The interwebz is full of people who will tell you why you should welcome immigrants.
For example, the girl that was the editor of my high newspaper (and who apparently hasn’t aged) apparently hacked David Brooks column this week, to explain how awesome immigrants are. She’s apparently writing from before the last election, since she believes Latinos are naturally Republican.
(Now, at least, we know that when given the choice between ethnic preferences, racial benefits, and lukewarm opposition to gay marriage and abortion on one hand and no preferences, no benefits, and lukewarm support for gay marriage and abortion on the other hand, Latinos are at least not dumb enough to prefer the former. More on this topic later.)
Although her column is outdated, it raises the question of what opponents of immigration believe. Well, I’m your huckleberry. Let’s go through some arguments against immigration.
The real USG
Such “reform” will allow the policy “homeland security” agencies to select who becomes a citizen and who does not. In other words, the low-level bureaucrats at these organizations will elect the people.
What could go wrong? Might such bureaucrats abuse their power to target their political opponents?
One could strongly favor immigration and still acknowledge that this (our only way to go about it) is a terrible way to increase immigration.
Ethnic conflict and good government
To quote myself:
There may a couple examples of successful multicultural societies, but for every one or two such examples, there are hundreds of examples of multicultural chaos. There are Wikipedia pages for Ethnic Conflict and Ethnic Hatred, but there aren’t ones for ethnic harmony or wishful-thinking-douchebaggery.
Oddly, proponents of vibrant societies have nothing but disdain for these few leaders that have actually made diverse societies work. Perhaps, it’s largely because those leaders counseled against increasing diversity and had to significantly curtail “freedoms” to minimize ethnic strife.
When proponents of a particular position seek to silence, censure and punish people that hold the opposing position, one should be suspect of the proponents. When the proponents’ logic is founded on lies, one should be scared. Or, as Frost says:
But we do not live in an age of honest argument. We live in the age of post-modern discourse. Civil debate is a thing of the past, rhetoric is about victory more than honest inquiry, and you are advised to arm yourself accordingly. . . .
The Argumentum Ad AMOG is characterized by its ability to elevate the perceived status of the man making the argument, while diminishing the status of any man who dares object to it. The logical connection of the argumentum ad amog to the subject at hand is irrelevant. The argument is effective because it is only true if one or more status-elevating premises is correct. The man who argues ad amog sneakily makes an implicit statement about himself, in the guise of speaking about the ideas at hand.
Crimethink and success
Crimethink itself is repellent, but in this particular case, it’s also incompatible with success at increasing immigration.
One sure way to prevent a diverse society from functioning is to prevent people from talking about cultural differences. Opponents of immigration subscribe to some very extreme religious beliefs (most notably, absolute human neurological uniformity) and they shut down all opposition to such beliefs.
In this case, the lie is the proposition of human neurological uniformity (HNU). It’s not just that HNU is rebutted by a considerable weight of evidence – that’s relatively unimportant. It’s that it is supported by no evidence at all. Yet your government requires you to believe it. Quite effectively, as we see. . . .
But as an act of mandatory faith, HNU is no less subject to Chesterton’s observation: when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They believe in anything. The task of understanding the world we live in, without the assumption of HNU, is gargantuan. It is not just a matter of putting a Confederate flag on your pickup truck. It requires both tremendous mental energy, and tremendous analytic judgment. It is too vast for any individual; too dangerous for any organization.
Given the history of eugenics, it’s quite reasonable to be suspicious of people who are willing to aggressively work to “improve the genetic stock” or whatever of the population. However, it does not follow that dysgenics is morally good. Yeah, the immigration we’re talking about is dysgenic.
You may be able to get him fired from his job, but do we really want a population with a lower average IQ? If so, why (please use examples)?
It wasn’t that long ago, that the best progressives knew this.
(As an aside, it’s always interesting to see mainstream conservative organizations sodomize themselves in hopes of currying favor with progressives. It’s now racist to eat tacos. It’s time to revel in the accusation, not cower.)
The Dire problem
There’s growing consensus that long-term unemployment, zero-marginal product workers or the dire problem (and here) is one of our biggest problems. In sum, we have a lot citizens that don’t seem to be able to produce more than they consume.
It’s not exactly crazy to suggest that we figure this one out before we make it worse.