To move anyone or a society from the Amazon Rain Forest to Maine,, in any millennium, is quite a shock regardless of created formula or inputed numbers. Societies have been created in both extremes but after what adjustments is hard to discern.
The only truly "clear-cut rationale for restricting Third World immigration" is to keep first-world civilized countries from turning into third-world shit-holes.
Except there are already parts of US that look like 3rd world shit holes (ie rust belt inner cities) without significant immigrant populations (ie St. Louis). The few immigrants here re-open boarded storefronts and commit far less crime than natives.
To move anyone or a society from the Amazon Rain Forest to Maine,, in any millennium, is quite a shock regardless of created formula or inputed numbers. Societies have been created in both extremes but after what adjustments is hard to discern.
Is this some grifter's slight of hand?
I'm reminded now of why I couldn't cut it in my PhD studies of economics.
Maybe in my next life (coming soon, I'd say) ...
Agree with Caplan's final point.
The only truly "clear-cut rationale for restricting Third World immigration" is to keep first-world civilized countries from turning into third-world shit-holes.
Except there are already parts of US that look like 3rd world shit holes (ie rust belt inner cities) without significant immigrant populations (ie St. Louis). The few immigrants here re-open boarded storefronts and commit far less crime than natives.
There was a war fought and the Constitution amended to accept those "non-immigrants" into the American corpus. So be it. But them and no more.