The US adopts a Canadian-style merit-based immigration policy ever since 1965

[WolfBear]

What if the US adopts a Canadian-style merit-based immigration policy ever since 1965? AFAIK, it was seriously considered back in 1965 but was changed to focus more on family reunification in a successful attempt to get more restrictionist support for US immigration reform:

The politician no one ever heard of who ended Irish immigration to the US

How Johnson hounded Irish American politician Michael Feighan of Cleveland into changing the face of European immigration to the US. Michael Feighan changed American immigration forever and all but ended Irish immigration to the United States.

www.irishcentral.com

What if the US would have instead decided to go merit-based from the very beginning? What would the consequences of this have been?

For what it's worth, I would presume that there would still be a serious problem with illegal immigration due to the end of the bracero program, economic and other (gangs, et cetera) problems in Latin America, and even less pathways for lower-skilled workers to permanently settle in the US in this scenario. I also wonder if there would still be any attempts to eventually create something resembling the Diversity Visa Lottery in the US in this TL.

Anyway, any thoughts on all of this? Would immigration to the US have been more popular in such a scenario? Because in real life, immigration to the US has steadily gained in popularity over the last couple of decades:

Immigration

In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? On the whole, do you think immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?

news.gallup.com

 

[Skallagrim]

A merit-based system is always an improvement. It selects for value. That is: it's a mechanism intended to restrict access purely to those who have something to offer. Anyone who's not an imbecile can tell you why that inherently makes sense. Certain types of social activists (who are typically imbeciles) either don't understand, or think that "helping the weakest" is more important than "getting the best". (In other words: they advocate for a slow national suicide.)

You want the best. You want to be selective. You want access to be a privilege that has to be earned.

Naturally, a lot depends on the criteria. I'd advocate being as selective as you reasonably can be. Never make it a lottery, and never reward bad behaviour.

The result of this is more social cohesion. You never get "woke" bullshit, because being a citizen is constantly reinforced as a point of distinct pride. Immigrants are automatically the hard workers, the capable people, the well-motivated. They integrate easily. They're also distinctly middle-class. Low-skill immigrants simply aren't very welcome if you do it right. The result is that the domestic working class feels (and is) less screwed over. This aids national stability.

This is something some people just don't get. All mass migrations, no matter how you try to guide or organise them, are inherently destabilising factors for a society. Ideally, they must be avoided. If they're not, you either ruin your country, or change it irrevocably.

As such, a merit-based system helps to craft a scenario where the country that implements it -- in this case, the USA -- retains greater social cohesion, and undergoes less social change. The earlier it is implemented, and/or the stricter it is, the stronger its effects will be.

This is one of the main instruments by which you could preserve the "Old Republic". (The other two big ones are: economic protectionism and military non-interventionism.)

 

[WolfBear]

A merit-based system is always an improvement. It selects for value. That is: it's a mechanism intended to restrict access purely to those who have something to offer. Anyone who's not an imbecile can tell you why that inherently makes sense. Certain types of social activists (who are typically imbeciles) either don't understand, or think that "helping the weakest" is more important than "getting the best". (In other words: they advocate for a slow national suicide.)

You want the best. You want to be selective. You want access to be a privilege that has to be earned.

Naturally, a lot depends on the criteria. I'd advocate being as selective as you reasonably can be. Never make it a lottery, and never reward bad behaviour.

The result of this is more social cohesion. You never get "woke" bullshit, because being a citizen is constantly reinforced as a point of distinct pride. Immigrants are automatically the hard workers, the capable people, the well-motivated. They integrate easily. They're also distinctly middle-class. Low-skill immigrants simply aren't very welcome if you do it right. The result is that the domestic working class feels (and is) less screwed over. This aids national stability.

This is something some people just don't get. All mass migrations, no matter how you try to guide or organise them, are inherently destabilising factors for a society. Ideally, they must be avoided. If they're not, you either ruin your country, or change it irrevocably.

As such, a merit-based system helps to craft a scenario where the country that implements it -- in this case, the USA -- retains greater social cohesion, and undergoes less social change. The earlier it is implemented, and/or the stricter it is, the stronger its effects will be.

This is one of the main instruments by which you could preserve the "Old Republic". (The other two big ones are: economic protectionism and military non-interventionism.)

What do you mean by the "Old Republic"? Also, I'm not sure that this would mean an end to Woke bullshit since Asians and Jews in the US still vote for the left/Democrats and since blank slatism in the US was already highly popular even in the 1960s.

 

[Skallagrim]

What do you mean by the "Old Republic"? Also, I'm not sure that this would mean an end to Woke bullshit since Asians and Jews in the US still vote for the left/Democrats and since blank slatism in the US was already highly popular even in the 1960s.

By "the Old Republic" I mean what the Bourbon Democrats, the Old Right, Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul et al. have attempted to preserve (in vain). The USA as a Republic in the classical sense, which minds its own business and doesn't become hopelessly embroiled in the affairs of other nations. It is a country that retains its identity through some degree of isolation, and which is inherently concerned with its own business.


Wokeness, just to be clear, is merely an exponent of social disintegration. A sort of "new tribalism" that emeges when it turns out the centre cannot hold. This doesn't mean that "merely" choosing a dramatically different immigration policy would solve all issues in that direction. But "woke" as a movement would not arise in the context of greater social cohesion. (I'd stress that while "woke" is always "left", the "left" doesn't automatically have to become "woke".)

 

[WolfBear]

By "the Old Republic" I mean what the Bourbon Democrats, the Old Right, Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul et al. have attempted to preserve (in vain). The USA as a Republic in the classical sense, which minds its own business and doesn't become hopelessly embroiled in the affairs of other nations. It is a country that retains its identity through some degree of isolation, and which is inherently concerned with its own business.


Wokeness, just to be clear, is merely an exponent of social disintegration. A sort of "new tribalism" that emeges when it turns out the centre cannot hold. This doesn't mean that "merely" choosing a dramatically different immigration policy would solve all issues in that direction. But "woke" as a movement would not arise in the context of greater social cohesion. (I'd stress that while "woke" is always "left", the "left" doesn't automatically have to become "woke".)

Does Canada have greater social cohesion?

Also, FWIW, here is why I myself don't particularly oppose the Diversity Visa Lottery:

The Diversity Visa Program Holds Lessons for Future Legal Immigration Reform

On paper, the Diversity Visa Program is not set up to bring in the highly skilled; applicants need only a high school diploma (or equivalent) or two years of mid-level work experience. Yet as this commentary explains, the green-card lottery has become a channel for entry of the highly...

www.migrationpolicy.org

But I would be willing to approve a compromise where the requirements for this lottery are tightened. Right now, high school dropouts are excluded from this lottery unless they have specific work experience, but the requirements could be made higher. The best argument that I've heard in favor of the Diversity Visa Lottery is that it allows for the creation of national and ethnic lobbies in the US, who could in turn help push the US to adopt particular policies towards their home countries. Similar to how, say, the Czechoslovak or Polish diasporas here in the US pushed the US to embrace independence for Czechoslovakia and Poland in the aftermath of World War I a century ago.

 

[WolfBear]

Also, @Skallagrim, to clarify: By "Woke", I mean "Support cancel culture, oppose free speech (especially in regards to controversial ideas that the Left dislikes), support racial grievance politics, support blank slatism, oppose race realism, and support racial preferences and/or racial preferential treatment for non-whites in some form".

 

[Skallagrim]

Does Canada have greater social cohesion?

By certain metrics, yes. The isue here is that you'd have to compare two countries ceteris paribus. Between the USA and Canada, however, all things are not equal. The USA has become independent in a very different way, much earlier, and has historically enjoyed a far greater national identity. Conversely, the USA does contain substantial groups that do not presently uphold that national identity. This is in part because orchestrated divide-and-conquer (which has caused many blacks to feel as if they are a "separate" and "structurally oppressed" group, rather than citizens, which they are), and in part because of far too much unchecked migration (which has created a large pool of latinos who have not been -- and cannot easily be -- properly absorbed into the mainstream population and culture).

I have explained that mass migrations inherently damage social cohesion. Simply compare trust in an in-group context and in an out-group context. Then note that massive migration means (for at least two generations, and sometimes more) "adding a lot of out-group individuals". This means: mass migration also massively decreases interpersonal trust within a society. That's ruinous. It can be overcome, but for a few generations, you suffer. (Unless the migration is simply too massive. Then you get overwhelmed and overrun, and instead of the host society assimilating the migrants, the migrants assimilate the host.)

Also, FWIW, here is why I myself don't particularly oppose the Diversity Visa Lottery:

You're ignoring certain factors. A lottery is better than "just open the borders, fuck it". That's what your image proves/ Why does it prove that? Because it clearly shows that every obstacle to migration is good. Why? Because an obstacle must be overcome. Which means that even a shitty obstacle, like a lottery, at least weeds out the absolutely useless sacks of shit who can't even be bothered to sign up for the lottery.

So when we compare the lottery to open borders, I'm all for the lottery. But compared to a merit-based selection, a lottery is still shit. And that's because for those who overcome the basic obstacle (signing up), the rest of the process is random. Whereas a merit-based system also requires signing up, but then further selects for desirable qualities.

That's better than random. Therefore, a merit-based system is better than a lottery.

By "Woke", I mean "Support cancel culture, oppose free speech (especially in regards to controversial ideas that the Left dislikes), support racial grievance politics, support blank slatism, oppose race realism, and support racial preferences and/or racial preferential treatment for non-whites in some form".

That's a bunch of symptoms. I'm more interested in the causes, and then we come back to social cohesion, as I've explained above. Less (and more selective!) migration = more social cohesion = more (and more universal!) civic pride = less support for race-baiting, "woke" bullshit, and other such crap.

 

[WolfBear]

By certain metrics, yes. The isue here is that you'd have to compare two countries ceteris paribus. Between the USA and Canada, however, all things are not equal. The USA has become independent in a very different way, much earlier, and has historically enjoyed a far greater national identity. Conversely, the USA does contain substantial groups that do not presently uphold that national identity. This is in part because orchestrated divide-and-conquer (which has caused many blacks to feel as if they are a "separate" and "structurally oppressed" group, rather than citizens, which they are), and in part because of far too much unchecked migration (which has created a large pool of latinos who have not been -- and cannot easily be -- properly absorbed into the mainstream population and culture).

I have explained that mass migrations inherently damage social cohesion. Simply compare trust in an in-group context and in an out-group context. Then note that massive migration means (for at least two generations, and sometimes more) "adding a lot of out-group individuals". This means: mass migration also massively decreases interpersonal trust within a society. That's ruinous. It can be overcome, but for a few generations, you suffer. (Unless the migration is simply too massive. Then you get overwhelmed and overrun, and instead of the host society assimilating the migrants, the migrants assimilate the host.)



You're ignoring certain factors. A lottery is better than "just open the borders, fuck it". That's what your image proves/ Why does it prove that? Because it clearly shows that every obstacle to migration is good. Why? Because an obstacle must be overcome. Which means that even a shitty obstacle, like a lottery, at least weeds out the absolutely useless sacks of shit who can't even be bothered to sign up for the lottery.

So when we compare the lottery to open borders, I'm all for the lottery. But compared to a merit-based selection, a lottery is still shit. And that's because for those who overcome the basic obstacle (signing up), the rest of the process is random. Whereas a merit-based system also requires signing up, but then further selects for desirable qualities.

That's better than random. Therefore, a merit-based system is better than a lottery.



That's a bunch of symptoms. I'm more interested in the causes, and then we come back to social cohesion, as I've explained above. Less (and more selective!) migration = more social cohesion = more (and more universal!) civic pride = less support for race-baiting, "woke" bullshit, and other such crap.

Skallagrim, do you also support a large-scale voluntary eugenics policy at home? For instance, encouraging people with undesirable traits (such as the low-IQ and crime-prone) to curtail their fertility through incentives, such as much more generous welfare payments? Because I suspect that a lot of the US's racial grievance issues could be reduced if the size of the US's underclass became much smaller.

 

[Skallagrim]

Skallagrim, do you also support a large-scale voluntary eugenics policy at home? For instance, encouraging people with undesirable traits (such as the low-IQ and crime-prone) to curtail their fertility through incentives, such as much more generous welfare payments? Because I suspect that a lot of the US's racial grievance issues could be reduced if the size of the US's underclass became much smaller.

I don't trust government agents to decide what's genetically desirable. (Which is why a merit-based immigration scheme, for instance, must be based on actual success/perfomance in practical reality.)

I support the exact opposite of what you suggest, in a way. My view can be summed up with the aphorism "remove all the warning labels and let nature do the rest". I advocate the complete abolition of all governmental attempts to "help" people. I don't want to give people incentives, nature offers plenty of those. I just want to stop blunting the sharp edges of nature, so that the complete idiots end up destroying themselves.

Life is an IQ test. Government aid to idiots is akin to giving them the right answers. It doesn't make them smarter, it just yields false outcomes. Just step back, and see who succeeds if you don't interfere. That's the most efficient eugenics programme in the world. Because, in fact, it is the world.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't trust government agents to decide what's genetically desirable. (Which is why a merit-based immigration scheme, for instance, must be based on actual success/perfomance in practical reality.)

So, no IQ tests in a merit-based immigration policy in order to identify poor foreigners who are likely to have a lot of potential?

 

[WolfBear]

FWIW, Jason Richwine advocated using IQ tests in immigration policy, along with other criteria/metrics, of course:

Heritage Was Wrong | National Review

As you no doubt have already heard, on Friday the Heritage Foundation accepted the resignation of one Jason Richwine, who in 2009 had completed a Harvard dissertation in which he probed the nexus b…

www.nationalreview.com

Richwine also suggests using IQ tests in the immigration process. I was initially skeptical: We know we want immigrants with skills, immigrants with education, etc. — why not just base our policy on these factors directly, rather than using IQ as a proxy? With so many powerful groups clamoring for massive low-skill immigration, a policy favoring immigrants with high levels of skill and education will be difficult enough.

But Richwine makes a strong moral case for taking IQ into consideration rather than relying exclusively on skills and education. IQ would give the world’s poor a chance: Someone living in a Third World country may not have access to training or high-quality universities, but with an IQ test he can demonstrate his ability to become successful. This delicately balances two competing goals — the goal of bringing in immigrants who will be a net benefit to the U.S., and the goal of helping the world’s poor improve their lot in life.

Politically unlikely? Sure. But a better and more humane idea than it might initially seem. And the implications are not restricted to the U.S.; many countries already have immigration systems based on skill, and the incorporation of IQ testing would be an improvement.

 

[WolfBear]

I support the exact opposite of what you suggest, in a way. My view can be summed up with the aphorism "remove all the warning labels and let nature do the rest". I advocate the complete abolition of all governmental attempts to "help" people. I don't want to give people incentives, nature offers plenty of those. I just want to stop blunting the sharp edges of nature, so that the complete idiots end up destroying themselves.

Life is an IQ test. Government aid to idiots is akin to giving them the right answers. It doesn't make them smarter, it just yields false outcomes. Just step back, and see who succeeds if you don't interfere. That's the most efficient eugenics programme in the world. Because, in fact, it is the world.

Your view on this question is certainly interesting for a Dutch person. I mean, Western Europeans generally support generous social safety nets, no? But then again, this generosity might not extend to those groups who might be more likely to take advantage of these generous social safety nets without contributing anywhere near as much into them.

 

[Skallagrim]

Your view on this question is certainly interesting for a Dutch person. I mean, Western Europeans generally support generous social safety nets, no? But then again, this generosity might not extend to those groups who might be more likely to take advantage of these generous social safety nets without contributing anywhere near as much into them.

I'm not a typical (modern) Dutchman, although a case can be made that my views are not altogether that strange considered in the light of a historical Dutch perspective.

You might say I have something of a Golden Age mentality, although -- being Catholic -- I actually feel a great fondness for the era of the Burgundian Netherlands, which is now seen as a kind of golden age in its own right. It is not without cause that a Dutchman -- Johan Huizinga -- wrote Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen ("Autumn of the Middle Ages"): a great study of the late mediaeval world, in which he mourns the passing of that era, and dismisses the notion that the Middle Ages were "dark" and that the so-called Renaissance was some great improvement.

 

[WolfBear]

I'm not a typical (modern) Dutchman, although a case can be made that my views are not altogether that strange considered in the light of a historical Dutch perspective.

You might say I have something of a Golden Age mentality, although -- being Catholic -- I actually feel a great fondness for the era of the Burgundian Netherlands, which is now seen as a kind of golden age in its own right. It is not without cause that a Dutchman -- Johan Huizinga -- wrote Herfsttij der Middeleeuwen ("Autumn of the Middle Ages"): a great study of the late mediaeval world, in which he mourns the passing of that era, and dismisses the notion that the Middle Ages were "dark" and that the so-called Renaissance was some great improvement.

Interesting. I might want to check out "Autumn on the Middle Ages" later on. I'll have to check if there's a free English translation of it, though.

Have you ever considered immigrating to the US? I wonder whether you would fit more at home here.

 

[Skallagrim]

Interesting. I might want to check out "Autumn on the Middle Ages" later on. I'll have to check if there's a free English translation of it, though.

There are several translations. I don't have to rely on those, obviously, but I'm told the 2020 translation is superior to previous attempts. I think it's translated as Autumntide of the Middle Ages. The book describes the waning of an era; a collapse into a more violent and savage state. Although it's not made explicit, we are shown a world heading towards an apocalypse -- and indeed, we might infer that the Reformation (and the horrifying wars it sparks) is that apocalypse. Huizinga doesn't say that, but it's not an unreasonable conclusion.

In interesting aside is that in this, Huizinga is thinking a lot like Oswald Spengler. The comparison can be drawn even more tightly, since Huizinga also wrote In the Shadows of Tomorrow about the state of the world in the then-present time (the 1930s). Clear parallels can be seen between the view taken there, and the one in Spengler's Untergang des Abendlandes.

Have you ever considered immigrating to the US? I wonder whether you would fit more at home here.

I'm rather attached to my home and native land, although not fond of its political class and rootless urban population.

 

[Zyobot]

I'm rather attached to my home and native land, although not fond of its political class and rootless urban population.

Little digression here, but I've a feeling it's pretty similar here in America.

How do I know this? Well...

 

[WolfBear]

Little digression here, but I've a feeling it's pretty similar here in America.

How do I know this? Well...

We came very close to having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton between 1989 and 2017. Barack Obama was the only thing that stopped it.

 

[WolfBear]

We came very close to having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton between 1989 and 2017. Barack Obama was the only thing that stopped it.

There's even a website about them:

Google Sites: Sign-in

Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).

sites.google.com