to brutally repress trapped subjects. All states are criminal enterprises, and borders are among their most dangerous weapons.

Translations for this article:

• Portuguese, Como as fronteiras possibilitam os crimes estatais.
• Italian, Le Frontiere Incoraggiano la Criminalità di Stato.

Liberty means nothing if the freedom of any group is placed above individual liberty. And people do not stop being individuals if they are born in a different country. All individuals have the right to claim the fullest liberty to do as they will, provided they do not invade the liberty of others. Moving to a different part of the world and trying to improve one’s life — with or without permission from a government — does not violate anyone’s liberty.

National borders are invasive of liberty. Most, including the US-Mexico border, were drawn by conquest at the orders of elitists in capitals. Borders designate which politicians are to control which people. They invade the lives of individuals who want to interact with people from the other side or to escape the conditions that governments have inflicted on people within certain boundaries.

The reality of border enforcement is brutal and draconian. Patrols at the safest crossings send immigrants into the most dangerous desert areas. Many die slowly, and others trespass desperately. A series of secret prisons, some in warehouses not designed for long-term confinement, form a modern American gulag system (see “America’s Secret ICE Castles,” a Nation report by Jacqueline Stevens). New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee (nj-civilrights.org) has documented much evidence of widespread, pervasive abuse of immigration detainees. One of the many who died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention was Jason Ng. A father of two who was arrested only for immigration paperwork violations compounded by bureaucratic error, Ng died after being refused medical treatment.

Studies suggest that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives. But whatever the case, punishing people for crimes that other individuals have committed is fundamentally unjust. And crime is incentivized by any form of prohibition, including the War on Drugs, and by locking people out of the mainstream by assigning them the status of “illegal” humans.

Immigrants do not generally take advantage of the US welfare system any more so than natives do. In the article “Immigration: An Open or Closed Door,” the International Society for Individual Liberty notes that immigrants generally pay much in taxes and receive little benefits from services. And if they did pay less in taxes, that just means the monster state gets less to use to harm people.

Immigrants do not take jobs from natives. Society does not contain a fixed number of jobs or a fixed amount of wealth. Jobs are created when there is a demand that needs to be filled, and value is created from production and trade — by the interactions of numerous individuals. Politicians, not workers, make the economy more rigid and less productive. They stunt economic growth through numerous means including land use regulations, restrictions that hamper starting businesses, corporate welfare, inflation, and military-industrial-complex waste.

And nobody has a higher claim to a job because of national or ethnic status. Supporting nationalist ideas of privilege means standing with the politicians who are making things worse, instead of with people who are trying to get by. Those concerned about job loss and wage reduction should stand with immigrants for higher wages and better conditions instead of deepening the divisions that can be used against workers.

Any aspect of culture that cannot survive without being enforced by government agencies is unfit to exist. English has been around long enough and is spoken in enough places that it can easily continue to be a language of communication between multiple ethnic groups. And there is nothing wrong with teaching English to immigrants or knowing other languages. What business is it of anyone else’s if some people want to talk to each other differently? Culture is enhanced by interaction. If it is locked in place by isolation it is more likely to stagnate than strengthen.

Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, have good reason to be against the government and for true liberty. Widespread cooperation among immigrant and native freedom-lovers will make our would-be masters tremble at the sound of advancing liberty.