> Climate activists backed and propagandized by the fossil fuel industry and the KGB

Who are the current generation of climate activists backed and propagandized by?

If the entire developed world had followed the same energy usage and nuclearization path as france, we’d be able to accommodate the entire developing world increasing carbon footprint up to the French level within the same overall carbon footprint we have today.

> You ignored the things I was actually trying to ask you about and instead focused on a point where I specifically called out that we wouldn't agree - a point I specifically conceded for the purpose of this discussion because I didn't think arguing it was productive... .. I am not talking about what I'd accept. I'm asking why you aren't advocating for it as something you would accept.

I'm not trying to talk past you. My point is that, in formulating my own policy, I cannot overlook our ideological conflict. If we agreed on the premises that culture is a cause of societal prosperity, and that culture is durable in immigrants, and we only disagreed about degrees, then it would be possible to reach a nuanced compromise. But it's not possible to formulate a stable compromise with people who cannot, starting from their ideological axioms, rationally justify any restrictions on immigration. No compromise will be enforced, and we will have mass immigration by default. That's the history of immigration law dating back to the 1965 INA.

Given that, it's rational to simply pick which of the two maximalist approaches you prefer. When a Biden gets elected, the borders are opened and we have mass immigration. When a Trump gets elected, the reaction must be equal and opposite.

> You may say that you don't actually think "people from culture X are not worth bringing to the US," but given the above, that is what you are functionally advocating for.

No, that doesn't logically follow. Just because I think the costs outweigh the benefits--because any openings left open will be abused to enable mass immigration--doesn't mean I think the benefits are zero.

> If you think the US is better off with you in it, then "just reject everyone from country/culture X" is not the right approach.

I think my immigrating to the U.S. was a regression to the global mean. America is more like Bangladesh as a result of my coming here. (Ask my wife, who has to deal with the elaborate but inefficient rituals of being a Bangladeshi daughter in law.) All else being equal, American citizens would have been better off importing an orderly Dane or Norwegian or Japanese instead.

> You are advocating that the ladder be pulled up behind you, and me, and everyone else in this country who is successful as the child of immigrants.

Your "pulling the ladder up" analogy implies I should favor extending a benefit to an immigrant because I received that benefit myself. But, as a citizen, my duty runs to my fellow citizens, not to foreigners who share my immigrant background. In my analysis, only the benefit to existing U.S. citizens matters. And I don't think American citizens benefit from expanding Bangladeshi enclaves around the country.

Except homeschooled people I know are lovely and well adjusted.

> But you and your family are by your own metrics evidence that your line of thinking - "people from culture X are not worth bringing to the US" - is false.

I didn't say that, and I had no reason to say that because it's irrelevant to my point. You're talking about someone like Fazlur Kahn, the Bangladeshi who moved to Illinois on a Fulbright Scholarship in the 1950s and was the structural engineer who designed the Sears Tower. I'm talking about 100,000 Bangladeshis moving en masse to New York, and establishing a Bangladeshi enclave in Queens.

Your final caveat that you think culture doesn't actually matter is exactly why I think your "system that would work better" is a red herring. You'd never accept the immigration system we had back when Fazlur Kahn came here, because you believe in magic soil. If we implemented such a system, immigration proponents would immediately shift their focus to eliminating any bargained-for restrictions, which is exactly what they've been doing since 1965.

So in reality, the choice is binary. You either severely restrict immigration, or you have mass immigration and Bangladeshi enclaves in your city.