migration flows worldwide follow a trend of moving from relatively corrupt nations to relatively honest nations. i think america is objectively corrupt, but compared to africa, india, and south america? america is relatively honest. australia and new zealand are more honest than america, so they're appealing destinations for migrants. if an african nation managed to purge itself of literally every corrupt official, that nation's population density would go insane as the world beat a path to its doorstep. they literally wouldn't be able to handle the chaos. as a result, i wouldn't recommend instantly purging 100% of corruption were it even possible. gradual reforms, though. gradual reforms would shut down brain drains and make it easier to attract foreign specialists on an as-needed basis. honest governance works. compare: conservative opponents of migration align with corrupt leaders and churn out misinformation. this shits up destination countries and makes them less appealing as places to migrate to. yet an anti-migration movement strong enough to convert a first world nation from a migrant destination to a migrant source would absolutely break that first world nation. extreme corruption could convert a developed nation back into a developing nation. if that happened, i have little hope that right-wing rags like the economist would report on it. the official numbers would never show the degeneration. the right-wing reliance on ubiquitous disinformation would guarantee it. a more pro-social means to reduce migrant flows is to support anti-corruption reforms overseas. first world foreign ministries should place integrity above ideological conformity in their evaluations of foreign governments. foreign aid policies should suffer curtailments and expansions according to patterns meant to prevent the corrupt from diverting resources. this would suppress migration flows in a way that improves global conditions long-term.
United States