In Part One of this series, I touched upon the idea that democracies run the risk of suffering terrible consequences if they fail to manage immigration prudently. While this is obviously true of any system, I believe democracies face a few unique problems when dealing with immigration that other systems of government do not.
I touched on the possibility of race war, and I would like to further clarify my thoughts on the matter. I believe the possibility of such an event is merely one of several possible manifestations of one of the great weaknesses of democracy: it can only exist in a totally homogenous community. Once heterogeneity of a population has been achieved, democracy no longer becomes a matter of power to the people, but a matter of sublimating the tension among various warring thedes into ballots instead of bullets. The system becomes rife with internal divisions, which signifies the beginning of the slow march to infighting and decline (to say nothing of what happens when bullets take over from ballots as arbiters of group disputes).
Immigration is a mechanism to increase (in the short and medium-term) both the quantity and strength of these internal fractures, furthering the heterogenization process. As this process continues, levels of civic trust drop, and the intensity of conflict among certain groups begins to escalate. Take this process too far, and societal instability begins to become a matter of inevitability…
Additionally, democratic systems are dependent on the voting populace to subordinate their own interests to the good of the country as a whole. This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that people are generally self-interested and usually act in their own self-interest. The second is that the burden falls upon the ordinary people to know what the best course of action for the nation at large happen to be. Both of these premises contradict human nature, the first for its reliance on pure selflessness, the second for assuming that the majority of the populace is omniscient (or at the very least, prescient enough to assess the intricate dynamic among the various abstract factors that dictate correct governmental policy).
Given how many immigrants are low-skill, low-IQ, and high time-preference, they are less capable of assessing the abstract possibilities of proper government action. Additionally, they have less investment in their new country, and are going to be less inclined to sacrifice for it. It should go without saying that this is not a combination of factors you want in a population with the right to vote.
To top it off, the traits that make one a less capable voter are also traits that dampen ones capacity to succeed in the market systems that tend to accompany democracy. This, as I have noted, leads to an underclass of sorts with less capacity to decide the proper course of action, less incentive to sacrifice self-interest, and a great desire to vote in opposition to native thedes.
I have mentioned this in passing before, but I shall lay it out completely now: I believe that the role of government ought to be primarily to ensure the stability and secondarily to ensure the prosperity of the society that it governs (I grant that prosperity all too easily lends itself to decadence and indolence, which then leads to instability, but that is a discussion for another time). From there, it has a solid base to pursue grand ideals beyond the sphere of economics or politics. This could be anything from space travel to the elevation of spiritual consciousness. The specific ideal itself isn’t of great importance, merely the quest for it.
But I digress. My point is that democracy, in the absence of controls including (but not necessarily limited to) a homogenous population, a unified culture, and a high-IQ populace, does not incentivize the long-term stability and prosperity of a country because it rewards short-term thinking among its leaders and gives those with high time-preference the keys to the kingdom. Immigration overload is just one of the many ways that democracy can destroy itself. Yet I still maintain that immigration itself is not the problem, merely the way it is handled (think of how fire can be used both to sustain and to destroy). Systems of government like Monarchy or Aristocracy would obvious not have to worry about giving immigrants the vote, and Republics could also put proper measures in place to ensure their long-term stability.
Democracies also incentivize one party to open up the borders for political gain, a problem that obviously cannot exist in a system which does not depend on political parties to dictate policy. Kings or Aristocrats tend to have far less reason to want to bring lots of foreigners into their country.
Non-democratic systems are also more likely to have a strong, homogenous culture, which increases the unity of the populace and makes it easier to assimilate immigrants. These systems are often far stricter than western countries in imposing their cultural norms, and will punish (either officially with the law or unofficially through social interactions) extreme deviations from the norm, forcing assimilation. This has the effect of reducing the fractures in the social fabric that multicultural democracies celebrate.
All this is not to say that democracies should close off all their borders and forbid any and all immigration, but merely to point out that democracy has its own problems it must face when dealing with immigration, and to suggest that these hurdles mean that democratic governments are actually less capable of handling a certain degree of immigration than other systems of government (which are also less inclined to bring in foreigners, providing greater societal stability on two fronts).
I think this is going to be the end of this little series I have had going, not because I have run out of things to say on the matter, but because I believe I have said all I need to. I obviously reserve the right to speak more on the matter if need arises, so even though I’ll be returning to a more eclectic selection, do not be surprised if one day you find another post or two on the matter sitting up on this blog.