|
I did not label you as a racist, I labeled the pro-natalist far-right as racist, and argued that social homogeneity sucks for people in the outgroup. I do not believe you are pro-natalist, you even argued against it. So I'm not sure why you think I'm labeling you as a racist. Human rights are descriptive, not prescriptive. For example, your right to speak does not come from a piece of paper signed by a bunch of 18th century politicians; the Bill of Rights is a recognition of what people have always believed. Likewise, I am not saying that I, personally, deserve the legal right to move to this one specific country. I am saying that human migration is an activity people have been doing for tens of thousands of years and that restricting it is as much of a folly as restricting speech is. In the realm of speech, we have the concept of the Streisand Effect, where even the smallest attempts at restricting speech immediately backfire by creating more discussion about the speech. And likewise, with immigration control, attempting to keep entire groups of people out also creates a paradoxical reaction. Namely, you create a black market for access, as criminals will organize themselves around figuring out how to evade the system. If your legal immigration system has reasonable paths to immigration that ordinary people can figure out and take advantage of, then nobody risks the illegal path, the state maintains effective control over the border, and we don't have this problem. But if you make your immigration system inscrutable for anyone outside your country's legal profession, set the visa requirements to be unmeetable by most people, or otherwise try to "keep them out", you are going to lose control over your borders purely from the economic demand overruling you. How this works is that, because most people do not understand and cannot make use of the visa systems on their own, they rely primarily on employer sponsorship. As we've seen with the H-1B program in America, employee-sponsored visas create an underclass of golden-handcuffed visaholders who are only eligible for employment from the small handful of companies that specialize in visa sponsorship. In Japan, they have guest worker programs that are even more restrictive and funnel people into "black companies" (i.e. sweatshops). Some of them don't even bother with visa sponsorship and just rely on inducing well-meaning but law-illiterate people to work illegally. To make matters worse, the state might even enjoy this state of affairs. As 400 years of American history have shown, it is politically expedient to have a permanent labor underclass. It lets politicians wriggle out of minimum wage, overtime laws, worker safety, and so on. For example, the US H-2A program is full of fronts for Mexican cartels doing human trafficking. The ICE raids on illegal immigrants have the paradoxical effect of giving those cartels more market power, creating a pliant underclass of agricultural slaves. Illegal immigrants could at least ghost farmers offering shitty work[0], but legal immigrants have a sponsor who knows where their family lives. The things individuals care about with regards to immigration - i.e. damage to "culture" or "social homogeneity" - are downstream of the state deliberately creating this labor underclass. Politicians wouldn't care about them otherwise. Hell, Japan has a long history of denigrating its own traditional culture in favor of looking more western. The joke about any given traditional Japanese art is that its masters are four grandmas and one really passionate white guy. A lot of things we consider to be uniquely Japanese[1] are cultural hand-me-downs from other countries[2], because the Japanese government didn't care about culture until they realized they could use it to scare people into the ballot box. [0] Again, "if it sucks, hit the bricks". [1] Like the functioning train network [2] Like how America threw away its functioning train network |