Tanista
2d ago
Yes, I know. That's the point: you don't actually need immigration to compete economically or have a vibrant culture. So I'm not sure the relevance. Seems like a false dilemma. You can learn how to make a croissant without importing Paris.
Tanista
2d ago
People who intrinsically dislike immigrants
They don't have to intrinsically dislike immigrants. They can just dislike mass migration. Or mass migration from certain groups. "Immigrants" flattens things too much. Many nations took Ukrainian refugees with much less noise than would come from taking Somali refugees. I assume there're reasons for this.
even prominent anti-immigrant politicians have immigrant friends/family (e.g. the AfD leader’s Sri Lankan wife).
I mean, case in point.
Although as you mention, small-scale immigration may not happen, in that case I doubt remigration would either.
Fair. I don't think so either. But it's not that I don't think, if the government was magically replaced by Stephen Millers, it wouldn't work.
But:
- It can’t compete with cultures that take the best advancements from others
- It can’t focus too much on nostalgia. Some is OK, but it must experiment and evolve new characteristics. Otherwise it’s the nation equivalent of “peaked in high school”, guaranteed to become incompatible with the rest of the changing world
How would you rate the East Asian countries like Japan on these criteria?
Even putting aside that not everyone is the US with a ton of materiel sitting around*, why would you do this? This risks destroying already fragile states, and then there's nobody to negotiate with. There are ways to pressure nations like Somalia - no aid, cutting off remittances - that don't rise to this level.
And, of course, if you are cutting out human rights law (the real problem) there's nothing stopping you from dumping them in whatever third country will have them (e.g. Rwanda) and then turning a blind eye to how they handle them (most likely drive them back home with "incentives").
* Remember Libya? And those were countries that maintained some military capacity.
Tanista
2d ago
Well, the worst drop in Israel's approval happened following an attack that was serious so I wouldn't say "barely". But, in any case, that's because Israel has the misfortune of being plopped right amongst the very nations Palestinians can inflame the most and depends on foreign support to survive there. And the foreign support it depends upon is now suspect because of ,in part, Muslim migration into many of those European countries.
The situation is different for America and even for a hypothetical low-migration Europe. There would still be important levers - like the oil embargoes of the past - but we can question if we'd see the same impact.
Nationalism and immigration don’t need to conflict: nationalism and large-scale immigration can’t work except with a large suppressed underclass, but a small ratio of immigrants can be patriotic (towards their host) and the host culture’s identity and cohesion can remain.
I agree, but it's unlikely to be much relevant. Large scale immigration is going to be the policy, because industrialized populations stopped having kids. This is one reason the ruling class feel they cannot stop. There is not going to be any sort of post-Ellis Island pause-and-assimilate because the demographic conditions are just going to get worse and worse.
Similarly, the demands of the asylum system make large scale immigration the most likely outcome, and immigration from adversely selected migrants at that.
A large ratio of the population supports at least some immigration
I'll grant it. But A strong plurality want significantly less immigration and you should also factor in the fact that most people aren't political junkies and don't actually know how many migrants are being let in. IIRC, in Harper's time Canadians consistently underestimated it and being informed, dropped their support for immigration. When Trudeau made it undeniable it nearly destroyed the Liberals.
Britain has consistently voted for right wing parties and causes, people simply haven't gotten what they wanted.
I'm sure plenty of people would like some moderate solution that resolved the issue without maximal unpleasantness, but that's not what happens. Now they're trending more and more to the extremes to resolve it.
My understanding is that most people are unhappy because their economy is failing, institutions are overwhelmed, culture is broken…all problems worsened and maybe primarily caused by immigration, but I doubt extreme remigration will solve them. Reducing corruption, improving police enforcement, and moderate immigration reform would at least improve them.
You're just asserting this though. It's not always about something else, sometimes people just don't want migrants. Now, Westerners know that it's taboo to say this but it's not actually odd. Outside of the West nations like Japan take far fewer migrants than the Bryan Caplans of the world insist would be good for them. South Africans complain about Nigerian migrants. Britons complained about Polish migrants who I bet they'd now take gladly. People also just don't like migration and the sense that their culture is slipping away. That's a part of the equation that can't be written off to talk about other things. The left-wing view that all problems that come from tribes interacting are just atavistic interpretations of an underlying material issue is an ideological precept, not a fact.
This is precisely why the pro-migrant establishment is not trusted by nationalists: a nationalist cannot say "I just want my country to stay similar to its past and to continue to primarily represent my group", they will be told what other, more legitimate reasons they can have to complain.
But even on the purely material plane there are issues that would be solved by just strangling the importation or removing certain groups. It is a matter of fact that many immigrant groups never pay for themselves due to disproportionate welfare usage.. Removing them would solve this fiscal problem, preventing more of them would ameliorate it. Many immigrant groups have a higher rate of crime. Removing them would resolve this problem.
It's also a bit strange to act as if You Can Just Do Things, when immigration changes the very nature of the government. Is it possible that the reason one cannot fix these issues is that immigrant voting blocs can veto things they don't like? Is it possible the UK police behaves in what seems like absurd ways because the existence of ethnic blocs (and the risk of being considered racist towards them - which would be of lower salience in a more homogeneous country) make the "two-tier" behavior the path of least resistance?
If immigrants are changing the level of resistance you would face doing a thing it doesn't make sense to say that you can just improve things anyway while getting more immigration. They've manifestly failed to do that, and the more migration you have the harder it is.
On the other side, politicians who believe nationalism is intrinsically bad (or anti-immigrant) are wrong and should be voted out.
I mean, this is just a case-in-point of the problem: immigrants vote too, and people are able to understand that white guilt politicians are better for their interests. Obviously, for now, you can vote the Starmers out. Surely at some point that stops being viable? If so, how does that factor into your proposed solution of migration-but-more-moderate?
National identity and imports must be balanced for culture: too much national identity creates a waning culture of nostalgia, too much imports creates an incoherent diluted culture, only a good amount of both creates a culture that improves over time.
You're going to have to give me some example of the dangers of this supposed nostalgia, and maybe show why those dangers are worse than losing any sense of shared destiny/creating mutual ethnic strife and so on that we already see.
and increasing nationalism as a side-effect of addressing the elephant in the room: convincing most of the population to like their government (maybe by having it do something notable for the public and advertising it, and electing new parties with less out-of-touch politicians, even Örebro if they tone down remigration).
This runs into problems, because one of the things the public wants from its government is to be against immigration, which many governments can't be.
It also has deeper challenges because the government of European countries seem to have people who believe - with some justice - that nationalism is a reactionary force that can organize people against immigration and the new multicultural state. This is on top of their general tendency to see it as a bit low class and cringe.
This is why Starmer's attempts to seize patriotism rang a bit hollow; his supporters would be the ones to write worried op-eds about the spread of English flags in public. Before him, I don't think Sunak cared at all either way, that's why it didn't occur to him that missing the anniversary of D-Day would be an issue.
I do think we need some radical solution to fix societal decay, although it may emerge outside policy, like a technological breakthrough, or just younger generations replacing older ones and having a drastically different culture
Why would younger generations replacing new ones not accelerate the cultural decay? Older people can maintain a good status quo as well as a bad one.
Nice to see leftists divest themselves of their ideological cruft and try for new direction
Is it?
The Chomsky line is that the point of propaganda is not to tell you what to think, it's to set the limits of the debate.
"You can't do remigration but we can do other various policy wonk things like 'better vetting'" is more or less the left-wing position already. I don't think remigration is going to happen, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't actually solve it.
"You can't do X Direct Thing, you must solve the Deeper Issue" is already the default left-wing response to anything. It's the response to the European heatwave: "Far from attacking the root causes of global-warming, activists said, recourse to la clim was merely attenuating the effects of global-warming."
It's the response to crime: you can't just arrest people, we have to look at the root causes etc.
It's the go-to.
I think cruel "work camps" will also not be most efficient: refugees will do the bare minimum, and learn to hate your country, which may haunt it later even if they're deported once their home country becomes stable (which may never happen anyways).
Does it actually matter? What vengeance will a stable Syria take?
This reminds of all of the "soft power" talk: there's never really a concrete explanation of the downside. It's one thing if we're talking about people from Hong Kong or China but most refugees don't come from countries whose opinion matters that much, quite frankly.
The Arabs use a bunch of us Third Worlders as human machinery and nothing has ever come of it (speaking from direct experience: their long history as slavers counts for fucking nothing amongst Africans who watch American slavery movies*). China is fucking over the Uighurs and they were defended by Saudi Arabia. Japan takes few migrants and yet everyone loves Akira Toriyama.
The reason the West has to care what people think is because of immigration in the first place. It doesn't matter if Haitians hate the US for deporting their coethnics back home; it is precisely because a bunch of immigrants - and their allies - can vote that it's even a problem in the first place.
If it were true that it would haunt nations, America's flirtation with racist and anti-immigrant leaders like Trump would make a bunch of people go home. It's a sort of guilt round robin where the sort of people prone to guilt (left-wingers) coach the people who will guilt them into folding and then hold that up to their fellow citizens as a justification to do what they wanted to do anyway. The important thing is not the refugees, it's the citizens.
* If I hear about Bilal one more time...
Making the noises and then doing globohomo stuff seems worse than making the noises and keeping globohomo out/maintaining some semblance of Christian values.
But YMMV I'm not a Christian so maybe I don't value enough the value it places on the spirit rather than the form.
But, if you were a (Orthodox) Christian seeing your faith fade who would you rather support you? A leader like Putin or someone like Talarico that'll come up with some doctrine about how Genesis 1 means transing kids? Or a Stalin who just outright wants you gone?
Better an emperor driven purely by pragmatism than an outright heretic Buffalo Bill-ing your religion or someone hostile to the concept entirely, surely?
Tanista
3d ago
He's a Hirsi Ali Christian: i.e. Christian because it's the only thing they see that can push back against liberalism (and, in Hirsi Ali's case, Islam and the alliance it's made with the left) and provide an alternate civilizational narrative.
This is obviously very different from communists, who think they already have said narrative.
It's not a thing I've ever heard. The Canadian government uses it the exact same way as in America
Never heard anyone actually call Middle-Easterners West Asian but TIL I guess.
More options
Context Copy link