Geosurface
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2012
- 5,773
- 4
- 0
They don't have to import anyone. That being said, race based immigration quotas are inherently wrong.
K, so if every country on Earth were to adopt the eskimospy approved, 100% morally correct immigration policy what would that be?
Would it be completely open borders, worldwide? Freedom to come and go, live and work in any part of the world for any person? Many libertarians support that. I do not.
The problem with it is that if you have Group A over here on this side of the planet and Group B over yonder on the other side of the planet, and Group A is having 10 children per woman and Group B is only having 1.5, then Group A can easily just completely displace and replace Group B in their country. As soon as those doors open to full no holds barred immigration, any nation to do so can have its unique genome, built after tens or hundreds of thousands of years, essentially erased from the Earth.
People who don't reproduce heavily need border controls to avoid extinction or absorption. Otherwise we lose them and the diversity they represent.
I thought most people acknowledged that the loss of so many Native Americans, including whole tribes which no longer exist, and the languages and customs they had, was a huge tragedy.
Think of a higher birth rate as fundamentally functioning in exactly the same way small pox blankets or muskets or whatever else can function.
But if that's not the type of immigration you're advocating, then I'd be curious to hear what is. And I'd be even more curious to hear whether you've bothered at all to think about the implications of what you advocate, and the dangers I've spoken of (because they probably exist in a less dramatic form in what you advocate, in fact I know they do based on what you've already said) - or whether you're just formulating your views with being as nice and tolerant and accepting and progressive as you can be as the goal?