What AI Means for Talent, Immigration, and Culture (youtube.com)
Samo.
'Assimilation is kind of fake.'
German migration to US, Scandinavian parts of US vote a lot like Scandinavia votes. After a few generations, the descendants of migrants sometimes diverge more than the first immigrants.
Politicians can just import whatever kind of immigtrants they want, pay billions to them (put them up at hotels etc).
Over 20 years a different type of politics becomes possible, like in NY where voting has changed so much in a few decades.
Systemic fraud enabled by a particular community, a special interest that lobbies, the politician depends on them. The politician will never be held accountable for any other political decision except what affects their constituency, and they're excused if they don't do good governance.
In Minnesota (Tim Waltz), 96% of Somalis vote for us, and their number one issue is government contracts and number two is immigration. 'Well, that's my current constituency.' Normal Minnesotans feel sort of sorry for Somalis, they feel OK about immigration.
'Can you have a democracy if governments can always import whatever voters they want?'
Every new arrival is happy to be there, because no matter how bad the third or first world becomes the first world is still better. Citizens here are loathe to send immigrants back because they think it's very dangerous for those people.
Moral hazard to bringing in lots of immigrants, regardless of anyone's moral conviction. They need to have an answer for how democracy is going to work. Citizenship is a right met with responsibilities.
A 'default Western idea of equality' doesn't seem to permit a Saudi-style import immigrants and don't give citizenship. Immigration will be great for Gulf monarchies, Singapore, and will reduce the coherence and competitiveness of Western countries.
A first step would be to be statistically honest (15 or 20 years ago I noted how Canadian government refused to publish real stats on immigration, so it became almost impossible for news to report on it or for Canadians you talk to to be anything except ignorant). In Denmark, in response to real, reliable information, Denmark reduced immigration, because they would be a net drain on the welfare state. Somehow they acted on this and the internal politics allowed them. Populists might not be able to reduce immigraiton, because small business lobby favors immigration. 20% of immigrants will be that, but then you have additional voters. In practice, no Western country can differentiate between economically productive and unproductive. Businesses profit, society as a whole is poorer. The political economy shifted toward redistribution, more corruption, less functional government.
Swiss model, local community and stakeholders vote on the naturalization of particular residents. Canada used to have a points-based admission (has a BA or whatever), but that was gamed when it was known (fake BAs). Most countries have some intake for talent. Many are recruited by the companies.
It may be impossible for a bureaucracy to let in 100% of the people who should be in, without letting in a huge number who maybe shouldn't.