RE: Is immigration really beneficial for countries?
The thing is immigration policies is determined by nation-states which have a monopoly on land and property in a given region. The people of South Brazil for example, in the states of Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, and Paraná, have different cultural and economic concerns than those in other regions of the country so they would have different requirements when it comes to immigrants and migration. The same in the US where in the Southwest it was Spanish and then Mexican land for hundreds of years yet people still want to have national controls on immigration there based on the Anglo-American views of those from the eastern seaboard.
So in essence, the whole immigration problem is out of wack until the State gets out of peoples lives and local autonomy returns.
Exact. The main problems of immigration today have occurred in Europe and the United States, two places where a central body has an exacerbatedly large power and are not heard or interested in the objectives of the local population, call this European Union or Federal Government of the US
I believe that both in a system where the state does not exist in the absolute, or in one in which it is small enough, national and/or regional cultures must remain almost intact, because it is something natural in the model and way of life human, I do not raise more state restrictions, we could certainly say that if the State did not exist, or was sufficiently small, there would be no restrictions on immigration, but there would also be no spontaneous waves of mass immigration, and illegal immigration would cease to exist, so that in itself the whole problem would be null.
I believe that regionalism is a first step to solve precisely the problems that you mentioned both in Brazil and in the United States, but in both ways immigration is controlled, either by the State or by the local population.
I share this vision, in fact, I personally consider myself a confederalist libertarian, and I promote this model to be re-adopted in the future by the Venezuelan people, in line with what was raised by Francisco de Miranda (among other illustrious Venezuelan proceedings), the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence (whose spirit and letter was confederal) and the Venezuelan Constitution of 1811 (whose model is confederal).
These are all things that the ordinary Venezuelans not usually know, but I consider may be useful to provide greater stability whenever applied in line with the ideal of limited government.
I support that, although achieving a liberal and limited government in Venezuela is a greater feat than independence.
I think that as much as possible for the near future will be a slight "economic freedom" but with the permanent and insistent state intervention. Of course, after the government be renewed.
I understand your skepticism. I understand that nothing is guaranteed, however, we do not lose anything with trying.
Something that would be good to emphasize is that today in Venezuela libertarianism and classical liberalism is growing silently. The crisis situation gives us the opportunity to explain with analogies to many people how the economy works and how a good government should act. In addition, many groups (libertarian and non-libertarian) outside the opposition parties (who share the old anti-values that Chavismo has amplified) have placed a growing emphasis on meritocracy.
What we are aiming at is the rise of a new political and intellectual class that is well-formed and defends the ideal of limited government, the market economy, etc.
The most complex thing would be to return to the model of confederal government, which would imply recognizing the independence of each of the states that make up Venezuela. It is not impossible, in addition, we have the bases to explain that this was the original country project that we sadly abandon. However, it is what I see more uphill.
For now, the priority is to get out of tyranny, return to a republican and democratic system and avoid more deaths, however, we will not rest.