,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
This is a strange argument because it seems to be explicitly stating that mass migration is a form of charity provided by successful nations to the people of unsuccessful nations
The thing is, charity is by definition voluntary. When it is made involuntary, it becomes malevolent
The thing is, charity is by definition voluntary. When it is made involuntary, it becomes malevolent
By Andrew Yang's own pro-immigrant figures, the average immigrant contributes (at absolute most, mayb much less) 80% as much taxes as the average native citizen. Even as they consume 170% as much welfare. And this is including all of the immigrant CEO-barons like Musk, Thiel, etc
Even if you could convince types like Kristol to concede that our immigration platform should at *least* be economically neutral toward native citizens, in practice, a neutral-plus immigration program would favor a much different ethno-national ratio than what we currently endure
The entire left would immediately decry this as "racist." And a thing being determined to be "racist" means it can never be allowed
The bind we're in, then, is that there is no form of immigration reform that's good for native citizens that will ever be politically feasible
The bind we're in, then, is that there is no form of immigration reform that's good for native citizens that will ever be politically feasible
This going on in perpetuity, the outcome is clear: a shrinking middle class, an ever-increasing amount of the dependent class, and ever-increasing inequality between the "1%" and the average citizen, native or new
This is not a recipe for stability.
This is not a recipe for stability.
