Viva la revolución

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about this:

Open borders, but no birthright citizenship for anyone. (I have an inkling of children of citizens rising to the position of full citizenship, but I would have to work that out...)

Everyone is welcome to enter and stay in the country, if they will consent to do so through a relatively simple and painless bureaucratic process at ports of entry and at various times during long-term residence. They will be identified and registered as entrants - this before we even have to decide what benefits and duties apply.

Thus, the large portion of dangerous unlawful crossings are eliminated: only fugitives, vagabonds, and international criminals would have any incentive to do so. Human trafficking is curtailed, and now will be strictly in the domain of slave labor.

Visa overstay would be eliminated, at least in its current form, because the visa system in its current form would not exist, except perhaps to categorize after the fact.

The object here is to make the process easy, painless, and non-threatening (no threat of arbitrary deportation or persecution) in order to get people to submit to government regulation and oversight while present or resident in the country. (N.b. There is much in common with the principles of the 'regulated full legalization' model of drug control.) One element of the meta-process might be to have the government come to you, rather than the other way around, thus promoting both convenience and compliance. Of course the officials would generally be mild-mannered notaries with clipboards, not leering jackboots.

The abolition of jus soli negates the advantage of merely existing on American soil, so peacable entrants to the United States will consolidate into the categories of:

*Tourist
*Temporary economic migrant
*Aspiring permanent resident/citizen/refugee

Without jus soli, we can expect some level of self-sorting from the third category into the second.

This should please both leftists and libertarians. For a believer in the market, it must be expected that the net flow of migrants will equilibrize according to the dynamic economic capacity of the US after only a short period (months, bullishly) of adjustment and turmoil. As for the fascists and supremacists, I'm this close to advocating we deport them to Mars - no truck with them.

Now we are at relative leisure to discuss what goes into citizenship, and what it should take to attain it. It becomes a distinct and compartmental question. To a great extent our border crisis, and a great deal of human suffering, will have been mitigated in the meantime. We even get to liquidate superfluous government agencies and bodies, including the Schutzpolizei, which saves a bit of coin.


So long as one's priority is not outright sadism, it's hard to see how the current system, let alone a more extreme extrapolation, could be preferable to my outline.

My problem is that the net increase in new residents, given the size of our economy, is likely to be staggeringly large over a period of relatively few decades. Given the conditions many face around the world, the rational choice for millions would be to obtain a plane ticket, come here, and hope for the best -- because our worst is better than what they face. I think the numbers would swamp us, and end up causing a host of new problems even as your approach would curtail many of the current set.

Our culture, I suspect, could not absorb that many new persons, new values, etc. and not end up being radically altered. While I acknowledge our culture is imperfect, I think we would be less pleased with the results of this level of change in so short a time frame as I think would be the case.

[Montmorency]

EDIT: Let me emphasize separately a hypothesis already stated, that open borders makes it easy for people to come and go, to work or study for a season or a few years and depart, whereas restrictive regimes (e.g. since Clinton) incentivize entire families to settle permanently. What, quintupling the numbers of permanent unauthorized residents in a generation (again, since Clinton-era) seems like good evidence.

(And collocate these two permanently in your mind: 1996 immigration reform, NAFTA. Former incentivizes permanent residency, latter alters the economic balance to penalize staying in Mexico's labor market and reward being in the US labor market. Double whammy)

My problem is that the net increase in new residents, given the size of our economy, is likely to be staggeringly large over a period of relatively few decades. Given the conditions many face around the world, the rational choice for millions would be to obtain a plane ticket, come here, and hope for the best -- because our worst is better than what they face. I think the numbers would swamp us, and end up causing a host of new problems even as your approach would curtail many of the current set.

Our culture, I suspect, could not absorb that many new persons, new values, etc. and not end up being radically altered. While I acknowledge our culture is imperfect, I think we would be less pleased with the results of this level of change in so short a time frame as I think would be the case.

In the first place, we should note that not that many people, relatively speaking, are interested in abandoning their homes for a chance at permanent residence in the US, even if the conditions will be or are perceived to be superior. Just as most people in the Rust Belt are staying put!

(But really, internal migration is the big outlet in the developing world.)

So your case would be that the new policies would encourage too high a long-term surge, or that though there wouldn't be a remarkable shift in the baseline, the baseline alone (of people who would come if they had the opportunity) is overwhelming in magnitude.

I'm not so sure this would be the case, but let's accept that it would be for now.

To that I say, fix the other policies driving problematic patterns of migration:

1. Keep our damn promises to our collaborators in the War on Terror.
2. Don't add to (I'm not even using the word "stop") the destabilization of the Middle East.
3. Tackle gun production and the War on Terror (EDIT: I'm sorry, I meant to write War on Drugs) to cripple the cartels' revenue stream and allow Latin America a chance to get back on its feet.
4. Invest heavily in climate change mitigation and preparedness on transnational scale; the world hasn't seen anything yet.
5. Disincentivize employers from importing skilled labor for the purpose of holding down payroll expenses.
6. Help other countries not be places people are eager to leave.
7. Global capitalism demands constant competition and mobile low-cost labor forces. Explore a system that doesn't require people in the developing world to become economic itinerants for their survival.


Regardless of the broader policy context, as I and quoted authors point out several times the existing framework demands escalating violence and repression to maintain "border integrity", even as the conditions for migration-inducing instability outside (and within) the US are exacerbated. Like the national debt, the scope and scale promises only to expand. On our current path, deterrence escalates; solutions become more total and final, and fatal; the collateral damage to Our livelihoods and institutions becomes enormous and irreparable. The likeliest possible outcomes are maximalist, the logical conclusion of trends and priorities, so we can accept one set of problems or another.

Accept, in other words, a transformation of US foreign policy in conjunction with lenitive border reform, OR genocide and police state.

That's the bottom line, I think. We have to choose what we are willing to live with, and I won't choose the latter. If I can help it, I will act to prevent supremacists from choosing the latter.

If you choose to do nothing, to acknowledge no dilemma, to wait and see, how can you avoid falling in with the path of least resistance?



A curio: This libertarian believes we should encourage hundreds of millions of Muslims to immigrate to the West (on a, to simplify, citizenship-for-sale framework) because because immigration to Western societies is known to cause progressive rates of apostasy and religious disaffiliation over generations. The theory is that bringing in hundreds of millions of Muslims will go a long way toward marginalizing Islam in the world as most Muslims eventually convert to either Christianity or the "Enlightenment" religion. The author, some type of Christian, apparently also believes that Christianity would have an advantage over secular humanism (i.e. Enlightenment) in converting Muslims and so would finally be able to gain an edge over the Enlightenment in the West.

Have to say, there are a lot of eyebrow-raising premises in this fella's speculation (and some questionable assertions on comparative religious history). This is why people make fun of libertarians, right? Helps remind me why not all types of social engineering may be salutary, or soundly-intentioned.

[Hooahguy]

If the Democrats take any lesson away from this its that the voters dont want the old guard anymore. No Biden, no Warren, no Sanders. They need young blood, more people like Ocasio-Cortez. Maybe not as extreme as her in all those policies, but at the very least new and younger people. It would be a tragic mistake to nominate Bernie or Biden.

Also the NY 14 is very deeply blue so theres little to no risk in it turning red in November.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

EDIT: Let me emphasize separately a hypothesis already stated, that open borders makes it easy for people to come and go, to work or study for a season or a few years and depart, whereas restrictive regimes (e.g. since Clinton) incentivize entire families to settle permanently. What, quintupling the numbers of permanent unauthorized residents in a generation (again, since Clinton-era) seems like good evidence.

(And collocate these two permanently in your mind: 1996 immigration reform, NAFTA. Former incentivizes permanent residency, latter alters the economic balance to penalize staying in Mexico's labor market and reward being in the US labor market. Double whammy)



In the first place, we should note that not that many people, relatively speaking, are interested in abandoning their homes for a chance at permanent residence in the US, even if the conditions will be or are perceived to be superior. Just as most people in the Rust Belt are staying put!

(But really, internal migration is the big outlet in the developing world.)

So your case would be that the new policies would encourage too high a long-term surge, or that though there wouldn't be a remarkable shift in the baseline, the baseline alone (of people who would come if they had the opportunity) is overwhelming in magnitude.

I'm not so sure this would be the case, but let's accept that it would be for now.

To that I say, fix the other policies driving problematic patterns of migration:

1. Keep our damn promises to our collaborators in the War on Terror.
2. Don't add to (I'm not even using the word "stop") the destabilization of the Middle East.
3. Tackle gun production and the War on Terror (EDIT: I'm sorry, I meant to write War on Drugs) to cripple the cartels' revenue stream and allow Latin America a chance to get back on its feet.
4. Invest heavily in climate change mitigation and preparedness on transnational scale; the world hasn't seen anything yet.
5. Disincentivize employers from importing skilled labor for the purpose of holding down payroll expenses.
6. Help other countries not be places people are eager to leave.
7. Global capitalism demands constant competition and mobile low-cost labor forces. Explore a system that doesn't require people in the developing world to become economic itinerants for their survival.

I am in emphatic agreement with you on point 5, agree with points 1 & 2, agree (though not sure of the doability in practice on 6 & 7. Emphatically agree that War on Drugs is a sinkhole that is counterproductive (though might quibble on the best methods/steps to stop the bleeding) and even have some sympathy for 4. Setting aside the anthropomorphic debate, the climate is changing and methods to adapt to that changing climate need to be addressed.

I don't think my choices are quite so either/or as you paint them above, though as you can tell by my agreement with many of your noted points, I do not believe your argument is baseless.

[Montmorency]

Applies to us here:

Narcotizing dysfunction

Narcotizing dysfunction is a theory that as mass media inundates people on a particular issue they become apathetic to it, substituting knowledge for action.[1] It is suggested that the vast supply of communications Americans receive may elicit only a superficial concern with the problems of society, while importance of real action is neglected, and this superficiality may cover up mass apathy [...] However, being informed and concerned is not a replacement for action.

[HopAlongBunny]

Applies to us here:

Narcotizing dysfunction

This raises a couple of issues.

The divide between theoria/praxis; Aristotle looks at that divide in his Nicomachean Ethics; for some things (mathematics, logic) it doesn't really matter if it ever is applied, the exercise is enough; for politics OTOH, without practical application the exercise is pointless.

Coupled with some ideas about cognition: "How can one assert that they know something (smoking excessive, drinking are bad) if their behaviour does not reflect what they claim to know"
Monties tourist observation comes into play here; talking endlessly about issues w/o action is like flying over the Grand Canyon, pretending to be an expert based on that experience.

[Montmorency]

Ocasio-Cortez interrogates political corruption:

[Hooahguy]

If you arent following her on Twitter then you are simply missing out.

[Fragony]

Our culture, I suspect, could not absorb that many new persons, new values, etc. and not end up being radically altered. While I acknowledge our culture is imperfect, I think we would be less pleased with the results of this level of change in so short a time frame as I think would be the case.

What's the problem, they are only uneducated by western standards, can't keep up with it anyway as they do do not't speak your language, and think very differently about a lot of things. It is such a succes in Europe, every day really

edit, I do not know who this guy is but I think he's right. https://twitter.com/spikedonline/sta...eenstijl.nl%2F I think I have stated a few times here that immigration is a weapon, glad to see someone saying the same