Immigration

As a government, your job is to serve the people you govern, who are forced to pay tax for you to do that, above the interests of those who you don't govern and who don't pay tax for you.

Therefore, for example, if you let someone into the area you govern, it has to benefit the people who live there, which means considerations of infrastructure, security, and social cohesion must be satisfied, such that life is made better for communities that are taking immigrants.

Particularly if immigrants are let in and served by the use of tax money, you have to be sure that it will benefit the taxpayer, given that they don't even pay tax voluntarily.

"Benefit" firstly means effect on health and safety.

If you want to serve the interests of those abroad, which you do, then you do that not by importing problems, but by exporting your lack of problems.

Otherwise, you are importing infinity problems relating to the governance of other places.

Is it racist to say that there are organised Russians doing bad things to Ukrainians? No, it's not, and many people want to support Ukraine because of it.

Is it racist to say that there have been organised foreigners doing bad things to natives in this country? No, it's not.

People organise based on shared characteristics and then they might do bad things to people with different characteristics.

It's not as though only white people are capable of being racist.

All that money spent on housing migrants in hotels should be spent on drones to watch where illegal migrants land on the coast, so that they can be arrested and jailed for breaking the border. It's a dangerous world out there. If you want a safe country, you've got to play it safe, and assume that not everyone around the world is kind and considerate. If everyone around the world was kind and considerate, why do we have a military?

It's not as though the only threats to the country are from state actors. Why do we have police?

So, come on guys, if people disrespect the rules and the proper procedure for coming here, they should go to jail.

France is a safe country. There's no need for them to cross the channel from France. They should know they're breaking the law, and one way to teach them that they're breaking the law is to jail them. Then they'll stop coming (and drowning), when we stop rewarding them.

I'm not pro or anti immigration. Anyone who thinks "for or against" is an idiot.
I'm pro good immigration, anti bad immigration.

If someone wants to move here, you have to look on a case by case basis what they offer the country and what the people will like, and why they want to move here.

The whole "labour shortage" or "declining population" thing is a stupid reason to have more immigration. There is no good reason why you can't have a stable or growing native population, when you have non-idiotic social systems, including the education system.

Anything is possible when the state stops being an idiot. Population decline is not an inevitability outside of cultural and political control, and we know that because there are countries which have internally growing populations.

Wow, Kemi, you used four brain cells! Congratulations, you are not brain dead! Now let's see what happens when you use even more!

Me responding to someone:

I'm pretty sure "in-group out-group morality" is an oxymoron [etc. etc. unimportant]

Their response:

"Morality" is just a set of standards we apply to ourselves and those around us. We have varying standards depending on who the person is, where they come from, and what we expect of them. You practice this in your daily life. Say you have a child, and for some reason they steal your wallet. You are going to react very differently to your own child stealing your wallet then, say, a random person off the street. The standards and consequences vary depending on the individual and their proximity to your in-group (i.e. family, community, nation.) Simply employing the proven best survival strategy in all of human history - cooperation with those ethnicity similar to you, the implication being you have a shared genetic destiny. Thus, reason to cooperate outside of simple personal benefit - does not make someone "empty." Literally every group on earth and throughout human history and today has done this to a degree. 

If you see your brother/father/uncle in a fight with a random stranger. You don't take it to consideration that they may have started the fight. That they may have actually earned that punch to the face. You're going to intervene, and if you don't intervene, I question your standards and just how good of a friend/family member/countryman you are.

My response:

yeah this is all part of the survival of the gene pool.

That's how it goes. I accept all that.

You do good for people that you know do good for you.

However, that is because you trust them. 

If you are good, it's about trust.

Here is much of something I wrote on that issue:

"

The only reason why your genes tell you to cooperate, is because if you don't cooperate, then other people will, and they will take from you.

In a world without deep cooperation, there would be no incentive to cooperate. But that's not enough. Cooperation will not (have) take(n) over without the prevention of less cooperative groups from reproducing. Therefore, no matter how cooperative someone is, there is always going to be a perceived outsider non-cooperative group to diminish. 

In the negative view, you could say that the ‘default’ state of man is utterly selfish, and the thing is, it is, really, selfish. Cooperation is done for your gene’s selfish reason, even if in your mind you think that you cooperate because you love and care for certain types of people.

Humans just need to figure out how to cooperate more deeply, which means an equal level more “good guy” and “bad guy” complexity. 

You can't just be a good person. That's not adaptive. It's futile - obviously because you’ll just get taken advantage of and absorbed. You have to be cooperative, which means for all that you are cooperative with people, in equal measure you are uncooperative with others.

This explains people's behaviours with politics and religion and countries and everything.

Ultimately, if complex systems of cooperation fall apart, then we're all savages.

Only the one with the most complex cooperation system - which therefore is both very inclusive and very exclusive, can say they're better. You could say that people can be better given the commitment to achievement of cooperation, even if it doesn't make them better deep down.

But there's only one way to find out who has the best system, and that is through conflict, which happens.

Intelligence decreases hostility in relationships, since people can ultimately understand each other better. Intelligence is a big deal for cooperation.

PS:

I overlooked cooperating to survive harsh environments. But that doesn't take much away from my point.

" 

At the end I also wrote:

PS:

This is the law of inclusion.

For every inclusion, there is an equal and opposite exclusion. That's the natural way and it's the only way for cooperation to happen.

So, then, you could say cooperation is good, or you could say good can't really exist.

In Paraloop.

Their response:

1) you do not always simply cooperate for the sake of cooperation. You do not require this group of people to necessarily agree with you on things or to think the exact same way you do, though that tends to follow with racial based cooperation. For instance, you are going to cooperate with your child, even if your child is, objectively speaking, being a detriment to you. So you're not receiving any direct benefit from cooperating with your rowdy child, but you still do. Why? Because the roots of your cooperation is far deeper than simple notion or sentiment. Its blood. The greatest civilizations to have ever prospered, have always, to a degree, utilized this idea of blood/family first.

2) If you are unable to accurately discern who you are going to cooperate with and why then you end up having too big of a tent with people who you cannot account for and then your cooperation. (I.e. society, community) fall apart. 

3) simply adding more people

Into your complex cooperative structure equaling good is a smuggle. You need more people like you akin to you. Not more people period.

This obviously tracks because the first three things that your mind clocks when it sees a new person is Sex, Age, and Race. These things are to our mind. The most important pieces of information we can ascertain immediately. 

4) With cooperation comes a certain set of sacrifices to the greater good of the whole. Convincing someone that does not have any genetic link with me or other members of the group to take direct, personal sacrifice, possibly resulting in permanent damage or death, has never historically worked. They have to be assured that they themselves continue on through you. Even if they themselves may cease, this is why pure mimetic based cooperation is, and always has been, weaker than racial based cooperation

My response:

1) You cooperate for survival. Which is your genes’ survival. Your child is your genes. I never said that you cooperate simply for the sake of cooperation.

2) Seems accurate

3) Did I not say that for every inclusion is an equal and opposite exclusion?

To add someone to a structure is to add them to a structure, as opposed to a pot. If it were “simply adding”, it would be a pot.

I agree with your second paragraph.

4) Meh, this is complicated and I’ll go into it.

If, as I say, cooperation is fundamentally an evolved mode of behaviour, then it is possible that another gene pool exhibits weaker or different cooperation.

A mode of cooperation sustains itself by weeding out the uncooperative, so, a different, less cooperative race can evolve to fit a culture that isn’t native to them.

Successful mimetic cooperation is so successful that it becomes racial because a race is born of the meme. Race moulds to the meme. (E.g. the Chinese supposedly have less genes that code for non-conformity because of their rice-farming past)

You can’t have racial cooperation without some form of policing (even if rare), so mimetic cooperation is primary. 

You can theoretically have tight cooperation with people of distinct races. And it only takes one generation for a new race to be born of the meme that caused that intermingling.

This makes culture more meaningful than race.

Race-mixing is unlikely to be successful without culture-mixing. Culture-mixing is not easy. 

You can think of successful culture-mixing just as you would successful interbreeding. Successful interbreeding results in a brand new type, as does successful culture-mixing. It results in a brand new culture.

I’m white, but of very mixed descent. I am also striving for a new culture. Coincidence? Not really.

Of course a racially diverse person is less likely to fit in.