Sailer posted on a renewed push for Japan to open up it’s immigration policy. A commenter asked:
“The question is, why do they keep pushing this lie? What is their goal? Why is it so important to the Washington Post (and all liberals) that Japan import millions of foreigners into their stable and highly successful society? You ask the million dollar questions. If we knew why…I mean really knew why, we could cure these idiots, couldn’t we?.”
This really isn’t difficult. The answer is similar to that of why 1.0 Marxists pushed for international socialism. The system will not work unless everyone partakes in it. Imagine if 20 US states limited citizenship on a Jus sanguinis basis, but the rest didn’t. Citizens in the states and the states themselves that had the limits would have a competitive advantage. For example, the states could indefinitely exclude numerous non-citizen welfare applicants and encourage its poorer fraction to migrate to the more inclusive states. On a more general level, once states give up sovereignty over their borders, they will be economically forced to give up sovereignty on other matters. Just as in the EU. A global federal government will be needed.
This of course ties back into the race issue. If Japanese knew that certain immigrants, on average, would have a negative effect (whether directly or via some of the rarely mentioned externalities that we are all familiar with), they wouldn’t want them. After reading Jones (2008)*, what self-interested individual would not want their nation to be selective about the immigrants that are allowed in? Once the mixing has been complete and the global commerce clause is established, of course, it won’t matter. But till then, the idea is rather dangerous to the liberal, globalist, and progressive vision. (Concern for the globalist project is why there is concern about China. Will the P.R.C work towards a greater, more integrated global nation or will it embrace provincialism?
One reason for the hullabaloo about the “democratic revolutions” in the middle east, is because it proves (to the liberal, globalist, and progressive mind) that all peoples can assimilate equally and that all people are functionally identical. (The same logic applies elsewhere — just imagine if a black man — and one with a connection to Islam on top of that — were elected as the US president; it would be a complete refutation of Putnam’s Race and Reality. One might even award him — or the US by way of him — a nobel prize for the feat).
Anyways, the real question is, is this progressive internationalism more like:
1) Marxism — which was an utter disaster
2) Christianity — which was a functional productive, regional/cultural idiosyncrasy
3) Capitalism — which represents a stable, functional, and more adaptive system relative to say socialist systems
*IQ in the Production Function: Evidence from Immigrant Earnings