When considering immigration and economics, in some American corners we have either of the following positions:
A – Free trade with no benefits and secure permanent immigration.
B – Protectionism with the welfare state and mass unsecured immigration.
Neither position flow from its premises. Both are incorrect.
Free trade is trade between countries, free from governmental restrictions or duties and subject only to such tariffs as are needed for revenue. It’s international and typically non-discriminatory. This system, at first, not only tolerates legal immigration at its core, it needs a free flow of immigration because of utilitarianism.
Protectionism is the economic system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations. It’s domestic and usually discriminatory. This system, at first, doesn’t tolerate much immigration and is fine with small number of immigrants being injected. But because it is all about being inclusive and nice to its own people (the welfare state), sooner or later it starts tolerating open borders and those pesky sad refugees, and ignoring their own people.
Both are reductionist. There isn’t any synthesis between culture, religion and politics, much less any sort of moderation and balance. Little about the whole. All about just one of the parts.
We then go back to, “We just need to go fiercely against illegals but tolerate mass legal immigration and give out green cards, or work citizenship to either all immigrants or certain qualified immigrants” mantra. Or to “We need more diversity, amnesty and giving out more welfare to various illegal immigrants” mantra. Many don’t see how the toleration for the first mantra, leads to the second mantra. In the end though the result is the same, the methods for the same goal are just different.
A couple of the results:
- Consumerism running amok and a depraved cultural setting.
- More debt and bankruptcy as a whole.
- Diversity increasingly everywhere (first concentrated in big cities and the centers of power for some time).
- Lower rates of communal participation leading to a breakdown in communities (e.g. more autonomy).
- Family breakdown because well lower class male unemployment skyrockets due to more labour, and thanks to feminist law on work and marriage, their women become either old divorcees or young unwed single mommies.
- Delay of family formation since too many choices for the upper-middle class and upper-class equals free movement of people and over stimuli.
Any other results you have seen?