[ExI] The Catholic Impact (was Re: Origin of ethics and morals)

[Mirco Romanato]

Il 26/12/2011 11:20, Anders Sandberg ha scritto:
> On 2011-12-25 19:28, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>> And on this we agree. There are government statistics (Denmark for sure,
>> maybe UK) that show the costs of immigrants for the government are
>> greater than the profits. They are a net taxpayer's loss.

> Ah, *those* numbers. Rather biased it turns out by Danske Folkeparti's
> xenophobia (they ordered the studies). Their sister party
> Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden made the same claim, but then got hit by
> some independently done studies that showed them to be in the wrong.

> Generally, economists are fairly confident in that immigration is both a
> net benefit to society and to the immigrants (with the usual complicated
> caveats, of course).

In general, I agree that immigrations could be a net benefit for the
society and the immigrants.

Unfortunately the caveats are as much important as the general principle.
The caveats are "complicated" only because they must be politically
acceptable or misleading.

The caveats, IMHO, are simply:
1) The local must be willing to integrate the immigrants
2) The immigrants must be willing to integrate with the locals
3) The immigrants must be employable
4) The number of immigrants must be small enough to be integrated and
unable to form (naturally or artificially) enclaves inside the host
population.

>> But, in many ways, they are a source of profits (and votes) for the
>> bureaucrats and the politicos and their friends and allies. If they
>> won't there would not be a political will to let them in and let them
>> stay in.

> At least in the US the opposite is true. Being hard on immigration gives
> you extra votes, since the voters are incumbents who feel threatened by
> immigration. Since illegal aliens are not voting very much you don't
> gain political capital by pandering to them.

The system in the US, with all the Jerrimandering, is problematic.
representatives in heavily latinos districts pander to them (and
immigration, family reunification, etc.) where representatives in
heavily black pander for blacks and against latinos immigrants (because
they are competitors for the public dime).

All elections are local.

> A better case might be Sweden, where the social democratic
> infrastructure to some extent had the idea that integrating immigrants
> into the bureaucracy would help the left by getting workers. It didn't,
> because non-integrated immigrants don't vote much, and those who
> integrate are all over the map. Then the left turned as restrictive on
> immigration as the parties they had just a few years earlier denounced
> as racist.

I never claimed their plan would work as they intended. I believe the
plan to import voters and workers difficult to assimilate in the local
population is backfiring and some leftist are noticing it and reacting
(like Sarrazin in Germany and more than a few around Europe).

Mirco