The Most Dangerous Game
Using Game Theory to Analyze Immigration: One of the West's Most Pressing Issues in Current Discourse
Immigration is perhaps the most sensitive issue to discuss nowadays, and the large majority of discourse on the topic tends to be ineffective at-best, though often outright hostile and uncivil. This is because most of the opinions and prescriptions arise from moral or ethical reasoning1, which can vary wildly from one person to another.
The proposed courses of action coming from each pole of the political spectrum couldn’t be more at-odds, and this is because fundamentally different human values are being invoked by each side.
Much of the Progressive discourse operates from a Care/Harm ethical framework (with a touch of Fairness, but primarily as it allies itself to the overarching theme of Care). This is evident by their most common sentiments on the issue:
“Have you no sympathy for the suffering of these people - before or after their arrival?”
“They’ve been here for __ years, and it’s cruel and wrong to separate them from their loved ones now!”.
“We took ____ from ____, and therefore we must undo the damage by doing ____.”
The Conservative perspective appears much less nuanced on the surface, but in actuality recruits several ethical frameworks at once - Authority, Loyalty, Purity, and Care (as it pertains to “Care for one’s own”). The Conservative position is best elucidated by the following summary statements:
“They came here illegally, hence they are criminally residing in our nation regardless of their purported personal merits or reason for being here. Thus, they must leave voluntarily (or involuntarily, should they refuse to comply). If they want to re-enter, they may do so according to the proper legal process.”
“They came here by-way of a concerted ‘oversight’, and since being here they have displayed zero intention to assimilate into our culture, yet continue to reside within our nation, often on the dime of the taxpaying, law-abiding citizenry.”
I will keep my personal opinions to a minimum, as my primary motivation here is to provide another, more objective, way to analyze this issue. I will do so using a framework that many leaders use to evaluate decision-options and potential outcomes: Game Theory.
The premise of Game Theory, in my layman’s terms, is that rational people make decisions to maximize the probability of achieving their own desired outcomes. You’ve likely heard of the Prisoner’s Dilemma2, which is the most commonly taught “introductory Game Theory” scenario.
When we look at immigration, a low-resolution analysis consists of two primary groups - a native population, and the immigrants that arrive at the nation in question. Unfortunately, our modern predicament is much more complex than this simple scenario proposes, and ours consists of multiple interest groups among both natives and immigrants, with widely ranging motivations and objectives. Even just scratching the surface of this issue is enough to remind us why a simple solution that appeases all parties is just not possible.
Some modern native “factions” include:
Natives that are willing to accept cooperative immigrants that are genuinely seeking to assimilate for a better life. Most Conservatives will fall into this category, in theory, so long as the correct legal process is followed.
Natives that are at (or barely above) poverty levels and work in unskilled labor, whom the importation of lower cost labor adversely impacts in a major way.
Natives who are genuinely xenophobic, and won’t be welcoming to immigrants irregardless of the reason or their behavior upon arrival.
Native “elites” - intellectual, political and financial - who view immigration, often irregardless of the source, reason or legal status of said-immigrants as a net positive (“diversity”, political support or cheap[er] labor). A smaller, but not insignificant subset of these are these elites are those who also intentionally orchestrate immigration (and/or stoke pro-immigration sentiments) for their own self-serving purposes, which are listed above. Many well-intentioned Progressives tend to fall into this camp.
Similarly, some immigrant “factions” include:
People genuinely seeking to escape poverty, violence or another form of cruelty or misfortune in their home country, and who are willing to follow all of the legal procedures required to immigrate legally.
People genuinely seeking to escape poverty, violence or another form of cruelty or misfortune in their home country, but who are NOT willing to follow all of the legal procedures required to immigrate legally.
People who seek to exploit the higher earning potential of a host nation in order to send income back to family members in a host nation. They view the host nation as a purely transactional entity to be taken advantage of, and care nothing for the culture or norms of the host nation in which they reside.
People who seek to exploit the compassion of a host nation to further their own political, ideological or religious aims; they also care nothing for the host nation’s culture or norms, and in-fact aim to recreate it in the image of their desire.
Now that I’ve disclosed some of the nuance that my analysis may not necessarily cover in the highest degree of detail, let’s begin.
Applying Game Theory to Modern Immigration Perspectives
I’ve taken our two broad categories of actors, Natives and Immigrants, and assumed that each group will do one of two things when faced with the “Immigration Event”:
Maintain their culture as it was before the “Immigration Event”. This assumes that the group in-question’s intent is to largely remain unchanged, either in the face of new arrivals or upon arriving in their new home.
Evolve to accommodate the change in their population’s makeup (or environment).
This matrix, while not capturing the full complexity that I alluded to by outlining the different interest groups above, functions to “lay the expectations and probable outcomes out in the open”. I’ll look into historical occurrences that describe each of the four scenarios, and the outcomes that resulted. Finally, I’ll close with some proposed “scores” that provide a quantitative basis for further discussion.
Scenario 1: Neither Group Budges
When an immigrant population outright refuses to assimilate into the native population, and the native population refuses to make allowances for the new arrivals, a scenario like this occurs. Typically, an incoming group immigrates on the premise of pursing economic opportunities or escaping a government system that they found undesirable - both entirely reasonable motivations. By signaling their refusal to adopt the cultural practices of the host majority - language, custom, religion, social norms, etc. - a local population will over time begin to perceive this as a hostile motion, irregardless of the true intent. Thus, the stage is set for any number of animosities to develop, which over time can lead to mutual discrimination, micro-aggressions and outright conflict.
A society that remains in this manner for prolonged periods of time becomes a veritable “powder keg”, waiting for a Black Swan event to trigger open conflict; the question is no longer “If?”, but “When?”. Furthermore, decades of such simmering animosities can desensitize each group to both the merits of the out-group and potentially manipulative schemings orchestrated those in their in-group. One could argue that any good that results economically from such an arrangement is more than undone by the ever-present threat of violence, either in individual encounters or in statewide hysterias.
Historically, this was the sort of arrangement that laid the foundation for the Yugoslav conflicts in the 1990s, the Hindu-Muslim tensions in the North of India, the Lebanese conflicts throughout the late 20th century, or any of the historical upheavals against Jewish cultural enclaves.
Modern advocates of the pluralist, globalized vision for humanity argue that humans are capable of maintaining a heterogeneous society, but one must be careful to separate fact from idealized fiction when examining these claims (Al Andalus is a commonly cited example by these types). Those that are valid (Singapore, Switzerland) typically have another deep, undergirding societal system that disincentivizes conflict, usually by acting in ways that pluralists would quickly denounce as “authoritarian” or “exclusionary”. Such societies don’t necessarily constitute the historical exception, but rather mark an evolution of the historical norm (Scenario 3).
Scenario 2: The Immigrants are Permitted to Not Assimilate
A native population allowing the importation of large migrant populations without expecting assimilation is a distinctly modern phenomenon without historical precedent. In such a scenario, immigrants receive not only the benefits of a society that they deemed desirable enough to move-to, but they get the added benefit of being permitted to do so without needing to adapt any of their behaviors to a set of societal norms different from their own.
The beneficiaries of such a system are, first and foremost, the migrants themselves, while the benefits to the native population are much more confined. Indeed, those who have businesses contingent upon cheaper labor, rely upon unskilled labor, or those who stand to gain politically or economically from pandering to the migrant groups tend to favor such an approach. Left unchecked, the interests of the newcomers over time can begin to take precedence as the migrant groups form an increasingly important power bloc in political decision making and economic considerations. Hence, the most resource-rich or opportunistic natives excel by pandering to newcomers, to the detriment of the rest of the native population.
This approach almost always causes deep resentments develop in the native-born working class, as they are largely economically displaced by the injection of foreigners (undercutting wages or increasing CoL due to currency arbitrage). Natives, seeking higher wages required to live comfortably, will often be forced place a premium on career advancement and/or hedonistic personal enjoyment (“cope”). It is due to the resulting cultural deterioration and economic “gutting” of the native population that political radicalization can begin to ferment more easily.
Such an arrangement is not exclusive to the importation of developing world populations (as in United States and Europe). An “inverse” situation can just as easily occur, as in places like Mexico City, Bali or Phuket, where foreign expats have come in droves and driven up the cost of living for the locals. In both cases, resentments can begin to develop that lead to violent outbursts, though it is the developed societies that decline while the developing societies benefit (statistically-speaking) from the injection of large amounts of foreign capital.
Both situations say more about the unique “luxury” beliefs, bequeathed to the West by generations of cultural homogeneity and material prosperity than it does about the continually-debunked theories that equate to “all people are nice” and “richer populations are happier populations”.
By refusing to assimilate, it is thus implied to the natives that the immigrant culture seeks to replace or overtake the incumbent culture, not integrate it into theirs. What’s more, if the immigrants explicitly stated upon arrival that their goal was to instead “integrate” the native culture into their own, that would constitute a soft-invasion by definition. Overt or not, it should be readily clear that this is an untenable scenario that sacrifices long-term stability in the name of such a shallow pursuit as “diversity”, a trojan horse for economic gain, guilt-based protectionism or the passive fear of confrontation.
Scenario 3: Immigrants Choose to Assimilate
In this scenario, the traditional culture persists, immigrants assimilate themselves into the culture, and the onus falls upon the native inhabitants to accept the newcomers into their culture should they prove that they truly desire to assimilate.
Historically, the implication upon choosing to immigrate was that you were leaving your old culture behind (which must have become unpleasant enough to warrant a move) in order to pursue a brighter future elsewhere. Furthermore, another core assumption is that one decides to go somewhere because that place is, itself, desirable. The long-term trajectory of such an arrangement is that over time, with generationally positive outcomes in the nation and continued stability, fealty to the culture would continue to grow and make it more desirable for others who want to come and assimilate. The shared culture itself - with the values, ethics and assumptions adopted universally throughout - would in turn rise above the “formation” period and into a “golden age”, marked by advancements in Art, Science, and Thought.
There is, obviously, the risk that the native culture doesn’t welcome the assimilated population, thus affording them second-class citizen status. This is not uncommon, as biology itself causes species of all kinds to favor “likes” over “opposites” based on physical traits. What is seen over time in humans, however, is that over the course of a couple of assimilated generations, true unity emerges.
For a positive example of such a scenario playing out over time, look no further than the United States itself. Earlier migrations occurred in intervals, but the most noteworthy might be that of the early 20th century. People from all over Europe and Asia immigrated to the United States - Poles, Czechs, Germans, Irish, Chinese, Koreans and more - and by the end of the 20th century (after a generation or two) they were throughly Americanized. They accepted, upon arrival, that they had to obtain the proper documentation, learn (and use) the language, and learn and adopt American customs; many went on to serve in the military, start businesses and become active members in the communities that had been there for generations. Yes, some retained aspects of their old cultures (cuisine, festivals, etc.), but they realized that this was a part of their individuality or familial heritage while not expecting the entire society to follow-suit. This is the “American Dream”.
For a historical example, consider the Romans. “Barbarian” populations were adopted as Romans only after the adoption of Roman customs, Roman Law and 25 years of military service in the Legions by the familial patriarch. A quarter of a century may seem like a long time, but it might just take a quarter of a century to thoroughly Romanize a person who grew-up clothed in animal skins and enacting tit-for-tat justice on his adversaries. On the other hand, a historical example of a non-welcoming host culture is Islamic Dhimmi system popularized during the Caliphates of the second millennium AD. In this system, non-Muslims lived in the society, but were subjected to fines and political exclusion due to their different religious beliefs.
This arrangement is the only one whereby the immigrant culture submits itself to the host culture, and has so far proven the only system - both contemporarily and historically - whereby lasting societal peace and mutual prosperity are made possible while minimizing the threat of violence.
Scenario 4: Cultural Fusion
The final scenario is the one wherein both the native population and the immigrants evolve their cultural identities to “make ideological room for each other”. In theory, each culture in a society lays aside its historical precedents, traditions and notions of superiority in favor of a “monoculture” that exercises fluidity-by-design. Such tolerance and fluidity is deemed essential, as it is a pre-requisite for facilitating prosperity for all - a prosperity which is only achievable through mutually interdependent societies reliant upon globalized trade3.
The thought process is that, “If we open ourselves up to free-flowing human and financial capital, then we will be wealthier; and obviously, a wealthier society ensures that criminality is disincentivized by the presence of more gainful alternatives (or the absence of poverty and the psychological effects that result). Thus, the society overall is happier and safer, thus social trust increases”.
In such an system, the purported benefits camouflage multiple weaknesses, which tend to be dismissed rather naively:
By systematically diluting culture, the native population is severed from generational wisdom, exchanging beauty and tradition for uniformity and convenience. Over time, the civilization’s generative intellectual and artistic output (and the quality of what is produced) decline dramatically4, as there is no consensus on what constitutes a “Good” production.
Social Trust decreases dramatically, as the common “social contract” is exchanged for moral relativism, where “rightness” becomes subjective rather than communal. The society, now comprised of multiple groups with very different operating models, will either avoid intergroup interactions altogether (social isolation) or have the most outspoken culture dominate (causing resentment among other groups that have “played along”).
The uniform application of Justice becomes exceedingly difficult, as what is “illegal” or unacceptable in one culture may be permissible - or encouraged - by others.
A single group can merely decide to take advantage of the arrangement by capitalizing on the sacrifices of the majority (which manifest as the taxpayer-funded systems put in place to support the original thesis, such as welfare, social services, public goods, etc.).
For the “Fusion” society to function as-intended it becomes necessary for a secular, top-down authority to dictate the policies necessary to bring about such a reality.
Thus, the ideal of Scenario 4 always begets one of the realities that are seen in Scenarios 1 and 2. The United States’ credential-based system has reached it’s utter limit and descended into tribalism, the Soviet Union devolved into outright slaughter and starvation, and the EU’s experiment turned awry the second that they moved their plan into “Stage 2” - opening up even further to non-Europeans (i.e. those who don’t share the same broad cultural and ethical frameworks).
On the other hand, Switzerland and Singapore are often hailed as pillars of the Fusionist vision. What is often overlooked, however, is that these nations have extremely selective, expensive and time-consuming immigration policies, not to mention the uncompromising legal and social systems that are equally demanding on foreigners and citizens alike.
Therefore, this scenario, while admittedly well-intentioned, simply cannot persist successfully in a society comprising many people and a large geographic area. It relies too heavily on the moral foundations of “Care” and “Fairness”, while being utterly divorced from the lived reality of many people in the very nations where it has been put into practice. It is only still proposed as a “vision” because of well-entrenched elite that resides in the academic and political systems.
Assigning Scores to Each Scenario
This would not be Game Theory in-earnest if there were no utility scores assigned at each decision point. I alluded in the first section to the high degree of complexity present in such a topic as “immigration”, so these scores are strictly my appraisal of each alternative along the following three categories:
Economic Outcomes: How the group fares economically based on their decision (short to medium-term).
Social Outcomes: How the group’s localized familial and community fares based on their decision (short to medium-term).
Cultural Outcomes: How the group’s community is poised to fare over subsequent generations, and how the culture deepens/hollows over time, based on their decision (long-term).
Using my evaluation methodology (and observed reality, I’d argue), it’s clear that it’s most advantageous for natives to maintain their traditions (hence their “wins” in column 1), and it’s most advantageous for immigrants to have the society that they enter evolve to accommodate them (hence their wins in column 2). The magnitude of each outcome, however, warrants explanations, which I’ve summarized in these elaborated score breakdowns.
Now, given that I’m not an Anthropologist or Economist, it goes without saying that these are my opinions. I’m more interested in providing a framework for evaluating alternatives and facilitating discussion than I am in getting into an online debate (there are plenty of those nowadays already). What I will say, however, is that the rules of common sense tend to side with Scenario 3; newcomers defer, while the natives extend hospitality to said-newcomers. In my opinion, any deviations from this commonsensical approach require a great deal of ignorance, mental gymnastics, manipulative name-calling, or “head in the sand” reasoning to justify.
Conclusion: Why Has Immigration Divided Our Society?
The ongoing immigration debate becomes ever-more-hostile as the months go on, as this issue has exposed yet another clear divergence of thought among the groups seeking to chart the course of our society into the future. In closing, I will add one more consideration for us “natives” ourselves, as well as a reason for hope and a call for understanding.
Conservatives (the typical “boogeymen” of immigration discussions) take a long-term view of overall human flourishing when evaluating their options on any number of issues. Thus, they are willing to be perceived as “assholes” or “ignorant” in the present in order to give their great-grandchildren a better life than they have today (through begetting a more coherent society with less crime, more economic opportunity, and preserved traditions). Furthermore, it has been rigorously proven by Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory and Lüders’ 2024 study5 that they appraise their views and conclusions from a very broad set of values, considerations and opinions - much broader than their counterparts.
Progressives, to give them their credit, don’t want to see people suffer - especially if they feel that we have adequate resources to help these people. This is an altogether noble aim. In their view, injustice is most evidenced by the presence of unequal outcomes across people groups (irregardless of the practices and actions that perpetuate such outcomes in the present). Furthermore, they feel that because of our level of prosperity, we owe it to the rest of humanity to “bring them up to our level” (as to refuse to do-so is cruel). Unfortunately, they don’t take a long-term view of the ripple effects such actions may cause.
Where Conservatives take a narrower view of who constitutes “our population” and extrapolate that concern over subsequent generations, Progressives use the broadest definition of “our population” and shorten the time horizon to the present (and immediate thereafter). Such is the difference in mental framing that leads to the justification of events like the forcing of untested vaccines on an entire population to “flatten the curve”, or the current protests (riots) across American cities resulting from a now-Conservative administration attempting to undo years of unmitigated subversion of the prescribed legal process.
It would be foolish to close-off our societies to the rest of the world entirely, but I believe that it is perhaps more foolish to devalue our societies themselves though poorly enforcing our own laws and permitting the unmitigated disadvantaging of our current and future citizenry through shrinking the economic opportunities available and hollowing our our culture in the name of an abstract “fairness”.
On the other hand, if we ennoble our citizens instead by giving them a heritage to hand-off to the next generation, the economic opportunities to generate social mobility, and strong institutions that protect their ability to do these things, then we have reason for nothing short of the greatest optimism.
MDM
Moral Foundations Theory, as popularized by Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind (Disclaimer: I make a commission if you purchase through the following link). (Visit https://moralfoundations.org to learn more or take a test to understand your own personal “political framework”)
“The typical prisoner's dilemma is set up so that both parties have an incentive to protect themselves at the expense of the other participant. As a result, both participants find themselves in a worse state than if they had cooperated with each other in the decision-making process” - Investopedia
This is the idealized version of the globalist vision, and one that many global “elites” have put forward for multiple subsequent generations. George Soros’ - the ultimate boogeyman - essentially proposes this exact type of society in his ideological framework. (See this video for a more fleshed-out version of his ideology):
I discuss the degradation of modern artistic output in more detail in my essay “Art, Then and Now”
Art, Then and Now
One of the most liberating things of having virtually no readership is that I am essentially free to write about whatever I feel like writing about, without needing to worry about my audience’s topical preferences. This affords me a great degree of creative license, as I have no “niche”.
Lüders, A., Carpentras, D., & Quayle, M. (2024). Attitude networks as intergroup realities: Using network‑modelling to research attitude‑identity relationships in polarized political contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12665
Summary: This study used a novel, network-based method to show that people's political attitudes cluster into distinct partisan belief systems, and that these attitude patterns strongly predict both how individuals see themselves politically and how they judge others.