None of what is in this post is particularly novel. It is just my own arrangement of a number of facts and analyses that have been floating around dissident thinkers online, including blackpigeonspeaks.
One of the reasons I don't buy the cost/benefit trade-off sold to me through the revealed doctrine of mass immigration being a good thing for the host nations can be summed up in a recent paper published by MIT written by one of my favourite of the mainstream economists, Daron Acemoglu. The standard pro-mass immigration argument tends to go something along the lines of "aging nations will not be able to sustain their standard of living without more immigrants to serve as the backbone of the labour pool”. However, Daron Acemoglu seems to demonstrate rather conclusively that there is no necessary correlation between gdp growth per-capita and aging populations. Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone also demonstrates that the social capital, which he also argues is so integral to the wellbeing of individuals within national societies, is eroded by increased cultural/ethnic diversity. Considering this, what could the benefit for nations hosting mass immigration possibly be if,
- They will not lose their wealth by aging (Acemoglu)
- Those immigrating will be moving into economies that are about to see a massive wave of automation, which will make jobs even scarcer than they are now (Acemoglu, Haldane)
- Large scale immigration leads to a permanently fractured social fabric where there was once cohesion and social capital? (Putnam, Sowell)
None of this is even to mention the consequences that the mass joblessness of maladjusted immigrants will have on crime and violence, which will surely increase as more soon to be unemployed people move into Western countries. It seems to me that mass immigration risks the well-being of often ancient Western societies. What is it contributing to make up for this?
Japan, as an opposing model, is a rich and developed country despite having virtually zero immigration. It will remain rich despite this and there is good reason to believe that its increasing reliance on automation as it ages will keep it a leader in the hi-tech industry. It will also retain its distinctly Japanese culture, and thus it will suffer none of the Putnam style “social capital” erosion that already plagues the West and will likely get worse. There is a reason armed guards already need to be placed around all major European monuments/museums/events, while Japan, and even the poorer but more homogeneous Poland, need none.
If an aging population does not lead to lower gdp per capita, and if increased automation will already remove jobs from the labour pool in rich nations, why would it be desirable for host nations to bring in an ocean of unskilled labour from around the world, when machines are likely to replace the jobs of those already in first world nations? Surely it is the job of elected officials to serve the best interests of their nations and, if it is not in the best interests of their nations to absorb untold millions of foreign immigrants, how could what they are doing not be called a dereliction of duty?
he world is changing fast, and I am deeply concerned that mainstream Western wisdom on immigration will not only not help poor nations, but permanently destroy the most functional societies humanity has managed to produce. Except the rich parts of East Asia, of course, which thus far have not bought into the West’s disturbingly evangelical but logically unsupported multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, "diverse" yet mono-ideological project.