Either have straight up open borders or enforce immigration laws. The middle position is morally incoherent and deeply unfair. My old piece making this point:https://aeon.co/ideas/there-s-no-moral-difference-between-a-wall-and-a-migrant-visa …
-
It strikes me as obvious that mass immigration would inevitably change the culture of a country, and, moreover, that countries have the right to maintain their culture (within reason). But I realize this is somewhat speculative.
I didn't do any work on refugees specifically, but sure, people from those countries have below average performance in every social indicator including crime (i.e. more criminal). There is also a link between terrorism and Muslims (work by Noah Carl).
-
-
Ok, I misremembered that detail, then. If the evidence shows that people tend to bring the level of crime of their country of origin with them, then that is certainly a strong argument for xenoprudence.
-
More like they bring their psychological traits with them and their culture, and when these are crimiogenic the result is above average crime rates.
-
Well, yeah. Not sure in what other sense they could bring it.
-
The countries of origin do not necessarily have high crime rates. And in any case, comparing crime rates across countries is very difficult.
-
I plan to write against open borders on my blog this year. So if you stay tuned you'll see it.
-
(I was replying to @ComerfordMB or at least that's what I intended to do.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.