There are three main reasons why immigration levels should be taken away from the legislature and determined directly by the people:

  • It is generally accepted that immigration must be restricted to a certain level (otherwise there would be open borders). Accordingly, determining the level of immigration acceptable to the majority is a legitimate endeavor. However, experience shows that if a politician dares to seek election on a platform of lowering immigration, he is vilified as a xenophobe. This means that only one side of a necessary argument is represented, thus politicians are incapable of reflecting the will of the majority.
  • Once immigration from a particular country or region reaches a critical mass, lobbyists for that group become powerful enough to subvert the democratic process. This is the case with Latin American immigration into the United States, as demonstrated by the fate of Proposition 187 in California. Approved by a wide majority in 1994, the measure would have prevented illegal aliens from using welfare. The Hispanic lobby led a widespread campaign denouncing the proposition’s supporters as racists, after which the courts overturned the law on specious grounds.
  • The silent majority is entitled to exercise its sovereignty and decide who enters their country. However, the vociferous minority has shown a tyrannical propensity to use the criminal law to win its argument. In France the famous movie star Brigitte Bardot wrote a book about the Islamization of her country in which she said, “Over the last twenty years, we have given in to a subterranean, dangerous, and uncontrolled infiltration, which not only resists adjusting to our laws and customs but which will, as the years pass, attempt to impose its own.” For expressing this opinion she was convicted of a crime, given a very large fine and threatened with jail. Brigitte Bardot is equally famous for her sometimes outrageous comments championing the rights of animals; however, nothing, no matter how controversial, that she has said about animal rights has ever been judged to be a criminal offense. This demonstrates how immigration, unlike animal rights and the majority of other political topics, is in a special class of its own, especially vulnerable to bullying tactics that stifle free speech.

Each October the electronic ballot will look like this:

Total Immigration for the coming year ☐ (type number)
Origin of immigrants:
Andorra ☐ % ↑ ↓
Angola ☐ % ↑ ↓
Antigua ☐ % ↑ ↓
Argentina ☐ % ↑ ↓
Armenia ☐ % ↑ ↓
Etc ☐ % ↑ ↓

Thus, the voter first nominates the total number of immigrants desired, then by clicking on the up or down arrows, the existing quota from each country is increased or decreased.

This article is an extract from the book ‘Principles of Good Government’ by Matthew Bransgrove