Mass migration and the west (and why you might be wrong about it)

If you know me IRL, you would know me as a bit of a doomsday preacher. Not because of religion but because of extant socioeconomic trends and inevitable developments, as well as the discrepancy between our capabilities for destruction and solving problems.

When you read the title of this post, it is possible you had preconceptions and an emotional reaction. This is normal; whether you are left or right or centrist, you likely have a stance on migration. I choose it deliberately to get this reaction. I hope to get you to think, wherever you may stand.

First about myself, because it is relevant in this context: I am left leaning and libertarian, and I believe it is imperative to limit migration. To address the elephant in the room: I am against so-called ethnostates and closed borders, because apart from being naïve, those ideas are untenable in the long run. Migration is a fact of life, populations have been intermixed for generations, and it would not solve but rather exasperate ideologic differences. According to economists, migration is necessary given the low reproduction rate in Europe and North America. I don’t agree fully given that automation makes a lot of vital jobs obsolete, but that warrants its own post. We need qualified immigration, and to prevent segregation and self-segregation to facilitate integration into an extant system of norms and values.

My main concern with immigration is not that any one population will overwhelm the west and force the end of western values, it is that those who fear the other will change the west and lead to the end of western values. To be precise, the end of the most basic of values in the west: secular, humanistic, pro-democratic values.

This is rooted in my conviction that economics, not numerical superiority determine political power and norms. There will be no caliphate in the west. But there might be apartheid and racial segregation, especially given the disenfranchisement of the working class through continued Automation. Those who do not work will have little sway, even in democracies which will likely trend towards authoritarianism, if current trends are anything to go by. Democratic reform will be difficult, in any case. Which brings me back to the topic of migration.

Mass migration brings tensions and sociocultural stress. Demographic shifts create reactionary backlash and budgetary chaos. I believe therefore that it would be favorable to limit mass migration, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. Paradoxically, this is especially true if you are part of the left and concerned with human rights. The way I would propose is to stabilize Africa and the Middle East, as well as India through investment and diplomacy through the next century. It is a tall order, but IMO not beyond the scope of possibilities. That would not eliminate the migration driver that is climate change, but it would limit economic migration and refugees. It could lead to lucrative emergent markets and military alliances, making our world a safer place for everybody.

We live in extraordinary times, insofar as that we can make our voices heard. We can end mass migration, not by closing our borders but rather by removing the incentives that lead to migration in the first place, and increase total human well-being. I welcome your thoughts and critiques on this subject and am looking forward to discussion.