"most will be too politically apathetic even to vote, much less risk their lives". Correct, but the problem is it only takes a few. As per Taleb, the most intolerant win. And it only takes a small, belligerent political minority to impose its will on the relatively passive masses. Just look at how Muslims in the West have successfully created a veto on Islamic blasphemy.
I lived in Japan the past 8 years teaching. When they would have an election I tried to make jokes about which party was in my best interest as a foreigner. I lived there for quite a while and was invested in day to day in building a life. I promise you that I have no idea how to even begin to influence some other political system for my own gain. It's crazy to think other groups are organized like ants.
I support open borders but I still believe Caplan is underestimating the political effect. The perception of mass migration (which is distinct from whether it is actually happening in a country) seems to have contributed to a shift towards nationalism.
I think a case can be made that, in the U.S., the most prominent totalitarian -- or, at least, anti-liberal -- tendencies are present in the progressive left movement. My personal experience with U.S. immigrants from the former Soviet Union is that they are the least susceptible to these political impulses having seen first-hand where they lead. It seems to be true of the Cuban-American population as well. So, I am not so sure I would agree that "citizens of totalitarian countries will likely be relatively authoritarian", particularly compared to younger generations of home-grown, college educated Americans.
> be relatively authoritarian, but this hardly means they’re willing to actually act to advance the cause of unfreedom.
Ultimately this is an empirical question (how many immigrants believe something enough to sway a polity?) to which we don't even know what answers would be important (how many are necessary to sway a polity?).
Maybe it's beyond purely empirical because in truth immigrants are coming for different reasons with different beliefs and goals. And like all human interaction, there's no separating it and no obvious ways to separate the good from the bad.
At the extreme, we can imagine, on one hand, admitting communists who are trying to escape from Nazi Germany. They might be politically motivated socialists who wish to escape persecution by the Nazis. Insofar as their goals are to avoid persecution, we should accept them. But... I'm not enthusiastic about welcoming large numbers of motivated socialists into my polity.
On the other end, maybe some Nazis themselves want to immigrate with the explicit goal of (secretly) promoting Nazism. Of course, they're not going to say that's what they're about, so we'd have to try and determine who was lying and who wasn't.
Our tools for collective action in such cases are really bad.
"I'm not enthusiastic about welcoming large numbers of motivated socialists into my polity."
If you don't want them to come in, then surely you would want to find the ones here already and kick them out, no?
"maybe some Nazis themselves want to immigrate with the explicit goal of (secretly) promoting Nazism."
The US has this little thing called the first amendment which protects this right. Also they don't really have to do it secretly, there are elected politicians in the country right now who are attending white nationalist conferences
> If you don't want them to come in, then surely you would want to find the ones here already and kick them out, no?
No.
> The US has this little thing called the first amendment which protects this right.
Like all rights, the first amendment rights are only protected to the extent the community decides to protect them. Which is why changing the nature of the community changes the nature of our rights.
Ultimately, this is what sovereignty and citizenship is. An ongoing recognition of rights and responsibilities. That's why introducing new people to the community should be analyzed carefully. Kicking out existing citizens, even if they're motivated socialists or nazis is generally a bad idea as well because it undercuts the foundation of our freedoms. We have obligations to fellow members of the polity that we do not have to non-members. The fact this distinction is seldom made doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't know about open marriages, but I don't understand how you can imply a country with open borders ceases to be a country. If you accept Caplan's argument that few immigrants would join fifth columns (which history indicates is true), then there is no reason to believe state functions would be compromised.
Your hypothesis also does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. The USA remained a country for 150 years with open borders. New York remained a state for not only those 150 years, but another 100 with open borders against the rest of the US. The EU nations remain separate and identifiable countries - Germany is still Germany, France is still France, etc - despite free and open immigration between them.
I guess open borders is incompatible with national sovereignty as you understand it.
You wrote: "because very much isn't a sovereign entity, precisely in part because it has no control over who is and is not a citizen or who is allowed to reside in its territory."
"Control over who is allowed to reside in the territory" can be exercised to allow everybody in, just as it can be exercised to exclude people. Would national sovereignty (as you understand it) be retained if the sovereign exercised its control to allow everyone in, so long as it doesn't also give up its control over what migration policy to apply in the future?
I can't think of any way in which national sovereignty would be compromised. I also again point out that there is no historical example of what you are describing.
I consider myself a libertarian, and I understand why libertarianism proposes that there is a universal human right to freedom of association. But that implies the freedom NOT to associate as well. So I don't really see the problem with a group of people (like a private club, or a country) choosing not to associate with every newcomer who wants in.
Just because somebody immigrates does not force you to associate with them.
If I live in an apartment building, I don't get to decide who the landlord can let the other apartments to. If I dine at a restaurant, I don't get to decide who the proprietor seats at the table next to me. If I live in a neighborhood, I don't get to decide who moves in next door. A country is more like those things than a private club.
"most will be too politically apathetic even to vote, much less risk their lives". Correct, but the problem is it only takes a few. As per Taleb, the most intolerant win. And it only takes a small, belligerent political minority to impose its will on the relatively passive masses. Just look at how Muslims in the West have successfully created a veto on Islamic blasphemy.
I lived in Japan the past 8 years teaching. When they would have an election I tried to make jokes about which party was in my best interest as a foreigner. I lived there for quite a while and was invested in day to day in building a life. I promise you that I have no idea how to even begin to influence some other political system for my own gain. It's crazy to think other groups are organized like ants.
I support open borders but I still believe Caplan is underestimating the political effect. The perception of mass migration (which is distinct from whether it is actually happening in a country) seems to have contributed to a shift towards nationalism.
I think a case can be made that, in the U.S., the most prominent totalitarian -- or, at least, anti-liberal -- tendencies are present in the progressive left movement. My personal experience with U.S. immigrants from the former Soviet Union is that they are the least susceptible to these political impulses having seen first-hand where they lead. It seems to be true of the Cuban-American population as well. So, I am not so sure I would agree that "citizens of totalitarian countries will likely be relatively authoritarian", particularly compared to younger generations of home-grown, college educated Americans.
> be relatively authoritarian, but this hardly means they’re willing to actually act to advance the cause of unfreedom.
Ultimately this is an empirical question (how many immigrants believe something enough to sway a polity?) to which we don't even know what answers would be important (how many are necessary to sway a polity?).
Maybe it's beyond purely empirical because in truth immigrants are coming for different reasons with different beliefs and goals. And like all human interaction, there's no separating it and no obvious ways to separate the good from the bad.
At the extreme, we can imagine, on one hand, admitting communists who are trying to escape from Nazi Germany. They might be politically motivated socialists who wish to escape persecution by the Nazis. Insofar as their goals are to avoid persecution, we should accept them. But... I'm not enthusiastic about welcoming large numbers of motivated socialists into my polity.
On the other end, maybe some Nazis themselves want to immigrate with the explicit goal of (secretly) promoting Nazism. Of course, they're not going to say that's what they're about, so we'd have to try and determine who was lying and who wasn't.
Our tools for collective action in such cases are really bad.
"I'm not enthusiastic about welcoming large numbers of motivated socialists into my polity."
If you don't want them to come in, then surely you would want to find the ones here already and kick them out, no?
"maybe some Nazis themselves want to immigrate with the explicit goal of (secretly) promoting Nazism."
The US has this little thing called the first amendment which protects this right. Also they don't really have to do it secretly, there are elected politicians in the country right now who are attending white nationalist conferences
> If you don't want them to come in, then surely you would want to find the ones here already and kick them out, no?
No.
> The US has this little thing called the first amendment which protects this right.
Like all rights, the first amendment rights are only protected to the extent the community decides to protect them. Which is why changing the nature of the community changes the nature of our rights.
Ultimately, this is what sovereignty and citizenship is. An ongoing recognition of rights and responsibilities. That's why introducing new people to the community should be analyzed carefully. Kicking out existing citizens, even if they're motivated socialists or nazis is generally a bad idea as well because it undercuts the foundation of our freedoms. We have obligations to fellow members of the polity that we do not have to non-members. The fact this distinction is seldom made doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I don't know about open marriages, but I don't understand how you can imply a country with open borders ceases to be a country. If you accept Caplan's argument that few immigrants would join fifth columns (which history indicates is true), then there is no reason to believe state functions would be compromised.
Your hypothesis also does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. The USA remained a country for 150 years with open borders. New York remained a state for not only those 150 years, but another 100 with open borders against the rest of the US. The EU nations remain separate and identifiable countries - Germany is still Germany, France is still France, etc - despite free and open immigration between them.
I guess open borders is incompatible with national sovereignty as you understand it.
You wrote: "because very much isn't a sovereign entity, precisely in part because it has no control over who is and is not a citizen or who is allowed to reside in its territory."
"Control over who is allowed to reside in the territory" can be exercised to allow everybody in, just as it can be exercised to exclude people. Would national sovereignty (as you understand it) be retained if the sovereign exercised its control to allow everyone in, so long as it doesn't also give up its control over what migration policy to apply in the future?
I can't think of any way in which national sovereignty would be compromised. I also again point out that there is no historical example of what you are describing.
I consider myself a libertarian, and I understand why libertarianism proposes that there is a universal human right to freedom of association. But that implies the freedom NOT to associate as well. So I don't really see the problem with a group of people (like a private club, or a country) choosing not to associate with every newcomer who wants in.
Just because somebody immigrates does not force you to associate with them.
If I live in an apartment building, I don't get to decide who the landlord can let the other apartments to. If I dine at a restaurant, I don't get to decide who the proprietor seats at the table next to me. If I live in a neighborhood, I don't get to decide who moves in next door. A country is more like those things than a private club.