The leftists are just unable to think through the facts or are too ignorant to realize they could possibly be wrong. That’s because they are so whipped into the DTS frenzie that they don’t care as long as Trump is involved. What a world we live in !
Its much worse than that - you are assuming good faith.
Fact is that the left is explicitly motivated by revenge against our perceived original sins like racism and colonialism. Mass immigration is their self-flagellation imposed unto everyone collectively as penance and reparations. They won't tell you this openly until we have been made a minority in our own countries so the electorate can't vote out their policies. Then it will be too late to turn back the tide using democratic means.
I think you’re assuming that leftists don’t want to harm the working class in America, but as my friends in the tech world would say:
“That’s a feature, not a bug.”
Leftists don’t care about helping the working class, particularly when the working class is mostly comprised of people whom they hate: White Trump supporters. Leftists want to hurt their enemies while cloaking themselves in the language of universalism and compassion. Yet, these are the same people who cheer when the White population declines or suffers in some respect. Doesn't seem very universalist, does it?
All these ideological arguments are just tools for giving leftists more power. That's it. They want to hurt people they don't like and acquire power for themselves. There's no need to pretend they care about this seemingly high-minded stuff.
Interesting hypothesis. I suspect this is true of some left-wing activists. However, others do care and just haven't come to terms with the fact that you can't help some people without hurting others.
Very clearly and succinctly explained. I would like to send it to a friend but I've already reached my monthly limit of how much she can bear about immigration-related stuff. It will have to wait till March.
“Whichever type of immigration you allow, you end up hurting disadvantaged people: in the case of low-skilled immigration, it’s the native working class…”
I expect some natives are harmed by wage declines. But how many and how much?
Fair question. Even if the effect is only modest, there are several other channels through which they may be harmed, such as competition for public services and neighbourhood replacement.
Noah, have you gotten down to cases with economics professor Bryan Caplan of GMU? He's a big proponent (Substack "Bet On It") of vastly increased immigration to Western countries (the USA specifically) and favors (as a pipe dream) open borders everywhere. He prosecutes the moral case with everyone having a moral right to go where they please and to contract their labor with whom they wish and on whatever terms are agreeable to both parties.
I think your engaging with Caplan on immigration would serve both your and his readers well. Each of your Substacks are freely open to all viewers and commenters. Good luck in your debate with Caplan, should it come to pass.
Caplan is a theory-fool who could only flourish in academia, where other people are either virtual abstractions and/or meat widgets to be moved around by our enlightened professoriate, and where the prof has zero skin in the game and will never face any consequences for his destructive policy ideas.
If "everyone having a moral right to go where they please", where does this "moral right" come from? Who decides or enforces it? Why and how does it supersede the "moral right" of citizens to control the borders of its state and the "moral right" of citizens to vet who becomes members of their community and polity? Do I have the "moral right" to move to Italy today and never leave? (Hope so.)
There is no such "moral right", this is an OUGHT masquerading as an IS, an appeal to a nonexistent authority and is simply the result of a predetermined argument: Caplan wants open borders (meaning the dissolution of the nation-state) and he knows that in modern America claiming a "moral right" gets you halfway to the emotional blackmail needed on the road to "borders are racist" or "borders are an arbitrary oppressive structure".
When professors or politicans start talking about "moral rights" it's time to hold onto your wallet and prepare for some sophistry about how what's yours is really someone else's and how all your beliefs are benighted barbarisms compared to the exalted perspective of our betters.
Caplan doesn't needed to be debated, just mocked and maybe pelted with rotten vegetables, which I consider my "moral right".
Agree with many of your points in the critique of Caplan's position, at least as I've briefly described it though Caplan could well object. That said, Caplan's open border delusions are really not the issue: his readers and their readers and their readers are. It's the persuadables out THERE, not the already persuaded in HERE, that are the prize to be won.
Hopefully Noah sees the opportunity for the exposure it might bring to him and the enlightenment to others rather than the waste of time and intellectual engagement with an unworthy opponent that you do. We shall see.
In the case of Britain it never actually needed any immigration post 1945 beyond a vanishingly small amount of specialised skills (any foreigner should be rare enough to be viewed as exotic). It certainly does not require immigration of any kind now. Quite the opposite.
Britain as a particular case needs time out of history; sitting on the sidelines where it can stop meddling in geopolitics and allow its population to at least halve to circa 30-40million by natural means and gradual but effective re-emigration. Its economy needs to stop trying to compete with economic phantasms and readjust to a human, sustainable, relatable model.
The plan is simple:
To produce genuine economic growth you need to have an intelligent and innovative work-force. (Believe it or not we had an abundance of that post-1945).
To produce an intelligent and innovative workforce you need a high-trust society where cooperation is second nature, not some abstract to be enforced by law such as DEI. Recognise the truth that diversity is definitely not a strength.
To produce a high-trust society you need an homogenous population.
To produce an homogenous population the solution is obvious.
Britain needs to be more boring, less ‘vibrant’, more ordered and ‘…godly and quietly governed’ for a couple of hundred years while it finds its identity again.
All non white immigrants have the potential to benefit from the pro minority legislation that exists across virtually the entire western world.
The leftists are just unable to think through the facts or are too ignorant to realize they could possibly be wrong. That’s because they are so whipped into the DTS frenzie that they don’t care as long as Trump is involved. What a world we live in !
Its much worse than that - you are assuming good faith.
Fact is that the left is explicitly motivated by revenge against our perceived original sins like racism and colonialism. Mass immigration is their self-flagellation imposed unto everyone collectively as penance and reparations. They won't tell you this openly until we have been made a minority in our own countries so the electorate can't vote out their policies. Then it will be too late to turn back the tide using democratic means.
I think you’re assuming that leftists don’t want to harm the working class in America, but as my friends in the tech world would say:
“That’s a feature, not a bug.”
Leftists don’t care about helping the working class, particularly when the working class is mostly comprised of people whom they hate: White Trump supporters. Leftists want to hurt their enemies while cloaking themselves in the language of universalism and compassion. Yet, these are the same people who cheer when the White population declines or suffers in some respect. Doesn't seem very universalist, does it?
All these ideological arguments are just tools for giving leftists more power. That's it. They want to hurt people they don't like and acquire power for themselves. There's no need to pretend they care about this seemingly high-minded stuff.
Interesting hypothesis. I suspect this is true of some left-wing activists. However, others do care and just haven't come to terms with the fact that you can't help some people without hurting others.
—NC
The fact is that in Western countries, the immigration policies preferred by the populace are of no interest to the controlling entities.
Very clearly and succinctly explained. I would like to send it to a friend but I've already reached my monthly limit of how much she can bear about immigration-related stuff. It will have to wait till March.
Haha too much all at once can be counterproductive
—NC
“Whichever type of immigration you allow, you end up hurting disadvantaged people: in the case of low-skilled immigration, it’s the native working class…”
I expect some natives are harmed by wage declines. But how many and how much?
Fair question. Even if the effect is only modest, there are several other channels through which they may be harmed, such as competition for public services and neighbourhood replacement.
—NC
"To put it simply: high-skilled immigration causes brain-drain in sending countries..."
You can say the same for any small town in rural America. Letting their best and brightest leave should be forbidden.
Noah, have you gotten down to cases with economics professor Bryan Caplan of GMU? He's a big proponent (Substack "Bet On It") of vastly increased immigration to Western countries (the USA specifically) and favors (as a pipe dream) open borders everywhere. He prosecutes the moral case with everyone having a moral right to go where they please and to contract their labor with whom they wish and on whatever terms are agreeable to both parties.
I think your engaging with Caplan on immigration would serve both your and his readers well. Each of your Substacks are freely open to all viewers and commenters. Good luck in your debate with Caplan, should it come to pass.
Caplan is a theory-fool who could only flourish in academia, where other people are either virtual abstractions and/or meat widgets to be moved around by our enlightened professoriate, and where the prof has zero skin in the game and will never face any consequences for his destructive policy ideas.
If "everyone having a moral right to go where they please", where does this "moral right" come from? Who decides or enforces it? Why and how does it supersede the "moral right" of citizens to control the borders of its state and the "moral right" of citizens to vet who becomes members of their community and polity? Do I have the "moral right" to move to Italy today and never leave? (Hope so.)
There is no such "moral right", this is an OUGHT masquerading as an IS, an appeal to a nonexistent authority and is simply the result of a predetermined argument: Caplan wants open borders (meaning the dissolution of the nation-state) and he knows that in modern America claiming a "moral right" gets you halfway to the emotional blackmail needed on the road to "borders are racist" or "borders are an arbitrary oppressive structure".
When professors or politicans start talking about "moral rights" it's time to hold onto your wallet and prepare for some sophistry about how what's yours is really someone else's and how all your beliefs are benighted barbarisms compared to the exalted perspective of our betters.
Caplan doesn't needed to be debated, just mocked and maybe pelted with rotten vegetables, which I consider my "moral right".
Agree with many of your points in the critique of Caplan's position, at least as I've briefly described it though Caplan could well object. That said, Caplan's open border delusions are really not the issue: his readers and their readers and their readers are. It's the persuadables out THERE, not the already persuaded in HERE, that are the prize to be won.
Hopefully Noah sees the opportunity for the exposure it might bring to him and the enlightenment to others rather than the waste of time and intellectual engagement with an unworthy opponent that you do. We shall see.
In the case of Britain it never actually needed any immigration post 1945 beyond a vanishingly small amount of specialised skills (any foreigner should be rare enough to be viewed as exotic). It certainly does not require immigration of any kind now. Quite the opposite.
Britain as a particular case needs time out of history; sitting on the sidelines where it can stop meddling in geopolitics and allow its population to at least halve to circa 30-40million by natural means and gradual but effective re-emigration. Its economy needs to stop trying to compete with economic phantasms and readjust to a human, sustainable, relatable model.
The plan is simple:
To produce genuine economic growth you need to have an intelligent and innovative work-force. (Believe it or not we had an abundance of that post-1945).
To produce an intelligent and innovative workforce you need a high-trust society where cooperation is second nature, not some abstract to be enforced by law such as DEI. Recognise the truth that diversity is definitely not a strength.
To produce a high-trust society you need an homogenous population.
To produce an homogenous population the solution is obvious.
Britain needs to be more boring, less ‘vibrant’, more ordered and ‘…godly and quietly governed’ for a couple of hundred years while it finds its identity again.
The alternative is ruin.
I'm sure Russia and China are already sending the West as many sleeper agents as they can