I’ve called for immigration restrictionists to stop being selective socialists and be more honest about what is motivating them. At least one has taken my advice, as can be seen in this clip recently posted by Jonathan Keeperman that now has three million views.
Keeperman complains about those who say
You are a moral reprobate for preferring homogeneity. That makes you a bad person. That is pathological for you to express those preferences. And moreover, it’s pathological and bad for you to pursue your political preferences or political policies to advance your preference for homogeneity.
Conservatives, in his view, used to accept pro-immigration arguments because the restaurants were good and their neighbors were nice people, but now they’ve come to the conclusion that “maybe actually my desire to preserve homogeneity is just fine.” Restrictionists have no need to explain their preferences to the Cato Institute beyond “I just prefer this actually.”
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers of the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.
This post is sponsored by Mechanize. AI alignment is perhaps the most important issue of our time, and if you’re interested in being part of that effort, Mechanize is hiring software engineers at a base salary of $300K-$400K/year, plus substantial bonuses. They also have openings for other positions, including Recruiter ($200K). Here is their website, and you can apply here. If you apply, make sure to use the links provided here so I can receive credit, and name me as a reference in the process.
As someone who grew up in an immigrant community and married into one, I think from a policy perspective there needs to be some boring limiting principles. I.e, maybe total % of population born outside the US, plus some sort of metrics around low vs high skilled immigrants.
Nativists have never been able to articulate a philosophical principle around nativism because there really isn’t one. In that way, the turn to “preferences” is refreshingly honest. That said, I think MOST people would agree that bringing in 1 billion non-Americans right now would be bad, regardless of their composition (as a hypothetical). With that context, the non US-born population is at all time highs, surpassing its late 19th-century record. There’s a reason why opposition to immigrants was an animating issue during times of high immigration and not, for instance, in the 1950s.
Articulating some sort of limiting principles in a way that appeals to both the restrictionists and the progressives (for whom this issue is not a priority) will be critical for achieving reform. Otherwise it will remain a hobby horse for the worst sorts of demagogues. Denmark has made meaningful progress here, and other western countries should take note.
“I don’t care if you personally like such individuals or want them as neighbors. But to want fewer of them in the country reflects a diseased mindset.” — Hear, hear!