Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

Thanks Bill.

I had no need to lay "...out the steps of rational decision-making they undertook."

As to cults, I am extremely familiar with them. One of my best clients and friends now lectures on cults. She and her husband were basically one (1) or two (2) levels down from the Reverend Sun Young Moon.

As to the common linkage statement, all of the cited examples of folks who were "suspicious" BIG pharma and BIG business, not BIG BLOATED INCOMPETENT PUBLIC EDUCATION.

And the hilarity is that all of the above three (3) are all welded to the common denominator, big government.

Sometimes Williiam, it seems like you invest a lot of energy in trying not to understand a person.

At any rate, the George Carlin "connection" is from his skit about why he grew up so strong. For example, we picked our chewing gum back off the sidewalk and chewed it again.

Germs! Bah.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have a child of mine vaccinated against measles and tetanus. I haven't read enough to broaden the statement beyond polio. I have no child. I did see a baby with tetanus in Vietnam at our outpost along the Cambodian border in 1966 the night before he died. In my medical training I was shown a video of a child in a crib with rabies. It was horrific for you knew he was soon going to die--had already died in fact, years before. The treatment for a rabid bite was injections of some kind of vaccine. When I was at Ft. Gordon army hospital I was instructed to inject a kid about five with this stuff. He was crying and fighting and I couldn't talk to him to calm him down because his mother was there and he was playing to her. I think someone else took over, but that memory is vague. My primary concern is too many vaccines too young. I think children are supposed to build up their immune systems by getting sick. But sick with what? Not deadly diseases. I still remember that graveyard in Minnesota where we buried my step-mother's ashes in 1975. One family lost about six children in the 1870s. Maybe one every two years. Stone after stone all in a row.

--Brant

my step-grandmother survived tetanus as an adult in the 1920s--surprised her doctor who fully expected her to die

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This may have appeared elsewhere here, already, but I haven't come across it ...

Ebola vaccine from Canada seems to work in trial in Guinea: WHO
Experimental vaccine from National Microbiology Laboratory '1st ray of hope': Doctors Without Borders

The experimental Ebola vaccine designed by Canadian scientists seems to work, the interim results of a trial in Guinea suggest.

If proven effective, the vaccine could be "a game changer," said Dr. Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization, which sponsored the trial.

The interim findings were published online Friday in the medical journal The Lancet.

The findings so far are persuasive, Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, a senior author of the trial, told reporters from Geneva.

"The data so far shows that none of the 2,014 persons vaccinated developed Ebola virus disease after 10 days after vaccination," said Kieny, who oversees research and development related to Ebola at WHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry posted a strange essay on his blog. He thinks its ok for ARIans to disagree with open immigration because, as things now stand, it could make things worse (Muslim immigration, poor people going on welfare, voting for leftist politicians and entrenching the multicultrual PC socierty) It's curious because I don't know of any ARIans who seem to be concerned about this things, other than an occasional rumbling about Islamic immigration.

-Neil

*****************

Why do Objectivists disagree on immigration? Well, they really don’t. I think we all agree (certainly Leonard Peikoff does) that in a laissez-faire world, there’d be open immigration. The disagreements arise because we are light-years away from that world
.
And it’s not just that we have wrong political conditions. It’s that we know that, within the foreseeable future, we won’t enact the right solutions to the problems created by the statism.

In the case of immigration, the right solution is essentially fourfold:

1. Militarily crush Iran and its ally-states, in an all-out campaign (it would be too short to call it a war). That, coupled with a proper foreign policy, would end the rise of Islam and worry about Muslim immigration.

2. Make immigrants sign away their right–for their whole lives–to any government loot. That would end the worry about poorer immigrants coming to get welfare.

3. Make it impossible for immigrants to get the vote–for their whole lives. That would end the worry about immigrants from statist cultures voting in more statists.

4. Replace multicultural BS with the proud, morally confident assertion of America’s moral superiority over the statist and theocratic societies from which the immigrants are coming. We are right and they are wrong–politically, philosophically, and in other ways. Standing up for our values would end the worry about immigrants diluting (the fast-fading remnants of) American individualism.

But not one of these things is going to happen in the foreseeable future. So what are we to do in regard to immigration?

Look at what this means: given that our government is not going to do the right things, what should it do? But there’s no way to answer that question. If it’s not going to do the right thing, then, by definition, whatever it does will be the wrong thing. Can we pick the best, or least bad, among the wrong things? Yes, to a certain extent, but not in a principled way.

It is a contradiction in terms to ask: “On what principle should we act if we are not going to act on the principle by which we should act?”

But philosophy deals in principles.That’s why there are continuing arguments about immigration among those who accept the Objectivist philosophy. Deprived of the guidance of principles, the issue then becomes one of concrete facts. Do immigrants, in the aggregate, take more out of the economy than they contribute? Some of us think “yes,” others think “no.” Will the immigrants assimilate and become Americans in spirit as well as in legal status, given our multiculturalist intellectual establishment? It’s a factual question, on which views differ. If immigrants are going to be given citizenship, will they vote leftist or could a better Republican strategy (and other ideological work by us) prevent this? Is there a really dangerous threat to our safety from massive Muslim immigration, or is this a very minor issue compared to what’s going to happen to us from Islamic regimes abroad, with or without that immigration?

People can certainly differ on these factual issues, and raw, statistical (!) facts are all we have left when we can’t appeal to principles, because the principled path is not “politically realistic.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who signs away a right hasn't signed away the right to take it back. It's an infinite regression.

The way to deal with second-hand HB is not to. Since you go to his blog give him the feedback too. I wonder how he'd deal with that, as if I cared.

Giving war a semantical twist doesn't make the conflict any less a war. HB is at his best when he doesn't know what he is talking about and at his worst when he does.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another factor is what no one wants to talk about: race. It’s perfectly natural to prefer your own race, as natural as sex. It’s Anthropology 101. You live in the whitest neighborhood you can afford.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

This is categorically not the Objectivist stance. Men are evaluated on the basis of character and individual attributes, not race. And it is case by case by the person. Even family members are to be judged accordingly.

Racism is a primitive impulse, about as "natural" as clubbing someone over the head. Extending your logic, since racial exclusion is "natural" should we also then re-segregate the military and create different units for every race of servicemen in the armed forces? At how many "races" would we stop at 10? 100? One for Malaysians, Chinese, Italians, African Americans and so on? Nonsense.

Racism not only divides a country (unnecessarily and inefficiently), it corrupts justice and creates an environment of distrust and hate. It is literally diametrically opposed to peace and trade.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racism is a sub-category of tribalism and its nastiest.

Racism is tolerated in prisons or all the guards would quit. The three main groupings are blacks, Hispanics and anglos. They tend to stay apart but do have protocols for limited interactions.

If you go to prison you better become a racist too. Be part of the meat grinder; don't be the meat.

Germany went tribalistic-racist in the 1930s against the Jews. Germany was a prison. I doubt the Jews had even one machine gun. The Germans had an army and the Gestapo and used the Jews dehumanization to lubricate them to massive destruction.

The communists went after the capitalists and bourgeoisie.

There was moral justification for going to Korea and Vietnam to kill communists therefore, but not enough, especially when we were told it was for democracy so the Vietnamese could vote themselves into communism if they wanted to. I came home and stayed home. Cambodia got genocide--maybe three million. Vietnam got lucky qua genocide. The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and kicked Pal Pot's ass. Genocidal ideology and the left are joined at the hip. In this schematic configuration everything not human freedom is of the left even if the Nazis are to the right of the communists and the Vietnamese communists were to the right of the Cambodian and Chinese communists and French intellectuals of the communist sort.

--Brant

ISIS was running an execution site with headless bodies about--a father and his son were pulled from the crowd; they were next: as the knife came up a British sniper 1000 yards away shot the executioner through the head and then killed his two companions who didn't flee fast enough with fellow ISISers and the villagers cheered--Damn! I wish I could be a British sniper!--let me after I die come back as one; that'd be better than coming back as a Michael Jordan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is categorically not the Objectivist stance. Men are evaluated on the basis of character and individual attributes, not race. And it is case by case by the person. Even family members are to be judged accordingly.

Racism is a primitive impulse, about as "natural" as clubbing someone over the head. Extending your logic, since racial exclusion is "natural" should we also then re-segregate the military and create different units for every race of servicemen in the armed forces? At how many "races" would we stop at 10? 100? One for Malaysians, Chinese, Italians, African Americans and so on? Nonsense.

Racism not only divides a country (unnecessarily and inefficiently), it corrupts justice and creates an environment of distrust and hate. It is literally diametrically opposed to peace and trade.

Nicely said. At base we are all the same (man's metaphysical nature, my "mantra"- heh) notwithstanding vagaries of birth, race, nationality, culture, and the rest, including IQ. None of those defines the individual, they simply explain his personal origin, one that wasn't his making, though not one thing there to reject, either. Collectivist fallacies are determinist by nature: your origins are what make you. Many times too, collectivists are non-conceptual and can't observe the hierarchy from the level of man's "same-ness", all the way to "individual".

Your "primitive impulse" shows itself two ways, most commonly when someone views others tribally and collectively - but also in reverse, when someone asserts his desire to be identified and treated according to his/her 'collective'. In practice they go together in a person, of course. For one, past victims of racism can become racist themselves as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another factor is what no one wants to talk about: race. It’s perfectly natural to prefer your own race, as natural as sex. It’s Anthropology 101. You live in the whitest neighborhood you can afford.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

[Marcus]

This is categorically not the Objectivist stance. Men are evaluated on the basis of character and individual attributes, not race. And it is case by case by the person. Even family members are to be judged accordingly.

Racism is a primitive impulse, about as "natural" as clubbing someone over the head. Extending your logic, since racial exclusion is "natural" should we also then re-segregate the military and create different units for every race of servicemen in the armed forces? At how many "races" would we stop at 10? 100? One for Malaysians, Chinese, Italians, African Americans and so on? Nonsense.

Racism not only divides a country (unnecessarily and inefficiently), it corrupts justice and creates an environment of distrust and hate. It is literally diametrically opposed to peace and trade.

Well, Mark can speak for himself but I'm not sure what exactly the Objectivist position is on this. Rand didn't exactly seek out a "multicultural" environment. And note that Mark said only that people prefer to be with their own race, which is probably true. That's not the same thing as saying the military should be re-segregated, etc.

Rand said rather critical things at times about Native Americans and Arabs (as groups) for example.

In the context of immigration (which Rand, to the best of my knowledge, didn't write anything about) it's hard to imagine that she would take the "open immigration" position of people like Brook and Binswanger who believe that (in an ideal world at least) there would be unlimited Islamic immigration even if it turned Europe and Israel Muslim.

There have been studies showing that the more diverse a country becomes, the last charitable and civic minded its citizens are.

Here is a letter on VDARE today.

From: Ryan Kennedy [Email him]

I was listening to the radio and they did a story about the migrant camp in Calais, a staging area for the 21st century invasion of Britain.

The report describes how different nationalities have established their own distinct areas within the camp. Eritreans have made “Little Asmara” Somalis “Little Mogadishu” etc.

I found this ironic. Here are these immigrants who are radically different in every way from the places they want to invade and thereby taint with their alien ways. Yet in their own ad hoc camps, they spontaneously set up boundaries. Of course, this is human nature. People naturally associate to those like themselves for a variety of reasons.

At the most basic level, they speak the same language and so can readily communicate. But there are many other reasons as well. People share the same norms and mores so people know how to navigate society without difficulties.

People in such groups form support networks where they help each other. These reasons are magnified in this ad hoc camp where different nationalities abrade each other–the law of the jungle is apt to prevail within such disorder.

The irony is here is that the nation-state itself is under assault by these various groups of people. Their mere presence undermines the social cohesion it took centuries to form. And their spontaneous nationalism demonstrates the value of the nation-state that immigration enthusiasts are eager to undermine and even obliterate.

-NP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Great Britain, a country makes itself vulnerable to imported cultures by elevating "multiculturalism" above individual rights and individualism. It's another aspect of Progressivism, to my mind. One can't be surprised when cultural collectivists are drawn to collectivism-Statism.

For the desperate "migrants" who are mostly de facto refugees escaping wars, I feel very sorry. I haven't a clue what can be, or should be done for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And note that Mark said only that people prefer to be with their own race, which is probably true. That's not the same thing as saying the military should be re-segregated, etc.

It's true because it's a primitive impulse (dating back to hunter gatherer/cave times). Sexual desire and aggression is also kind of a male impulse, that does not make rape moral or acceptable. You are confusing what "is" with what "should". A similar error Niccolo Machiavelli made.

And re-segregating the military is the logical conclusion of such a view. If it is proven that we "prefer" members of our own race (however you define or look at it), why not accommodate that in the armed forces? Why "force" blacks to serve with whites, cambodians, indians etc? Why not apply it to the rest of society while were at it? Segregate the grocery stores, gyms, schools etc,. It's our preference right?

Rand said rather critical things at times about Native Americans and Arabs (as groups) for example.

You can distinguish groups that share similar values and beliefs and hence, criticize them. That does not mean she hated them but did want to make a point.

There have been studies showing that the more diverse a country becomes, the last charitable and civic minded its citizens are.

They are more charitable because they are more tribal as long as everyone looks like them. But charity and altruism are not the standard of the good in Objectivism.

Here is a letter on VDARE today.

Sorry but I can't take "VDARE.com" seriously. They have an obvious agenda. You may as well quote stormfront or david duke.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a lot of racism in the integrated army when I was in it 50 years ago. Today it's sexism and female soldiers getting raped. Female soldiers were more off to themselves (WACS) 50 years ago and more isolated and protected thereby. They were looked down upon by the male side. One reason, they weren't subject to the draft therefore didn't have to be in uniform so why were they? Generally, overall, members of the military were second class citizens before Vietnam. Then the college students started calling us "baby killers." At least the WACS were left out of that (if they were out of uniform). Today, everybody starts out a hero to the civilians--most of the civilians.

--Brant

the big one's coming--the one with Iran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been studies showing that the more diverse a country becomes, the last charitable and civic minded its citizens are.

They are more charitable because they are more tribal as long as everyone looks like them. But charity and altruism are not the standard of the good in Objectivism.

Here is a letter on VDARE today.

Sorry but I can't take "VDARE.com" seriously. They have an obvious agenda. You may as well quote stormfront or david duke.

No studies to the contrary? Also, some might believe government-run charity is "charitable".

Ditto for VDARE.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a letter on VDARE today.

Sorry but I can't take "VDARE.com" seriously. They have an obvious agenda. You may as well quote stormfront or david duke.

No studies to the contrary? Also, some might believe government-run charity is "charitable".

Ditto for VDARE.com.

Yeah. Please, Neil, no more recourse to Vdare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus makes a package deal out of (1) a moral character judgement and (2) a preference. He also denies the utility of statistics, but set that aside for the moment and consider only his confounding of (1) and (2).


If preference for one race over another were evil, then a white man’s preference for marrying a white woman would make him evil.


Merely having a preference doesn’t mean you think the non-preferred is immoral, stupid, or any other objectively negative thing. It’s just your personal preference. You have a natural right (since 1964 violated by federal law) to discriminate and associate as you please. The reason you have that right is that exercising it can be good for you. Many Objectivists have lost sight of this simple truth.


We can evaluate men on the basis of their individual character and other attributes and still prefer not to deal with them in various situations because we don’t like their looks or whatever. Does refusing to deal with someone initiate force against them? Only a leftist would say it does.


About the utility of statistics: sometimes it’s reasonable to consider averages or groups instead of individuals. A cab driver avoids – at any rate wants to avoid – fares going to or coming from high crime neighborhoods. Speaking of mass immigration from the Third World, consider any positive attribute such as health, appreciation of capitalism (not just the wealth it provides), intelligence, etc. If the average of that attribute among Guatemalans is inferior to its average among Americans, and America lets in millions of Guatemalans, the American average drops. It’s simple arithmatic and common sense.


Take the attribute of intelligence. If Binswanger thinks we can let in millions of people with an average IQ of 80 (or whatever) without it changing the character of America – whether they are allowed to vote or not – he’s an idiot. The fact is Binswanger is not an idiot, he just doesn’t give a damn about America.


One consideration is not statistical but certain. There are different standards of human physical beauty. (Look up “beauty” in Binswanger’s Lexicon.) Do you want to be surrounded by Vietnamese every time you leave your house, no matter how filtered they are for intelligence, freedom from disease, etc.?


The idea of racism needs to be split in two: (1) the Racism – I’ll distinguish it by capitalization – where the moral character of one individual is judged, with certainty, by his race, and (2) the racism of preference.


I said that racism is natural and that anthropologists know this. Marcus replies that “Racism is a primitive impulse ...”. The word ‘primitive’ is ‘natural’ with a negative spin. After rejecting the spin Marcus and I agree.


Rand spun ‘natural’ into ‘atavistic’ and I would say the same to her. She wrote very confusedly on the subject of race. If she intended to compare racism, lowercase, to preferring one’s family I would say: Precisely! People tend to love their children more than random characters off the street. More often than not they cut their mothers some slack too.


Now I don’t think Ayn Rand meant to trash that kind of racism. She was speaking of character judgement, not a tendency towards preference. However she did fail to make herself clear by explicitly distinguishing between the two kinds of racism. If she did mean to include preference in her denunciation then Ayn Rand was wrong.


It’s not racism that is “divisive” – a leftist jargon word Marcus plucked out of the current intellectual miasma – it’s that the races naturally divide. To repeat, whites live in the whitest neighborhood they can afford. If blacks move in, before they get to 5% whites want out.


In colonial times all the angst about race was unnecessary. It is unnecessary in a country where whites don’t feel guilty about being over 90% of the population and on average better off than the rest simply because they are on average better in a number of positive attributes. This was the case in America as recently as the 1960s, before cultural leftist ideology took over and before the Hart-Celler Immigration Act brought 90% down to 70% and counting.


Marcus, you claim that racism corrupts justice. Tell that to the Rodney King jury not me. You claim racism is an enemy of peace? Even as I write this – I was about to describe the latest stomach-turning atrocity in the city I happen to be visiting, but what’s the point speaking to the deaf. God damn your “peace”.


Stranger violent crime – violent crime committed by someone the victim doesn’t know, the kind of crime you worry about – is almost always committed by minorities. If a white is the victim, the perpetrator is almost always non-white. Frequently, as in “the knockout game,” the perpetrators are Racist in the bad sense of the word. Talk about “clubbing someone over the head”! Yet Binswanger and his fellow brain-dead official Objectivists would solve the problem by opening the borders completely, allowing in yet more La Raza.


How much can their followers ignore and evade in the name of Objectivism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If preference for one race over another were evil, then a white man’s preference for marrying a white woman would make him evil.
Merely having a preference doesn’t mean you think the non-preferred is immoral, stupid, or any other objectively negative thing. It’s just your personal preference. You have a natural right (since 1964 violated by federal law) to discriminate and associate as you please. The reason you have that right is that exercising it can be good for you. Many Objectivists have lost sight of this simple truth.
We can evaluate men on the basis of their individual character and other attributes and still prefer not to deal with them in various situations because we don’t like their looks or whatever. Does refusing to deal with someone initiate force against them? Only a leftist would say it does.
.

Mark, I find this a little confusing. There is no doubt we have preferences, and that it's right to have them. Nobody doubts that the right to freedom of association is inarguable. The reason that one has that right, however, is not that "exercising it can be good for you".

Individual rights are a system which is moral, but it is not a system of morality - the critical distinction. The morality (immorality) of 'judging a book by its cover', i.e. collectivism-racism, is first and foremost, self-defeating - because it's illogical and irrational. After which - it's also a severe injustice to the individual, people, or "book" concerned. This morality, Objectively-speaking, is a self-centered one, as you know.

One should deal with those whom one finds value in - by preference; avoiding the friendship of a person who has an admirable character and virtues because he's of some other race would be subjective and lack of integrity (not "initiation of force").

Whom one marries is a whole different thing. "Preference" here, as you point out, will be strongly weighted to the version of looks and beauty one was early drawn to. Culture and language, too. Not that any are necessarily deal-breakers, therefore some 'mixed' marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of freedom of association and strangers is how to pick the ones least likely to kill you. It takes many years to know a person, neighbor is actually a pretty intimate relationship, lots of guessing going on. Neighbor times ten? Neighbor times hundred? Lots of guessing going on in a neighborhood, even a small one, even if most if not all are from the same culture.

I moved to Oakland some years ago (from a suburb 20 miles out) to follow a job. I moved back to the other side of the hill after having enough of my car and home being broken into. I am not a racist, simply trying to lower the attrition rate of my stuff. I rented in Concord for a few years. The old guy across the street never talked to me, always looked mad. One day I spent several hours weeding my front lawn (in a rental!). He came across the street and chatted for a half hour. I did something he appreciated and could relate to. His yard was immaculate. I know, nothing to do with objectivist philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus makes a package deal out of (1) a moral character judgement and (2) a preference. He also denies the utility of statistics, but set that aside for the moment and consider only his confounding of (1) and (2).
If preference for one race over another were evil, then a white man’s preference for marrying a white woman would make him evil.

What *causes* a "preference"? Or in your case, are primitive impulses like racism to be taken simply as a irreducible primary? Something like: My feelings made me do it, therefore, it is right and good.

Merely having a preference doesn’t mean you think the non-preferred is immoral, stupid, or any other objectively negative thing. It’s just your personal preference. You have a natural right (since 1964 violated by federal law) to discriminate and associate as you please. The reason you have that right is that exercising it can be good for you. Many Objectivists have lost sight of this simple truth.
We can evaluate men on the basis of their individual character and other attributes and still prefer not to deal with them in various situations because we don’t like their looks or whatever. Does refusing to deal with someone initiate force against them? Only a leftist would say it does.

You have lost sight of simple logic. You don't seem to get that "preferences" derive from prior conclusions about certain "races" of people. Your talk of the "statistical averages of races" only re-enforces my point.

Would you really deny someone their just due just because you don't "like" the way they look? Really? This is not a question of "force" this is a question of stupidity.

In colonial times all the angst about race was unnecessary. It is unnecessary in a country where whites don’t feel guilty about being over 90% of the population and on average better off than the rest simply because they are on average better in a number of positive attributes. This was the case in America as recently as the 1960s, before cultural leftist ideology took over and before the Hart-Celler Immigration Act brought 90% down to 70% and counting.

First why should they feel guilty about simply existing? And furthermore so what if whites are "only" 70% of the population? Your reasoning is just bizarre. It's bizarre because it's not reasoning at all, it's coming from a basic collectivist premise.

Marcus, you claim that racism corrupts justice. Tell that to the Rodney King jury not me. You claim racism is an enemy of peace? Even as I write this – I was about to describe the latest stomach-turning atrocity in the city I happen to be visiting, but what’s the point speaking to the deaf. God damn your “peace”.

Violent crime happens all over the world in every society, everywhere. It's a fact of life Why amplify this "atrocity" over the others just because a person of a certain race is perpetrating it? In fact, in quite a few "minority" (as you call them) societies, the rate of violent crime is almost negligible. Read up on it.

http://www.peacefulsocieties.org

Would you "damn" these peaceful societies just because they don't look like you?

Stranger violent crime – violent crime committed by someone the victim doesn’t know, the kind of crime you worry about – is almost always committed by minorities. If a white is the victim, the perpetrator is almost always non-white. Frequently, as in “the knockout game,” the perpetrators are Racist in the bad sense of the word. Talk about “clubbing someone over the head”! Yet Binswanger and his fellow brain-dead official Objectivists would solve the problem by opening the borders completely, allowing in yet more La Raza.

Wrong. There were over 6 million recorded criminal offenses by whites in 2011. How's that for utility of statistics.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

About the utility of statistics: sometimes it’s reasonable to consider averages or groups instead of individuals. A cab driver avoids – at any rate wants to avoid – fares going to or coming from high crime neighborhoods. Speaking of mass immigration from the Third World, consider any positive attribute such as health, appreciation of capitalism (not just the wealth it provides), intelligence, etc. If the average of that attribute among Guatemalans is inferior to its average among Americans, and America lets in millions of Guatemalans, the American average drops. It’s simple arithmatic and common sense.

Again the collectivist premise. This time you're using statistics to make your tribal arguments. Guatemalans moving to America do not "take" anything away from anyone in a fully free society. While I disagree with Binswanger (for difference reasons, one being overpopulation), I think immigration should be mostly free, if controlled for certain elements like criminals, terror suspects etc. Maybe institute a yearly quota of 1 million people.

How much can you ignore and evade in the name of tribalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now