- Unsupervised Learning
- Immigration 2.0
I think immigration needs an upgrade. A version 2.0.
I’m not an immigration expert, nor am I well-versed on how we used to determine who should come here and who should not. What I do know is that what Europe and the United States are doing doesn’t seem to be working.
The goal of immigration, at least as I understand it, is to take in people and turn them into integrated, productive members of the receiving society. Seems simple enough. Yet that’s precisely what’s NOT happening in Europe.
The reason, which many people have pointed out already, is that Western countries have been importing massive numbers of people who don’t share Western European values.
Why would you do that?
It’s like a perfect example of something that’s NOT a good idea.
Anyway, that’s done. We are where we are. So the question is how to deal with it, both in Europe and in the U.S.
A large portion of the right wants to end immigration (see Trumpism). They’re over it. They’re mostly nationalistic and protectionist, and would privately prefer that only Europeans come to the U.S.
That’s one extreme.
Then there’s the large percentage of the left that seems to believe everyone is nice, that everyone loves everyone else, and all we need to do is give them a cozy place without war so they can carry on being inclusive and liberal.
So they’d have us import all manner of hatred into the country—at scale—so they can isolate themselves, reproduce, and all the while hate and sew dissent against the liberal ideals that brought them there.
These are both heroically stupid approaches to immigration in a modern reality. Why can’t we have something in the middle?
What if we (gasp) were to:
Agree on what we want the country’s values to be, i.e., we believe in equality across gender, race, and religion, and we reject people and cultures who have beliefs or values that oppose such equality.
Declare that those are the country’s values, and that anyone who doesn’t have them is not welcome and/or should leave if you’re already here.
Accept immigrants in proportions based on their synchronization with those values, i.e. we accept 6/10 parts high-parity, 3/10 parts medium-parity, and 1/10 part low-parity.
So if you’re pro-women, pro-LGBT, anti-female-genital-multilation and honor-killing, and you happen to be from Iran, or Iraq, or Indonesia, you’re in! You are a high-parity immigrant.
And if you’re anti-black, anti-womens’ rights, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, or whatever, but you’re from Switzerland or Sweden, you’re denied. You are a low-parity immigrant.
It’s simple really: Stop importing people who hate the values that the receiving country is based on.
If you want to hold onto your backward hatred of others, stay where you are and fester in the failure that such beliefs create. We’re all stocked up here, thanks, but we’ll be waiting if you ever grow up.
Unsupervised Learning — Security, Tech, and AI in 10 minutes…
Get a weekly breakdown of what's happening in security and tech—and why it matters.
It’s a policy that gives zero fucks about race, religion, or gender. You simply have to accept others for whatever they are (as long as they don’t violate that rule), and you’re part of the club.
So, under the new policy, The Westboro Baptist types get letters from the United States government.
All the militant, anti-liberal Islamist types who want Sharia law? They all get similar letters.
All the secular, liberal Muslims and Hindus and everyone else who might look WAY different than the average Westboro Baptist, but who embrace female quality, equal rights for gays, and reject extreme religion of all sorts? Guess what?
We will defend your right to be here to our deaths.
You. Are. American.
That’s the immigration policy we need.
By the way, if we can’t agree on what America’s core values are, well, THERE’S YOUR PROBLEM. That should be easy to do, and I think what I gave above is a decent attempt at it.