in defense of open borders.

against conflation.

I am in favor of open borders.

“Oh, so you support one billion Africans coming to America?”

… Between Los Angeles and San Diego.

I assume you are as well. So why not America and Canada? Or America and Greenland? What about America and Mexico? Being in favor of some open borders doesn’t mean support for all open borders.

I’ve detailed a plan for opening the border between Europe and America. I also support a North American Union. Contrary to the “low-skilled immigrant” haters, I argue that there are negative political externalities associated with elite immigration. This article will summarize and build upon my previous writing on the subject.

I am drawn to the topic of immigration by an insightful post from Anatoly Karlin. He argues that American territorial expansion is counter-productive, because expressions of symbolic nationalism, jingoism, and tribalism will alienate America’s allies. Karlin’s argument regarding Greenland is persuasive:

As regards security, the US already has the massive Pituffik Space Base in north-western Greenland (previously Thule AFB); in the event it needs another facility, it is likely that Denmark would agree to it… As regards resources, there’s nothing stopping US (or other) corporations mining in Greenland right now.

The one thing missing here is open borders. I want open borders with Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Britain, the EU, and others. That doesn’t require annexation, or invasion, or a destruction of local legislative autonomy. It requires bilateral agreements, which can be obtained by mutual and respectful negotiation.

I don’t want America to go around the world invading (or buying) foreign countries to give the plebs a patriotic chub. But I do want to reduce the number of borders in the world as much as possible. I say this with the understanding that some borders are more easily dissolved than others, and that freedom of movement requires shared values, military cooperation, and religious toleration.

Having open borders with people who hate you is not smart. Thankfully, most of the world loves America, with the exception of some extremely theocratic and clannish backwaters. I am not arguing for an open border with Pakistan.

“Open borders” is not the same thing as “open citizenship” or “open pockets.” I want people to be able to freely move. I do not want to grant the whole world free stuff, or grant them free birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, immigration restrictionists have their priorities reversed: they want to restrict movement, but are too cowardly to confront the problem of citizenship and welfare.

Immigration restrictionists are fueled by elite resentment, spiritual Marxism, or a preference for Russia and China. The term “open borders” is used by conservatives, nationalists, and populists to hysterically overblow the threat of Pakistani Rotherham rapists and criminal Mexican cartels. They use these anecdotes and “shark attacks,” which are 1% of overall crime and abuse, as a distraction to avoid a real discussion about elite immigration. They never place these threats in context, which is an error on par with ‘per capita.’ For conservatives, “open borders” is a punching bag to redirect frustration and scapegoat poor people for the country’s problems.

I care more about who leads this country than who works on the roof.

30 million on the left is less impactful than 100,000 on the right.

The country won’t collapse because of cheap labor. That has never happened. What has happened is that foreign elites come into a country, colonize it from the top-down, gain control of all the wealth and banks, infiltrate the military, institute new religions, and usurp power from the old ruling elite. It has happened before, and I expect it to happen again.

This is what the Phoenicians did to Rome, and later the Germans. It wasn’t a slave revolt that took down Rome, or a revolt of plumbers and roofers: it was a revolt of elites. If you don’t consider the Germanic mercenaries of the 5th century to be elite human capital, that’s only because you’ve never gone to war with them.

The Germans weren’t “low skilled”

During the Battle of Teutoberg Forest, the Roman and German forces were roughly of equal size, and the Germans smashed the Romans. During the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Jews outnumbered the Romans either 2:1 or 4:1, but were still subject to genocide. The Romans never recruited Jewish mercenaries, but they did recruit Germanic mercenaries.

The Celts were also curb-stomped by the Romans, despite outnumbering them. The comparison isn’t made to denigrate Celtic or Jewish soldiers, but to demonstrate just how excellent Germanic mercenaries were. In an empire whose economy was founded on warfare, law, order, and security, military force was the premium sought-after skill. In this respect, the Germans were very highly-skilled immigrants.

I don’t expect Indian Americans to rip up the constitution and institute Hindu-Sharia law, or for Chinese Americans to bring communist rule. However, is more reasonable to be apprehensive about the effects of elite immigration than rape-and-murder True Crime stories about Islamo-Mexican immigration.

Open Pockets vs Open Borders

Islamic and African migrants to Europe aren’t attracted by “open borders,” but by “open pockets.” Countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain offer migrants free healthcare, free education, jobs programs, free housing, and free welfare checks. An Islamic or African migrant can live a better life in a European prison than by working hard back home. If Europeans could stomach turning off the welfare, the migrants would stop coming, and many of them would go back voluntarily. No armed guards, walls, fences, barbed wire, visa enforcement, or coast guard patrols required.

Anti-immigration parties advocate for a sick game of “capture the flag”:

1. First, they say that the European coast guard should sink the boats.

2. But then, if the migrants sneak their way in, they are “home free” to obtain thousands of dollars of free stuff.

3. In response, these anti-immigrant parties advocate for “mass deportations,” where migrants are forcibly removed and sent home, so that they can sneak in once again.

4. They advocate for strict border patrols, to make the “capture the flag” game more difficult (and expensive).

Very silly propaganda, pushed on dumb, sadistic voters.

Europe has a sick relationship with welfare. Nationalists would rather murder people, drown them, and spend millions on border security than make sensible reforms to welfare. They would rather play a sick, deadly, and expensive game of “red-light, green-light” than reform welfare. That’s not the fault of “open borders.” It’s the fault of “open pockets.”

I cannot take any populist restrictionist seriously if their first step is to murder, drown, and deport before reforming welfare. Restrictionists are not interested in solving the problem in a humane and effective way. They prefer a racialized bloody circus to cynically whip up a moral panic around “white genocide” and get people to the polls for the nationalists. The Russians and Chinese are cheering on (and quietly supporting) these antics from the sidelines.

It’s like leaving out big hunks of raw meat around your property, and then hiring armed guards to shoot the animals who come to eat the meat. Maybe it would be simpler to just stop leaving out the big hunks of raw meat.

Or a less violent and cuter metaphor: having an “open pockets” welfare system and trying to keep migrants out is like putting meat in front of a dog and smacking his nose every time he sniffs the meat. If non-citizens got nothing, then the flow of migrants would decrease significantly, without the need for “border security.” A serious approach to immigration has nothing to do with “borders” and everything to do with “incentives.”

The Sadistic Spectacle of Nationalism

Voters engage in superstitious thinking. They view “the wall” as a totemic golem that will protect them from evil spirits. The Cargo Cult of “wall building” to “save America” is no different from tribesmen donning magical amulets to protect them from bullets. It is a shameful, cheap magic trick.

The demagogues who lead the right-wing masses employ willful stupidity to take advantage of the tribal instinct. The implicit race war of “mass deportations” gives midwestern moms a socially acceptable excuse to satisfy their need to hurt and forcefully exclude foreigners. This is no less petty than excluding the new girl from the lunch table.

“Close the borders, Becky, the new girl thinks she is allowed to sit with us!”

Nationalists prefer dead kids on the beach than closing their pockets. It’s like when a drunk woman tries to start a fight between a stranger and her boyfriend, so she can get the pleasure of watching men fight over her. Narcissistic women wish to entice men in order to reject them. Nationalists enjoy the psychodrama of attracting the brown masses with the seduction of “open pockets,” and then rejecting them by closing the borders.

Against Nativist Protectionism

If you want to decrease the number of toxic people in your country, the best way to do that is to engage in mass deportations of criminals and vagrants. But most criminals and vagrants are citizens, not immigrants. If you want to make the country better, stop caring about who is an “American” and start paying attention to behavior.

Source: econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/226477/1/hdri-wp-34.pdf

For example, the Roma population in eastern Europe has a higher fertility rate than the non-Roma population. Roma people use more welfare. If nothing changes, Roma people will eventually replace Europeans in their own countries, without the need for immigration. Closing the borders won’t solve the more fundamental problem: the abuse of the welfare system.

I am not an American or European nationalist. I do not care if your ancestors were brought over on the Mayflower, or whether they were brought over on a slave ship, or whether you were born in the same little German Dorf as your great-great-great grandfather.

I feel no kinship with those who feel they are owed anything because of their ancestry, or their piece of paper, or their “birthright.” Citizenship should be determined by merit and loyalty, not by genealogy.

This black person, born in America, is not more deserving of free stuff than a black person born in Kenya.

That doesn’t mean that non-Americans are more deserving of sympathy than Americans. No immigrant who comes to America is owed a “pathway to citizenship.”

Citizenship should be earned, not granted. People should, as individuals, demonstrate their usefulness, loyalty, and merit to the state before being granted citizenship. End birthright citizenship for everyone, not just immigrants, but for the natives as well.

The Global Picture

The world has 193 countries. Each of those countries has borders, with the exception of the Schengen Zone, which has freedom of movement between member states. That brings the number of borders down to 164.

There are different kinds of borders. For example, the border between America and Canada is “visa free,” meaning you do not need to apply in advance to enter Canada. You can simply wake up, start driving north, talk to a border guard, and be let across the border.

If you are an American, you can also go to the Mexican border and say you are visiting for a day trip and they will let you in without a visa. It’s a few hours of inconvenience, but it’s not nearly as strict as a trip to Russia.

As an American, if you want to go to Russia, you need express permission from a government-approved travel agency. The Russian government spies on you and tells you where you are allowed to go and when. Same for Belarus, and same for China. As an American, you are not allowed to fly into Beijing, rent a car, and drive to Xinjiang. And within China, if you are from Xinjiang, you are not allowed to freely drive to Beijing.

The Ancient World Had “Open Borders”

Historically, countries did not have a strict border patrol. Merchants were subject to tariffs, as far back as Hammurabi and the Greeks. But no one was worried about an “invasion of cheap labor.”

When Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob traveled back and forth between the land of the Chaldees and the land of Canaan, they didn’t need to show a passport. When they traveled in and out of Egypt, they didn’t need a visa. None of these governments had the time, wealth, or infrastructure to pay border guards to inspect every nomad wandering back and forth on camels.

The Romans and Chinese erected fortresses, and famously, the Great Wall of China. But these weren’t meant to stop foreign workers from coming in to steal Chinese or Roman jobs. They were meant to slow down the advance of troops and serve as early-warning posts for signs of a violent invasion.

The great wall, in the less “touristy parts,” is easy to climb over or bust through. It didn’t stop migrant workers, just slowed down soldiers on horseback.

There has never been an empire in history that said,

These workers are coming into our empire and lowering wages! We must stop them, or our empire will collapse!

This is because there has never been an empire in history with an “open pockets” policy toward immigrants. Even if the borders were closed tomorrow, the fact that every old person in this country gets free healthcare is unsustainable. The problem is not open borders, but the sacred cow of welfare. Immigration is only a small part of a multi-trillion dollar problem.

Beware Skilled Immigrants

The reason why the Germans threatened Rome isn’t because they were working low-skilled jobs, but because they were intelligent, disciplined, brave, fierce, well-trained, and healthy. In the modern world, where performance in warfare is increasingly determined more by your brains than your brawn, the mass immigration of programmers and engineers is much more consequential than plumbers and berry pickers.

The problem with immigration, historically, isn’t that it steals the jobs of dumb people, but that elite immigrants use ethnocentric networks to take control of the government. Elite immigration undermines ethnic cohesion, decreases loyalty, inspires religious revolutions, and foments coups against the state. When people complain about open borders, they are hyper-focusing on poor Mexicans, and giving a pass to LEGAL immigrants who “did it the right way.”

When Joseph went into Egypt, he easily took over the government — not once, but twice, after getting out of jail.¹ According to the Hebrew side of the story, Joseph altruistically saved Egypt from famine. However, if you were an Egyptian Nationalist, you might object to the elite immigrations of Hebrews into the land of Goshen, the finest real estate in Egypt.

Due to their high birth rates, the Hebrews came to outnumber the Egyptians, according to Exodus, which struck fear into the Egyptians and caused them to enslave the Hebrews. This ended up working out poorly for the Egyptians. If they had to do it over, they might have avoided letting Joseph run their tax system and inviting in his H-1B cousins.

The Egyptians were afraid of the Hebrews:

1. rising up and taking (further) control of the state;

2. taking out the Pharaoh and instituting Judaism as the state religion;

3. outlawing the Gods of Egypt; and destroying all their idols.

According to Exodus, that is exactly what the Hebrews did upon (re)entering Canaan: they took over with a military invasion and committed a brutal theocratic genocide.

I have no fears that Mexicans are going to do this to America, and I’m not anticipating that Indians or Chinese will do it either. Putin, for all his faults, has demonstrated how easy it is to integrate Muslims into a military apparatus, and Islam is not becoming more radical over time.

We shouldn’t fear Hindu or Chinese immigration, but that we should be cautious about allowing them to take over all of our most sensitive companies and governing bodies. I am arguing for a restriction of citizenship and leadership, not work, residency, or employment. I am not bothered by immigrants working and living here; I am bothered by them using ethnic nepotism to take over the government and bending it to their tribalistic will. This destroys trust in institutions — why would I trust a country run by elite foreigners who hate me?

None of this has to do with “borders,” however. It has to do with citizenship, which is an entirely separate matter. “Borders” serves as a distraction to avoid uncomfortable questions about meritocracy and ethnocentrism. Who is the American elite? If we cannot answer that question with confidence and loyalty, it doesn’t matter how tight the borders are.

Crime

I do not regard crime as a problem. This is because, despite the open borders policy of Biden since 2020, homicide is down.

Car theft is up, but this seems to be due to non-enforcement by cops. The perpetrators aren’t Mexican berry pickers, but black “teens.” Open borders have had little effect on the auto-related crime spree of the past five years.

Sometimes I receive the conspiratorial response to this decline in crime:

The Democrats are hiding the crime; millions of whites are being mowed down in broad daylight; the Democrats are hiding the dead bodies.

A stronger argument is as follows:

It is true that homicides are down, however, this is only due to improvements in medical care. Assaults are up and are not reported; property crime is up.

If crime was increasing, it would lead to higher real estate costs. Middle class people seek to isolate themselves from crime. They are forced to spend more on “good schools” and “good neighborhoods” as a form of financial segregation. A significant portion of the cost of housing is due to zoning, and zoning is an effective form of racial and criminal segregation, using wealth as a proxy.

Even if crime is increasing, as these right-wingers allege, open borders or demographic changes are not driving this increase. The problem is changes in policing and ideological agitation among black citizens. It seems that the “Ferguson Effect” and the “George Floyd Effect” was much larger than the Biden open borders policy.

This is a moral, ideological, and political problem concerning existing citizens, not a problem from newcomers. If El Salvador is any indication, then the mass importation of Hispanics will result in tougher attitudes toward black crime, not more relaxed “pathological altruistic” attitudes.

White Nationalist Hysterics

When white people argue against immigration, it seems that they are saying,

“My people hate themselves; they are weak; masochistic; pathologically altruistic; suicidal. In order to protect them from themselves, they need to be insulated and isolated from the world.”

Such a people would not be worth preserving.

But I do not think this pathetic characterization is true. I think most white people like themselves, even if they find racism to be uncouth. They tend to marry, live around, and make friends with whites; and they care more about their own children than they care about strangers. Rather than being weak, whites tend to be taller, less diseased, and live longer lives than blacks and Hispanics, with lower levels of obesity. Whites do have a higher rate of suicide, but I don’t think suicidal tendencies are a product of “weakness,” but excessive self criticism. As far as pathological altruism goes, whites contribute roughly as much to charity as other races.

This data comes from a black nationalist institute, so take it with a grain of salt: urban.org/urban-wire/despite-racial-wealth-gap-black-philanthropy-strong

This data is more accurate, and shows whites giving slightly more in charity, but not by much: scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/6b8c2e97-ab05-4c0c-bf19-e7438953c53b/content

To the extent that Northern Europeans have been a positive force in history, it is because they were interested in learning Latin, French, Greek, and Arabic. It is xenophilia and outward orientation which produces greatness, not inward looking protectionism.

White nationalists have the opposite view. They believe that European greatness was founded on fear of foreigners, distrust of newcomers, and self-isolation. White nationalists have more in common with Chinese eunuchs than the Crusaders or Conquistadors.

I am not sure whether they believe their own propaganda, but they attempt to strike fear into the hearts of liberals with the specter of “crime.” Through propaganda, they are attempting to convert “a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” These talking points are often directed toward me:

• I hope you get victimized by black crime!

• I hope you or your family get raped!

We should be able to quantify the cost of black crime and compare that with possible solutions (education, prevention, reparations, criminal justice). But conflating black crime with open borders isn’t honest. “Closed borders” advocates don’t want to have an honest conversation about race.

Border restrictionists conflate Mexican berry pickers with drug cartels. That would be like fearing violence from a Russian immigrant due to the actions of Putin. Drug cartels are more akin to violent, tyrannical government entities than they are to petty criminals. They run sophisticated, organized, coordinated syndicates. They are not a product of higher testosterone, or some biologically determined “impulsivity.” They are a product of incentives.

Just because members of the United States military are responsible for the deaths of millions does not mean that army veterans are, at an individual level, extremely violent. However, it is true that DESPITE making up 7% of the population, veterans are responsible for 28% mass shootings. This statistic gets worse when we consider that, prior to 9/11, the average age of veterans was 58. If we restrict our survey to just post 9/11 veterans, the average age is 37 — which is still pretty old to be involved in a mass shooting. This gets worse when we realize that most mass shooters are black, and most veterans are white.

I don’t think anyone would make the case that we should deport, imprison, or discriminate against veterans due to their crime rate. We are capable of handling veteran crime. I do not think gang activity justifies the costly deportation of tens of millions of people.

The “criminal argument” against immigration is hysterical and statistically illiterate. The common theme here is deception and conflation. It’s either closing the borders, or opening them, with nothing in between. If I say, “I want more freedom of movement between America and Mexico,” the response is,

“so you want to be raped? You enjoy rape? When would you like to be raped? How often do you enjoy being raped?”

Which brings me to the new favorite subject of Elon Musk: Rotherham.

Rotherham

The story of Rotherham, which Elon is now using to distract from the H-1B issue, has two parts:

1. Islamic-Pakistani sexual culture;

2. The “care home” bureaucracy.

I don’t deny that the Islamic world broadly, and specifically Pakistan, has a different sexual culture around the age of consent and the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women. This is exacerbated among the lower classes, who form gangs, and amplifies criminal behavior.

Pakistani immigration does not occur because of “economics” in a vague sense, but because of specific “open pockets” policies. Pakistanis get job assistance, welfare checks, government housing, free education, healthcare, and everything else. Cut off the benefits, and many of these unemployed gang members would self deport. If you remove unemployed repeat criminals from the mix, the problem is largely solved. Middle-class Pakistanis are not forming rape gangs. Like blacks in America, Pakistanis tend to self-segregate and most Pakistani crime is directed at other Pakistanis.

So why is it that, in the case of Rotherham, Pakistani men preyed exclusively on white girls? Was this racial or religious programming, the consequence of open borders, or something else? The answer lies in the “care homes.” These are the equivalent of orphanages, and this is how they were operated:

• girls in [orphanages] used to tie their bed sheets together so they could escape and meet their sexual abusers.

• men would arrive almost “every night” to collect girls [from orphanages]

• [orphanage] staff were reluctant to intervene in some cases for fear of being classed as “racist.”

• “Sometimes, [the men] would phone and they would pick up around the corner, but sometimes they would just turn up and pick up at the children’s home,” the care worker said.

Why were Pakistani gangs so successful in targeting teenage and even pre-teen white girls? Because the vast majority of victims did not live in two parent households with loving, caring, interested parents. The vast majority of these white girls had parents who were drug addicts, criminals, or gang members themselves; they were forcibly taken away from their parents by the state. In the absence of any grandparents willing to take custody, they were put into “care homes,” the “children’s home,” which in America are called orphanages.

In America, nursing homes are full of elder abuse, and so are orphanages. In Britain, care homes are operated by negligent, ignorant, bureaucratic, and uncaring nannies who allowed, tolerated, and permitted these “collective escapes” of young white girls into the arms of older Pakistani men. Beyond sexual abuse, there was also violent physical abuse and even murder. All of this happened because the guardians of these girls were asleep at the wheel, or just didn’t care.

Putting children in an orphanage is always risky and should be avoided where possible. It is a tragedy with predictable outcomes. Whenever children are raised by someone other than their biological parents, the risk of abuse skyrockets. This is true even when you remove the Pakistani cultural element.

For almost all categories of abuse, the risk of abuse and violence increases by a factor of 5x, and in some cases, by as much as a factor of 10x when biological parents are absent. We shouldn’t be surprised that Pakistani men preyed on girls in “care homes,” since orphaned children are the most vulnerable. I’m not saying that “if it wasn’t for the Pakistanis, someone else would have done it,” but I am saying that the abuses in “care homes” is much larger than Rotherham and its immigration population. Without or without immigration, these girls were already set up for an extremely high likelihood of abuse, because they had no one who truly cared for them.

If we were serious about preventing child abuse, the first thing to do (after deporting the Pakistani gangs) would be to reduce the fertility of violent, drug-addicted, and impoverished women as much as possible. The 1,400 girls victimized in Rotheram are a drop in the bucket of what happens every year.

25% of American children have a single parent household. 3.8% live with neither of their biological parents. Since there are 73 million children in America, this means that there are 18 million children in single-parent households, and 2.8 million orphans. If all these children had two parent households, a projected 3.54 million cases of abuse could be prevented. This is 4.8% of all children in America.

If these proportions hold true in the UK, and there are 14 million children there, this means that 672,000 British children are abused every year as a direct result of absent biological parents. This isn’t due to Pakistani immigration, but the reproduction of mentally ill, poor, psychopathic, damaged, criminal, and drug-addicted people. Pakistani migrants simply took advantage of a population which was already weak, vulnerable, and at risk. Rotheram was just a small slice of a 500x larger problem.

Immigration restrictionists aren’t genuinely interested in launching a crusade against child abuse, which would require making it harder to have children. Instead, they are looking to whip up a hysterical moral panic in which they paint black and brown men as super-predators. Restrictionists want to lean into panic, fear, and risk-aversion. This is not something I can condone on a spiritual level.

The rapes at Rotherham could have been prevented by ending the “open pockets” policies and effective and fair policing. Instead, migrants are subject to a “two tier” system where rapists and murderers are allowed to freely prey on children. That’s not the fault of the border, but the bureaucrats and judges who control the criminal justice system. Closing the border without reforming the moral and ideological bureaucracy will certainly lead to many more Rotherhams than “open borders.” Fairly prosecuting criminals has nothing to do with the border.

It is Keri Badenoch and Andrew Tate who are leading the charge against the Rotherham rape gangs. Nigerians and mixed-race American immigrants are the ones coming to save Britain from itself.

But this is all a distraction. The problem of Europe is that it is stagnating, aging, protectionist, and safetyist — not that it is being raped to death by smelly men with foot long penas. Both the left and right in Europe compete over who can provide better safety. Whether the border opens or closes, whether the immigrants are Pakistani or Korean, none of these side-issues is striking at the core of Europe’s dying culture and dying economy. Europeans don’t take risks. Europe was better (in relative terms) in medieval times, when people were dying from the plague and violent crime. The biggest problem in Europe isn’t rape or violence.

Pakistani rapists are not Hebrew tax collectors, Indian programmers, Chinese engineers, Phoenician emperors, or Germanic mercenaries. They are poor, welfare dependent, living in government housing, fat, lazy and cowardly. They would flee the country at the slightest threat. They are not going to take over Britain. If the British people want to ban Pakistanis or Muslims from their country, I would respect that much more than hiding behind the bureaucratic formula of “border security.” But I think the problem would mostly solve itself without the need for deportations if they ended the policy of “open pockets.”

I am tired of this person talking down to me on holiday.

I am an American. It disgusts me that some yellow-vested bureaucrat has the right to speak rudely to me when I travel to London. There should be no more “border security” between Americans and Brits than between Californians and Texans. I am in favor of stripping yellow-vested bureaucrats of their jobs and letting the human capital flow.

Citizenship reform.

The theory behind the “great replacement” is that Democrats will import millions of immigrants who will vote in elections. This could be deflated if it was made clear that citizenship was earned, not granted or guaranteed.

This would first require the elimination of birthright citizenship, preferably for all Americans. The default of citizenship would be replaced with “non-citizen nationals,” which would allow for the following:

1. Work permits;

2. Passports;

3. Driver’s Licenses;

4. Property ownership.

---

You may be surprised to hear this, but you do not need to be a citizen to have a passport. This is allowed under “non-citizen national” status.

---

Puerto Ricans have been granted citizenship, but Samoans have not. Samoans are “non-citizen nationals.”

If we gave “non-citizen national” status as a default to all children born in America, we could prevent them all from voting, which would solve the “great replacement” problem, at least electorally.

A Caveat On Pollution

Anything which increases the global population also increases global pollution, which is bad. However, when immigrants come to America, their birth rate tends to decrease, not increase.

The best way to decrease pollution is to decrease the population. That is best achieved by promoting feminism. Open borders will help decrease fertility overall, rather than increasing it. There is some evidence that increasing racial diversity helps to suppress birth rates.

With this being said, I should make it clear that the greatest threat to pollution comes from hyper-overpopulated and congested countries like India, and countries with high birth rates, like Niger. I am not in favor of plummeting white birth rates, while giving the Africans a pass.

Rather, I believe that bringing Africans to America is actually the best way to reduce African fertility. African American TFR is lower than that of any African country. Of course, bringing millions of Africans to America might also increase crime and welfare usage, so the tradeoffs outweigh the benefits. However, in principle, this argument applies to the whole world.

There is no evidence that “overpopulation” or poverty suppresses birth rates. If anything, foreign aid to Africa is the best way to reduce the threat of overcrowding, pollution, and toxic buildup. Thank you Bill Gates!

Conclusion.

Kamala Harris and Vivek Ramaswamy are viewed with suspicion by immigration restrictionists, because they believe these people are “not real Americans,” or are not loyal to America. If Kamala and Vivek had to jump through a hoop of military or Peace Corps service, this would help legitimize their citizenship in the view of restrictionists, who would be convinced that, through this process, their citizenship was “more than just a piece of paper.”

For white nationalists, this wouldn’t satisfy them, but they are a small and tiny minority who had little to do with January 6th. Most of the political instability coming from the right doesn’t come from white nationalists, but from “cultural conservatives” who are moved by vague anecdotes of being “ripped off by the government and the big corporations, and academia, and Hollywood.” They are more motivated by conspiracy theories about PizzaGate and Epstein’s Island than they are by white demographic decline.

Attacking “open borders” is a dishonest way of avoiding a discussion of race and identity, while implicitly dog-whistling to white nationalists.

No empire in history was ever threatened by a flood of cheap labor. Hereditarians argue that Rome was flooded by Middle Easterners, who changed the genetic composition of Rome and this destroyed the empire.

But Rome wasn’t undone by the “low IQ immigrant masses.” Rather, it was the decision of Julius Caesar to open the Senate to non-Romans. That began a process which ended with Phoenician Emperors and Germanic mercenaries taking over the state from the top down.

The Germans were called “barbarians,” but this is deceptive, because military performance is largely a function of physical health and intelligence. Germans never constituted a majority of the Roman population. They took over Rome from the top-down, not the bottom-up.

Outside of politically and religiously motivated terrorism, open borders (in themselves) are not a significant threat to the state. What is a threat is “open pockets” and “open citizenship,” where anyone can wander in and get free stuff, or take over the corporations and the government through nepotistic scamming. The solution, first and foremost, is to severely restrict citizenship and welfare, but not freedom of movement.

Freedom of movement is very good for the economy. “Open citizenship” is a terrible idea — that is what led to the collapse of the Romans, not low IQ berry pickers.

1. Sort of like Donald Trump!