Historically, humans have been very tribal creatures, caring only about their group, so it’s interesting to ask why leaders of Western countries have been so generous in their immigration policy over the last half-century. And by leaders I mean anyone who has influence over the country, whether political, economic, academic, or pop-cultural. I am going to list several theories and let my brilliant readers decide.
This question, if answered honestly, might make a good test of social intelligence and general knowledge, but I’m not wise enough to know if my answers are the correct ones, so in the comment section, let me know which combination of these theories, if any, played the biggest role in mass immigration to the West and which of these theories are just nutty.
Theory 1: Immigration distracts from economic inequality
This theory is advanced by commenter “Mug of Pee” and also pushed by Noam Chomsky. The idea is that if you have lots of immigrants, group conflict will be racial instead of economic, so the rich will not have to worry about people resenting their wealth because folks are too busy resenting other races. Social injustice will be seen through a racial lens instead of an economic one, so privileged races get vilified while privileged classes avoid scrutiny.
Theory 2: Immigrants are good for business
Commenter pumpkinhead writes: “The corporate elites who broadly speaking transcend nationality or ethnicity want a global world in order to expand their corporate empires and allow for easier movement of goods, better friction-less access to resources and cheap labor.”
Theory 3: Immigration is a way for empires to course correct
Commenter pumpkinhead writes: ” Countless civilizations have had to contend with assimilating various people of different descent… Just try to envision what it would be like in Ancient Rome, or Hellenistic Greece with their conquest of much of western Asia. When the British decided to dissolve the British empire they too decided to make amends for their past transgressions by making concessions to the people they governed around the world. Part of that was opening the doors to some of those minorities into Britain. IMO leftist ideologies are strongest right after the apex of interventionism war or imperialistic behaviour. It is a course correcting mechanism that many nations impose on themselves in order to self correct. If handled properly they might be better off for it but if not it can destroy them… ”
Theory 4: Immigration to the West allows diaspora minorities to thrive
This controversial theory, promoted by Kevin MacDonald, argues that over the 20th century, a small subset of Ashekenzi Jews used their high IQs, wealth, and influence to lobby for more immigration because in countries where everyone is blond, blue eyed and Christian, Jews are “other”, while in multi-racial countries, Jews blend into the white establishment and resentment shifts towards more conspicuous minorities, especially Muslims (which is convenient for Israel which is often in conflict with her Muslim neighbors).
Theory 5: Northwest Europeans are genetically nicer
This theory,, also advanced by Kevin MacDonald argues that Northwestern Europeans are especially kind to strangers because they partly evolved in the European ice age where you had to cooperate. A variant of this theory, advanced by HBD Chick, is that Northwestern Europeans are especially welcoming because they had less cousin marriage, which makes them less clannish.
Theory 6: People are more pro-immigration because we’re getting smarter
Studies show that higher IQ people are less racist, and since IQ went way up over the 20th century (the Flynn effect), I argued that this might be one of the reasons that mass immigration became more accepted
Theory 7: People are more more pro-immigration because of harmful mutations
Because of medical advances, harmful mutations that would have normally been weeded out by natural selection are now remaining in the population. Proponents of dysgenic theory argue that all these mutations have made people less genetically fit, so they no longer care about reproducing or protecting their ethnic interests.