LET US AVOID CAUSING HARM!: LET US OPEN UP TO HARMLESS IMMIGRATION AND CLOSE UP TO HARMFUL IMMIGRATION

There is a type of harmless immigration and another that is harmful—one that comes to add and another that comes to subtract:

Let us welcome decent immigrants with open arms, and deport criminals and terrorists.

Let us open the doors to those who come to contribute (work, invest, start businesses, generate wealth, or at the very least support themselves and the people in their care) and close them to those who come to take advantage of the rest of society. That is, those who abuse the social benefits system, forcing others to work for free so they can live without working, despite not having any disability that would make it impossible.

Let us be tolerant of those who respect others’ rights and freedoms and, at the same time, inflexible with those who trample them—especially those who want to impose archaic, cruel, and unjust religious laws on society as a whole.

Let us be welcoming to those who arrive to help develop the country, but not to those who hold it back. Closed to those who bring regression, but open to those who contribute to progress in its different forms.
Let us avoid racism and xenophobia as well as naive, complacent do-goodism that is unable to see the wolf’s ears, which cause harm to innocents.

All the countries that have not applied the above have suffered social degradation, with problems that are sometimes serious. This has led most of those states to regret that major mistake and to make a U-turn in immigration policy—although only when it was already too late.

This is the case in Sweden, where most of the Syrian, Iraqi, etc. refugees they took in almost a decade ago do not work and live at the expense of the rest of society. Some of them, moreover, cause serious security and violence problems. Or Germany, where approximately half of those refugees still live on social benefits.

Or Denmark, where 64% of the Palestinian refugees they took in in 1992 have criminal records. Or where immigrants from predominantly Muslim North African and Asian countries are net recipients of public funds in all age groups, even among those aged 20–40 (when, in theory, people work and pay contributions), unlike Danes, Westerners, and other immigrants.

Or Finland, Norway, Italy, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, etc. In addition, in some of the countries above, certain types of immigration form dangerous ghettos that even ambulances do not dare to enter. They also create growing tension between ethno-religious groups that is increasingly similar to Lebanon or the Balkans.

For all the reasons above, it is not surprising that receiving societies have grown fed up with abusive immigrants. Nor is it surprising that their governments—both right-wing and social-democratic—have been forced to shift their immigration policy when the damage is already done and is difficult to remedy.

Race, country of origin, or religion do not matter, but the level of abusiveness does. Therefore, let us choose our new citizens carefully, since human capital is the most important asset of any country—more so even than in companies. Human societies already have enough toxicity to increase it further, and they already suffer enough problems to go looking for new ones unnecessarily.

One selection system is points-based, focused on workforce and cultural integration, as in Australia, Canada, and especially New Zealand, where attracting talent and investment is prioritized. The higher an immigrant’s level of education, the less likely it is that they are someone who lives—and wants to keep living—in the 17th century instead of the 21st.

For example, it is unlikely that a scientist, an artist, or a graduate who comes to pursue a Master’s degree is an ignorant brute who wants to kill, imprison, mistreat, or deprive homosexuals, apostates, or free women of their rights. Nor is it likely that someone fleeing their country because they are threatened for being an atheist, freethinker, or human-rights activist is a jihadist who comes to commit terrorist acts against infidels. And the larger the amount of money they can document in order to be accepted into a country, the less likely it is that they come to take advantage of social benefits.

Logically, the rigor of screening should be much lower for individuals from highly functional and safe countries, such as Japan or Switzerland, than when dealing with failed and very violent states, such as Afghanistan, Haiti, or some African and Central American countries. Among sub-Saharan Africans, Botswana—with higher per-capita income and public safety than some European states—is not the same as others whose name I would rather not mention.

Artificial intelligence can be of great help in making a good selection. By processing, through its algorithms, parameters such as those above and other relevant ones, it can carry out an objective, efficient, and fair screening.

Two types of toxic immigration can be distinguished, although they sometimes overlap:

The kind that comes to cause social harm… read…

The kind that causes economic harm… read…

Let us avoid both, because every society has the right to self-protection. It may resort to legitimate self-defense, using an anti-missile shield that prevents and neutralizes unnecessary harm to itself. And leaders have a moral duty to protect their citizens.

Therefore, it is advisable that the immigrants to whom we open our borders come at least minimally civilized and integrated—both economically and in the values of respect for others. Because among those who do not come that way, some will end up integrating, but others will not, and this second group will end up being a problem for others, sometimes even a serious one.

Read: ¡LET US LIVE WITHOUT HARMING! Let us respect others

In the West, we have become somewhat civilized after many centuries of barbarism, and we have achieved—with great effort—considerable advances in the social, political, economic, technological, educational spheres, etc. To avoid setbacks, it is necessary that those who come are Western, Westernized, or at least compatible with Western values.

Thank you for sharing,