Steve Sailer tells of an intriguing approach to offsetting immigration risks: insurance.
Immigration insurance may sound like a wacky idea at the moment, but it actually could appeal to multiple politically powerful interest groups, such as insurance companies looking for a new market and trial lawyers looking for new reasons to sue insurance companies. Giving the backbone of Democratic donors—the trial lawyers—a financial incentive to dig up and publicize dirt on immigration would be political jujitsu of the highest order.
Sailer admits that only the legal immigrants would comply with such a policy, but then, the same is true about car insurance.
At present, forecasting that some applicants for immigration would be better than some other applicants is widely considered racist and un-American, a violation of the Zeroth Amendment inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. More sane countries, such as Canada and Australia, have complex points systems for evaluating applicants based on statistical models of how much good they are likely to do current citizens.
We do? Are you sure, Steve? Does the Canadian government actually pay any attention to the points, though?
Anyway, the bigger problem is how to implement such a notion without having your eardrums shattered from libtards screaming about it. But that’s the same with each and every notion about what to do about immigration crises, so no big whoop.