Policy Migration

Hints of queasiness from open borders advocate Nathan Smith:

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post called “The American Polity Can Endure and Flourish Under Open Borders.” I would not write that post today. The American polity might endure and flourish under open borders, but I wouldn’t claim that confidently. What changed my mind? A greater familiarity with the theoretical models that are the basis for “double world GDP” as a claim about the global economic impact of open borders, especially my own. It turns out that these estimates depend on billions of people migrating internationally under open borders. … I do not think the US polity is robust enough to absorb 1 billion immigrants (even, say, over the course of fifty years) and retain its basic political character and structure.

The large, link-dense text that follows is sure to stir up some excitement among border-stripping libertarians. As a political science fiction scenario, it has much to recommend it (including some fragmentation features that the Outer Right might find suprisingly appealing).

August 21, 2015admin 17 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

17 Responses to this entry

  • Policy Migration | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Policy Migration […]

    Posted on August 21st, 2015 at 5:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Funny Francis Agrees.

    He’s contemplating entering the USA walking from the Mexico side.

    The significance lost on no one.



    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Is this what Cucktholicism looks like?


    Phil Reply:

    Well Latin America is basically a Catholic region, while the US is traditionally and culturally Protestant and even anti-Catholic at times and in some respects. And American Catholics are by and large lapsed and assimilated to varying degrees to the Americanist heresy. Furthermore, Catholicism’s concern is eternal life and the salvation of souls.

    Isn’t he just being true to the Faith?


    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Of course, but I think it’s a different Faith from that of Christ we’re looking at here.

    Time to prep the Papal bull.

    Phil Reply:

    I don’t think it’s very different. I mean that’s why people turn to neo-paganism, biological materialism, etc. The cognitive dissonance is too great.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    To encounter someone capable of believing not only in materialism, but *biological* materialism would be fascinating.

    michael Reply:

    yeah just like in camp of the saints
    meanwhile on wall street


    Posted on August 21st, 2015 at 7:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Policy Migration | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 21st, 2015 at 8:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • haishan Says:

    “I do not think the US polity is robust enough to absorb 1 billion immigrants (even, say, over the course of fifty years) and retain its basic political character and structure.”

    Of course, this is a feature rather than a bug to many open-borders types. You can’t get a democratic world government without smashing existing polities.

    (Not that destroying America would be all bad, of course. Just a question of what it gets replaced with.)


    WowJustWow Reply:

    Read the whole thing; he’s quite indifferent to democracy.


    Posted on August 21st, 2015 at 10:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • WowJustWow Says:

    No, he’s not queasy; he admits he may have been wrong in his previous forecast but it really doesn’t bother him in the slightest. This guy is like an anarcho-capitalist televangelist, like if Jerry Falwell argued that a billion immigrants were God’s punishment for gay marriage. This gem appears near the end of the essay:

    “Thanks to my low opinion of the US constitutional regime as it currently exists is one reason, I can contemplate with very little distress the immigration of a billion or so people from all over the world, unschooled in the peculiar mythology of early 21st-century American democracy and its ever-more-irrational cult of equality.”

    Now on the surface this isn’t too different from your typical leftist sociosuicidal ideation — that white people have sinned against/can’t live up to their own equalist/antiracist ideals, so they must be replaced. But usually the discussion ends right there, and the comically self-defeating fact that the populations replacing them don’t even share those ideals enough to be able to fail to live up to them in the first place is left unexamined. (With apologies to Steinbeck, the reason socialism has stayed fashionable among Americans for so long is that they think of minorities as temporarily embarrassed white people.) This is the only time I’ve seen someone explicitly bring it up and furthermore argue that it’s a good thing.

    (But somehow he’s still really keen on equality for white women. “The cruel dilemma now faced by educated women, career vs. children, would be greatly mitigated as live-in nannies would become abundant and cheap.”)

    It just boggles my mind how these guys managed to become so autistically utilitarian. They’re willing to say all kinds of things you can’t say in respectable society and they oppose almost all manifestations of nonempathetic altruism but still they embody its essence completely: caring about abstractions and not about people. Somebody ought to give this nerd a wedgie.


    Exfernal Reply:

    Resorting to an argument of force admits failure with force of arguments. Don’t give him the satisfaction.


    Posted on August 22nd, 2015 at 1:19 am Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    I just left a one word comment on the post: racist


    Posted on August 22nd, 2015 at 4:18 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    resilience of society based on presence of functional feedback loops, balancing feedback loops negative positive feedback loops. if system management been based on idea to keep system constant for so long time, such system becoming fragile. these ideas is suicidal, regardless who will be coming through those borders, whites, hispanics, black, chines, jews…


    Posted on August 22nd, 2015 at 11:28 am Reply | Quote
  • bomag Says:

    I started reading the article. It made me envious of the illiterate, who don’t have to subject themselves to such things.

    None of his assumptions will hold. We are replacing people with machines at an unprecedented rate, yet N. Smith imagines everyone carries around a marginal utility that magically will be employed if we just de-regulate enough.

    Libertarians are such Leftists: use the power of the central gov’t to impose Libertarianism on the populace; then transfer wealth via immigration.

    If wealth creation is as fun and easy as libertarians claim, it would be much better to just impose that wonderful ideology on the poorer countries of the world and let them flourish in place. But, no, that doesn’t have the je ne sais quoi we desire.

    “There is much ruin in an ideology.”


    Dots Reply:

    imposing libertarianism seems difficult. we can’t impose it here, for instance

    u’d b surprised what sort of jobs exist for people who will take low wages. in Tijuana, most restaurants deliver. lots of people can afford maids. I learned Spanish in a few weeks by paying a college student to tutor me after my commute home

    would u pay $3 for a spick n span kitchen and bathroom? an hour’s french tutelage?

    if u can afford a nanny, u can afford to have 5 kids. with all of the economic problems we have, it seems useful to keep hi iq women in the workforce, and to impregnate them early and often. equality isn’t the point

    elder care seems like the most glaring need to b filled by dirt-cheap labor. I’m a nurse; I see people suffer every day for our observance of minimum wage laws

    exception: we can’t safely let more latinos in without significant dispersal/dilution of their communities. the proliferation of nation-states since ww1 demonstrates the difficulty of unity when national groups have near-parity or regional hegemonies. who wants a Chechnya, a Crimea, or even a Quebec? the elections we have r already very tribal


    Posted on August 22nd, 2015 at 12:23 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment