ernment. Once again, assuming no more than self-interestrn(maximizing monetary and psychic income: money and power)rn, democratic rulers tend to maximize current income, whichrnthev can appropriate privately, at the expense of capital values,rnwhich they cannot appropriate privately. Hence, in accordancernwith democracy’s inherent egalitarianism of one-man one-vote,rnthev tend to pursue a distinctly egalitarian—nondiscriminatoryrn—policy of emigration and immigration.rnAs far as emigration policy is concerned, this implies that forrna democratic ruler it makes little, if any, difference whether productivernor unproductive people, geniuses or bums, leave therncountry. They all have one equal vote. In fact, democraticrnrulers might well be more concerned about the loss of a bumrnthan that of a productive genius. While the loss of the latterrnwould obviously lower the capital value of the country and thernloss of the former might actually increase it, a democratic rulerrndoes not own the countrv. In the short run, the bum voting inrnfavor of egalitarian measures might be more valuable to arndemocratic leader than the productive genius, who as egalitarianisni’srnprime victim will more likely vote against the democraticrnruler. For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlikerna king, undertakes little to expel those people whosernpresence within the country constitutes a negative externalityrn(human trash, which drives individual property values down).rnIn fact, such negative externalities—unproductive parasites,rnbums, and criminals—arc likely to be his most reliablernvoters.rnAs far as immigration policies arc concerned, the incentivesrnand disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results arernequally perverse. For a democratic ruler, it also matters littlernwhether bums or geniuses, below- or above-average civilizedrnand productive people immigrate into the country. Nor is hernmuch concerned about the distinction between temporaryrnworkers (owners of work permits) and permanent, propertyowningrnimmigrants (naturalized citizens). In fact, bums andrnunproductive people may well be preferable as residents andrncitizens because they cause more so-called “social problems,”rnand democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems.rnMoreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarianrnpolicies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not.rnThe result of this policy of nondiscrimination is forced integration:rnthe forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domesticrnproperty owners who, if they could have decided for themselves,rnwould have sharply discriminated and chosen veryrndifferent neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United Statesrnimmigration laws of 1965, as the best available example ofrndemocracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing “quality”rnconcerns and the explicit preference for European immigrantsrnand replaced them with a policy of almost complete nondiscriminationrn(multiculturalism).rnIndeed, though rarely noticed, the immigration policy of arndemocracy is the mirror image of its policy toward internal populationrnmovements: toward voluntary association and dissociation,rnsegregation and desegregation, and the physical distancingrnand approximating of various private property owners. Like arnking, a democratic ruler will promote spatial overintegration byrnoverproducing the “public good” of roads. However, for arndemocratic ruler, unlike a king, it will not be sufficient that everyonerncan move next door to anyone else on governmentrnroads. Concerned about his current income and power ratherrnthan capital values and constrained by egalitarian sentiments, arndemocratic ruler will tend to go even further. Through nondiscriminationrnlaws—one cannot discriminate against Jews,rnblacks, homosexuals, etc.—the government will want to openrneven the physical access and entrance to everyone’s property torneveryone else. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the civil rightsrnlegislation in the United States, which outlawed domestic discriminationrnon the basis of color, race, national origin, etc., andrnwhich thereby mandated desegregation, coincided with thernadoption of a nondiscriminatory immigration policy, meaningrnmandated international desegregation (forced integration).rnThe current situation in the United States and in WesternrnEurope has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration.rnIt is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integrationrnis the predictable outcome of democratic, one-manrnone-vote rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a dedemoeratizationrnof society, and ultimately the abolition ofrndemocracy. More specifically, the authority to admit orrnexclude should be stripped from the hands of the central governmentrnand reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns,rnvillages, residential districts, and ultimately to private propertyrnowners and their voluntary associations. The means to achievernthis goal are decentralization and secession (both inherentlyrnundemocratic and unmajoritarian). One would thereby bernwell on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of associationrnand exclusion as it is implied in the idea and institution ofrnprivate property, and much of the social strife currently causedrnby forced integration would disappear if only towns and villagesrncould and would do what they did as a matter of course untilrnwell into the 19th century in Europe and the United States: tornpost signs regarding entrance requirements to the town (nornbeggars or bums or homeless, but also no Muslims or Jews orrnCatholics or Protestants or Americans); to kick out as trespassersrnanyone who does not fulfill the town’s requirements;rnand to solve the “naturalization” question somewhat along thernSwiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government,rndetermine who can and cannot become a Swiss citizen.rnWhat should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correctrnimmigration policy, as long as the democratic central staternis still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determinerna uniform national immigration policy? The best onernmay hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracyrnand thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democraticrnrulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country, asrnif they had to decide whom to include and whom to excludernfrom their own personal property (into their very own houses).rnThis means following a policy of utmost discrimination: ofrnstrict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill,rncharacter, and cultural compatibility.rnMore specifically, it means distinguishing strictly betweenrn”citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” andrnexcluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring,rnfor resident alien status as well as for citizenship, thernpersonal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumptionrnof liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. Itrnimplies requiring an existing employment contract with a residentrncitizen; moreover, for both categories, but especially thatrnof citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstraternnot only (English) language proficiency but all-aroundrnsuperior (above-average) intellectual performance andrncharacter qualities compatible with our system of values—rnwith the predictable result of a systematic pro-Europeanrninrmigration bias. crnJULY 1995/27rnrnrn