1. Solidarity is diminished and social ties are wakened, so that the majority population becomes less willing to pay taxes to help "the other". This limits the size of government. The ethnic-diversity-and-redistribution-literature has almost entirely focused on this sole effect.
2. Increasing the share of low income individuals increases the welfare state through a mechanic effect. This means even if you don't vote for any changes to the welfare state, the use of preexisting welfare programs such as unemployment insurance and public health care increases
3. More disadvantaged citizens increases the need for a welfare state. To the extent that the welfare state reflects a desire to reduce social problems, having more deprived individuals increases the demand for more government to solve problems. The welfare state exists largely because the middle classes and the rich feel sorry for the poor. The left is not stupid or irrational, they rarely demand government intervention where there are few problems.
4. Though ignored by proponents of the ethnic-diversity-and-redistribution, minorities also get to vote, and they vote overwhelmingly for the left. This effect is dominant when we are discussing free migration, because with open borders in a world where 700 million people have told Gallup they would like to migrate right now, sooner or later the immigrants will become the majority of voters and make the political preferences of the natives irrelevant.All of these points are true- people are racists, more poor people consume more welfare, more poor people demand more welfare, and minorities can vote and tend to vote left. And the last three, to which Mr. Sanandaji draws especial attention, are all good reasons to sterilize poor black people.
Wait, what? That's crazy! And racist! But poor black people have poor black children in large numbers, consuming more welfare, and worsening their condition, creating an increased demand for expanded welfare programs. What's more, I hardly need to point out that black people, especially poor black people, vote overwhelmingly for expanding the welfare state.
My argument rests on the claim that forcible sterilization is an injustice equal to restricting freedom of movement. That's a claim I support completely. Deciding where to live is just as fundamental a right as deciding how many children to have. Forcible sterilization involves violence, and so does blocking migration and expelling illegal migrants. What do you think the Border Patrol does when they catch Mexicans climbing the wall? Gently admonishes them? What do you think happens to Mexicans who attempt to escape custody? A stern warning?
Based on statements elsewhere in his post, I assume Mr. Sanandaji (who like me is presumably not a Navajo) would point to the importance of 'national solidarity' as a way to justify violence against foreigners while forbidding violence against poor native-born minorities. We are all Americans, and we benefit from that common identity. Therefore, we should not perpetrate violence against the poor minorities who are already here, as that would harm our unity as a nation, while violence against foreigners would not.
The trouble with this argument is twofold: first, immigrants are self-selecting. My connection to America is purely an accident of birth; my great-great-grandfather got on a boat and came here deliberately. Thus, an immigrant's attachment to the United States is a revealed preference, whereas mine is merely implied. The act of migration explicitly states that the costs of moving here are outweighed by the benefits of living here; the act of nonmigration merely demonstrates that the costs of moving don't outweigh the benefits of living somewhere else. I may well hate America (I don't, but bear with me), but simply not hate it enough to deal with the hassle of migration. If you ever want to hear stirring expressions of patriotism, listen to the words of newly naturalized citizens- especially the ones from the Third World. Their love for America makes Toby Keith seem like Benedict Arnold. Therefore, voluntary immigration increases 'national solidarity,' insofar as that's even a meaningful concept, because it increases the level of overall emotional commitment to the nation from its citizens.
It's the meaningfulness of the concept that raises the next problem with the argument. What, precisely, is 'national solidarity?' Presumably the term means the sense that we, as American citizens, are "all in this together," so to speak, and that we all have an interest in the well-being of our nation and of each other. First, let us get our metaphysics in order- the "nation" is a fiction. "The United States of America" is a convenient shorthand for some three hundred million individuals who (mostly) agree that they live in the same nation, and who are required to remain in that belief via armed force (just as the Confederates how changing your mind goes). The well-being of our nation reduces to the well-being of Americans individually.
Here's where it gets interesting. It'd be nice to live in a community full of people who looked out for one another, who cared for each other, and who wanted each others children to do well. That form of solidarity is certainly a real good; more of that solidarity would certainly contribute to our well-being. And like other goods, it is best provided by the market. Because with free migration, you can choose among whom to live. Are you a Mexican longing for a vibrant Mexican community filled with the traditions of your people? Then you can go live among a bunch of other Mexicans who feel the same way, celebrate the Day of the Dead with all your neighbors every year and attend each others quinceañeras. Bam, solidarity. Are you a bookish white guy who wants to live in a quiet, alienating, emotionally deadening suburb? Then move in next door to me, because I never talk to my neighbors if I can avoid it. Are you an orthodox Jew seeking a way to live as completely as possible in accordance with the Law? Why, we have neighborhoods for that, too. You can live anywhere you like, from a small town where everybody knows your name, habits, and personal problems, to a huge city where no one even knows you're alive. You can get however much solidarity you like, of whatever kind you prefer.
Further, given point 1) on Mr. Sanandaji's list, wouldn't national solidarity, in the long run, be promoted by sterilizing poor black people? Sure, the sterilized themselves would be resentful, but by definition they would leave no descendents, and the thus ever-shrinking pool of resentful black people, hating America because of its racist policy of sterilization, would matter less and less as time went by, while the decreased number of black people would, per point 1), promote solidarity among white Americans.
So once again, the argument against free immigration becomes an argument for forced sterilization. Obviously I support free immigration and abhor forced sterilization, but these little exercises in reductio are fun and enlightening, I think. If your argument leads to the conclusion that we should forcibly sterilize poor black people, you should rethink your argument.
Twice in writing this post I cut out an huge digression on nationalism and its discontents. I cut it once, thinking I'd reword it for brevity, and then it got just as long so I cut it again. I'll write it tomorrow, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment