Elon Musk has just turned around on the subject of immigration. He has just engaged in a public battle to defend H1-B visas. The billionaire, a leading figure in the conservative movement, now vehemently asserts that these visas are “essential for America to continue to win.”
Musk's U-turn on immigration
This position sparked a veritable civil war within the conservative movement. Faced with criticism, Musk reacted with virulence, going so far as to declare that he “would go to war on this issue in a way you cannot understand”. To justify his position, he recalls that his own presence in the United States, as well as that of many key talents from SpaceX and Tesla, is due to H1-B program.
Donald Trump himself seems to align with this positiontelling the New York Post to be “a strong supporter of H1-B visas” which he uses extensively in his own businesses. This unexpected support from two major figures of the MAGA movement angered traditional conservatives like Steve Bannon, which accuses Musk of betraying American workers.
This controversy perfectly illustrates the analysis of Curtis Yarvin(an American tech thinker) on real motivations behind skilled immigration : an alliance between the interests of big business and a certain technocratic vision of excellence.
The right is divided following Musk's positions
His reflection comes in a tense context, while the American right is torn apart over the issue of Indian visas and that artificial intelligence threatens to disrupt the job market.
The recent electoral victory of the American “New Right” was not enough to maintain the unity of the movement. The debate over Indian visas creates a deep divide between the rationalists and traditionalists of the movement. For Yarvin, this division illustrates the limits of the traditional liberal framework in which both camps remain locked.
“Liberalism as we know it is only 250 years old”he recalls, “a shorter lifespan than some Chinese dynasties”.
The State as a sovereign enterprise
Yarvin offers a radically different vision of the modern state. For him, the government should be considered as a sovereign enterprise, owner of its territory and its population. This approach contrasts with the traditional liberal vision where the State exists to serve its citizens.
“The State owns its subjects”he states bluntly, recognizing the shocking nature of this position for modern thought. He considers this vision closer to that of Plato than to current liberalism. For him, the nation is the people, and the state is the rightful owner – of land, structures and people.
This property implies a exclusive domination. If certain branches of the State can sometimes protect the subject of other branches, the state as a whole can do what it wants with any of its subjects. It is there, according to Yarvin, the very definition of sovereignty.
The State must take care of its national human capital?
For Yarvin, the objective of a state should not be to maximize GDP, but to optimize the value of its human capital. He compares the current situation in the United States to “a rental car where no one changes the oil.”
This vision implies that the State must protect and develop human capital. He is responsible for its appreciation or depreciation. Indeed, work, especially complex and challenging work that pushes the limits of a profession or skill, is what makes human beings more valuable.
A critique of skilled immigration
Yarvin's position on skilled immigration directly opposes that of his friend Elon Musk. He considers that H1-B visa program is a 'Band-Aid' that masks America's inability to develop its own human capital.
“We are pumping all the appreciation energy into these H1-Bs, which are another government's human assets, while our own human capital rots on the couch”he denounces. This approach, according to him, harms American workers who find themselves underemployed while companies import foreign talent.
It also highlights the absurdity of the situation where a third world country is losing its most valuable talents even though it needs it much more than the United States.
The motivations behind immigration
Yarvin identifies two main motivations behind migration policy: corporate profits and political ambition. In the best case scenario, it is a way for businesses to save money by using cheaper foreign labor. In the worst case, it is a project aimed at giving power to a small “meritocratic” oligarchy on the whole of society.
He suggests that businesses should realize that they can still win by being the best, as long as their competitors must also use national labor. As for the oligarchy, his provocative suggestion is that it “should be deported to Mars.”
AI: extraterrestrial immigration
Yarvin concludes with a warning about artificial intelligence, which he compares to a “extraterrestrial immigration”. In five to ten years, he warns, AI could make a large part of the workforce, including skilled workers, obsolete.
“It is a greater destroyer of the demand for labor than the weaving machine and the steam engine combined.”he says. AI will destroy the demand for humans in the developed world, the developing world, and probably even on Mars.
Faced with this challenge, he proposes a radical solution: deliberately restrict technology to maintain the demand for quality human labor.
Towards an anti-tech revolution?
The alternative to this technological restriction would be, according to Yarvin, a “fully automated luxurious communism” where the total absence of meaning would cause a moral and then political collapse of humanity.
This political collapse could lead to a civilizational suicide, “subjugation by barbarians, and a return to pre-industrial technological levels”.
Yarvin's reflection highlights the major challenges facing modern societies: how to manage human capital in a globalized world and where machines are replacing humans in all high value-added activities.
Maximize your Tremplin.io experience with our 'Read to Earn' program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
