![]() It is good to see his opinions, even when I disagree. ![]() I want to see Progressives who aren't histrionic, and he seems to be one of the few that gets any attention. This is why despite having mostly conservative viewpoints, I subscribe to this Substack. OK and now I snap back to the world of daylight and think “why can’t the US have a sane conversation about immigration policy?” Asylum is the wedge that exposes the arbitrariness of the international system and the disturbing fact that the state as such is fundamentally incompatible with seeing all humans as fully human. Which is whatever, but that cold hard explanation just refuses to square with the universalism at the heart of all liberal political ideas. ![]() There’s only one reason a Honduran migrant has less claim on the resources of the US than I do: The accident of birth means the power of the state is on my side and not his. (Why should a wealthy Venezuelan with a credible fear of political violence have a greater claim than an “economic” migrant trying to escape crushing poverty?) Once you agree we do have obligations towards non-citizens, the whole shaky premise of the state having immutable sovereignty over a particular patch of land and the citizens of a country being special parties to a “contract” bound up with that land starts to feel absurd. It’s not just charity it’s something we owe.īut the problem is that no matter how you define the specifics, admitting that we owe *something* opens the door to other things. What does the US owe non-citizens? Nothing? Well, no, the premise of the international asylum regime is that we do have some obligation towards them simply as fellow humans under some circumstances. This is the hardest political issue, because the normal, rational, practical person in me agrees wholeheartedly with the sensible reforms outlined here and in the comments (tougher asylum policy and a more orderly legal process), but on a deeper, darker level I feel like anything short of open borders is basically morally indefensible. They also seem to seriously under appreciate the challenges of great power competition that will require social cohesion in addition to ecocnomic power.Īll this is *not* to say high level immigration is bad (on the contrary it’s probably necessary) but rather that the debate has to broaden to include social and cultural concerns and how to address them. Too few of them lived abroad or speak a foreign language. They think they know “diversity” but actually have very little familiarity with real cultural gaps and the challenges they pose. ![]() My worry is that American born upper middle clsss people such as MY, are specially insular in their understanding of the world (much more than their European peer btw). ![]() Are Canadian levels of immigration, even if mostly of skilled/educated workers, socially sustainable ? And if so, under what *cultural* policies? Let me put it differently: how do you maintain a national ethos and national solidarity in this manner? To use stark examples: can you maintain national solidarity levels that will allow the country to function well in a war scenario (I hope Ukraine has disillusioned those who think this worry is in the past)?Īnother example: how does one maintain the unique values of western countries (eg gender and lgbt equality )? This seems broadly correct but I’m missing the next step. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |