Ending jus soli and the welfare atare would solve many problems, I agree. I doubt this would he unpopular I think the focus on the border is because it seems more egregious and more winnable.
However, any solution that involves large numbers of non-citizen nationals entering the country and possibly staying intergenerationally is not a long term solution though. Perhaps extending the citizenship Senate membership was a mistake for Rome, but it was a victory for Caesar, and there will always be Caesars looking to exploit the untapped political power that noncitizen nationals represent.
Always enjoy seeing whatever kooky new ideas you cook up. I agreed with this one less than most, though that was mostly due to logical leaps rather than the premises.
For some reason, I see more cronyism/nepotism/ethnic solidarity in Indian subcommunities in the US than in Chinese subcommunities, despite the Indian elite being more Anglicized and China having a big cronyism/nepotism problem (admittedly somewhat rooted out). Maybe it’s just less ethnic solidarity?
The UK spends £41k per year on Accomodation for asylum seekers. To put this ‘open pockets’ concept into context, the average UK salary is £38k!
I agree with a closed-pockets, open-border agreement between Europe and N. America.
Just to be clear: you are not in favour of free/any movement between Pakistan and the USA?
Also, wouldn’t having a small government solve the issue of high-IQ immigration changing things up? Hard to change once your country is extremely libertarian.
Finally, would you be fine with EU countries adopting a Middle Eastern model, with high migration but no/low access to citizenship, in order to maintain the demographic identity of their permanent population?
Nice article - I enjoyed it and it’s nice when an open borders person addresses its limitations as well.
I think it's reasonable to close the border to any nation which refuses military cooperation or falls below development standards. Pakistan fails both metrics. In that case, I think an auction system for visas would be more appropriate. The Middle East model makes more sense than the easy citizenship model.
"the best way to decrease pollution is to decrease the population"
This is a much over-simplified statement. The median American, because of increased consumption (via housing, purchased goods, transport choices, energy usage etc.), is responsible for WAY more pollution per capita than your median Ghanian or Peruvian. So increasing the proporition of the global population engaging in American consumption levels is actually worse even if coupled with falling overall fertility.
Also, the best way to reduce fertility in a country like, say, the DRC which has a lot of subsistence-level farmers, isn't ensuring their educated migrate to the U.S., but creating an environment where their educated want to STAY in the DRC and create the institutional framework/state capacity to grow the middle class and decrease poverty.
Now, I'm not advocating for closed borders as an environmental strategy, but I do think the best way to reduce emissions vis a vis population (if one were to go that route) is to avoid mechanisms that would cause the population growth of the developed/wealthy world to increase, at least until you can drastically reduce the emissions per capita of those wealthy nations.
This is a good counter-argument. I am not in favor of growing the American population. My argument is moreso that there should be open borders between developed nations: Schengen Expansion.
Why doesn't Europe 'just' remove the welfare state? I thought you liked to talk about policy that was realistic. Liberal democracy, the best form of government created by the smartest and most elite human capital, does not practically allow for the state get rid of patronage once it sets up such systems. You have wrote of big plans to redirect federal funding in the US for big projects. Now imagine how much of a non starter it would be if it had to include the words 'ending social security'. The Romans had an open pockets policy too, in the form of a grain dole. The grain dole only ended when the empire became unable to collect the grain.
Low iq berrypicker immigrants usually do not take over a state directly, but they can significantly erode or capture significant portions of an administrative state through gang activity and patronage. You wrote about how much the American state was captured or influenced by mafia gangs in the early industrial age, leading to the displacement of WASP authority. I see no reason why Muslim criminal gangs or Mexican cartel groups could not do the same thing.
Just after stepping into office, Trump has already taken some big steps against both legal and illegal immigration, by trying to end birthright citizenship. Perhaps the dumb conservative peasants are owed more credit.
Many articles feature polls and commentary on contemporary politicians to predict what will happen in the near future and why one side is incrementally preferable to another.
I justify my actions based on "realism," but I forward propositions based on idealism. Regarding Mexican cartels, the Italian and Jewish Mafia were much more competent than the Mexican cartels. If you believe in IQ, then this shouldn't be controversial.
"Low iq berrypicker immigrants usually do not take over a state directly, but they can significantly erode or capture significant portions of an administrative state through gang activity and patronage."
His point is that, assuming that's true, having an administrative state that's weak enough to be overtaken by criminals in the first place is the real issue, not immigration. Unless you're assuming:
1) The native-born population has no organized crime and is as pure as the driven snow
2) That immigrant criminals are inherently much more intelligent and competent than native criminals, and thus are much more able to displace established authority.
I suspect you'd concur both assumptions are absurd.
America's administrative state has either been too weak to stop criminals or aiding and abetting them for the past three centuries. That is a really big problem. It is a big problem that immigration only makes worse.
I like these ideas, but my problem is that the quality of living in Western countries is still much better than in, say, Pakistan and Somalia, even if they weren't able to freeload off the welfare system. It's still an attractive place to live in, and thus you'll get all kinds of people - not only high-skilled/high-motivation migrants.
If someone from the third world can live better on benefits in the west, can they not live even better than that by getting a job in the west?
I really don't see how welfare restriction is much of a deterrent for immigrants. If you have the wherewithal to emigrate - not an easy process - that already filters for conscientiousness. I highly doubt many people come to the west to abuse welfare systems. The only immigrants to western countries who find themselves unemployed are those whom the law explicitly bans from seeking employment (and both their and our lives would improve if this ban didn't exist).
Ending jus soli and the welfare atare would solve many problems, I agree. I doubt this would he unpopular I think the focus on the border is because it seems more egregious and more winnable.
However, any solution that involves large numbers of non-citizen nationals entering the country and possibly staying intergenerationally is not a long term solution though. Perhaps extending the citizenship Senate membership was a mistake for Rome, but it was a victory for Caesar, and there will always be Caesars looking to exploit the untapped political power that noncitizen nationals represent.
Interesting and original, as always.
Always enjoy seeing whatever kooky new ideas you cook up. I agreed with this one less than most, though that was mostly due to logical leaps rather than the premises.
For some reason, I see more cronyism/nepotism/ethnic solidarity in Indian subcommunities in the US than in Chinese subcommunities, despite the Indian elite being more Anglicized and China having a big cronyism/nepotism problem (admittedly somewhat rooted out). Maybe it’s just less ethnic solidarity?
Yes, Indians are higher in ethnocentrism, partially because Hinduism is a caste-based religion.
The UK spends £41k per year on Accomodation for asylum seekers. To put this ‘open pockets’ concept into context, the average UK salary is £38k!
I agree with a closed-pockets, open-border agreement between Europe and N. America.
Just to be clear: you are not in favour of free/any movement between Pakistan and the USA?
Also, wouldn’t having a small government solve the issue of high-IQ immigration changing things up? Hard to change once your country is extremely libertarian.
Finally, would you be fine with EU countries adopting a Middle Eastern model, with high migration but no/low access to citizenship, in order to maintain the demographic identity of their permanent population?
Nice article - I enjoyed it and it’s nice when an open borders person addresses its limitations as well.
I think it's reasonable to close the border to any nation which refuses military cooperation or falls below development standards. Pakistan fails both metrics. In that case, I think an auction system for visas would be more appropriate. The Middle East model makes more sense than the easy citizenship model.
"the best way to decrease pollution is to decrease the population"
This is a much over-simplified statement. The median American, because of increased consumption (via housing, purchased goods, transport choices, energy usage etc.), is responsible for WAY more pollution per capita than your median Ghanian or Peruvian. So increasing the proporition of the global population engaging in American consumption levels is actually worse even if coupled with falling overall fertility.
Also, the best way to reduce fertility in a country like, say, the DRC which has a lot of subsistence-level farmers, isn't ensuring their educated migrate to the U.S., but creating an environment where their educated want to STAY in the DRC and create the institutional framework/state capacity to grow the middle class and decrease poverty.
Now, I'm not advocating for closed borders as an environmental strategy, but I do think the best way to reduce emissions vis a vis population (if one were to go that route) is to avoid mechanisms that would cause the population growth of the developed/wealthy world to increase, at least until you can drastically reduce the emissions per capita of those wealthy nations.
This is a good counter-argument. I am not in favor of growing the American population. My argument is moreso that there should be open borders between developed nations: Schengen Expansion.
Why doesn't Europe 'just' remove the welfare state? I thought you liked to talk about policy that was realistic. Liberal democracy, the best form of government created by the smartest and most elite human capital, does not practically allow for the state get rid of patronage once it sets up such systems. You have wrote of big plans to redirect federal funding in the US for big projects. Now imagine how much of a non starter it would be if it had to include the words 'ending social security'. The Romans had an open pockets policy too, in the form of a grain dole. The grain dole only ended when the empire became unable to collect the grain.
Low iq berrypicker immigrants usually do not take over a state directly, but they can significantly erode or capture significant portions of an administrative state through gang activity and patronage. You wrote about how much the American state was captured or influenced by mafia gangs in the early industrial age, leading to the displacement of WASP authority. I see no reason why Muslim criminal gangs or Mexican cartel groups could not do the same thing.
Just after stepping into office, Trump has already taken some big steps against both legal and illegal immigration, by trying to end birthright citizenship. Perhaps the dumb conservative peasants are owed more credit.
"I thought you liked to talk about policy that was realistic." Whose blog have you been reading? Surely not mine.
Many articles feature polls and commentary on contemporary politicians to predict what will happen in the near future and why one side is incrementally preferable to another.
I justify my actions based on "realism," but I forward propositions based on idealism. Regarding Mexican cartels, the Italian and Jewish Mafia were much more competent than the Mexican cartels. If you believe in IQ, then this shouldn't be controversial.
Google says the average IQ in Sicily is 91.8, and 87.7 in Mexico.
"Low iq berrypicker immigrants usually do not take over a state directly, but they can significantly erode or capture significant portions of an administrative state through gang activity and patronage."
His point is that, assuming that's true, having an administrative state that's weak enough to be overtaken by criminals in the first place is the real issue, not immigration. Unless you're assuming:
1) The native-born population has no organized crime and is as pure as the driven snow
2) That immigrant criminals are inherently much more intelligent and competent than native criminals, and thus are much more able to displace established authority.
I suspect you'd concur both assumptions are absurd.
America's administrative state has either been too weak to stop criminals or aiding and abetting them for the past three centuries. That is a really big problem. It is a big problem that immigration only makes worse.
I like these ideas, but my problem is that the quality of living in Western countries is still much better than in, say, Pakistan and Somalia, even if they weren't able to freeload off the welfare system. It's still an attractive place to live in, and thus you'll get all kinds of people - not only high-skilled/high-motivation migrants.
If someone from the third world can live better on benefits in the west, can they not live even better than that by getting a job in the west?
I really don't see how welfare restriction is much of a deterrent for immigrants. If you have the wherewithal to emigrate - not an easy process - that already filters for conscientiousness. I highly doubt many people come to the west to abuse welfare systems. The only immigrants to western countries who find themselves unemployed are those whom the law explicitly bans from seeking employment (and both their and our lives would improve if this ban didn't exist).
More impossible than creeper cheetahs?