NN Taleb address the problem of migration:
What intellectuals don't get about MIGRATION is the ethical notion of
SYMMETRY: OPEN BORDERS work if and only if the number of pple who want to go
from EU/US to Africa/LatinAmer equals Africans/Latin Amer who want to move to
EU/US. Silver Rule in #SkinInTheGame Gabish?
Controlled immigration is based on the symmetry that someone brings in at least as much as he/she gets out. And the ethics of the immigrant is to defend the system as payback, not mess it up. Uncontrolled immigration has all the attributes of invasions.
As a Christian Lebanese, saw the nightmare of uncontrolled immigration of Palestinians which caused the the civil war. & as a part-time resident of N. Lebanon, I am seeing the effect of Syrian migration on the place. So I despise these virtue-signaling open-borders imbeciles.
Controlled immigration is based on the symmetry that someone brings in at least as much as he/she gets out. And the ethics of the immigrant is to defend the system as payback, not mess it up. Uncontrolled immigration has all the attributes of invasions.
As a Christian Lebanese, saw the nightmare of uncontrolled immigration of Palestinians which caused the the civil war. & as a part-time resident of N. Lebanon, I am seeing the effect of Syrian migration on the place. So I despise these virtue-signaling open-borders imbeciles.
Pat Buchanan observes that the Fourth Wave
immigrants are pushing the Second and Third Wave immigrants out of power in the
Democratic party.
Just as Crowley’s congressional district had changed, so, too, has his
party in Congress. Columnist Dana Milbank, who sees it as progress, writes, “A
majority of House Democrats are … women, people of color or gay.” These rising
forces in the Democratic coalition are looking to bury the Democratic Party of
yesterday, where white males and older ethnic groups — Irish, Italians, Poles
and Jews — were dominant.
Ask yourself this: why were those older ethnic groups
dominant in the Democratic Party in the first place? Why, it's almost as if
they were practicing... identity politics? Of course, John Locke described the
entire process as well as the debate that surrounds it, right down to the ex
post facto rationalizations, back in 1690, in his Second Treatise
on Civil Government:
No damage, that men in the state of nature suffer from one another, can
give a conqueror power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished, and turn
them out of that inheritance, which ought to be the possession of them and
their descendants to all generations. The conqueror indeed will be apt to think
himself master: and it is the very condition of the subdued not to be able to
dispute their right.
