How would America evolve under open borders?

Nathan Smith has a very thoughtful speculative essay on that topic. Here is one interesting bit of many:

I would tentatively envision the US experience under open borders as resembling the British and Roman cases, inasmuch as the protocols and ideals of the US polity, as well as its merely ethnic characteristics, would persist in attenuated form, but governing a much larger population would necessitate improvisational and sometimes authoritarian expedients that would cumulatively transform the polity into something quite different, even as it claimed descent from the historic constitutional polity of the United States as we know it. The illusion of continuity would deceive the subjects of the new polity, native-born and immigrant, to a considerable extent, though on the other hand there would be a good deal of lamentation and triumphalism, and only after several generations would historians be able to look back and assess the bewildering transformation in a sober, balanced way.

Certain American ideals would die of their own increasing impracticality, e.g., “equality of opportunity,” the social safety net, one person, one vote, or non-discrimination in employment. Americans might continue to feel that these ideals were right long after they had ceased to be practiced, as the Romans seemed to feel that Rome ought to be governed by its Senate long after real governance had passed to the emperors. I don’t see how public schools could adapt to a far larger and more diverse student body.

In sum:

I think the most wild-eyed predictions of the open borders optimists will come true, and to spare, but I think a lot of the forebodings of the grimmest open border pessimists will also prove more than justified.

The article is interesting throughout, do read the whole thing.


At first glance, these seem reasonable projections. And all things considered, I'd open the border if I expected these to be the consequences.


He is convinced that only white people in the west can create a decent society. Hence america should create a shortcut for the rest of the world.

You know, america should care more for non-americans than for americans. It is so beautiful.

Also, East Asians. Where do you think would most of the Filipinos migrate to first? The U.S. or Japan+Taiwan+Korea?

Chinese would love to move to Taiwan.

Taiwan is slowly having to open itself up to real immigration, so right now it may appear not as immigrant friendly but its getting there pretty quickly: they now have government services in multiple languages, etc.

Why should an American care more for another American than for, say, a Belgian or a Cambodian? Of the roughly 300 million Americans, I personally don't have anything in common with all but a handful. In fact, I'd rather not associate with all but a very few.

Why? Because you live at their pleasure. But for all the other Americans you wouldn't have the life you live, the security, the property, the infrastructure you take advantage of everyday. What do Cambodians do for you?

Other Americans have burglarized my house, stolen my car, made off with a couple of bikes and messed with my life in other ways. So, maybe you're right, I do "live at their pleasure". They could get rid of me if they wished. Security? Property? If I don't pay my taxes, no more property. I'm not aware of any Belgians or Cambodians doing anything particularly obnoxious to me.

This is precisely the kind of atomism that anti-libertarians decry.

Other Americans have burglarized my house, stolen my car, made off with a couple of bikes and messed with my life in other ways.

You're more at risk from burglaries in Britain than in the United States, and more at risk there for car thefts by a factor of seven. Don't let the door hit your tuchus on the way out.

What a silly question. And you already know the answers, you have just decided that for yourselves that it sound smart and openminded to ask the question anyway.

Because one american already shares a lot of things with other american, hence other american influence their lives way more than people living in belgium.

But not you i take it. Youre an indenpendent. A libertarian. Creates everything yourself. Society is a bastard. If just it wasn't there, then you would be truly free.

+1 to chuck martel. The difference in attitude between the Filipino and the typical poor American is that the former is cheerful (common in SE Asia) despite poverty. However, once they move to the USA and a generation passes they'll become as spoiled and sulking as the average American I'm afraid.

No Art Deco, we aren't planning on leaving. We are staying and going change the policies in the ways that it suits us to. And there's nothing you and Donald Trump can do about it.

If you think Americans are one big, happy family try ringing somebody's doorbell at midnight and asking to use their phone. Or do a little hitch-hiking, see how that goes.

" And there’s nothing you and Donald Trump can do about it."

We can secede. And people like you won't be allowed in this time. You cannot fool us twice.

So many pixels, so little effect (for either side)

I'd be delighted if the parasite areas of the country seceded. Alas it won't happen. For the same reason they hate immigration, they are worried about losing their welfare.

If you think Americans are one big, happy family try ringing somebody’s doorbell at midnight and asking to use their phone. Or do a little hitch-hiking, see how that goes.

Both were quite common in the suburban enclave I was living in ca. 1970, not because the place was a 'big happy family', but because security concerns had not extinguished ordinary courtesy. Among the reasons it's not done anymore would be residual security concerns and the presence of mobile phones. If you manifest that lousy attitude with ordinary people, they'll stay away from you, because you do not merit ordinary courtesy.

I’d be delighted if the parasite areas of the country seceded. Alas it won’t happen. For the same reason they hate immigration, they are worried about losing their welfare.

Bar in your rancid little imagination, there are no 'parasite areas', unless you're referring to prisons, housing projects or Indian reservations. It's overly broad-brush with the last two.

If Owsley County, KY disappeared tomorrow would the rest of the country be better or worse off?

Hanson thinks AI robots are going to basically take over the world in the near future and that things will be radically different. I'm not even sure if there are even human beings in his future scenarios. At any rate, if you believe that, you're not really going to care that much about what happens in the meantime. The real question is why Hanson cares at all either way.

Puerto Rico is an interesting real world test case. It appears that Open Borders, by encouraging the emigration from Puerto Rico of the upper half of its population, manages to make worse off both Puerto Rico and the Mainland.

I remember an old Communist joke:

A boys asked his father who created communism? Was it the scientists or the philosophers? The father mulls it over and says it was probably the philosophers. Why, he's asked by his son? Because the scientists would have tried it out on animals first.

Hmm, Smith's Open Borders America looks a lot like Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash America ( Except that it has the worst aspects of the Roman and British Empires thrown in: instead of anarchic dynamism, Smith expects rule by a rentier class.

Gee, that's an attractive vision.

Libertarians have had a hard time grasping that Stephenson wrote "Snow Crash" as a dystopian satire, not a utopian one. "The Raft," for example, is obviously lifted from Jean Raspail's "Camp of the Saints."

Most cyberpunk is dystopian. The subgenre died after too much of it came true.

Camp of the Saints is obscure enough it might just be a coincidence, though.

"Camp of the Saints" is playing out right now in Europe.

Libertarians have had a hard time grasping that Stephenson wrote “Snow Crash” as a dystopian satire,


I think SS has a hard time beleiving that Snow Crash, like Diamond Age has a crack both ways.

They are indeed dystopian, but that's just the tedious cyberpunk ground-trope, not worth disucssing. They are also parodies of the status quo and it is communitarians more than anyone else who are at the pointy end of that satire.

SS...what an appropriate initialism.

Nathan Smith wrote that he just now comprehended what I pointed out almost three years ago (in remarks cited then by Vipul Naik and others at the Open Borders lobby website): open-borders advocates call for truly massive migration of billions of poor, mostly low-IQ people into advanced countries. Smith then offers his own gloss on another thing I pointed out at that time: such migration would prompt advanced countries to adopt violently repressive governments. Smith suggests that rich countries would have to conscript their citizens into large police forces to control the migrants! (I guess Robin Hanson is less libertarian than some of his friends. Opposing a military draft ("national police conscription") is, like, foundational libertarianism.)

Still, I don't mind Smith's endorsement of my point that Western democracy and mass migration are incompatible, though Smith is wrong to suppose that mass migration would end welfare schemes. As countries get poorer, politicians double-down on welfare schemes to buy support. Even when such schemes pay little in absolute terms, they are always part of divide-and-rule politics.

Anyway, if as Hanson says, Smith's new projections are "reasonable," then Smith and Robin Hanson should be lined up to recognize another important fact: there can be no massive gains from migration in the short-to-medium term. Astute observers have known this for a long time. Garett Jones validated nearly a decade ago that average IQ (which mass migration would diminish) is a key determinant of per-worker income and of growth. This was pointed out to Nathan Smith in 2010 when he foolishly asserted otherwise. More dramatically, the relationship of per-capita income to industrial capital per worker is linear, so immigration cannot increase per-capita income much in the short or medium term because industrial capital accumulates slowly. For these reasons, all the projections of massive income gains from mass migration which Nathan Smith accepts and endorses, are bogus.

I do not understand how anyone can read that and some of the other writings online and offline that doubt the wisdom of open borders (I particularly liked "Reflections on the Revolutions in Europe" by Christopher Caldwell) and still think that this is a good idea.

If the closed borders crowd are wrong and you do it their way, then nothing is lost and you can open the borders some other time, when people might be more easily absorbed because of lower disparities. But if they are right, and the open borders people get their way, then there is no going back to the way things used to be, without a bloody ethnic war. Which, come to think of it, might actually be started by the newcomers, who would be hurrying history along.

Thomas Hendrik Ilves, the former Pres. of Estonia, had a saying, regarding the former communist societies: "you can boil a fish tank and make soup out of it, but you can't turn it back into a fish tank with live fish". This is as good an explanation as any of the conservative mindset. That and not transforming an omelet back into eggs.

If people who were against vaccines, fertilizers, abolishing slavery, abolishing witch trials, eliminating Communist, emantipating the Jews (...) nothing would be lost. Those things could have been dealt with later... Status quo bias at its more stupid.

Horhe is completely right. Vaccines and medicine is a great analogy. Medical treatments start with trial runs on animal models, and if successful they proceed to sick humans who are willing to accept risk, and only after a treatment has demonstrated safety and effectiveness is it rolled out to general use. There is that whole sacred medial idea of "First, do no harm".

Practice these open border experiments on failed states first. If the results are amazing, it makes sense for other states to follow. Practicing these epic society changing experiments on all of western civilization first, before even the proponents have stable or confident predictions and before the citizens even know what is going on is pure insanity.

Meanwhile, your country is a shithole.

Your comparison is off. There is a difference between blindly opening up to superfluous immigration just for the heck of it and not doing anything about diseases. The first one does nothing to existing citizens, except maybe save them a lot of harm, the second one costs a lot of lives. You seem to be confusing ills within one's country, which one must necessarily correct, with ills outside one's country, which might not be your responsibility to manage. The borders of a nation-state, like the membrane of a cell differentiating the inside from the outside, create a larger responsibility to act on the inside. I'm not saying one shouldn't strive to improve the world, since it would also be in your citizens' interest, but open border types believe that the cure for poverty is to send every one of the 6 billion non-rich people to a rich country for some sort of make-over, not making efforts to correct poverty in their own native areas, like the Chinese have.

Caplan's argument works against all progressive efforts to equalize outcomes too. Quotas for women and minorities create marginal cases of white men and Asians who require government permission to get a job. Affirmitive action Requires white men and Asians to get government permission to be equally consisted for job on the basis of merit. Logically, the argument is correct and that is why all closed border, affirmitive action, and socialistic arguments require extreme mental gymnastics.

You mean open borders, not closed borders, don't you?

It's true for closed borders too, so I don't think so

There's a place in the world for the angry young man ... He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl ... And he'll go to his grave as an angry old man.

Open Borders will:
- increase the fraction of the population that will vote for racial preferences.
- increase the fraction of the population that will vote for forced redistribution thru taxes..
- increase the fraction of the population that will pay less in taxes than they get in benefits.

So Open Borders is grossly irresponsible.

non-Muslim Asians, whities, and English-speaking Africans, please

seems like at least one more major state should legalize homebuilding before we open them entirely

I'm a little afraid of any kind of Black immigration, due to the low, but scary risk of ghetto expansion.

Look at the NYC neighborhoods of Flatbush, Canarsie, Jamaica, etc. to see what it would be like.

I went to grad school with a bunch of Africans. They couldn't be more different than your typical "African American".

What about their children?

Isn't there a selection bias at work there? You're comparing grad school Africans with hood African Americans. That's like comparing immigrant crime rates with the crime rates of African Americans or of teens to get a favorable comparison.

I mean, if I didn't personally know a few good Africans myself, I'd be stuck believing that all of them are like in this report from on the ground in South Africa. Which view is more representative for a larger group of people? The grad school view or the violent and low social capital view.

Homicide rates in South Africa are about twice the mean for tropical and southern Africa. Also, immigration processes and reproduction by immigrants can have some interesting effects. As a general rule, Mexicans in America are a good deal more tranquil than Mexicans in Mexico (the latter having a homicide rate 5x American means, the former not).

I say let's run the open borders experiment. But since there obviously is a lot of uncertainty and risk in how it would play out, it should be run only in one country at first. In the meantime, immigration should of course be stopped in other countries to provide a control group. We can check back in 50 years to see if the noble experiment produces results the citizens would like to emulate.

Naturally the host country for the open borders experiment should be a first world nation, ideally one with land borders with third world countries, to facilitate the easy transportation of immigrants. It should also be near the confluence of the world's most populous and poor continents: Africa and Asia.

So clearly, the natural choice for the open borders experiment is Israel.

Bingo. It's also far away from most of the First World, so no other country would be affected by chain migration.

Germany has already voluntereed to be that country. Too bad though, that the previous record of integrating migrants into society was not exactly successful.

Well, except for all the Poles in the Ruhr during the heyday of German industrialization in the 19th Century - 'During the late 19th century rapid industrialisation in the Ruhr region attracted about 300,000 Poles, especially from East Prussia, West Prussia, Poznan, and Silesia. They comprised about 30% of the Ruhr area population by 1910. Kashubians and Masurians also came. Participants in this migration are called the Ruhr Poles.'

As noted, however, the process certainly reflected Germany's industrial and imperial ambitions, then gets all tangled up in the Kulturkampf, two world wars, shifting national boundaries, and various definitions of 'minority.' Noneheless, a couple of million German citizens have Polish descent, and no one seems to think much about it.

Let's not compare Poles, who have been living aside Germans for hundreds of years, to Africans and Middle Easterners. Assimilation of populations is easier within populations that are like them to a strong extent. The comparison between Europeans and Africans as sources of possible immigration to European countries has been eroding the narcissism of small differences that previously existed especially between neighbors. People are not fungible.

No, it's Sweden, because for all practical purposes they've already been running this experiment for more than a decade, and there still is supermajority citizen support for continuing the experiment. Geography is no longer of primary importance since transportation costs are so much lower than they were in the 19th century.

Of course, most open borders advocates are systematically dishonest and avoid talking about Sweden even after they've known about it for years, because the "experimental results" to date are much worse than their rosy projections. I've repeatedly told them that one of the best things they could do for their cause is advise the Swedes to adjust their implementation of open borders to be less self-destructive (support for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats has skyrocketed from ~2% to ~25%, so the supermajority is unlikely to hold for much longer unless the government changes course), but they've been totally uninterested even though they've interacted with e.g. Singapore's government in the past. Instead they continue to pretend their ideas are "untried" and might constitute a "trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk".

Since revealed preference is far more informative than rhetoric, I'm sadly forced to conclude that they don't actually care as much about increasing global prosperity as they do about harming ordinary Westerners they don't like, even though some of them have done genuinely good work in other areas. (With that said, I hasten to note that Nathan Smith, the author of the linked post, is an exception who respects the principle of "consent of the governed" and has an excellent track record of intellectual integrity.)

Yup. Sweden and Norway. Though not Finland.

Interestingly, Norway has pretty much gotten open borders to work on the Arctic island of Svalbard: see e.g. .

But the differences between how Svalbard is administered and how most Western countries are administered are revealing.

Interesting article. Thanks for the pointer.

Apparently government in Svalbard differs significantly from that in California:

' “If you don’t have a job, you can’t live here,” Mr. Ingero said, noting that the jobless are swiftly deported. Retirees are sent away, too, unless they can prove they have sufficient means to support themselves.'

Hmm, Svalbard has fascinated me since I first heard of it. But this sentence rains on the parade:

... and also subsidizes Svalbard’s biggest employer, a loss-making state-owned coal company.

That disapoints me, but does not suprise me. Clearly Norway needs to elect a Environmentalist Thathcerite to really set Svalbard to rights. She'd get the polar bear vote.

From the report:
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.

In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.

The internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonposten and Expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as "Swedish men" when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.

The United States is not the only occidental country cursed with a media composed of political operatives with bylines. Sixty years ago, Ray Bradbury imagined a future which incorporated a slow death of literacy partially manifest in the expiration of newspapers. In our own time, would that be a bad thing?

and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.

Why is that unreasonable? That's the way it works in porn movies!

We can't be totally certain that throwing open Israel's borders to the third world wouldn't have adverse consequences, even though it's such a promising idea in principle. As a trial run, perhaps we should start by quartering Muslim refugees in the homes of Jewish economists.

It's always about the joooz with you people, isn't it?

Which people? Jeremy Corbyn and his staff?

It’s always about the joooz with you people, isn’t it?

Yup, and it's always about the whites with you people.

Realistically, choose a failed state to host the open borders experiments so that if the experiment fails, the loss is minimized.

Open borders skeptics would be wise to recognize Netanyahu as completely on their side and a good ally.

What scares me the most is that Tyler, a professor at a respected university, considers this essay "very thoughtful", when actually it is rather foolish and ahistorical. Not even trying to learn from the mass immigration that we can observe in the western world.

And then there is still the major question; Why are we even discussing such a bigot and extremist viewpoint in the public, when there is no reason at all to implement it.

My best answer to that question: A lot of people in the academics/media/business world have to little to do. They are bored, looking for new things to make them interesting.

You're right. Mass immigration has proven to be a disaster. Ask the few remaining natives of the western hemisphere how it worked out for them.

Oh, geez, you had to point out that the Americas as the US had open borders until 1920 except for the left coast.

Can't let anyone understand that "going back" means going back to open borders when immigrants were constantly disturbing the social order in service to the corporations, keeping the working class down.

Immigration flows into this country prior to 1840 amounted to 0.125% of the resident population per year and caused little disturbance to ethnic balances. You did not need border controls and there were huge swaths of unoccupied land. In case you hadn't noticed, the frontier was closed in 1890 and a low immigration regime instituted within 30 years. If the same timeline had applied in the current set of disputes, we'd have had a strict immigration regime imposed by 2007.

I've found out recently that the US did not exactly have open borders. There were still a few nagging details that kept the thing from being truly open (in addition to restricting immigration from China, the Chinese being thought unwilling to assimilate), like the fact that new immigrants would have to be judged unlikely to become a charge of the state (dependent on handouts and welfare) and that new immigrants had to be disease free and not obviously handicapped in some way. This was the XIX-XXth centuries, detection and enforcement was not very easy. Still, 2% of prospective immigrants to the US were sent back home, despite the considerable (self-selecting) cost of coming here, and half of them were turned around because of the charge to the state thing. It only took the Puritans 19 years after landing to institute laws against immigration of probable indigents to their communities.

You're working out to be boring and repetitive in addition to episodically mendacious.

Taken as a reference to the Indians, I don't think this makes your point very well.

Actually that is the perfect example on both sides. From the open borders perspective, open borders generated the richest state in history. From the closed borders perspective, the existing citizens (American Indians) had their culture destroyed and were largely marginalized.

'Their culture' was not 'destroyed'. There was no uniform culture. Even today, there are a three digit population of Indian 'nations', some with two-digit populations. The common elements of Amerindian society would have been their distinction from European societies, land tenures characteristic of low density settlement, and an absence of cities or any kind of settlement of any size. It might have taken some centuries to end all that, but it would have been readily accomplished without European conquest.

America will "devolve" not "evolve." Other words that come to mind: "dysfunction", "dystopia" and "disaster." These are among Obama's goals in the fundamental change of evil, racist, unjust America.

The essay is interesting because, unlike some politically correct libertarians, Smith does not pretend that his open borders experiment would lead to liberal nirvana. He's quite open about the fact that it would kill things like "equality of opportunity." Especially interesting is this paragraph:

Spontaneous Schelling segregation, even if not enforced by, or even if actively opposed by, the law (but I doubt the law would resist for long), would make neighborhoods and workplaces, and a fortiori churches and community organizations, far more homogeneous than the resident population as a whole. I have advocated legalizing and de-stigmatizing private discrimination against immigrants, but even if it remained illegal, I think private discrimination would be widely practiced, simply because statistical discrimination is efficient, and in the more complex and dynamic economy of an open-borders America those efficiencies would be more worth capturing than ever. Many natives would retreat into gated communities, not so much from fear of crime as simply from love of the familiar. There would be large immigrant neighborhoods dominated by particular ethnicities, where English was rarely spoken, yet English in the US would remain a lingua franca for all the immigrant groups and wouldn’t be threatened as the national language (though German in Germany, Dutch in the Netherlands, etc., might). Overall crime rates might or might not rise, but law enforcement would often be baffled by new and complex challenges. The overworked and puzzled courts would have to improvise and compromise and decline a lot of cases, and would end up leaving a lot of stuff in an emerging domain of private law. I’d expect gaps to emerge where representatives of the official courts feared to tread and a kind of anarcho-capitalist natural law would prevail, and these might be the most productive, innovative, prosperous places in the new, open-borders America. As in the Dark Ages, the Christian churches would likely be more effective than the government in reaching out to, serving, and cultivating a sense of community and identity in many immigrant populations. As in ancient Rome, native-born Americans would find themselves increasingly unable to govern a larger and more diverse subject population through traditional institutions of self-government– they might often find it expedient, as the British empire did, to let public power slip into private hands– but on the other hand, they could easily vote themselves increasing handouts from a burgeoning treasury.

Private law? A more traditional term would be Lynch Law. The middle East would be an apt comparison for it's tribalism, discrimination, importance of religion, and "private" settlement of disputes.

Equality of oppportunity is dead for a looooong time in US...I even wonder if that ever really existed, except in the minds of white males.

Well, when Whites were 90% of the population, equality of opportunity was not exactly a privilege, to be awarded to the few. It was the norm.

Notice "white males" so it was not 90% of the population for sure...

The basic problem with the legal customs of the middle east is that we keep shaking their communities up, with bombs and booted aliens. Do you have any idea how many fewer white women got raped by black men when there was lynch law? I don't. But I know it wasn't fifteen thou a year. The problem with private law in this USA with no boarders, aside from nations aren't amorphous, would be the overcrowded places with too many races. Equilibrium would take time and the interim would be rough, I'm pretty sure.

Cause I'm stuck on this page for some reason and cause it occurred to me your probably young enough to learn, you might have lived in a neighborhood of say fifty families before or lets say you did, and you were all same race and socio-econo status. Almost kinda like a big extended family. Do you think you'd trust the top five men in that neighborhood to dispense the justice? Or the top four since you'd be one of them? I think I would. Actually I don't think there would be any crime at all. I don't think there would be much crime if there were 500 families like me. But if there were people like the people who commit crimes today coming into the neighborhood then there would. The thing about lynch law is that its a stark term, more so than peace. And when a movie say like twelve years a slave comes out and wins awards and all that, little kids forget the facts that have to do with peace. You do know that evil white people weren't lynching innocent black people two at a time every week, right? I mean, you do know that movies aren't real, right? Emmett Till, that was horrific, and disgusting. But you hear about it far more times than that crime was committed, and especially you see that photo more times than it was taken. See my point? I don't really know except by reasoning, but I suspect lynch law prevented the loss of more lives than it took. But I do know that crimes against a community that feel like a family they hurt a lot, and you don't want them to happen again, especially to the women.

How lucky we are that there are brave people out there willing to fight for the honor of lynchers.

Typical. Don't you feel cheap being cheap, or are you just dumb and don't know it? I would feel bad about myself if I seriously responded: How lucky we are that there are brave people out there willing to fight for the honor of rapists who prey on foreign communities. I was thinking of an innocent Catholic girl I know who was gangraped by the descendants of slaves four years ago in Norfolk, Va. Which is to say, she was tortured for hours so they could have a helluva time. When neighborhoods are more like nations, its a rough men stand ready type of deal. And I wasn't defending the honor of lynchers. I was saying I damn well do it myself if I was in that world.

This isn't open borders, it is describing a one way migration. The US will come to resemble the places where large numbers of people come from. That is the case now.

I suppose there is a wonderful future selling manufactured goods assembled with cheap immigrant labor to the countries who have lost all their young, best and brightest. That should work just fine.

Yes, because the 3D printed, drone-delivered goods will require so much unskilled labor...

The US WAS ALREADY "resemble the places where large numbers of people come from" - the UK and Europe.

If the US was like native born, we would be like Tonto instead of the Lone Ranger.

Actually we are already governed by emperors, and maybe soon an empress.

The US was open borders until basically 1920 with the exception of prohibitions of Asian immigration to California after the depression from the end of the government subsidies to build railroads circa 1875.

While immigrant groups were persecuted and hated, the economic demand for labor who would put up with corporate greed kept bringing in labor from Europe. It was only the devastation of Europe from WWI plus the government funded construction of transatlantic human transport that created the the panic leading to the emergency quota act.

Unions were finally able to gain power after the severe restrictions on immigration prevented corporations from bypassing uppity American workers demanding rights as citizens to rule of law.

I find it ironic that conservatives call for going back to the America before the leftist and liberals destroyed America and let immigrants take over America, which means going back to pretty much unrestricted immigration that existed before 1920.

Note, citizenship is not about immigration, but voting and holding office.

Naturalization is not about immigration, but determining who gets to be a citizen and thus decide by voting who holds office and to be an office holder.

Republicans screwed up the meaning of citizenship almost from the beginning of the party and has continuously screwed up on "citizenship" ever since. Trump is just loudly shouting all the Republican stupidity on "citizenship", putting the stupidity front and center. He sounds contradictory and confused because that has been the Republicans intellectual treatment on "citizenship".

No where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to close the borders because no one writing it ever imagined borders would ever be closed. Restricting who got to run the republican government of We the People was very much of concern, but not who got to immigrate to the Americas.

I mean, your analysis is correct on the facts: it was union-backed restrictionism that led to closed borders. And thus to the rise of the New Deal and the welfare state.

Can we please have some more of that corporate greed?

"...Jefferson’s cry that “all men are created equal,” which today is sometimes mistaken, almost, for an enforceable policy rule, would retreat until wasn’t even an aspiration, but only a dream. Of course, open borders would actually mitigate global inequality, but American egalitarianism is a sheltered creed that needs the border as blindfold to retain its limited plausibility as an ideal.

If open borders included open voting, US political institutions would be overhauled very quickly as political parties reinvented themselves to appeal to the vast immigrant masses, but I’ll assume the vote would be extended gradually so that native-born Americans (including many second-generation immigrants) would always comprise a majority of the electorate. ..."

Hey, why not simply discuss US history from 1790 to 1920 when the US had open borders except in California?

What broke "open borders" was Europe in multiple war suffering and conflicts with lots of US government funded construction passenger (troop) ships suddenly available after they brought home US troops from WWI.

The border control issue, I think, most obviously separates the statists from the non-statists.

Does it? IDK. We have a decent level of freedom in this country now (no doubt that the regulatory apparatchik has been increasing over the last 100 years, and has grown mightily in the last 7) but with open borders it seems rather clear that it would grown very strongly very quickly.

Your punctuation could lead to misinterpretation of your comment. I suggest clarification.

Ah, was on mobile. I was attempting to say that lack of borders would very quickly increase the power of the state, due to the need to confiscate the resources to appease the new immigrants.

Thus, you could say that those who support stronger borders are actually non-statists in the medium-long-run.

How so? Isn't border control a basic function of government that even libertarians could support (along with police/judiciary, etc.)?

Most actually aren't. They just don't like taxes.

-- "The border control issue, I think, most obviously separates the statists from the non-statists."

Indeed. Those who support mass immigration are the ultimate statists. Mass immigration (i.e., the replacement of the native population) is the policy that requires the most state power to overcome the natural opposition of the populace. The point of mass immigration, moreover, is to import allies/agents/constituents of the state to increase its power.

I think at this point the libertarians have conceded that a State is necessary in case some group of miscreants get together and draw a border around themselves.

This is remarkably clueless:

"Yet a recent poll suggests that 1 in 3 Americans would like to emigrate if they could. Few can have a strong economic motive to do so, since the USA is one of the richest countries on Earth, so either weak economic motives suffice (do they want to earn Australia’s minimum wage? to enjoy the Swedish social safety net?) or else cultural preferences (the fun loving culture of Brazil? the ancient dignity of Japan? the beauty and charm of western European cities?) actually motivate them to leave rather than to stay. "

Americans might emigrate to poorer countries for the same reasons they sometimes migrate to poorer states or regions within the U.S. (or stay in them if they're already living there) -- namely, the cost of living is MUCH lower. Do low-skilled, low-wage workers really do better in California than Kansas? What about retirees? The "Supplemental Poverty Measure" (adjusted for cost of living) indicates otherwise. Also -- I don't think most people appreciate how similar standards of living are in 'middle income' countries relative to the U.S. When a nice apartment is $150/month, a good restaurant meal is $5, inter-city bus rides are a couple dollars, and medical care is cheap, $10,000 a year provides quite a decent living. If residents of Mississippi and Alabama aren't leaving en masse for states with higher per-capita incomes (when there are no legal or language barriers to impede them), why would we assume massive migration from, say, Colombia to the U.S.?

"If residents of Mississippi and Alabama aren’t leaving en masse for states with higher per-capita incomes (when there are no legal or language barriers to impede them), why would we assume massive migration from, say, Colombia to the U.S.?"

Because there has been large scale immigration from Colombia to the US.

And something like 1/3 of Puerto Rico's population lives in the US, despite us bribing them to stay in PR.

Alabama has a personal income per capita about 19% below national means. That in Mississippi is about 25% below. In comparing them to the generic American, you're comparing the U.S. to Germany or France, not to most Latin American countries, wherein the income levels of the middle 70% might be more akin to 20% or 25% of those of comparable strata here.

An urban geographer of my acquaintance once quoted (re the European Community) what kind of per capita income differential was necessary to overcome inhibition about crossing cultural boundaries. He said that the research he had consulted indicated that a point of inflection is manifest at margins of 2 to 1. The wage differentials are simply insufficient for Mississippi and Alabama residents to forego unpriced benefits of living there. Also, staple costs tend to be lower in places like Alabama and Mississippi than they are in places like New Jersey, so living there can work better in a brutely material sense if you're not so influenced by less basic amenities.

Why move when they can suck off the federal teat right where they are?

One thing that that essay doesn't mention is that it might be bad economically for the elites and the upper middle class as well as the American proles. What about the large component of the elites who got rich off of, say, cable television, something the proles wouldn't be able to afford if they were reduced to third world wages? Smith considers that welfare would have to be given to Americans, and does he really expect the third world immigrants to pay for their own hospital visits? What about the high costs of things like a "national police force" he mentions? They might have to cut back on wages for economics professors.

But libertarians are so wedded to the idea that the amount of money a person makes is equal to the amount of value he creates that they can't see this.

“”””””No where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to close the borders because no one writing it ever imagined borders would ever be closed. Restricting who got to run the republican government of We the People was very much of concern, but not who got to immigrate to the Americas. “”””””

Article I Section 9 allows Congress to regulate the migration or importation of people after 1808

Article IV Section 4 protects the states from invasion

.........there would be a good deal of lamentation and triumphalism........." -

More likely lamentation and Trumpalism....

For all intents and purposes, we are running the experiment now. Check the results in 50 years to see how well Smith did.

You are right. We are, somewhat, trying to limit the experiment, but we are failing.

This will, in the end, result in far higher levels of confiscation of wealth, and I think that the results will be disastrous.

Our only hope is that technology saves us. It is highly plausible within the timeframe of 50 years, but it is a big bet to be taking, with little payoff.

In California, 30% of the population is on Medicaid. But, I believe we can do better. Fifty percent is within reach.

Want to guess the percentage using Medicare? 'California has the largest number of Medicare beneficiaries of any state — 4.5 million enrollees — and as the population ages, the percentage of Californians covered by Medicare will continue to rise.'

Isn't the expectation that _most_ retired people will use medicare in any state?

What percentage of people in a state would you typically expect to use medicaid? Is it as high as 30% ?

It depends - in most countries with significantly lower health care costs than the U.S., with at least equal outcomes, the government tends to finance health care for all citizens - including children, which is what percentage of your 30%? - who are unable to pay for such health care. This is considered a sign of a successful policy, by the way.

And in the UK, the equivalent figure to 30% in California is essentially 100%.

In the context of a discussion about the impact of (something approximating) an open borders policy on the US, I brought up California's above average Medicaid participation rate as an indication of where things might go. (Discussions about the merits of the health care systems in other countries can be interesting, but are, I think, somewhat off topic.).

Again, given the health care system in the US now , what percentage of people in a US state would you typically expect to use medicaid? Is it as high as 30%?

Given that California has the largest state population, it seems reasonable that it would have the largest number of Medicare beneficiaries of any state.

Of course - but what is the difference between one population of people not paying for their health care compared to another population, whose health care is being financed by tax payers? And in the case of a married couple, only one person needs to have paid into the Social Security system for both to receive Medicare - meaning that it is reasonable to assume that at least 30% of current Medicare recipients may not have ever paid a cent for the health care they receive.

Is your argument that, because US Medicare already exists and offers benefits to some people who don't pay into it, that we should make other government programs, such as Medicaid, behave that way to a greater extent than they already do?

Yep, PA is dumb enough to confuse percentages with absolute numbers, and then act surprised that the state with the biggest population has the most old people

Central and South American natives have been exposed to European institutions for the past 400 years, as have indigenous North Americans. There's your answer.

Costa Rica and Panama are my answer?

If you're lucky. If you're unlucky, Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador.

Kidnapping insurance, helicopter commuting, walled-off houses protected by concertina wire. Fortunately for your grandchildren, the history books will be purged of anything before the Johnson administration so they won't realize what you failed to preserve for them.

I'm going to file that under 'if you're lucky, England, if you're unlucky, Stalinist Russia'. (And if you're smart, you might just grasp the limits of biology).

"the limits of biology" -- Biology sets the height of the bar. Environment determines whether you'll clear it. All the good intentions in the world won't make it otherwise.

So basically, open borders would destroy America, but that's just fine because America sucks.

I get the biggest kick out of the idea that any of these people could ever be denied the vote. And by "kick" I mean to rather tender place.


Fully open border probably ends up equalizing the GDP/capita of the U.S. with those of far lower stature countries. The introduction of such a large population of low SES will, given the current economic climate and technology, result in the forcible confiscation of weath to equalize the scales. This will have the easily foreseeable impact on incentives, trust, and social cohesion resulting in far lower weath creation across the board.

The suspension of one man one vote (for perhaps one vote per landowner) will slightly delay the confiscation, but given the technology of the day I doubt that the delay will be for any appreciable length.

I am all for immigration of high SES populations (eg: kids at top 20 schools on visas), but letting everyone in will, necessarily, break the U.S.

"One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can't be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can't be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong."

-- Christopher Caldwell, "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe"

If the writer thinks "All men are created equal" is idealistic twaddle, then why do Americans have any moral obligation to let 1 billion foreigners into their country?

It's very patronizing to argue that Americans oppose unrestricted migration because the border "blindfolds" them to poverty. Many of us have traveled to poor countries and have a good idea what they are like. That doesn't make the idea of welcoming 1 billion desperately impoverished people more appealing.

Would you rather be patronized to or have people assume you are a sociopath?

Is it sociopathic to want to preserve the economic engine of the world? Is it sociopathic to try to prevent the destruction of modern civilization?

When you are an anti-white cultural marxist at heart (no matter how you officially identify politically), apparenty it is.

If the sheet fits ...

^ someone who I hope has the self-respect not rely on Social Security, unemployment insurance, the public school system, or any other form of organized sociopathy.

Maybe success can only happen (and be spread) if we restrict access to it.
Maybe the world needs a somewhat isolated 'system experiment' that can only remain so (and continue along its special type of development), by restricting access, and therefore be a teaching tool through its successes and short-comings.
Maybe 'moving away' from your problems is to not solve them at all and certainly does not lead to overcoming them in-situ.
Maybe those who have the ambition to move away were the ones most likely to effect change and improve their origin, with the move likely resulting in the weakening of the source state and increasing world inequality overall. (is it ethical to allow people to emigrate if that depopulation damages the future potential of the source system itself?)
Maybe increasing cultural and socio-economic dilution (more by adding solvent than removing solute) is to reduce the possibility of technological and entrepreneurial disruption and impoverish sparks of greatness that would have solved more world problems anyway in the long term.
((wasn't there a study of a college where a massive addition allowed a huge influx of students (with lowered entry expectations to pay for it) over traditional numbers that resulted not only in a GPA drop far more than the expected drop due to lower expectations per students added, but a huge reduction in graduations and post-grad applications, even compared to the earlier student numbers. A question of not diluting the broth, but actually slightly poisoning it)(i wonder if that was why the UK originally (or earlier had a more pronounced form) had 2 streams of school - grammar and other. Not to encourage the good kids so much as reduce the damage of the bad))

"Maybe success can only happen (and be spread) if we restrict access to it.
Maybe the world needs a somewhat isolated ‘system experiment’ that can only remain so (and continue along its special type of development), by restricting access, and therefore be a teaching tool through its successes and short-comings."

Makes sense to me. Sounds like what Standford, Harvard and all of the ivy league schools do. Why wouldn't this principle apply in some way to our nation at large?

Open borders is only a scary thought when you have labor arbitrage, welfare, or institutional arbitrage, because those are very strong attractors, and they might not square with a political culture.

But let's imagine open borders, not with the whole world, but just with countries that are within 5-10% of our per capita GDP.

I think immigration would still occur but it would be less of an issue. Once countries get rich enough, the US starts to allow visa-free tourism. This is because at that point people stop fleeing to America as illegal immigrants, or much fewer at least.

You also get immigrants who emigrate because they prefer their new country: a Brit who wants to own guns, or someone in love with Japanese culture, for example. These are very non-threatening.

The current worry in the USA is by people who worry about new immigrants coming in who prefer a big government to take care of them and don't care too much about liberty. This frightens those on the right - the left, predictably, are enthusiastic.

Of course, if it were reversed, and every immigrant was fleeing communism and was libertarian minded, I think we'd see a predictable reversal of those roles quite quickly.

But for average joes, the main worry, deep down is cultural. Thus the speed and quantity of immigration becomes an issue, because assimilation takes time. Imagine if I could move Bangladesh's entire population to California in a year. Does anyone really support that idea as peachy keen, no problemo? Now how about 5% of its population over 50 years, with the population spread out among 50 states?

"institutional arbitrage" - say an immigrant is coming because America is free and they are persecuted, might not be scary at all. Coming because schools are good could also be played as respectful admiration, but could also pose worries. When the best high school is 40% Indian and 40% Chinese, the kids of immigrants, it gets more complicated.

If the Chinese teenager just arrived here two years ago, but is a citizen because mommy flew out for birth tourism, and the Chinese wealthy family didn't pay a cent in taxes, but now gets access to the top high school, you can see some resentment.

See also any border city where students commute from Mexico to attend American schools for free and return Southward every evening.

Not really. The Mexicans students who do that go to PRIVATE schools. Public schools only accept US citizens.

Are you sure about that? In California, illegals definitely are allowed in public schools.

"According to the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, 6.9 percent of K-12 students had parents of illegal immigrants in 2012, while far less — 1.4 percent — of all students were illegal immigrants themselves. (Anybody born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, despite the legal status of their parents.) Nevada had the biggest percentage of students with parents who were illegal immigrants, followed by California, at 13.2 percent; Texas, at 13.1 percent; and Arizona, at 11 percent."

So, it looks like you are wrong. Very, very wrong.

Public schools only accept US citizens.

Completely false. Not only do they have to take legal non-citizen children, they have had to accept illegal immigrants since Plyler v Doe in 82, a truly absurd court decision.

They would have to fake residency to do what he's talking about, though.

But let’s imagine open borders, not with the whole world, but just with countries that are within 5-10% of our per capita GDP.

At 5% of PPP per capita GDP, that list is as follows: "Hong Kong"
At 10% it includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Switzerland. Ireland on a good day.

8/45/50 million people. You could completely open the borders among those countries and not see too much flow, I suppose

One of the top private schools for expats in Singapore had till recently a first come first served wait list for entry. A surge in applications from one nationality started to change the cultural breakdown of the student population so that the administration was suddenly facing complaints from parents about coed gym classes, curriculum, student dating and other issues.

The school changed to a 'holistic' admissions policy which was just code for we need to assess family background to ensure the school's ethos remains unchanged.

An immigration policy that is open, rather than geared towards ensuring the values that make the destination attractive in the first place, simply won't work.

Sweden, France and much of California provide ample evidence of this. And it should be clear to everyone that the statist Dems want open borders because they want the resident culture to change - from individualist to collectivist. The UK's Labour Party had the same idea.

And that final paragraph is why we should be very suspicious of academics, activists, and elites who like open borders.

Lead proponents of open borders openly admit that this will transform host societies in permanent and dramatic ways. Their estimates of how this will all play out from a few years ago were completely off. While they are still optimistic, they admit that their current estimates are still wildly speculative.

Maybe we should pump the breaks before we know what we are doing? Or maybe the citizens of the targeted nations and societies should be informed of this epic irreversible experiment and they have some say in the matter?

Or maybe we should perform these epic scale experiments of society in the failed nations and societies that people don't want to live in, rather than the jewels of current civilization? So if this whole thing is a bust, we didn't destroy the best parts of human civilization.

America under Open Borders would be just like 2015 is, only more so: one huge iSteve blog. The Sailer Worldview would be so obviously correct under these conditions that life would be a nonstop frenzy of Two Minute Hates as everybody accuses everybody else of being a Thought Criminal to prevent being accused yourself.

It's tempting, but I've got enough material as it is already. I don't need the Cato Institute and the WSJ increasing my workload by an order of magnitude.

In Rotterdam (the Netherlands), more than 40% of the population is foreign born (I guess the worse nightmare of most blog commentators here). And it works fine (of course there are problems with minorities, but come on, it is not the end of civilization as we know it....). The latent racism here is just so sad....Even though i think its impossible to have 100% open borders, i think EU/US should have a more humane policy, at least towards refugees. I also agree that acess to social benefits should be limited in first years of stay, so that no perverse incentives are created. You are losing "1.5%" of your wealth to have people who have nothing....Is that such a big deal?

*help (in last sentence)

Yes, it is a big deal. And it's far more than 1.5%. And the loss of social and cultural capital is irreversible.

loss of social and cultural capital? How was America built anyway? jesus christ (facepalm) ... The self-proclaimed greatest city in the world (NY), where does its "charm" come from? From its very homogeneous population im sure ;)

I don't care where its perceived (mainly by liberals) charm came from. Its power came from the white people that built it. And will be destroyed by the good-for-nothing morons that the current immigration policy is allowing in.

Neither Mayor deBlasio (who uses his mother's name to make himself seem more ethnic) nor Judge Scheindlin are the issue of particularly recent immigrant groups. There has been no immigration in the Mayor's family since 1906 and none among his paternal-side relatives since the 1830s. His maternal grandfather has been referred to as 'Giovanni De Blasio' in the newspapers, but the man called himself 'John' from about 1910 until his death in 1977.

White people killed Indians, broke sod, clear forests built farms. That's how.

The US was founded by Englishmen. If it had been founded by any other group, it would be a different place.

Zimbabwe occupies the same geographic coordinates as "Rhodesia." What changed?

Also, nice try with "racism - bad, because MUH FEELZ".
Nobody cares about your evolutionary inadaptive, irrational altruism towards outgroups. All of them should be kicked out, legal or illegal.

Spoken like a true Native American.

Which does not detract from his point at all, and actually underscores it.

Except for his lack of voluntary self-deportation, of couse, assuming he is a member of an outgroup.

As for underscoring - aren't you one of those incessantly pointing out the internecine warfare and territorial replacement of different Native American groups as evidence that anyone is entitlted, legally or illegally, to simply crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women?

Though civilized people do tend to have a different view than a barbarian.

Nice try, prior_moron.

"Survival of the fittest" nicely sums up the historical reality of how current groups of people came to be in power where they are in power.
This does not mean that you should help your enemies by adopting laws and moral intuitions that are to your detriment and their benefit. On the contrary, that means you have every reason to change the existing laws and culture so that they are as inhospitable to them and as nourishing to your own power as possible.

All those civilizational bullshit is giving me a headache. Civilization means nothing when it leads to the destruction of those that created it.

I am not a native american. I am not interested in preservation of native american culture and genes. I am interested only in my own.

There is a difference between a universalist argument and a particularist one. Maybe learn the useful skills of reading comprehension and correct inference?

The culture you apparently wish to preserve rejects and scorns everything you believe, relegating people like you to anonymous grousing on the internet. Heck even those genes you cherish so much are going to loathe you in a few years.

"even those genes you cherish so much are going to loathe you"

Disregarding the idiotic idea that genes can hate (that's a pretty stupid anthropomorphization even by liberal standards), I can assure you that the next generation of white children will hate the cucks like you that opened the floodgates, screwed them in the evolutionary sense and probably turned their lives in something superficially resembling a living hell.

As for the culture "rejecting" what I beleive - only the elite element of it does. Most white people in the states (or on the planet to be exact) agree with me, but will not state it outright because they are aware of the actual totalitarian nature of the elite clientelist societies they inhabit.

only the elite element of it does.

Yes, but JustUs and their social-service clientele are the only people 'Reader' deems worthy of notice. The People matter; people do not.

Keep on believing in your silent majority as you fade to irrelevance.

Or start taking meth and painkillers like the rest of the white trash.

Haven't you stated that we have already faded to irrelevance? Which is it now, are we already irrelevant or not?

If 10% of whites on this planet manage to secede in their own country in 30 years (when the disastrous consequences of your prefered multiculti, diverse bullshit are absolutey apparent), will we be irrelevant or not?

The truth is, what scares you is that we will realize what a bullcrap your liberal agenda is, refuse to follow it and go on our own path.

Because you are not about people having choice or freedom, no matter what you tell yourself. But about enforcing your view on the world on them. The cognitive dissonance must be staggering.

Reader - Multicultural empires require maintenance by a powerful central state with a heavily armed security apparatus to stay together. When the centralized state loses its grip, frictionless, color-blind commerce is not what breaks out. Ask the Syrians how their secular, multicultural polity is doing these days. Ask the "Yugoslavians" and "Iraqis." Want to venture a guess what happens to Rwanda once Paul Kagame dies or gets assassinated?

Want to venture a guess what happens to Rwanda once Paul Kagame dies or gets assassinated?
Rwanda is not multicultural. It's an ethnostate with a demographically dominant majority. It's problem has always been that the human capital and political cohesion were concentrated in the minority. An ordinary state and society with Rwanda's ethnic balances could work passably unless the minority were highly concentrated geographically and secessionist (see Ceylon). Sometimes it works anyway (see Spain).

I am not interested in preservation of native american culture and genes. I am interested only in my own.

I'm guessing your kids may not be as interested in incest as you're hoping.

That's a nice strawman you got there. "Careless" is a fitting name.

You mean Indian, or AmerInd?

There was no America before Europeans discovered the place and named it. Literally, America is a social construct made by the white man.

Do you remember what Rotterdam was like 30 years ago? I am sure life as an upper class Dutchman is better - better restaurants, more interesting night life, and your ability to speak English well and understand people from other cultures is now a particularly value commodity. On the other hand, is Rotterdam today a safer city? Are the schools better? Is the Dutch born working class better off than 30 years ago? Can a person survive in Rotterdam knowing only Dutch or is he/she pretty much forced to learn English as well?

'Can a person survive in Rotterdam knowing only Dutch or is he/she pretty much forced to learn English as well?'

Well, that was a curve ball, to use an Americanism. The Dutch having been learning English for a long time - starting after losing the first of several wars since the mid 17th century.

Nobody in the Netherlands (including a certain Geert Wilders) is concerned about English being used by Dutch citizens. Arabic, on the other hand ....

My impression is that Rotterdam was always a working class city... If anything Rotterdam is probably much better today than 30 years ago, but due to causes not correlated to immigration .

Or to translate a Rotterdam expression - '"Money is earned in Rotterdam, divided in The Hague and spent in Amsterdam."

And let us be honest - what other city would have a Santa holding a 'tree' in a public park, and then call it the Kabouter Buttplug (buttplug gnome) unless it did not have a distinctive attitude? (Nice picture here - )

And do you have a working-class background?

I'd be curious if the amount of casual violence/rape in the working class districts is the same today as, say, 50 years ago.
All the data we have all over Europe suggests no. But of course this data is very difficult to get out(see Rotherham, pakistani gangs for exhibit 1A).

I wouldnt know because i am not from Rotterdam... but this kind of data is very very difficult to measure in a reliable way. (same goes for your exhibit A).

All cities are working class cities. The only loci which are not are agricultural villages and suburban enclaves populated largely with salaried employees and small business.

San Francisco proper is not a working-class city anymore. Some of its surrounding cities still are.

I presume you only selectively notice "latent racism" when it is coming from Euro whites. There is such overt racism other directions and other nations, but none of that will raise an eyebrow with people like this.

Dude... there are places where racism is much more pronounced, and where immigrants have a horrible life (ex: Saudi Arabia), but this post is about US.

.... and it seems the argument against open borders here in MR is like " we dont want more blacks or latinos" ... I would like to see something more intelligent.

" I would like to see something more intelligent."

This is intelligent. If you know anything about evolution of tribal, territorial animal species, that is.

Come on Moreno, don't you know that nrx loser has a PhD in biology with a specialization in evolution. It's a requirement to join. Well either that or being really gullible for just so stories. One or the other.

It's especially fitting to classify as 'losers' people who are far more likely to be evolutionary successful than yourself.

Or whose ideology is actually coherent and does not necassitate being in a state of constant cognitive dissonance.

Enjoy your intellectual inferiority.

What makes you think you can guess how many children I have?

Is telepathy part of your magic pop evo psyche powers?

No, it's just that intellectually inferior types like you are not evolutionary successfuly in the LONG term.
Hint: number of children does not equal evolutionary success if not coupled with survival rates. It's clear that anything emanating from the lokes of you will have abysmal performance.

"we don't want more [foreign ethnic group]” is the basic premise for nation states. You can't trivially dismiss that. Japan's infamous 2005 pronouncement, "one culture, one civilization, one race". Japan has been notoriously hostile to Euro white residents who love the Japanese culture. Even first-gen Mexican American immigrants I know, who are passionate supporters of central/south American immigration into the US, are horrified by Islamic immigration into Europe. One of my Mexican American friends took a vacation to Paris, and said he saw almost none of the ethnic French who eat croissants that he expected. He said the Europeans need to "wake the *** up". It's one thing to welcome foreigners who aspire to join a society and want to assimilate. It's completely different to be open to volumes of people from a completely hostile culture with thinly veiled contempt for the host culture.

Funny how almost all posts like this in progressive and liberatarian blogs and publication happen to be about ethnic europeans. It's almost as if there is a deliberate trend or something.

Do libertarians devote any thought to how the State's civil and procedural rights and transfer payments affect immigration? What do they think immigration would look like if all movement off your own property were a matter of private contract?

Libertarians are dishonest. Only the State can maintain Open Borders, because if there are No Borders people get to draw their own.

Milton Friedman thought about that. Thomas Sowell thinks about that. I'd wager Megan McArdle does, but I'd have to check. If you're scared of your shadow in the faculty rathskellar, you do not mention that stuff unless you're on the autism spectrum. There's been a secular decay in the quality of human being we're producing in this country from one generation to the next. I know of no reason why the body of libertarian intellectuals would be exempt from that.

Immigration to the US wouldn't be such a big deal if re-runs of popular television shows hadn't made their way across the third world. Who wouldn't want to spend an evening at "Cheers", live next to Seinfeld or be friends with Jennifer Anniston?

This is a case where "Eurocentric" really fits the bill.

I would look at India as an example. For several thousand years, India has had open borders. They are protected by steep mountain ranges and deserts as the US is by oceans, but that never stopped people from infiltrating and subduing the indigenous population.

What resulted was a vicious caste system.

You can say that about most countries. Just look at most European states. Germans were spread out all over the the continent. Poles, Lithuanians etc, the same. My point is that it isn't really eurocentrism because this assumes this is a new phenomenom to the West, and it isn't. The difference is just that the transportation these days is a lot cheaper and so it happens from further distances.

The reality is that most of these things tend to get sorted out in major ethnic wars that punctuate history.
That's how Germany gathered all the Germans, its how Yugoslavia sorted itself out into fiefdoms.

You can see the same thing in Iraq today with the kurds, the shia/sunni split etc. You can draw as many borders as you want, or open as many borders as you want, but over time people resettle, refocus and human biodiversity increases.

Also, briefly on India. There wasn't an "India" for most of its history. That's why it was easy to conquer. You can see shades of this even today.
There is no common language spoken by an absolut majority, despite all attempts to promote Hindi. Sure, Chinese dialects of Mandarin means it is difficult for various Chinese to understand each other but at least they can all read the language(and they all understand the Beijing dialect which is promoted through TV).

No such thing exists in India. Further, when you consider that Hindustan is a better term than India - i.e. you include Bangla/Pak in the mix - you get a much more diverisified Hindu/muslim mix. For most of India's history, these people have lived side by side and in very mixed areas. So on top of linguistic/cultural divides you have two starkly different religions.

The irony of the British colonialism is that the unintentional effect of it was the unificiation of the Indian, and specifically Hindu, identity.
It wasn't the railroads, it wasn't the education sustem, it wasn't the civil service. It was a common identity for Hindus. (and of course the flipside was/is that non-Hindus didn't fit).

Yeah, thats right;

In India all the people lived happily and peaceful side by side in a vibrant multicultural society. But then the english came.

@ Friend of order:

That’s why it was easy to conquer.

Define easy please. Over the 3000 years or so of roughly known history, "India" has only been conclusively conquered a handful of times. By conclusively, I mean an invasion that was not reversed in a generation or two and had lasting cultural and demographic impact. Until Akbar, the Muslim Sultans based in Delhi were perpetually fighting Indian chieftains who never gave up. After Akbar, obscurantism ensured that non-Muslims (Marathas and Sikhs, for example) would find it easy to rally followers to tear apart and eventually end Muslim domination. That process would have continued had it not been for the British entry. Talking about the British conquest of the subcontinent, it was heavily aided and abetted by various warriors and traders within the subcontinent who saw in the British better overlords than any of the native options available at the time. That conquest had zilch to do with geographical weakness.

The Norman conquest of the Anglo-Saxon domains was "easy". Nothing comparable has ever happened in India since the hypothesized Aryan invasion.

Germans were spread out all over the the continent. Poles, Lithuanians etc, the same.

I think you mean the Polish-Lithuanian state, not settlements of ethnic Poles or Lithuanians. There were knots of Germans in the old Kingdom of Hungary and in the Volga region. The only loci where you had a large of Germans jumbled in with others (in that case, Poles) over an area with a certain territorial extent would have been in Hohenzollern provinces of West Prussia, Posen, and Silesia, and really only in one set of districts in Silesia. All of these areas are right adjacent to provinces which were intensely German.

There is no evidence for the caste system being a product of invasion. Almost every country or culture has had a caste system. India's has just lasted longer and been sacralized to an extent that's unique in the world.

There is ample precedent for invasions resulting in enslavement, with the slaveowners and slaves forming a two-tier "caste" system. But that's short lived and never willingly accepted by the enslaved or their descendants. Think of all the slave revolts the Romans had to deal with. When a naked power differential is the only thing backing a hierarchy, that hierarchy is perennially unstable. The Indian caste system, on the other hand, proved extraordinarily resilient until the 19th century, when the entire philosophical underpinnings of Hindu society were undermined by the enlightenment values the British brought to the subcontinent. Think for yourself, why would an invaded and conquered people (lower castes) willingly accept not just the job of doing the most mean and menial work for their conquerors (upper castes) but also buy the religious logic justifying that unequal system hook, line, and sinker? A more natural explanation is that the caste system was a degenerate and ossified form of a division-of-labor system gone horribly wrong.

The Indian system is sui generis. Don't keep looking for analogies of everything negative you see in Western countries in Indian history.

"There is no evidence for the caste system being a product of invasion. Almost every country or culture has had a caste system. India’s has just lasted longer and been sacralized to an extent that’s unique in the world. "

Yes, there is. Tons. Genetic evidence, the vedas themselves.

"Don’t keep looking for analogies of everything negative you see in Western countries in Indian history."

Keep looking? I offered it as an example. India is routinely overlooked by Western observers. I think it's a great example of the horror of unchecked migrations and what happens when societies fragment.

The Vedas never talk about an invasion. That must be a particular interpretation you read. And all genetics says is that caste groups are internally homogeneous and divergent from each other, which would be expected after 3000 years of strict endogamy. That the Indian population is a hybrid of fairly divergent populations is emerging now, thanks to genetics, but it still doesn't prove that the caste system was the result of a conquest.

I must have been tired. I never said the caste system was a product of invasion - you did. I lazily went along with your lazy wording, so let me rephrase the issue in my own words.

Caste was not a product of invasion but a series of unchecked migrations, i.e., the open border that some advocate for the US.

I understand that the latter link refers to pre-3000K years ago but my point is, how did they then split off to being higher caste? Why? Were certain physical characteristics favored? Sexual selection? Huh?

I maintain that open borders would result in a caste system not unlike India.

You are right, my assumption was incorrect. You did not explicitly say that the caste system was the product of invasion; the reason I jumped to that conclusion was that everyone (and I mean "every" one) I have discussed this topic with over the Internet considers the caste system to have resulted from the hypothesized Aryan invasion.

The criticisms I made are valid regardless of whether you talk about invasions or migrations. Let us get rid of those words and stick to "significant demographic changes". Tell me why a caste system is inevitable, given such events that have occurred in Indian history. Compare them to other countries that have undergone periodic demographic changes; have they similar caste systems? Look at the countries that don't have any semblance of a caste system, and check whether they underwent demographic changes. To prove a theory, you need to have more than one example to support it, and at least one control sample. As for higher caste Indians having more "Aryan" genes (itself still a subject of debate), or R1a, that could very well be explained by high-status foreigners (invaders or migrants or religious seers or just people who brought in valuable knowledge) intermarrying a lot more with existing high-caste populations compared to lower-caste populations. Your assumption that divergent genetics proves an ethnic basis for caste is far from a slam dunk.


"The Indian system is sui generis."

Correct, in the sense that only the Indian caste system has the radical split between untouchability/touchablity, ritual pollution, etc. As to exactly how it came to be, I don't mind admitting that I have no idea. I have some guesses, which I've already shared.

Do you have any ideas? How did this sui generis system come to be?

To repeat my point: I do not say that if open borders continues in the US the caste system will be replicated here in every detail. I do think that there are sobering lessons from the Indian subcontinent, of communities withdrawing from one another and stratifying. Add to that the new migrants are coming to a society that is grappling with an already existing problem of inequality and racial division. Terrible combination.

Am I the only person who thinks this sounds really, really bad? Transition from republic to empire? Rich people employing almost-slave laborers? No social safety net? No more 'one person, one vote'? Lots of gated communities? Destruction of the living standards of native-born Americans?

You're not.

Everyone thinks it sounds really bad. Except really smart people like Tyler, Caplan and Smith. THey are so smart that they just have to think about this kind of stuff. We are so lucky to have these intellectuals among us.

The really crazy thing is, that the only argument for OPEN Borders that they normally can com up with, is the magic wealth creation that will doubble/triple/whatever the world GNP. But reading this it seems quite obvious that there is not even any kind of economic gain.

What a strange place the internet is. A lot of people whipping themselves into frenzies over nothing.

Sweetie, most people are horrified by the thought of open borders. Tyler Cowen & Co. are not serious. They are just jerking our collective chain.

No you cannot say that about most countries. Vedic culture depends on notions of ritual pollution. It is unique. But its uniqueness can be replicated, and with America's already existing race problem, I can see that happening.

Regarding India not being a "real country," I was referring to the subcontinental Vedic culture, which was astonishingly uniform. When British and German indologists studied Brahmins, they found 98% convergence between the oral traditions of Tamil Brahmins and Kashmiris.

Ambedkar always maintained India was one country.

Mind you, I am just playing along with Tyler's thought game about a billion people dropped into the USA.

Did you know that GMU charges twice the tuition to Americans who happen to live on the wrong side of the state line? That it only admits 62% of its applicants (who are already screened by having to graduate high school, take the SAT etc).

Tyler Cowan can lead a charge in his own institution for open admission at his university. (including remedial support for the no doubt disproportionately black and brown students that can't read or write English or do maths) .

Eat your own cooking, Tyler.

"Naturalization is not about immigration, but determining who gets to be a citizen and thus decide by voting who holds office and to be an office holder"

Given that immigration and naturalization go hand it hand, it is obvious that the power to impose a 'uniform rule of naturalization' implies the power to limit immigration. And thus it has always been ruled.

As for the 'open borders' US -- well, back when their was still free homestead land, a frontier, Indians to kill or swamp demographically, no welfare state, not much in the way of a post elementary school system -- that might have made sense. That was then, this is now.

How convenient for you. It isn't that you are slamming the door behind you, it is just a different era is all.

Cry me a river. There are numerous other countries in the world; try waltzing across their borders instead.

I'd rather stay here and vote for more open borders. Thanks though.

I am sure all your descendants who would live in the Third-world style America you'd help to create if open borders become a reality would be very grateful to you.

Does that idea bother you or is just one of the prices of open borders?

To imagine open borders, imagine a map of America, initially all white. Then, color brown the areas you'd rather not live. Color black the areas you wouldn't live in Under Any Circumstances.

Open borders would mean a whole lot more black and less white on that map.

I find it highly unlikely that open borders would produce more Appalachia and less Queens, NY.

Maybe he should have specified that the coloring is done by a white person with a working brain?

Are you people supposed to capitalize white? You better watch out, you might get a cross burned on your lawn.

What do you mean, "you people"

White supremacists.

Are you people supposed to capitalize white?
I don't know, do you capitalize jew?

If you haven't noticed how the market prices homes in white/Asian school districts versus homes in black/hispanic school districts, I bet your wife has.

The neighborhood I'm sitting in is Asian/Hispanic. What does your model say about that?

That you're paying less on your mortgage than people in the white/Asian districts. You could shave even more off your mortgage if you bought in a majority-black district. Be sure and let your wife know this.

My wife says your model is broken, and you may want to consider being less of a hedgehog and more of a fox. For 5 miles to the east is a majority Asian neighborhood that's less expensive than this one, and 5 miles to the north-west is a majority black neighborhood that's considerably more expensive.

Appalachia would still be there.

In all the discussions about immigration, both legal and illegal, and "open borders" why why why is it that no one is addressing the question of what is the long-term carrying-capacity of the U.S.? At what number should the population of the U.S. top-out?:

Comments for this post are closed