tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8022142859840238138.post300060525724978778..comments2024-02-12T00:57:52.353-08:00Comments on Quitting Providence: a conservative argument for immigrationPaul Criderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16235745213619044291noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8022142859840238138.post-89120547482777918152011-11-09T09:59:28.940-08:002011-11-09T09:59:28.940-08:00Anonymous, I have no way of knowing whether India ...Anonymous, I have no way of knowing whether India or China (or Bangladesh, etc) will destroy themselves by inadequately managing their resources and neither do you. I have a feeling nothing I might argue would be deemed persuasive. But I think that economic development and a growing GDP translate into better capacities for solving all kinds of problems, including resource management. And more people means more brains thinking about solutions. <br /><br />As to your second point, unless you have pretty intimate access to Yglesias' psyche, I don't see how you can be so sure he favors immigration to benefit his favored political party. He's never struck me as particularly beholden to the Democratic party. His routine denunciations of occupational licensing seems to argue against a simple party line checklist. And it's not at all clear to me that more immigrants necessarily must benefit Democrats. Many Mexicans are devout, family-oriented, and quite socially conservative ...Paul Criderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16235745213619044291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8022142859840238138.post-70732832573152082332011-11-08T16:05:00.531-08:002011-11-08T16:05:00.531-08:00First of all, Yglesias' argument doesn't w...First of all, Yglesias' argument doesn't work on the merits as neither China nor India will become great powers in the 21st century as their respective economies are on pace to exhaust their fresh water resources over the next few decades. In fact, lack of access to fresh water will probably destabilize the whole of Asia sometime before the middle of this century. America certainly doesn't need to siphon away an abundance of people from those regions in order to sustain her relative level of "national greatness" on the global stage anytime soon.<br /><br />Secondly, all of Yglesias' arguments in favor of expanding current levels of immigration are advanced on a wholly cynical basis. To wit, the political left in the liberal democratic West has caught on to the fact that more immigration means more votes for their candidates hence more political power for themselves. If greater levels of immigration to America meant more votes for the Republicans you can bet your life that a second-rate partisan political hack like Yglesias would be advancing a very different set arguments about how we desperately need to reduce current levels of immigration.<br /><br />Anyway, your bleeding libertarian heart would be put to much better use trying to figure out how to solve the coming water crisis that will take place in your lifetime on the principle that no one cares about abstract political freedoms when their dying of thirst.<br /><br />Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com