For example, he could have probed, “If the only way to get open borders was to put power into the hands of a Sheikh Zayed, should we do so?” To which I would have candidly replied, “Probably.”
------------
In the other thread people scoffed when I said that you advocated dictatorship, but I noted that you've advocated for it several times before. Here we are again.
So basically it all comes down to this. You are willing to risk the downsides of dictatorship, in fact dictatorship of a very small group over a very large group they have nothing in common with and under massive inequality, and inherently unstable affair, in order to implement Open Borders.
You know the downsides of dictatorship. For every UAE there are plenty of Maos and the like. Even dictatorships that go well at first often degenerate or collapse later.
I have no clue what your implementation plan is to bring about a UAE style dictatorship in America. How do you plan to get the necessary constitutional amendments passed? What political constituency do you plan to call upon to bring about and maintain these changes?
Are there any differences between the dictatorship in context of the UAE and dictatorship as would have to be practice by large western democracies? Is it inherently easier to run a dictatorship being a city state sitting on a pile of oil in the desert and not needing to unlock any of the productive potential of its citizens because it can just buy such things from abroad?
Why would we give much regard as to the suffering of the Indians in India? Let them suffer, I say. It be none of our business. Our business should be solely that of our own happiness, and how much value we can extract from immigrant workers.
And in the case of America, there is no need to resort to Indians as migrant workers. You can easily import them from China or South-East Asia. There is a vast labour pool aboard in Asia, without needing to draw from India and Pakistan.
TBH Sohrab Ahmari should have just push back that you aren't comparing likes. UAE doesn't have meaningful immigration, they have an effective open border guest worker program which isn't the same thing. In fact it's extremely hard to immigrate to the UAE to the point of impossibility.
Guest workers aren't immigrants, they go home eventually or become rich enough (extreme minority) to become resident expats. And if you think UAE is ever going to allow jus sanguinis for Filipinos tourist's, I got a bridge to sell you.
PS: That isn't to say I don't agree with your point the US should have an equally robust guest worker program but we don't and it would require not just significant legislation changes but SCOTUS precedent overruling as well to make that happen as first up we would have to get rid of jus sanguinis.
Do immigrants to the UAE get to stay indefinitely after repeatedly violating the law? Do they get welfare benefits like immigrants in Europe and the US?
I love your last sentence. Is makes a lot of sense as how Saudi Arabia wealth was attaained without productivity. Not that I'm not aware of their wealth being derived from oil, I just didn't pay enough attention to the productivity part.
You could've mentioned that Ahmari's friend and fellow Integralist, Adrian Vermeule, has advocated for Catholic priority in immigration as part of an express plan to violate the oath he took when appointed to the ACUS, overthrow the US government, and replace it with the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe. When compared with Vermeule's vision, yours is downright modest.
For example, he could have probed, “If the only way to get open borders was to put power into the hands of a Sheikh Zayed, should we do so?” To which I would have candidly replied, “Probably.”
------------
In the other thread people scoffed when I said that you advocated dictatorship, but I noted that you've advocated for it several times before. Here we are again.
So basically it all comes down to this. You are willing to risk the downsides of dictatorship, in fact dictatorship of a very small group over a very large group they have nothing in common with and under massive inequality, and inherently unstable affair, in order to implement Open Borders.
You know the downsides of dictatorship. For every UAE there are plenty of Maos and the like. Even dictatorships that go well at first often degenerate or collapse later.
I have no clue what your implementation plan is to bring about a UAE style dictatorship in America. How do you plan to get the necessary constitutional amendments passed? What political constituency do you plan to call upon to bring about and maintain these changes?
Are there any differences between the dictatorship in context of the UAE and dictatorship as would have to be practice by large western democracies? Is it inherently easier to run a dictatorship being a city state sitting on a pile of oil in the desert and not needing to unlock any of the productive potential of its citizens because it can just buy such things from abroad?
The obvious reason to not empower Sheikh Zayed is because he is sponsoring a genocide in Sudan
https://time.com/7017127/sudan-darfur-crisis/
I can think of a very large democracy that is sponsoring a genocide (by a smaller one). In fact, I live in the large one.
Why would we give much regard as to the suffering of the Indians in India? Let them suffer, I say. It be none of our business. Our business should be solely that of our own happiness, and how much value we can extract from immigrant workers.
And in the case of America, there is no need to resort to Indians as migrant workers. You can easily import them from China or South-East Asia. There is a vast labour pool aboard in Asia, without needing to draw from India and Pakistan.
TBH Sohrab Ahmari should have just push back that you aren't comparing likes. UAE doesn't have meaningful immigration, they have an effective open border guest worker program which isn't the same thing. In fact it's extremely hard to immigrate to the UAE to the point of impossibility.
Guest workers aren't immigrants, they go home eventually or become rich enough (extreme minority) to become resident expats. And if you think UAE is ever going to allow jus sanguinis for Filipinos tourist's, I got a bridge to sell you.
PS: That isn't to say I don't agree with your point the US should have an equally robust guest worker program but we don't and it would require not just significant legislation changes but SCOTUS precedent overruling as well to make that happen as first up we would have to get rid of jus sanguinis.
What does Bryan think would happen if the US "admitted an additional 2.4 billion foreigners"?
Assume we could do so gradually in a way that was logistically feasible?
Do immigrants to the UAE get to stay indefinitely after repeatedly violating the law? Do they get welfare benefits like immigrants in Europe and the US?
UAE doesn't have meaningful immigration, that's why using them here is disingenuous.
Yeah... blood and soil is the default mode of humanity.
Americans willfully ignore our declaration of independence which says that human rights are universal, and not the grant of the state.
Functionally, only crazy people still believe that. We legislate and act as if rights are something only Americans have.
Which is a laugh, because the guys who wrote the declaration were English when they wrote it.
The guys who wrote it considered themselves Americans. Which is interesting, because it means it has no relation to a state or citizenship.
I love your last sentence. Is makes a lot of sense as how Saudi Arabia wealth was attaained without productivity. Not that I'm not aware of their wealth being derived from oil, I just didn't pay enough attention to the productivity part.
You could've mentioned that Ahmari's friend and fellow Integralist, Adrian Vermeule, has advocated for Catholic priority in immigration as part of an express plan to violate the oath he took when appointed to the ACUS, overthrow the US government, and replace it with the Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe. When compared with Vermeule's vision, yours is downright modest.
ACUS?