Immigration is good for the economy. Immigrants come here to work hard and have a better life and it wouldn’t be fair of us to turn them away! They do the jobs Americans won’t do. Entire industries would collapse if not for immigration. Who cares if they’re legal or illegal. Also you’re a racist.
The Economy™, to most politicians and laypersons, is a highly abstract and borderline theological concept; they invoke its blessings in debate and treat it as the baseline for whether or not a decision is right or wrong. Little room exists for other considerations, as the Economy™ is the single most important factor in the eyes of the modern stewards of the country, perhaps with Diversity™ as a close second. When in doubt, cite the benefits that your policy has or would in theory have on The Economy™. And only the benefits. No one is doing the raping, just hard work and jobs and better life-ing and being white-presenting.
What do people mean when they say immigration is good for The Economy™? Does adding more laborers to the workforce raise our gross domestic product (GDP)? Sure, but we could also just raise the productivity of each existing worker without accruing all the costs associated with housing, feeding, providing healthcare for, entertaining and transporting additional laborers, to say nothing of the external costs of immigration, some of which we can’t even quantify. Social disintegration, decreasing levels of trust fueled by rising diversity, ethnic enclaving, translation and multilingual services, government bureaucracy, welfare, crime, the environmental impact of population growth, counter-terrorism operations, the unemployment of native-born people and more come together to make the immigration fairy tale possible. But don’t worry goy, this is good for The Economy™, just not necessarily you personally or your community.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective. You’re a hipster normie urbanite with an apartment in Brooklyn and a fulfilling job as a barista making fruity drinks for your post-ironic clientele. But the rent sure is expensive and you barely make enough money to pay it. If you had a roommate, it would be good for the rent. You spend so much money on rent that anything that’s good for the rent is good for you. Giving up some of your living space to pay for the rest of it seems like a good decision, because it is good for the rent. You have an inkling that you should probably limit yourself to one, maybe two roommates tops, and that you should probably screen them first, but push that instinct aside and remember your cultural and economic programming—everyone is equal and discrimination between equals is evil. Also wanting to screen potential roommates is probably a racist dogwhistle and you don’t want to be racist. You quickly don your bow-tie and remember that anyone is capable of paying rent and that for every roommate you add your rent will be cheaper. In your great moral and economic wisdom, you opt for four roommates, solely on their ability to pay their share of the rent, and nothing else.
Oh wait—no one would ever do this. Well, no one who had to live with the external costs of it at least.
This is basically our immigration policy, by the way. Anyone who wants to help pay the rent can come live with us in our country. Sure there are rules, but those can be overlooked as long as the rent gets paid or if the new tenants have children. Even if they are repeat criminal offenders, the landlord won’t kick them out. Even if their paperwork isn’t in order, they can still pay rent. Hell, even if there’s a housing shortage, they can stick around. Even if they can’t communicate with the landlord or the other people living there, they’re still a good tenant. Even if they lower the property values of the neighborhood they’ve moved into, they’re still paying rent. And if all the old residents end up leaving, at least the landlord gets the rent.
If a nation is an extended family, the state is a giant home—an estate if you will. Your home has walls and a door, and the state has borders and crossings. You don’t answer the door for unexpected or unprocessed strangers, or just let anyone in. In fact, you probably discriminate against all your neighbors by having walls and locked doors. You likely only invite specific people over, such as friends and family, rather than just letting in anyone who would want to come. You won’t let people without homes, or people who have left their homes behind, live in your home. It’s as if you want to maintain some sort of distinction between the inside of your home and the outside of your home. I can’t even. It’s the current year, shitlord.
Broken door immigration isn’t a Koch brothers conspiracy, it’s bipartisan policy-making. And the idea that it is “good” for The Economy™ is a narrow yet powerful superstition that requires you to reject your own observations.
To be certain, I am not some kind of anti-economist, I believe that markets are important and not going to go away, that rational decision makers think at the margin in order to come away with the best attainable outcome, and that persons and firms respond to incentives, often of the monetary kind but also the Hans-Hermann Hoppe variety. What I don’t believe is that states should be governed by the business ledger alone; you need to think about demographics in a democracy. And I wonder how the Romans felt about the poor and oppressed Germans thronging at their borders and pounding on the gates.
For more standard immigration policies see: