"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?).
"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?).