The Legionnaire’s Perspective on Immigration: Part One

The topic of immigration has been in the news lately, as the government of the United States was recently discussing the further opening of the borders to immigration from third-world countries. It does look like it won’t happen at this point (the whole affair was probably a trial balloon to test future initiatives), but I still find it interesting that the topic was even up for discussion in the first place.  I am perhaps a little baffled as to why people get so excited about the prospect of filling their country with people who come here to line their pockets with no regard for the history, traditions, and culture of the United States. It is a rather ineffective way of ensuring a population with a high degree of trust, civic-mindedness and low-time preference, which is the basis of a stable and flourishing civilization.

The arguments I often hear tend to focus on the idea that immigration is good for the economy. I suppose this could be true in some circumstances (it certainly was for the US earlier on in its history). I am not certain that the type of immigration we are discussing here would necessarily have those effects, but since my background in economics is insufficient to do a thorough critique of these ideas, my analysis of this matter will not be economic in nature.

What I can’t help but notice is that (in cases of third-world immigration to developed, democratic countries in general) because low-wage, low-skilled immigrant laborers tend towards low-IQ’s and little knowledge of the local language, they are often unable to attain any significant social mobility. This (especially in the US) leads to an immigrant underclass of sorts, with boundaries firmly set on economic and racial lines (Moldbug called this the “Helot” caste). Some will certainly make it out, but most will not.

This stratification continues across political lines. As revealed preferences manifest themselves in voting patterns, political parties realize that they can use this data for political gain. Identity politics arises, and the party best able to cater to this underclass gains not only political advantage, but also an incentive to bring more unskilled immigrants into the country.

So what happens if said party succeeds in this goal? The underclass grows, and given the economic and cultural disconnect with the rest of the country, jealous, resentment, and all-around racial tensions can develop (to say nothing of how the average IQ of the population will steadily drop, a phenomenon correlated with smaller GDP and civic order). Not only this, but as identity politics becomes more and more effective at garnering support and power, politics itself becomes more racialized.

Now, as has been discussed elsewhere, democracy is low-intensity civil war, fought with ballots instead of bullets. The rise of identity politics and the exacerbation of the racial divide in voting patterns can thus be thought of as the incitement of low-intensity race war for political gain.

It can thus be argued that in the US we have a low-level race war, and the ruling body is calling for more reinforcements for the minority side (as opposed to European countries like Switzerland, which are attempting the opposite approach).

So how does this end? A race war of higher-intensity than what we see now is certainly one possibility, though I am no so certain that the likelihood of that is as high as some might believe. I do think that a general tension will arise, though how bad it might be is anyone’s guess. It might end up being negligible in the grand scheme of things. It might be horrific. I would guess that human nature, with its innate tendency to form ingroup-outgroup distinctions, will ensure that as long as there are bifurcations in society that are not only racial, but also economic and cultural, conflict will always emerge. Full-blown race war may not break out, but whatever happens probably won’t be pretty.

I rather hope race war doesn’t break out. The thing about such conflicts is that you don’t get to pick which side you’re on, and the one I’m on lacks any sort of racial identity and solidarity and is burdened by feelings of white guilt and the like. This is not the case for all whites, but it is a significant disadvantage. When you bear this in mind and also consider how the media would no doubt spin the whole affair as a series of hate crimes upon poor, defenseless minorities, I feel comfortable saying that the whole thing would be an unpleasant affair. This is not to say that I wouldn’t do my part to defend myself and those I care about if such things came to pass, but that I would be a reluctant warrior, rather than some kind of racial Blood Knight.

Extreme? Admittedly so. This sort of progression is by no means an inevitability, merely one of many possible paths that a society can traverse. It is certainly the path the US has taken though, and several European countries have exhibited this scenario to varying degrees, though certain factors seem to mitigate this to some degree.

This is one of the problems of immigration that is overlooked in our present discourse. Improperly done, it forces very different peoples with very different races and cultures and histories together, with almost inevitably leads to conflict. Yet I am not against immigration. I do think that it can benefit the host society if properly managed and if it abides by certain principles.

So how to make immigration from less-developed countries work?  I intend to find an answer to this question, not because I have any particular penchant for immigration, but because it strikes me as a fun intellectual challenge.  On a more serious note, immigration, both legal and illegal, is one of those things that is going to happen.  The only way to prevent it would be if every country closed their borders and shot anyone trying to get in or out.  Instead of trying to fight human nature, I see it as more productive to figure out how to make such immigration work for society in a way that makes it more stable and more orderly.  This will be the subject of my next post, and possibly more, if I feel that the issue requires more examination.


(Part Two Here)


3 thoughts on “The Legionnaire’s Perspective on Immigration: Part One

  1. Webster 06/27/2014 / 9:47 AM

    Howdy! This is my first comment here so I just
    wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I truly enjoy reading through your articles.
    Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same topics?
    Thanks a ton!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s