Germany fact of the day, will support for immigration collapse?

Berlin has said it expects to receive a record 800,000 asylum seekers this year, more than the entire EU combined in 2014, laying bare the scale of the biggest refugee crisis to face the continent since the second world war.

Whether you consider this “good news” depends on what you are comparing it to.  Most of all, we would prefer a situation where not so many people wanted asylum.  In the meantime, my fear is that this immigration will not proceed in an orderly manner, and the backlash against immigration will grow stronger yet.  I do not expect 2017 to resemble 2015; “unorthodox arrivals” to Europe were three times higher this July than last and at some point that process will be stopped, no matter what our moral judgment of the situation.

Note this:

Interior minister Thomas de Maizière warned that the Schengen zone, which allows passport-free travel across much of mainland Europe, could not be maintained unless EU states agreed to share asylum seekers.

The Schengen agreement of course has been the best achievement of immigration policy in a long time.  But can the European Union agree on a coherent asylum policy, and furthermore one which removes some of the relative burden from Germany and the UK?  Keeping relatively free immigration does in fact require a good deal of regulation, most of all in Europe, but those same governments are not always good at regulating.

Here is some bad polling news from Sweden.   Trouble is afoot in other corners too:

Authorities in Hungary said this week they would dispatch thousands of “border hunters” to arrest migrants entering the country from Serbia.

The forces, drawn from the Hungary’s police, will patrol the 175km long border with Serbia, where soldiers and labourers are building a 4m high razor-wire fence to keep out an estimated 300,000 migrants expected to arrive in the country this year.

I think of these developments as a good illustration of why an attempt at truly, fully open borders probably would, due to backlash, result in a lower level of immigration than the pro-immigration, immigration-increasing, low-skilled immigration increasing policies I favor.  But the idea of maximizing subject to a backlash constraint is unpopular in libertarian circles, let me tell you, including at GMU lunch table.  Nonetheless we are learning, I am sorry to say, that the backlash constraint is more binding than many of us had thought.

This all remains an under-reported story in many American newspapers,  Even with Donald Trump still leading in the polls, it is not understood what a prominent role images of Calais are playing in British national debate.  I don’t see all this as leading to anything good.


Why zero comments?

Let me be the first to remind MR readers that the litmus test for racism is the same as a southern writer once proposed about black/white relations: are you willing to marry a person from a different race? If not, you are as foul a racist as our own Steve Sailor. You're just not man enough to admit it.

I say open borders, all the way, and let a boatload of Chinese and Africans come into every city in the USA. The worse that will happen is that the places will look as heterogeneous as Washington, DC or NYC, which can't be that bad.

That's a stupid test and one that many racists would pass

Yes, Ray's test is idiotic. It is quite possible to be racist in an aggregate sense like Sailer or Sarrazin where you believe there is overwhelming statistical evidence that certain ethnic groups have lower IQs, consistently underperform, are statistically more prone to violence etc, but still be able to recognize merit among individuals of any ethnic group. Not all racists fall on the Nazi/segregationist spectrum.

Judging individuals based on (real or imagined) statistical group characteristics is precisely what racism is. Thinking that such differences may or do exist, by contrast, is not. Please do not devalue important words.

Not according to the media's leading antiracists....they have millions of readers and who the f**k are you?

There are plenty of Asians who'd mary a European but not an African. There are many people picky about race, but not restricted to their own. It is a silly test.

Nonsense. Such a person would fail the test and be deemed racist towards Africans.
Also, if Peter Akuleyev (above) is to be believed, you just outed yourself as a racist by what you said about "plenty of Asians".

The test would be passed by the same people who say "some of my best friends are black."

I think most sexists marry a person of a different sex.

@Ray Lopez 12:16 am

This isn't immigration, these are refugees from the Islamic civil war.

An attempt to prevent this was the rationale behind the European Libyan intervention, which they managed as they usually do, with some smart diplomacy help from Hillary. The rolling civil unrest in northern African countries along the Mediterranean was predicted to create a wave of refugees that would flood Italy, Greece Spain and Portugal.

And here it is.

Invade the world, invite the world. It's going to be interesting to watch the centuries-old Sunni-Shia conflict expand into the West.

Maybe this helps explain why Europeans weren't quite as enthusiastic about invading Iraq. etc as Americans. Per-capita equivalent number of refugees to US would be close to 4 million. Actual number of refugees in the US per DHS in 2013 - just shy of 70k. Imagine what the Republican debate would be like with refuge numbers close to Germany's? The current clown-show would look rationale, tame & civilized in comparison.

One thing the West can maybe do to mitigate the effects of the Sunni-Shia conflict is to stop pouring gasoline onto the fire by supporting the theocratic Sunni dictatorships of the Persian Gulf.

Saudi Arabia would have collapsed a long time ago from its own internal social contradictions, and thus be unable to export Salafi and Wahabi ideology, if it weren't for Western military and economic support. But of course, that would be very bad for the Americans as the resulting instabilities in the oil markets would ruin their ability to sustain their banal suburban lifestyles of fast food and shopping malls. So, bombs away!

<a href=" Visit our HTML tutorial ">Can't have silly things like democracy ruin consumer culture.

meant to link this:


the fire by supporting the theocratic Sunni dictatorships of the Persian Gulf.

There are no 'theocratic Sunni dictatorships' on the Persian Gulf. They are traditional monarchies leavened (in Kuwait and Bahrain) by electoral institutions. The political regime there is fairly benign by Arab standards. Other than Kuwait, American dealings with them have consisted of ordinary diplomatic and trade relations.

Saudi Arabia would have collapsed a long time ago from its own internal social contradictions

No it would not have, except in your addled imagination. Saudi Arabia, unlike the Gulf monarchies, actually is internatlly severe. It is also an organic product of the societies of the Nejd and the Hijaz. It needs no foreign sponsorship and receives little above and beyond ordinary diplomatic and trade relations. There were placed therein a tripwire of American troops during the period running from 1990 to 2002. The mean census thereof was 6,200. They buy some military equipment from us. That's it. That's not keeping them afloat.

>The political regime there is fairly benign by Arab standards.

I dunno what on what grounds you say this. Saudi Arabia is basically an elitist alliance between Wahabi clerics and tribal elites of the al-Saud family, and their policies are basically what ISIS would implement if it was supported by the West and allowed to stabilize and sell its oil to the global markets. Saudi Arabia regularly gets billions in arms sales from the US; this is hardly an "ordinary diplomatic and trade relation". Along with Egypt and Israel, Saudi Arabia is a key client state of the US in order to keep the center of global oil production stable and productive. And such military aid and defense pacts are crucial, given the restlessness of the local Shia population. Just look at the Saudi invasion of Bahrain in order to shore up the dictatorship there, or the current war in Yemen.

The US-Gulf State axis will allow for no democracy in the Persian Gulf.

I dunno what on what grounds you say this.

I can distinguish between Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates. That distinction persistently eludes you. I can also read reference books and the reports of agencies like Freedom House.

Opinion journalists have been predicting Saudi Arabia's collapse for 35 years, and not merely the usual newspaper hacks, but fairly learned men like Walter Lacquer have offered such prognostications. I'd say the last several decades suggests they do not know what they're talking about, but that's just me.

Saudi Arabia does not have a domestic arms, munitions and aerospace industry and buys equipment from abroad. That's a component of ordinary trade relations. It's called specialization, division of labor, and comparative advantage in operation. It's just that it's equipment purchased by the government. Saudi Arabia does have a large military, but that's not going to help it against domestic unrest nor would the propensity to invest in the military be driven by domestic unrest. Latin American militaries have long been contextually small. Security services and riot police help you contra domestic unrest; they're a lot less equipment intensive than the Army, Navy, and AIr Force.

Along with Egypt and Israel, Saudi Arabia is a key client state of the US in order to keep the center of global oil production stable and productive.

If I thought you were amenable to sense, I'd suggest you quit repeating tropes you'd find on the op-ed page and ask yourself if this makes any sense even as metaphor.

Neither Egypt or Israel produce any oil. The Gulf Emirates produce oil. Saudi Arabia produces oil. It's not going to be any more internally tranquil if it has a domestic arms industry or if it buys its military equipment from France.

While we're at it, the salience of the Gulf for oil production has been declining for some time and even unfriendly governments do not benefit from refusing to put their principal export commodity on the market.

'Whether you consider this “good news” depends on what you are comparing it to. Most of all, we would prefer a situation where not so many people wanted asylum.'

Probably also left out of the American coverage concerning those coming to Germany to claim asylum is an actual breakdown of the numbers (German text, concerning the first half of 2015) -

'Im 1. Halb­jahr 2015 stellten in Deutsch­land insgesamt rund 172 000 Personen einen Antrag auf Asyl (Erst- und Folge­anträge). Damit hat sich die Zahl im Vergleich zum Vorjahres­zeit­raum mehr als ver­doppelt (1. Hj. 2014: 77 900). Deutsch­land lag im 1. Halb­jahr 2015 im EU-Vergleich an erster Stelle, gefolgt von Ungarn (50 200, Daten bis Mai) und Schweden (29 000). In Relation zur Gesamt­bevölkerung verzeichnete Ungarn vor Schweden und Deutsch­land die meisten Asyl­anträge.

Viele der Personen, die in Deutsch­land Asyl beantragten, kamen aus Kriegs- und Konflikt­gebieten wie Syrien (31 500), dem Irak (8 200) oder Afghanistan (7 500). Daneben stammte fast die Hälfte aus Staaten des Balkans, die meisten aus dem Kosovo (31 200), Albanien (22 100) sowie Serbien (15 500).

Im Vergleich zum 1. Halb­jahr 2014 hat die Zahl der Antrag­stellerinnen und -steller aus diesen Staaten stark zuge­nommen: Aus dem Kosovo waren es mehr als zehnmal so viele (1. Hj. 2014: 2 400), aus Albanien rund sechsmal so viele (1. Hj. 2014: 3 900). Die Zahl der Antrag­stellerinnen und -steller aus Serbien war bereits im Vorjahr relativ hoch. Hier fiel der Anstieg geringer aus (1. Hj. 2014: 9 400).'äge-im-1-halbjahr-2015-aus-kosovo-albanien-und-serbien

In other words, about half of the German asylum applications come from three Balkan nations, none of them notably involved in warfare at the moment (the number of Kosovo growing more than tenfold, with the Albanian number growing sixfold).

And do note that Hungary is the EU nation with the largest asylum seeker burden, while the UK isn't even in the top 3. But since few Americans (understandably) read anything but English language reporting, few Americans seem to realize that the British press is generally less than interested to extremely uninterested in providing an accurate reflection of what is going on in the EU.

Actually a lot of it is immigration. From Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh.

And for the refugees, the fact is that Europe is far away and that they could be taken care of in the middle east.

Libertarianism: for those with no community based identity, loyalty or history. Every man is an island.

There are many closed borders libertarian arguments. Ilana Mercer, Steve Sailer, Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray, and many other Libertarians well known in this crowd are very opposed to open borders.

Yo, Milton Friedman is not on that list.

Au contraire.

"It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing."

As a libertarian I'm outraged by the open borders crowd.

These people want to issue a lot of new stock in our joint national enterprise, but propose to raise very little human capital in the process. I'm not even going to get to the matter of externalities, which they treat as being universally positive, if they treat them at all.

The whole low-skill immigration idea is grossly to the disadvantage of minor shareholders in the nation like me, but certainly favours a few people on the board, as it were. I'm ashamed that a libertarian would ever support such infringement of shareholder rights and destruction of social capital.

"These people want to issue a lot of new stock in our joint national enterprise"

Right -- the analogy to a corporate officer violating his fiduciary duty to shareholders by watering the stock ought to be obvious. As I wrote in 2005:

By "citizenism," I mean that I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.

Let me describe citizenism using a business analogy. When I was getting an MBA many years ago, I was the favorite of an acerbic old Corporate Finance professor because I could be counted on to blurt out in class all the stupid misconceptions to which students are prone.

One day he asked: "If you were running a publicly traded company, would it be acceptable for you to create new stock and sell it for less than it was worth?"

"Sure," I confidently announced. "Our duty is to maximize our stockholders' wealth, and while selling the stock for less than it's worth would harm our current shareholders, it would benefit our new shareholders who buy the underpriced stock, so it all comes out in the wash. Right?"

"Wrong!" He thundered. "Your obligation is to your current stockholders, not to somebody who might buy the stock in the future." ...

... That same logic applies to the valuable right of being an American citizen and living in America.

It seems to me that you are saying that stockholders' have an interest in not letting their ranks swell. Is that right, or am I missing something? The analogy with citizens seems to lead to that conclusion.

I'm not sure how far you want to take this analogy though, since stockholders are as mercenary and fickle as they come. Your old professor underlined what responsibility a company had to its stockholders, but no such responsibility seems to apply to the inverse relationship. Family might be a metaphor that is better suited to your aims, though it suffers from scaling issues.

So you have a proposal to deal with watering down of our joint national enterprise by people having too many kids? Or kids at all? I don't have kids and would prefer my share did not get diluted.


Restricting fertility is a violation of the rights of existing American citizens.

Restricting immigration is not.

"Restricting fertility is a violation of the rights of existing American citizens.
Restricting immigration is not."

Sure it is. Robert Nozick defined libertarianism in terms of social and commercial transactions among consenting adults. If I, as an American citizen, am unable to hire whoever I want or invite whoever I want onto my private property (located on U.S. soil) because of visa regulations, that impinges on my rights.

To be clear, I don't personally object to this infringement but I'm also not a libertarian.

Hey Ricardo,

That would be fine with me, providing, as a Good Liberatarian, you can stick to Nozicke's strictures and not consume any public good or space with your invitee,

1) Your invitee does not cross public land to get to your property
2) Your invitee eats lives and sleeps on your property, and never leaves it.
3) Your invitee makes no rubbish, noise, or mess that affects another citizen or his property
4) Your invitee leaves in the same manner as #1

If you want to waive any of these entirely Nozickean rules, I think the public gets a say in the nature of your invitee.

"If you want to waive any of these entirely Nozickean rules, I think the public gets a say in the nature of your invitee."

In other words, the general public has the right to use to the democratic process to regulate transactions among consenting adults when there are externalities. There is no reason to limit this principle to immigration -- it applies in equal measure to pollution, the operation of financial markets, urban planning, etc. And the only reason you might not want to apply almost identical reasoning to regulate how many children people have is if you consider reproductive rights to be much more fundamental and important than freedom of contract or association.

Again, I have no objection to the principle that countries may regulate immigration. It's just not clear why you insist on trying to square such government regulation with libertarianism.

I think these "migrants" are quite desperate . They feel they have a gun at their back. It will be hard for Europe to keep them out.
Some of the European countries ( e.g France) already have a large immigrant underclass with high unemployment. It will add to it.

True, they are determined, but the problem is mainly a lack of political will. We should free ourselves from cant, too. The vast majority of the migrants we have entering the UK are purely economic and were not in fear for their lives when they set out.

A gun to their back? I would put a gun to their face and see if that would dissuade them.

Haha, like you have any guns in the UK.

The Army are the people who have the guns

Countries like Germany, Italy, and France are extended ethnic tribal families. It is wrong for the university elite to destroy that ethnic identity and force them to permanently hybridize with massive numbers of foreigners who don't necessarily even like them. And why not pressure China or Japan or South America to shoulder mass immigration? Europe is one of the most densely populated regions of the globe. I know these points have been said before and the GMU and university elite have made up their minds and learned to tune out and shut out any other voice.

I agree with all of this. But it must be added that Islam is extra toxic, in addition to all race and language issues.

You cannot have a peaceful non-barbaric civilization with a non-trivial Islam percentage in it.

You must have missed all of TC's posts on Singapore (14.7% Muslim)

You can always cherry-pick one example with a just double-digit percentage which is compensated by other lucky factors.

We both know that's not what matters.

87% of Indonesia is Muslim, as is 61% of Malaysia. Both have startlingly low homicide rates.

You may also note that many Arab Muslim nations have quite low rates of homicide as well.

Crime has nothing to do with religion. The high crime rate among European Muslims is because they are mostly North African and come from a macho aggressive culture. Christian North Africans or Middle Easterners probably don't behave much better. Certainly Christian Armenians have a very bad reputation, just like Corsicans and Christian Albanians. Asians tend to be less violent in daily life regardless of religious affiliation.

@ Well: It's interesting, the map of homicide rates by country looks almost exactly like an the map of the share of the population that is Christian:

Both figures are very high in the Americas, Russia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. And both are low in Northern Africa, Saudi Arabia. The difference is very stark on the island of New Guinea: Christian Papua New Guinea has high homicide rates (10.4 per 100,000), while Muslim Indonesia has one of the lowest in the world (0.6 per 100,000).

I was curious so I collected homicide and religion data on 217 countries from around the world. I find that there is a statistically significant relationship between the share of the population that is Muslim and crime. On average, the murder rate among majority-Muslim countries is 4.6, compared to 9.8 for other countries, which are mostly majority-Christian (p-value = 0.0048, two tailed test).
Running a regression, I find that a 1% increase in the Muslim population is associated with a 0.1% decrease in the homicide rate (p=0.016). (Note: these results are robust to running the regression in levels or logs, with a quadratic polynomial, or using the Christian share instead of Muslim share).

"@ Well: It’s interesting, the map of homicide rates by country looks almost exactly like an the map of the share of the population that is Christian"

So, once ISIS kills off all the non-believers the Middle East will become amazingly tranquil?

The State has overwhelming power in Singapore and can enforce policies that European States most likely cannot.

Omnipresent state policing and surveillance. Muslims barred from important military positions. Detention without trial.

As for Indonesia, ask Christians and Chinese how safe they feel. I drove through Jakarta's streets in 1998 with blacked out windows and saw hell.

Most of my wife's ethnic Chinese and Indian family are looking to emigrate from Malaysia. It's increasingly intolerant and unsafe.

Adherents of Islam have a problem with cosmopolitan society.

Singapore is also a nation state that denounces universal suffrage democracy as it would simply pit ethnic and religious groups against each other.

This is one reason Singapore is a bit of a police state.

No. There is "Islam" and "Islam". Syrian refugees are probably a very different population from poor Marocco people from middle of nowhere. (Survival bias: who do you think is most likely to arrive in Germany: middle class Syrian or underclass?). I think we should receive of all of them even if we do not profit from it (likely it will cost EU/US taxpayers quite a lot). It is just something called being a little human...

You forgot to type your address. You surely won't mind sharing your home with some Syrian refugees, will you?

....Because thats exactly whats gonna happen you know, they will steal your houses, your jobs, your wives... and in 5 years, europe is a califat ;) ...

I roughly agree with you. But the "university elite" know that tribal families change. Germany and Italy are particularly recent ones.

I'm not disagreeing with you about migration, but note that the process of creating the French, Italian, or German, nation involved destroying many ethnic identities within the borders of those countries. Where and when such destruction ought to stop and consolidation ought to begin is totally arbitrary and whimsical.

Budapest needs more halal restaurants anyway.

How does one go about immigrating in "an orderly manner"?

Can't we all agree that immigration is necessarily a messy thing? (This is why it's so great, of course.)

Ellis Island was pretty orderly.

Ellis Island = immigration?

Perhaps we could slow it down, but not stop it.

Maybe Europe should not have colonized many parts of the world and redrawn borders arbitrarily.

And maybe the US shouldn't have invaded so many other nations. Perhaps they should be shamed into giving enemy barbarians direct access to their soft targets.

Come again? The Philippines is our one major former dependency. It's not suffering abnormal political problems. We've occupied (at times) several Caribbean states. There's nothing remarkable going on in Panama, or the Dominican Republic, or Grenada It's really rich to attribute Cuba's problems to three brief American occupations (the longest being three years) which occurred more than a century ago. Haiti's wretched, but it was so before and after the period of American occupation. No Caribbean states are generating refugees for Europe. Nicaragua had an American counter-insurgency force operating therein from about 1925 to 1934. It's main problem (other than the underdevelopment which is bog standard for mesoamerica) is massive vote fraud by the red haze swine in control of the place.

And, again, American troops were only in the Maghreb for a brief period during the 2d world war and immediately thereafter. Their opponents were Rommel's Afrika Korps, not the locals. We had a brief and bloodless presence in Beirut in 1958. Other than that, your could only be referring to Kuwait, which is not suffering, and Iraq. Iraq's current disorders are partially derived from a deficit of American troops and influence, so your complaint makes no sense. The United States has never had much association with Syria at any time.

What a laughably selective overview of US imperialism. Are you really going to ignore the overwhelming and decisive influence that the US played in the civil wars in Central America and Colombia, and the fact that these countries are some of the worst humanitarian disasters in the Western hemisphere? Have you already forgotten the Central American migrant crisis that had people in a tizzy recently, or the fact that US policy had a huge hand to play in all that?

What a laughably selective overview of US imperialism.

It is not 'laughably selective'. It is precise, and pays no heed to the social fictions in which red haze twits traffick.

Are you really going to ignore the overwhelming and decisive influence that the US played in the civil wars in Central America and Colombia,

I will ignore it, because it is fictional. Colombia suffered from riot and political factional violence from about 1948 to about 1962. Political grandees managed to negotiate a cartel agreement in 1958 that put an end to it, more or less. This was Colombia's worst period of suffering. Colombia has since suffered from insurgency (and high crime rates), not civil war. The responsibility for that lies entirely with the communist pigs who started and maintained that insurgency. Pres. Betancur attempted a negotiate settlement which came a cropper when the communist bosses discovered in test participation that they had minimal popular support, so they went back to the maquis. Pres. Pastrana's efforts came a cropper when the commies made use of proffered concessions to entrench and extend their purview. The role of the United States in all this has been peripheral. American troops in Colombia during the terminal phases of this were numbered fewer than 200 and primarily concerned with drug interdiction.

As for El Salvador, the United States, over a period of 13 years, sent an eight-digit sum in military aid each year and provided a few score advisers to train the Salvadorean military. The communists wanted and got a bloody insurgency. Eventually they gave up and accepted an armistice.

As for Guatemala, there was no 'role'. The U.S. Government cut off all security assistance to the Guatemalan government at the end of 1977 and it was not restored for eight years. They got $1 per capita in the form of agricultural extension and what not during those years. It was during those years that the Guatemalan military successfully suppressed the communist insurgency. Very bloody. No foreign government was participating (bar those sending cash to commies).

As for Nicaragua, the Sandinista Front got boatloads of assistance from various Latin American governments in 1978 and 1979 until they took over. They got an olive branch and aid from the U.S. government for two years and change until they'd proved themselves a troublesome and implacable enemy. Then, we funded an insurgency largely drawn from disaffected peasants and quondam Sandinistas (which was presented by red haze propagandists as a Somocista movement). Then there was an armistice.

None of this is terribly topical and none of the social problems in these four countries were generated in the United States, so your complaint is perfectly irrelevant as well as being historically illiterate.


You're spinning a misleading narrative at best, and complete gibberish at worst. The peace accords in the '80s were wrecked not by FARC and the other communists, but by the growing alliance between elites and drug cartels and their paramilitary groups, which murdered pretty much the entirety of the Patriotic Union (UP), the political wing of FARC set up in 1984, with upwards 4,000 party members being assassinated by the mid-90s. So no surprise that the peace accord fell apart, particularly given the official state support for the paramilitaries, as well as the role the US played in this; the 1996 Human Rights Watch report on "Colombia's Killer Networks" details this pretty well. And the idea that the US was primarily interested in anti-drug enforcement is nonsense as well, considering that CIA report in 1991 and a DEA report in 1994 both agreed that FARC was only tangentially involved in drug trafficking, and yet all counter-narcotics funding from the US went to help the Colombian military fight FARC. And US involvement was decisive, particularly in the 2000s after Plan Colombia was instated; biggest US embassy in the world was in Colombia until 2004, when the one in Afghanistan got bigger. You had dozens of US agencies working out of that embassy assisting the Colombian state; research has also shown that much of this military aid ended up in the hands of the vicious right-wing paramilitaries that attacked FARC, but also trade unions, peasant coops, indigenous groups, etc.

>El Salvador

Plenty of credible research agrees that US military support for the Salvadorean dictatorship was the only thing that kept it from meekly collapsing in the face of the insurgency. I.e ( )


A cursory look at Wikipedia proves you utterly wrong

( )

And of course, you conveniently ignore recent happening in Latin America, namely US support for the post-Zelaya coup government in Honduras, the escalation of military aid, and the sundering of civil society that escalated murder and gang violence.

You’re spinning a misleading narrative at best, and complete gibberish at worst. The peace accords in the ’80s were wrecked not by FARC and the other communists,

Yes, they were. And they never bargained in good faith later. Stop lying.

You're making use of Human Rights Watch as a source without admitting that Aryeh Neier was a press agent for Latin American communists, as delineated by Morton Kondracke at the time.

The Colombian government did not need the United States government's prodding to act against insurrectionists. The U.S. Government took an interest in drug interdiction. That does not mean it had no other interests. The central government of Colombia had interests of its own. Suppressing an insurrection is not a function of 'U.S. Imperialism'.

Plenty of credible research agrees that US military support for the Salvadorean dictatorship was the only thing that kept it from meekly collapsing in the face of the insurgency.

That is imaginative counter-factual speculation and was denied, among others, by Jimmy Carter. Also, the insurgency was receiving subventions from abroad.

That aside, the government of El Salvador was at the time an odd transitional hybrid, not a 'dictatorship'. The Salvadorean military had made a point of instituting rotation in office during the period running from 1961 and 1979 so there would be no enduring autocrat. Also, votaries of the ancien regime were ejected from power in 1979 and all the flag rank officers packed off into exile. El Salvador has not had a military president since 1980 and none of the civilian heads of state had sufficient authority in context to be called 'dictators'. Neither was their a discrete strongman or cabal who exercised supreme authority behind the scenes.

Something you fail to mention: the insurgency did not deserve to win and it's a reasonable wager would have been horrendously abusive had they. People like Lori Berenson and the cretins who ran the Washington Office on Latin America went all in for Latin American communists. They did not do it because they're well intentioned or had an ounce of good sense.

A cursory look at Wikipedia proves you utterly wrong

That you'd quote Wikipedia to me as an authority is stupefying. You're also dead wrong, as anyone who read Foreign Affairs at the time would know. Public sources on U.S. aid disbursements are available. Jimmy Carter cut off aid. It was not restored until after that insurgency was suppressed. Read Edward Luttwak's remarks on the Guatemalan counter-insurgency and on how their effectiveness was enhanced by relying on their own technology without American intervention.

And of course, you conveniently ignore recent happening in Latin America, namely US support for the post-Zelaya coup government in Honduras,

There is no 'post-coup' government. Zelaya was arrested by the military consequent to a warrant issued by the Supreme Court and his successor was the constitutionally designated official. No other elected official was displaced and his successors were elected on schedule four months later. The successors to his successors are currently in office.

While we're at it, the Obama administration's public diplomacy at the time was anything but 'supportive'. They just gave up when Zelaya's elected successor was sworn into office as there was no reason to continue to complain. Zelaya had no more claim to office and his successors election was perfectly above board. Yes, I did notice that asinine creatures with a history of association with NACLA and WOLA made a great deal of noise about this dispute. There was no decent reason to unless you're an unthinking partisan of communist or neo-peronist faction (which of course George Vickers is). No one of any sense ever thought these creatures merited a hearing and I'm not about to start now.

Chum, the signal to noise ratio in your posts is approaching zero.

Germany didn't.

Yeah, but probably just because Germany didn't exist until 1871 when all the real estate was already taken.

Deutsch-Südwestafrika would like to disagree.

oh come on!

Germany just got the scraps and didn't even had enough time to play with them. Only Italy had it worst (not considering ancient times).

Germany and Italy don't exist for that much time as states...

Um, no. There were some factories and coastal settlements, but prior to about 1885, France and Britain and Portugal did not have much in the way of a portfolio of dependencies in Tropical and Southern Africa. Spain and Italy got the scraps. Germany got substantial pieces of the pie, just less than Britain and France had.

Germany had a number of dependencies in Africa and the Pacific, which they lost during the 2d World War. The German conquest of Namibia was a horrendous mess and they ended up butchering the Herero tribe almost to extinction.

Excuse me, lost during the 1st World War. They lost them all by March 1916 bar German East Africa, which they held on to for another year or so.

European countries colonized the Americas and the Antipodes. There were very few European settlers in Asia outside of a small knock of the eastern Mediterranean. In Africa, European settlement was to be found in the temperate and subtropical zones at the southern end of the continent, in the highland zones in East Africa, and in the Maghreb. African and Asian territories appended to France, Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal (and Germany, for a time) were dependencies, not colonies, and the European population therein consisted of a corporal's guard of officials and soldiers, most of them transient. Take Tanganyika as an example. On the eve of formal sovereignty, there were 21,000 Europeans in a country with 9.5 million people resident. The East Indian population was 96,000 at the time.

These people are not streaming in from South America or Australia. They are coming from the Near East and North Africa. They are responding to contemporary political problems, not to any detritus of the period of European dependency.

Syria was appended to France for all of 28 years (during half of which time the metropole placed the territory under self-governing arrangements). Iraq was appended to Britain for all of 14 years. As for the 'arbitrary boundaries', that's largely a fiction. All of the North African states have a signature dialect of Arabic. Egypt has an ancient history as a distinct entity and all of the Maghreb states bar Libya were derived from Barbary states present before the era of European domination. Libya was formed of the merger of two former Barbary states. The vast bulk of the population of the Arabian peninsula lives in states which were never European dependencies. The Gulf States which were under European protection were all extant prior to Britain's ascendancy. The former Trucial States were assembled into a federation, but that was voluntary and pretty much the same dialect is spoken throughout them. As for the Fertile Crescent, what was present there were a mess of Ottoman Vilayets. Drawing comprehensively non-arbitrary boundaries would have required Britain seize Kurdish territory from Persia and the Turkish Republic. Britain assembled Iraq out of three extant Ottoman vilayets padded with some sparsely populated low density territory. The Transjordan was composed of two Ottoman sanjaks with some padding, largely population in 1921 with Bedouin speaking a dialect not spoken farther north. Syria was formed of the territory not assigned to Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan, or Iraq and has always had a majority confession (Sunni Islam) and a signature spectrum of dialects (Levantine Arabic) not spoken in Iraq (but spoken in Lebanon and the Palestine sanjaks). The disutility of European boundaries was not in their 'arbitrary' character, but in assembling Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shi'ite Arabs in one Mesopotamian state and padding the Christian population of Mount Lebanon with a mess of adjacent (largely Muslim) populations for reasons of 'viability'.

In regard to the Far East, the European dependencies there were largely derived from the pre-European state structure. The notable exception would be Celebes and points east in the former Dutch East Indies, which have a fairly hazy history as politico-geographic units. In regard to Africa, the territorial state structure was hazy and evanescent and any division of territory was going to comprehend a portfolio of ethnic groups with varying (and changeable) degrees of intramural solidarity. There were no non-arbitrary boundaries.

Here's the most important graph in the world, the UN's current population projections for the continent of Africa:

It would be greater with some context. Asia has now 60% of global population, by 2050 it will be the home of 54% of global population and by 2100 44%. I would consider only the 35 year estimate and population distribution is more or less the same than today.

Why take seriously a prediction 85 years into the future?

It will take some major technological and social changes for Africa to support 4 trillion people. I'm doubtful if that graph will be nearly as linear and smooth in reality as the projection is.

Hungary is a worry. Orban has increasingly taken to saying things like 'Europe should be for Europeans, and Hungary for Hungarians', proposing to define the nation ethnically rather than geographically by extending citizenship to ethnic Hungarians outside of Hungary, etc. Who knows how far this trend can go?

At least in west/central Europe the ethnic borders match the political ones (usually). But with Hungary the whole "Balkanization"-thingy might flirr up again. Just look at what Hungarian nationalists have to say about Serbia and Romania.

Jewish children all over the world are welcomed into the 'nation of Israel' at their mitzvahs. The Jewish nation seems to have done very well for itself.

Deracinated Americans seem to have this perception of the world as lines running all over the place with the different-colored nations like the world maps in school. And the storks just fly all over the planet dropping babies in "Hungary" and "Romania" and "England," etc.

I like to ask people where they think "diversity" comes from.

It's not a worry. Ethnic minorities are a single-digit share of Hungary's population. That's a situation the least likely to generate intramural conflict unless that minority has some very peculiar properties that pose a challenge to the majority (as Gypsy populations commonly do). Unless it's your thesis that Orban plan to saddle Hungary's small German and Slavic minorities with legal disabilities, he's referring to immigration policy. What's your beef? No responsible public official thinks like Bryan Caplan.

It is very troubling that Euros may take action to preserve their culture against a wave of hostiles.

Yup. Got it.

Better to be cucked.

Here is what I expect the new EU policy on immigration to look like:
If the people are brown, they must turn around.
If white, they're alright. (excludes Russians)
If Asian, it'll take some persuadin'.

Because it's all about color, nothing to do culture, right?

If/when France becomes an Islamic Republic, what's the best choice for secular, European French citizens: conversion, submission, or death?

Why don't you try each one and come back and tell us your favorite?

Also, you forgot to mention that the uncultured ones are raping the French people. Why leave that detail out?

We won't accept this Islamofascist state without a fight.

lol we'll allow millions of foreigners to come in and give them a shot, if they decide to take advantage of democracy and install a culturally preferable order, THEN as minorities we'll have the right to fight! what a loser

The Vendée fought against change, too.

"We won’t accept this Islamofascist state without a fight."

Well sure, no one seriously doubts that. It's the increasing likelihood of the fight and the ultimate conclusion that's of interest.

"pro-immigration, immigration-increasing, low-skilled immigration increasing policies I favor."

Is it the "truck-driver" nonsense you still believe in?

Why is it so important to be pro-immigration?
Beside the trivial racism in the idea of the white mans burden.

But acording to the Open Borders crowd we are to expect the 800.000 to be a great benefit for Germany. All the vibrant creativity. Tesla is in big trouble with the new innovation thats is coming to German car industry.

Are you american? How can you be not pro-immigration?

Not american. Not that it matters.

It is a silly idea that americans should be pro-immigration just because their great grandparents were immigrants.

It is not silly... After all what makes America great (at least theoretically)?

"What makes america great?"

I dont understand. So because some immigrants once upon a time were succesfull in creating a decent society, all other immigrants are to be celebrated.
As if America 1900 is similar to America 2015.

By the time of independence, the US had already coalesced into an English Protestant nation that had certain habits, institutions, assumptions regarding liberty, common ancestry etc. They could entertain the notion of having sovereign states with few ties between them, just like the Dutch were still one nation, despite jealously guarding every city charter and privilege and scrap of sovereignty their princes had awarded them. The English (and the Dutch) were great for having developed pre-industrial capitalist instruments, like finance and property rights and contracting, which allowed them, with some help from fate, to zoom into the lead when the Industrial Revolution started.

Even a hundred years later, the conflict between North and South ended up evoking the English conflict between Roundheads and Cavaliers, that's how coherent they had stayed to their roots. Through successive bouts of immigration and absorption (periods of little to no immigration, like approx 1776 to approx 1850, or 1924 to 1965), amenable European populations were also assimilated to these views, not without problems on the way or lingering differences. The Anglo-Protestant nature of the country is evident even today in its individuality and its legislative heritage, even though it is being hollowed out by culturally alien influences. Up until recently, all Presidents had been of old stock Americans, mostly of English, German and Dutch heritage (even Obama is, on his mother's side).

In the Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … “

Just 19 years after the first Pilgrims landed, they introduced the first immigration restrictions, limiting access to their community for people who would become a burden to others (a thing to remember in these days, when immigrants flock to cities not underdeveloped land to homestead). That requirement is also enshrined in US law, even though no part of the Immigration Leviathan respects it anymore, given the high prevalence of welfare dependency among illegal and legal immigrants.

The notion that the US is a hodgepodge of immigrants all doing their thing is ridiculous and ahistorical. It has a well defined background which it used to "reprogram" immigrants in order to absorb them, something difficult to do in today's world, with multiculturalism for Europeans and privileges for immigrants running rampant and many lingering ties to the old countries (instantaneous communication, cheap and fast travel). Also ridiculous is the notion that, as an immigrant or the child of immigrants, it is your duty to keep the door open for others behind you. It amounts to a tantamount recognition of loyalty to someone other than your new nation, and the natives would be justified to keep out anyone who is liable to think this way (either way, clannish individuals run circles around atomized individuals because of their huge advantages).

The phrase "the melting pot" comes from Israel Zangwill`s The Melting Pot, which appeared in 1908. Some of the more famous quotes include:
DAVID - A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians-into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.
MENDEL - I should have thought the American was made already–eighty millions of him.

"The phrase “the melting pot” comes from Israel Zangwill`s The Melting Pot"

And the idea behind The Melting Pot was a hallmark of American culture as late as the 1980's. Before that time American society expected immigrants to meld with the existing population. Diversity was supposed to be a fertile pool out of which ideas that we could all benefit would come from not an end goal. Diversity was a means to an end, not the destination.

After all what makes America great

Anglo-European Americans

The US was founded by Anglo colonists who seceded from the mother country.

Yup. and by the mid-18th century, it was being overrun with mass unassimilable German immigrants- the start of America's downfall. Ben Franklin was all over this.

The New Deal would never have succeeded without German, Irish and Italian support. So, yes, it was the slightly delayed downfall of America.

the germans and irish spilled plenty of blood fighting the southern scots irish, the true englishmen

Prior to 1840, annual immigration flows averaged to 0.125% of the resident population and these streams tended to be composed of people from relations of the extant ethnic pools. If we had similar flows today, we'd have about 400,000 immigrants per year and maybe 15% of the flow would be from Latin America.

What Art Deco said. Also, no shelves of civil rights laws and no welfare. You either found a way to get along, or you eked out a bare existence on the margins of society. Or you died.

I predict that a _real_ backlash, the kind of backlash that actually impacts the flow of immigrants and changes the immigration landscape in a significant way, will never actually occur in the US.

I predict that no political movement or government action will actually stop the flow of immigrants into the US. On the contrary, I predict more of what the US has already experienced over the last twenty years. This pattern will barely change at all.

The US will reach 1 billion sooner than you imagine.

The US won't reach 1 Billion, quality of life will reach 3rd world levels long before that point, and once the US is 3rd world, why would 3rd worlders bother to come?

This has been explicitly predicted by Tyler Cowen, in fact. He says the average American better get used to canned beans for sustenance. A small step to a much better world.

The country is not suffering declining incomes. If it's suffering declining public order, the responsibility lies with rabble-rousers, buffoons and the hopelessly ineffectual among public figures (none of whom are immigrants). Do not know when you expect these third world properties to manifest themselves.

California is starting to look a bit 3rd worldish, frankly.

I'm not sure if I'm against it, though.

The Bay Area complex is the country's most affluent metropolis. If it looks bad, you've got lax local government due to a deficit of municipal pride.

It's the point of local government to provide services and maintain order. It's not properly a conduit for feeding SEIU clientele and other components of the Democratic Party vote farm. Also, your police services are too fragmented; try county police, not municipal police. Have cops and municipal inspectors issue citations to litterers, send in to slum neighborhoods extra street sweepers and graffiti patrols armed with sandblasters, discontinue the imposition of property taxes on the most impecunious neighborhoods, and overhaul your building codes.

After adjusting for Purchasing Parity, California has the highest poverty in the nation.

That can be a function of skew distributions in the context of general affluence. Most of California's residents live in enormous and enormously variegated urban globs which have no analogue in most states. In contrast, consider Indiana. There you have a large 2d tier metropolis which embraces maybe 25% of the state's population and a fragment of greater Chicago which embraces 8% of the state's population. Greater Los Angeles has nearly 10x the population of greater Indianapolis, the Bay Area complex has 3.6x the population, and greater San Diego has nearly 2x the population.

>The country is not suffering declining incomes.

Sure it is. Median income has been declining for decades in real terms. The working class and middle class are objectively worse off now than they were in the year 1970.

Not according to the US Census:

The working class and middle class are objectively worse off now than they were in the year 1970.

Only in your imagination. Neither the BLS or BEA data show anything remotely like that.

Read it and weep.

I'm not weeping. I've no clue as to what you're data sources are and I know perfectly well what the most comprehensive data source say. It if pleases you to believe this rot, fine. Just quit pestering the normal.

By then it will be the EE. UU., and not worth worrying about.

To whom is the old map of Hungary addressed?

But can the European Union agree on a coherent asylum policy, and furthermore one which removes some of the relative burden from Germany and the UK?

Surely you mean Germany and Sweden. The UK does take comparatively few asylum seekers.

Poor you ;-)

Don't you know that for Tyler anything the UK ("the birthplace of liberty") does weighs multiple times anything what another country is doing? That is why one asylum seeker is a bigger burden for the UK then 5 seekers would be for Germany. Duh...

Serious question.

At the GMU lunch table, does anyone bring up the 1,472% increase in rapes in Sweden since the influx of immigrants? Because that's what makes fascism seem like a comparably good option, not arguments about GDP. If that's not being brought up, you shouldn't count yourself among the "serious people."

"At the GMU lunch table, does anyone bring up the 1,472% increase in rapes in Sweden since the influx of immigrants?"

That would be as gauche as paying attention to UN population projections for Africa. There are certain topics which Very Serious People stay as far away from as they possibly can....

I'm pretty sure at GMU the conversation starts and ends with inexpensive "authentic" ethnic food.

O, surely not. I think the conversation is mostly about how many refugees each professor has taken into his or her own house. The GMU professors are paragons of generosity and nobility, as they display here every day.

they like it bc they arw cuckatarians. I don't want to sit in the corner while third world thugs habe their way with Western Civ. but these "libertarians" seem to get off on it. Weird.

How much support has their been for massive immigration in Germany in recent years, anyway? Judging by the 7-digit sales of Thilo Sarrazin's heavyweight book "Germany Abolishes Itself," the educated public had its Trump Moment years ago.

There is still overwhelming support for immigration in the Germany in most "respectable" media outlets and academia. Anyone who speaks up against immigration is labled at best heartless, at worst a right-wing extremist (the worst thing you can accuse a German of being). The professional classes continue to wear their support for immigration as a badge of selfless honor, which manages to cow a lot of people into silence. No one wants their social standing compromised, and being associated with working class losers like the Pegida folks is something a respectable psychologist in Hamburg or TV producer in Cologne can't even consider. I suspect a lot of Germans read Sarrazin's book for the forbidden thrill, secretly agree with a lot of it, but are happy to trash it in public.

Pegida are worse than working class losers. They are East Germans.

This is what comes up when you google GMU lunch table:

Regarding that tweet: The Sweden Democrats polled as the largest single party at 25.2% (largest left party at 23.4%, largest right at 21%). Those poll takers are apparently regarded as less reliable, so I'd say it's still murky whether they're largest or not. More data needed.

With that caveat, the mere fact that we get even one measurement like this is something of a political earthquake.

Why does Tyler consider it a bad polling.

The Sweden Democrats are less populist than all the other swedish parties which favours mass-immigration of uneducated people. The other parties at the same time claims that it is an "investment" for the future of the swedish wellfare state.

A good starting point about the "immigration economics" in the case of Sweden is TINO.US

"vibrancy" and "multicultural creativity" are pretty expensive.

"I don’t see all this as leading to anything good."... Everything is relative, isn't it? A plurality, soon to be a majority, of Europeans feel that lots of good is coming out of it: exactly the kind of measures Hungary took and, if politicians weren't stopped by political correctness and listened to the people they supposedly represent, would be implemented already in at least all Mediterranean countries (but probably just all over, considering the news from Scandinavia over the last months).

It's a zero sum game, especially when it comes to parking. The more immigrants, the less places to park and the most important thing for natives is being able to park near the front door of the supermarket or health club. Their junky cars also congest the streets in the urban neighborhoods they seem to favor. Immigrant cabbies are a menace to society. Just the issue of local transportation means a change in immigration policy is necessary.

The problem is that all relevant political parties in Germany have committed themselves to the notion that all these asylum seekers are indeed poor traumatized refugees and/or future high-skilled workers. Nothing could be farer away from reality of course (40% come from Balkans alone), but now the politicians need something really bad to happen before they can justify changing their policies.

Wait a minute, didn't NATO fight a war to pacify the Balkans and give Croatian Catholics, Serbian Orthodox, and Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars their own countries? And now all these Balkan peoples are fleeing their own countrymen?

If everybody from these shitty backwaters is going to try and enter the former imperialist states anyway, I say bring back imperialism.

Wait a minute, didn’t NATO fight a war to pacify the Balkans and give Croatian Catholics, Serbian Orthodox, and Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars their own countries?


No, they undertook an aeriel campaign to compel Serbia to withdraw from Kosovo. The different components of the former Yugoslavia had their own countries. At issue from 1991 to 2000 was the degree to which Serbia would be permitted to seize territory and eject local residents. Alt-right clowns elected to act as press agents for violent Serb particularists out of sheer witless perversity.

#cuckservative: assertively answering the question nobody asked; signaling friends to the Left and enemies to the Right.

Such principle. Such boldness.

assertively answering the question nobody asked

The person who asked was you, in the previous post.

IF mass deportations come to Europe, COULD mass deportations from the US be far behind? Or another version: who might be first to begin mass deportations, the US or Europe? If one begins, the other surely will follow.

As Tyler intimates, Trump for some reason may've seen these two situations more clearly (or has expressed himself on the subject with much less embarrassment) than any other Presidential candidate in this cycle.

It's a significant misreading of the situation to say that "mass deportations" or anything even close to that will actually happen in Europe or the US. It's neither practical nor politically feasible. Perhaps in the past it was politically feasible, but no longer. That's ancient history.

When politicians like Trump state policies like this in public, when their supporters get excited about it, the proper interpretation of the spectacle is as nothing more than a giant fantasy-dream-room.

Such a scenario cannot possibly come into existence. Politics now make it impossible. That line was crossed years ago.

Participating in such a spectacle satisfies a psychological desire in the same way that dressing up as Batman and attending Comic Con does. There's nothing more to it than that.

It is feasible today and will become even more feasible in the future when the science of genetics continues to reveal truths that our ancestors knew to be obvious.
A lot of people thought that the Soviet Union cannot collapse and it did.
A lot of people thought Japan would be the future economic number 1 yet it isn't.
A lot of people thought democracy in the ME will work yet it stubbornly won't.

Your liberal gibberish does not matter.

Yes. History is merciless.

Alawites and Christians thought their amiably low-trust lifestyle under Syria's secular dictatorship would roll on forever. Then everybody realized the Sunnis had the Alawites and Christians outnumbered 5 to 1. And that was the end of secular Syria.

Pardon as much as necessary, please, but I think your post as astute as one arguing that another world war could not possibly take place in this century owing to having tried it only twice in the previous century.

Europe because their immigrants come as asylum seekers. Its pretty easy to say that Serbia is safe now, go home.

Seems to me there is an obvious divide on immigration between the childless, who benefit from cheap chalupas, a more vibrant music scene, and have the flexibility to move easily if crime becomes an issue, and families, who see immigration degrading the quality of their children's schools, and who generally have less flexibility to move if the neighborhood starts to crash. I wonder if immigration has even inhibited younger Europeans from having children, since so many of the hassles surrounding having a child in Europe are made worse by the social needs of new immigrants.

Depends on what you mean by "divide," I suppose. Somehow I find myself cheering for the Nativists, despite 1/2 my groomsmen hailing from another nation. There's no problem with immigration, there's a problem when my school district is 50+% "vibrant" and 50+% of the students are not achieving proficiency in any subject. I am not blowing my property taxes on crappy schools and do not expect anyone else to enjoy it either.

Mass deportation?

What a joke. Even if peace came to the middle east starting from tomorrow, only few of the refugees would return home. Even less would they be forced to go.
Just like pakistanis, turks, morrocans and so on are still coming to Europe.

Dont expect any political solutions to the immigration crisis in Europe. And dont expect Tyler/Caplan when they talk about the benefits of immigration. 40 years of mass immigration to Europe proves them wrong.

Instead you should expect europeans to move towards north- and southamerica and Australia. Jews are the first to move for obvious reasons.

I would expect Europeans to elect parties offering to control immigration. If the tendencies go in opposite directions the Shengen agreement and possibly the EU will fall apart.

I don't think this is an under-reported story as these are European issues and here in the states, the leader of the Republican Primary is the trusted name in stopping immigration. One aspect I find unusal is that strong nativism does not happen at the bottom of the recess (2009 - 210) but on the slow way up (2014 - 2016). (Here in California Prop. 187 did not happen in 1991-1992 the bottom of the S&L recession but in 1994 on the way up.) In reality, I am with Matt Yglesias that our easiest solution for Syria is huge support of refugee immigrants instead of more weapons (that will end with ISIS) but it is not politically acceptable.

One aspect I do find fascintating in the United States is the most anti-immigration states usually have the least immigrants. I don't know why that is. (Thinking about Trump's road to the nomination, he polls very well in all the early states and my guess is the second biggest Republican state is California which has a winner take all late primary.)

At this point, it does appear Open Border libertarians have their work out for them. I think the problem is most working class wages have stagnated (or even fallen) from the early 1970s and people wonder how this could happen. So far Open Border libertarians do not have a good answer for this.

Actually California gets 172 Republican delegates & Texas gets 155.

"Maximizing subject to a backlash constraint" is like Booker T. Washington instead of Frederick Douglass or MLK. Sure, there are some good observations in there and good practical advice, but if the fundamental principle is to accommodate bigotry, then you make bigotry more comfortable. It works short term but it sacrifices the long term.

I'd also say it tends to correlate with a lack of optimism and/or creativity, suggesting that the biases of today are rooted deep in our psych and must necessarily extend all through human history - even though history is full of long traditions of bigotry that were eventually rejected.

A century and a half ago, most of the free-soilers and outright abolitionists discussed whether descendants of Africans should start a new country in Africa or Central America, or live in segregated communities here - few openly advocated integration (Garrison was an integrationist, sparking physical attacks on his ventures). Many ardent opponents of slavery, especially in the border states, considered it inconceivable to oppose slavery without a plan for separating descendants of Africans from descendants of Europeans. Their lack of creativity and optimism could be seen as slowly moving the ball forward on slavery, or as undermining the eventual acceptance (in spirit) of integration. Maybe both, if one is a near-term effect and the other a far-term effect.

Deep in our psyche* I meant to say. This was a common argument in the past, that racism is biological, which is now widely condemned (though not eliminated). Maybe hatred of immigrants and foreigners is similarly ephemeral and cultural, rather than biological.

"Maybe hatred of immigrants and foreigners is similarly ephemeral and cultural, rather than biological."

That seems like a pretty thoughtless statement. First, few Americans hate immigrants. Second, the biggest driver in wanting to reduce immigration is economic and has nothing to do with racism. Culture probably comes in a distant second. The large amount of illegal immigration into the US over the previous 2-3 decades has directly and negatively impacted the wage income of the lower half of the US population (as measured by household income). It's certainly only one factor, but it's a significant and obvious factor.

Immigration might have grown the economy on a per capita basis, but if so, the gains from that economic growth tended to accrue disproportionately to the rich. Trump is a modern day PT Barnum and he's striking a resonant note among millions of Americans.

Culture is a distant second? 'Culture' is the whole chalupa with this crowd. Please read the comments in this thread alone and report back.

"But the idea of maximizing subject to a backlash constraint is unpopular in libertarian circles"

Backlash is a significant principle of libertarian foreign policy, The inability to see it with domestic policy is likely due to the fact it goes against the policies they wish to see pursued.

A backlash is inevitable, simply because uncontrolled high volume inmigration increases poverty and is seen as contrary to the national interest. So far, this hasn't been a critical issue for most voters, which allowed the elites to encourage illegal immigration. But I think the problem has grown to such proportions the people will react. What you perceive is the tip of a massive iceberg looming in the fog.

Numbers matter.

Allowing mass immigration, particularly with the explicit anti-assimilation multi-cultural/diversity policies in place in most places today, is just asking for a cultural Darwin Award. Its Camp of the Saints time at some point.

In the US, large scale immigration (which we have) of low skilled, non-English speakers, is by direct observation bad for low skilled natives wages and employment, not to mention the burden on education and social services.

The strategic problem for Europe (and perhaps the US) is not the numbers today, its that there is no reason to think the numbers are going anywhere by up for the foreseeable future. We are way past the level of immigration that yields interesting ethnic restaurants. What happens when its 5 or 10 million a year?

Its just irresponsible for Europe and the US to not be selective about who, and how many, we let it.

Here's a crackpot theory: Maybe opposing immigration is the only way these people have of objecting to the fact that their jobs have already been outsourced to people who look like the immigrants they think they oppose. Instead of, "I can't compete with outsourcing," which is not something most people really understand on a personal level, they say, "Get those darn dirty foreigners outta here!" They know they'll never get their old jobs back, but voting for a fascist, anti-immigrant politician is easy and makes them believe they "did something about it." They didn't take it sitting down. They voted against the foreigners. It's not a job, but it feels good to make somebody suffer for what they had to go through.

Maybe economists need to do a better job of preparing Westerners for the inevitable wage equilibration that comes with economic growth in the developing world.

There is nothing inevitable about something that can be halted with the abolishion of free trade.

Those North Koreans crossing into China? Just a figment of a fevered free trade minded fantasist?

Thinking that the West refusing to trade with the third world will have the same effect as the economic policies of North Korea is libertarian delusion at its finest.

Here I was, thinking that what was written was mocking the idea that free trade had anything to with why North Koreans are illegally immigrating (fleeing is an equally acceptable term, of course) into China. People have always sought to change their circumstances, regardless of risk, and the free market or its lack has nothing to do with that reality. In the case of the North Koreans, by attempting to flee an oppressively dysfunctional totalitarian state into an oppressive but at least somewhat less totalitarian and somewhat more functional state. A state completely capable of disposing of such illegal immigrants in any way that state decides is in its own interests, without wasting even the merest moment discussing free trade or immigration policies designed to benefit corporate interests.

Immigration is not just about job loss. What has become obvious to me after moving back to Europe after a long spell in the states is the extent to which immigration has degraded urban school systems, at least in countries I know well like Austria and Germany. 30 years ago it was rare that parents weren't happy with the neighborhood schools in cities like Vienna, Berlin or Hamburg. Today middle and upper middle class parents increasingly resemble Americans - trying to find private schools for their children, warning each other to avoid certain schools if you want your children to speak German correctly, or moving to affluent suburbs. Public school teachers are increasingly burned out and frustrated. In Vienna, at least, the government seems to have no idea how to cope - German as foreign language classes are poorly taught and underfunded, immersion doesn't work well either if 50% of the class can't speak German. This has been naturally creating a vicious cycle where the immigrant dominated schools are becoming increasingly disfunctional. And all that was already happening before the recent wave, which is going to dump thousands more unprepared non-German speaking children into the school system. Yet these same upper middle class parents, as well as teachers, tend to be among the groups most vocal about how immigration is a boon to our society.

I believe you that the urban schools are worse. Can you provide any evidence that this is driven primarily by immigration?

For example, we see the same phenomenon in here in the USA - and in Canada, where I lived for nearly a decade - and the interesting thing is that all urban schools, no matter how many immigrant children make up the studentbody, have suffered the same fate.

For my mileage, that doesn't seem like an issue caused by immigration, but I am open to considering the evidence.

California, too. Perhaps lower class immigrants don't act like higher class immigrants:

doctor from China will show up for back to school.

Guatemalan gardener is less likely.

Just a theory.

"Maybe opposing immigration is the only way these people have of objecting to the fact that their jobs have already been outsourced to people who look like the immigrants they think they oppose."

Where do you live? Somewhere far away from the US southern border I gather. Both my wife and I have plenty of relatives that have lost their jobs directly because illegal immigrants were quite willing to work for much less money than the jobs traditionally paid. You are trying to indirectly connect it with international trade, when it's quite obvious that it's directly related to the immigrants actually bidding down the price of labor.

I'm less than 500 miles from the Mexican border in an immigrant-heavy area of the country.

The thing is, I work in an industry that has suffered from massive levels of out-sourcing, and a very noticeable corresponding wage rate decrease. But because it's a predominantly middle-class industry, the Powers That Be like to call this "middle class wage stagnation," rather than "out-competed on wage rates by Indians and Pakistanis who by the way will also happily work more than 50 hours per week," which is what it really is.

And I collaborate with them over the phone. We are professional equals. What difference does it make to me if they telecommute from Mumbai or from Houston? Let them move to Houston. My wage rate is already declining, whether or not they actually relocate. The damage is done.

And it's the same for low-skilled labor, but people working low-skilled labor jobs are more inclined to say, "I lost my job to an illegal Mexican immigrant!" than they are to say, "In another six years, my job will be replaced by an automated kiosk."

TL;DR ---> Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

What's amusing about this is the assumption that big problem here is that local populations might grow less inclined to think about their fellow man the way Bryan Caplan does. Libertarians live in a 'rather special world', just like Pauline Kael.

"It seems to me that you are saying that stockholders’ have an interest in not letting their ranks swell"

I won't presume to speak for Sailer, but it depends on how people become stockholders, doesn't it?

Buying stock is one thing but how much easier would it be to just crash the stockholders' meeting and declare that since you're there you have to be considered a stockholder with voting rights to those privileged bastards who bought it.

It would have been helpful if you had clicked the "reply" link below my comment.

I agree with what you say, but Mr. Sailer and the immigration restrictionists hardly limit themselves to combating illegal immigration. Most want a stop to all immigration (and let me be clear, I am not passing judgment on that either way), so I think my question was valid.

I looked but there was no reply button under your post (and for some odd reason didn't want to reply to the post you were replying to....)

My own position is that in the European context at present there is no such thing as immigration (as traditionally understood). There is movement of people but the vast majority of them have little to no intention of actually assimilating to the new country and have little or no loyalty towards it. The worst offenders in this regard seem to be Muslims who don't want their children to act like the locals and concentrate on passing on their own culture shock trauma to the next generation (with strange and often tragic results). I'm not sure how things are working in the US at present but I'm sure that people like Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan have little to no idea what goes on at ground level for the masses of unskilled immigrants they crave.

Yes. The reason most people oppose Open Borders is that they don't want to be forced to live in a foreign country.

I thought the Steve Sailer and Ilana Mercer anti-immigration arguments were a small fringe, but judging by these comments, they are overwhelmingly popular.

Two last points: Mahatma Gandhi strongly supported ethnic religious states and their right to use arms to defend their ethnic+religious character, such as pushing whites+Japanese out of India or protesting white Jews moving to Israel. When I see mass protests of thousands of Africans or Pakistanis burning the French Flag and celebrating the Charlie Hebdo assailants and massacre, it is beyond bizarre that these western academics insist on placing the moral burden of racism on the ethnic French.

Mahatma Gandhi strongly supported ethnic religious states and their right to use arms to defend their ethnic+religious character, such as pushing whites+Japanese out of India

You need to get your facts right. There were no Japanese in India, so I'm not sure how they could be pushed out. And Gandhi's (and the Indian National Congress's) freedom movement was about dislodging the white domination of India, not white presence. The British ruled India and Indians had little say and role in government (though the Indian presence in government increased gradually from the turn of the century onwards.) Gandhi never advocated white expulsion from India. In fact, after independence the Congress explicitly affirmed the right of Europeans to remain in India as long as they accepted equal citizenship rights with every other Indian and accepted the independent Indian government as legitimate. (Note that Europeans had extra privileges over Indians during the entire course of colonial rule, and there was apartheid like segregation between the races.)

Right, some whites stayed on in India and a few even became naturalized Indian citizens. Most left, of course, because living in India without the special privileges that colonialism brought them wasn't very appealing. And Gandhi most certainly did not support creating states along religious lines.

There were no Japanese in India? What planet are you from? Japan invaded India during WWII and there was real threat of Japan conquering India. Gandhi emphasized racial purity and was opposed to the foreign ethnicity of Japan having influence in India.

And sure, Gandhi wasn't opposed to a tiny contingent of whites staying in India and living quiet lives. But he never would have supported an ethnically European leader or president in India. And he didn't want large numbers of white Jews fleeing Europe to settle in India. And of course, he was vocally opposed to white Euro Jews moving to the middle east and establishing Israel.

Japan invaded India during WWII and there was real threat of Japan conquering India. Gandhi emphasized racial purity and was opposed to the foreign ethnicity of Japan having influence in India.

Let me change the above to the following:

Japan invaded the US during WWII and there was real threat of Japan conquering the US. FDR emphasized racial purity and was opposed to the foreign ethnicity of Japan having influence in the US.

In reality, Japan "conquered" as much of India as the US. The Japanese Army reached the Andaman Islands (closer to Indonesia than India), and parts of Nagaland and Manipur. That's as much influence as they had on Hawaii. Otherwise, my statement is as ludicrous as yours is.

And what kind of an idiot talks about racial purity having anything to do here. If Gandhi had not been insufficiently racist (according to you), then he would have welcomed a Japanese invasion of his country with open arms? What are you smoking?

And you have zero understanding of Gandhi's life and opinions. He had nothing against whites, ever. Many radicals in India criticized him for being too conciliatory towards the British all his life. Your comments on Jews are, if anything, even more stupid. I've never read anything about Jewish settlements in India ever being considered in public, or Gandhi's opinions on them; your feverish imagination seems to have produced a caricature of Gandhi from some white supremacist website (Stormfront?, David Duke?) and you make things up as you go along. As for Jews moving to Israel, I believe Gandhi was asked for an opinion and he expressed some ambivalence, like pretty much everyone in the world (even Harry Truman, who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to his position of support for Israel by the promise of Jewish votes); there was no "vocal opposition".

Instead of creating a straw man brown person with anti-colonialist anti-racist views and calling him Gandhi, spend some time in a library and read a history book. Don't spout off your ignorance and contaminate online comments sections with your ignorance.

Regarding Israel Gandhi said, "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arab"

This is way more than merely expressing ambivalence as you said.

I didn't say Gandhi had anything against whites. He clearly admired them. Gandhi wrote this, “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they [the European settlers] do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

Gandhi seems quite opposed to the open border mass immigration of conflicting cultures.

I'm really not a serious student of Gandhi. And I would readily defer to someone who knows more than I.

Sorry for my overly harsh language in my earlier comment, though my criticisms still stand.

The thing to understand about Gandhi is how much he changed (evolved?) over the course of his life and career. The race purity quote you cite here was made early on in his career (I believe 1896), when he was acting as an advocate for the rights of beleaguered Indians in South Africa, when their rights were being stripped away from them. He was not advocating for Africans, and he considered it in the interests of his clients to emphasize their distance from Africans and use racial language to appeal to the English as well as the Boers. Note that he was an English (or English-trained) lawyer by trade.

Gandhi became a public figure by the mid-1890s, and he never held back or dissembled. Everything he thought or did was public and subject to scrutiny (like every other flawed public figure, including Churchill). He never tried to hide his opinions. Indeed his past statements were often used as a cudgel to beat him up in his lifetime and after. So, based on his later thoughts and actions, I (and all his biographers) have strong reason to believe he changed his views about race while fighting for Indian independence.

I'm sure you have many worthwhile and interesting things to read. But if you get time, do read up on Gandhi. He is truly one of the most prominent and remarkable figures of the last two centuries, not just for Indians but for the entire world.

Lastly, with respect to the quote about the Jews, I hope you'll appreciate the difference between forceful "imposition" and "invitation" or "tolerance". Gandhi's statement was made in the context of Jewish migration to Palestine by employing British power with the Arabs given no say in the matter; in fact, with their objections ridden roughshod over. I understand and appreciate the arguments opposing immigration made by Americans (I've read a lot of what Steve Sailer has written), but please understand that (legal) immigration into countries like the US is explicitly allowed and invited by Americans, and not imposed by an external power. If Sailerites gain the upper hand politically, they are free to tighten immigration rules and stop the influx of people. Gandhi's comment was unexceptionable then and is unexceptionable now. It was of course based on the principle of national sovereignty, but was emphatically not part of a racial manifesto. In another quote, Gandhi explicitly criticized a Japanese politician's call for "Asia for the Asiatics", when the latter was trying to drum up pan-Asian support to kick Europeans out of Asia (and presumably leave the field open for Japanese domination.)

Thank you for the interesting comments. I absolutely would love to and intend to seriously read up on Gandhi.

I hear your point that Gandhi's views evolved, but the first quote I gave was from 1938. That was towards the end of his life, when he was about ~68 years old, so it's silly to paint this as just some early viewpoint that later changed. Additionally, he has many quotes like this, written in formal letters so you can't pass this off as some out of context things he said in a bad mood. To repeat, "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs."

That is overwhelming support for racially separate ethnic states and the right of a larger group to fight to preserve their ethnic character.

I also understand Gandhi's point that the Jews were coming in and taking land by military force, versus changing the hearts of the existing Arabs to come in as welcomed guests. But, realistically, many Jews were already living there in that territory, their families and Jewish cultures had been there for hundreds or thousands of years, and they were subject to extreme oppression and violence as they were in Europe. Gandhi was consistent and said that the Jews should persuade both the Arabs and the Nazis to accept them without force. He even said the Jews should commit mass suicide to protest the Nazis. He had a good heart, he loved the Jews, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

Sure, many famed leaders were flawed. For example, Abraham Lincoln was basically a tyrannical mass murderer yet most career Lincoln historians are overtly dishonest in painting him as a good person.

The wrong side of history is not the side the intellectual class thought it was

You can tell the Open Borders crowd has terrible arguments when certain famous libertarians like to pass around articles on FB noting that, in the US, immigrants aren't more prone to criminality than non-immigrants. This is a straw man because the HBD/Sailer crowd doesn't really dispute or focus on that but instead focuses on the long-term consequences, which includes the children of illegal immigrants, and their children's children, and so on. New immigrants have a unique set of incentives and a unique perspective that probably helps them stay on the straight path.

When one sees this type of straw man argument being thrown around by some of the more intelligent libertarians while making a victory lap, one wonders if there's nothing more than dishonesty and hand-waiving on every point of the pro open borders arguments.

What's worse is how the US is completely obsessed with racial group disparities in crime, but the open borders cabal seriously argues that importing massive numbers of people in these high crime ethnic groups won't affect negatively affect crime. The open borders professors do not believe this is remotely plausible for an instant, but they are expert debaters and will argue to the end with statistics, because "the ends justifies the means".

You know what's another name for an immigrant's child? Non-immigrant.

But calling them "immigrants" and then "immigrants' children" reveals the believer's true thoughts on the matter. At least Steve Sailer pays lip service to the notion that it's not about race. But how tenable is that statement when he cites studies that go as many as five generations deep into the analysis? Is it any less racist to say, "It's not that you're brown, it's that your great-great grandfather was brown"?

You don't have to "reveal" my or Steve Sailer's hidden thoughts, we are trying to be as open and clear about race as possible. We aren't pretending to be race neutral or believe in race equality or pay any lip service to that.

One last point: I completely agree with Capaln, Tabarrok, and the Open Borders cabal regarding free trade and out sourcing. Even when I personally lose employment opportunities, it is fair. I also agree with the base Open Border logic that closed borders prohibit people from access to purchase housing and get certain jobs which hinders people from improving their lives and that is a genuine negative. But the counter points are overwhelming. Humans fundamentally organize by ethno religious groups, have a fierce intrinsic loyalty to these, and in a democracy they frequently vote with primary loyalty to their ethnic group. Why should some ethnic groups be forced to grant full membership and voting rights to random strangers and ultimately forfeit any right of self rule? Japan may have low fertility rates, they may have a GDP slump but they are allowed to exist as an self governing ethnic group with their own exclusive vote and physical infrastructure and they can fix problems with birth rates and GDP next decade. Japan is not being targeted by the academic leaders of the west to permanently transform their entire society into a multicultural experiment.

"Even when I personally lose employment opportunities, it is fair."

Fuck fair, I want to win. If my nation doesn't have my back, who does?

Being overly unfair isn't a reasonable perspective when discussing public policy. I don't expect the nation to artificially prop up uncompetitive businesses. I do expect ethnic nation states to have the basic rights that Japan or China have in that they are free to be themselves.

Indeed. This is not about "fair." Why have a nation-state that demands my taxes and my obedience to laws and sends a military in my name to fight global wars if Guatemalans who've been here five minutes have the same claim to the country's political and cultural largesse as me?

If the ideal is "truly, fully open borders" then go for it: dissolve the State and its borders and regulation. Of course, this also means no more public lands, no more Coast Guard rescues and no more due process for "immigrants," who are now just trespassers.

Sports teams aren't supposed to be fair in terms of scoring points for other teams or granting any random stranger membership and training, but they are supposed to be fair in a good sportsmanship type way. I advocate that style of fairness for nations and work markets. If my work output isn't competitive, I will be a "good sport" and celebrate those that do better than me.

Japan is not being targeted by the academic leaders of the west to permanently transform their entire society into a multicultural experiment.

Probably there exist Japanese leftists/liberals who want that for Japan. Why would people in one country advocate for loose immigration policies in another country? American liberals seem to want more immigration into America because they like an ethnically diverse America. They are concerned with what their country looks like, and not in some ideological crusade to open borders in every rich country.

There are absolutely pro immigration types and protests in Japan. They don't have the political power to enact mass immigration as in US + Europe. I don't think American liberals have a single consistent ideology or preference as you suggest. It's a large aggregate of many different ideologies pushing in different directions.

I don’t think American liberals have a single consistent ideology or preference as you suggest. It’s a large aggregate of many different ideologies pushing in different directions.
Nope. There is no body of systematic statements of social thought. There are, however, common impulses and the entire portside has fairly uniform dispositions and reactions. You have some role distinctions between clamoring constituency groups and the officialdom who cave into them, but that's it. You had more diversity thirty years ago, fifty years ago, and seventy years ago. Now, not. For example, the white churches are now utterly suborned and merely use somewhat different idioms; that was not the case 50 years ago. The distinctly 'Southern' approach to practical social democracy my grandfather manifested disappeared about 50 years ago. The repellant red haze element is no longer a distinct tendency and their sensibility infects the stated views of ordinary partisan Democrats. Also, the civil libertarian and goo goo element has almost completely disappeared except for some elderly people like Jerilyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz (and Nat Hentoff).

Things are pretty different in Australia where geography has restricted mass refugee flows. Here "non-planned" arrivals are harshly punished but immigration is encouraged. Since immigration is highly selective the newcomers on the whole are as able as the current citizens. Australia (maybeCanada as well) is the only place where immigrants outperform natives in school achievement. Thus in a low SES school the high achieves will be east-south Asians and the trash will be white. By and large Australians support immigration although I lot of the support is predicated on past success (which IMO was dependant on assimilationist policies). Perhaps one difference, in relation to Europe, is that post settlement Australia has no long history or culture to protect. Personally I couldn't care less where people immigrate from as long as they are hard working, smart and want to live in an open and transparent democracy. Ultimately since people aren't widgets this will alter the majority culture however this isn't necessarily bad it just requires some careful pre planning.

A perfect lunacy.

Neo nazis will flourish, the more "illegitimate" concerns about immigration will stay unspoken.

It is a legitimate thing not to want immigration in one's country (unless one considers not giving money to Africa illegitimate).

Instead of accepting public sentiment, mainstream considers it unspeakable. Thereby giving lots of power to the extremists.

The Swedish case is illustrative. The centre-right party vowed to ignore the anti immigration party as if they are untouchables. Even though some of the centre-right voters are also concerned with excess immigration.
The 25% support for the right-anti immigration party is totally expected. (how extreme is it to oppose massive immigration? or they have other policies that are extreme? I do not know)

Odd how few flee to China or India. Western Europe is going to implode as a result of being held hostage to post WW2 policies and complacency.

First of all, the fear that the immigrant's culture will overtake the host country's is unlikely to happen. At least not from immigration alone.

Second, there's literally no upside for the host country. Most of the refugees will be living in ghettos, with high crime rates. Their culture is incompatible with the host country's, most of them will never integrate into the host country's culture, and most of them will be on permanent welfare. Worst case scenario is that you could end up letting in militants, although most of the militants so far have been more busy with countries in the Middle East. You can still support it for humanitarian reasons, but don't downplay the burden this will place on the host country. Most of the people supporting this are middle-upper class folks though, so they won't take too much of the burden.

Comments for this post are closed