It's an interesting post because it highlights how profoundly different right-liberalism is to a traditionalist conservatism.
The post is about amnesty for illegal immigrants in the U.S. The writer of the post not only wants amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, but he wants those opposing amnesty driven out of the Republican Party.
That's not surprising when he describes the aims of the Republican Party in these terms:
Free markets, free speech, and a free society — that is the cornerstone of American conservatism.
If that is all you believe in then of course you can invite the world to live in your country. As I've pointed out before, right-liberals believe in the aim of being self-made in the market. That means that they look up to economic migrants who cross the seas to improve their material standard of living - after all that's a mark of a moral life for a right-liberal.
And so the author at Bearing Drift says of the illegal immigrants:
There are 12 million people in the United States today who want a better lives for themselves and their families, whose only crime was that they came to America to do it.
Conservatives embrace the idea of more Americans coming into this country to work hard and prosper.
There is a contradiction in this kind of "conservatism" (i.e. right-liberalism). The author writes:
The Republican Party is the party that is fighting against welfare, fighting against the entitlement system, fighting for individual freedom.
And it is true that right-liberals don't like welfare or entitlements. But in pushing for open borders they are effectively guaranteeing the victory of a left-liberal statism. Those 12 million Mexican illegals are going to be amongst the biggest users of state welfare and, therefore, reliable voters for the Democrats. Whereas only 6% of immigrants from the UK in the US rely on welfare payments, 57% of those from Mexico do:
Families headed by immigrants from specific countries or areas of the world range from just over 6 percent for those immigrants from Great Britain to more than 57 percent of those from Mexico using some type of welfare.
In that sense, right-liberalism is self-defeating. It promotes open borders, which then fuels the ascendancy of the left-liberal welfare state.
It is also shallow and materialistic. The logic of right-liberalism goes something like: we should be free to pursue our rational self-interest and our rational self-interest is a materialistic one of maximising our individual profit-seeking behaviour.
This is a vision of Economic Man, one which leaves out the less "scientific" but nonetheless real human qualities of identifying as part of a larger communal tradition, one that we feel a love and affection for and that is a good in its own right.
Finally, here is a thought for right-liberals to ponder. If the Mexican economy is not as prosperous as the American one; and if that means it is a virtue for Mexicans to seek to improve their standard of living by moving to America; then doesn't that also mean it would be a virtue, if the American economy were to decline, for Americans to pack their bags and head elsewhere?
What if China ends up with a better standard of living? Is the correct moral response of Americans then to seek entry to China? Would the best Americans, by definition, be the ones who departed America?