Keep Working on That Second Passport!

It’s a gorgeous new week!

I hope you had a pleasant and restful weekend.

We took full advantage of not being able to do a damn thing here in the Philippines, that’s for sure!

I had a great chinwag with a good friend of mine this weekend about second passports.  Let me share some of the bits with you.

Some Valid Concerns

My friend A lives in Poland with his wife and two sons.  He’s a British citizen with German ancestry.

Thanks to the nonexistent negotiating skills of the UK government and the lack of Polish government IT skills, he’s in a bit of a pickle concerning his residency.

As his father was German, A can get a German passport.  Acquiring the passport of the EU’s biggest economy would solve all his problems.

A brought up some valid points concerning acquiring a second passport, which I’ll layout for you, with my thoughts on them.

One: Will You Be a Good Citizen

I couldn’t find the reference myself, but A brought up an interesting warning on the website.  It was to the effect of, “Will you be a good citizen and pay your taxes?”

Of course, they’d never be so blunt, but they want anyone with ancestry to live there and pay taxes.

If you got a direct invitation from Angela Merkel in 2015, hilariously, you didn’t have to follow the second bit.

Two: Lawyering Up

A has plenty of cash, so buying a lawyer’s services is no big deal for him.

But paying cash in exchange for citizenship is not a guaranteed process.

So forking out a bunch of money for a “citizenship call option” should give one pause.

The law firm I worked with for my Italian citizenship wouldn’t take my case unless they were sure I’d get it.

Once I passed through those hoops, they were happy to start the process.

So my advice is to find a law firm that offers that courtesy.  Don’t pay them a thing until they’re sure they can get you through.

Talk to a couple of them.  In this case, your judgment of their character is more important than the fee you’d pay.

Gentle reminder: if you call my law firm (in the link above) and tell them I sent you, you’ll get a 5% discount.

Yet Another Reason a Proper Passport Will Be a Necessity

In the war against the natives, countries will increasingly demand more than a resident permit for you to reside in their country.

Any resident that doesn’t match his government’s demographic, socioeconomic, or political views will be punitively taxed.

You can call me a “conspiracy theorist,” but the UN itself wrote a report titled, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?.

Here are the last words of the report:

As such, international migration must be seen as part of the larger globalization process taking place throughout the world, influencing the economic, political and cultural character of both sending and receiving countries. While orderly international migration can provide countries of origin with remittances and facilitate the transfer of skills and technology, it also may entail the loss of needed human resources. Similarly, international migration can provide countries of destination with needed human resources and talent, but may also give rise to social tensions.  Effective international migration policies must therefore take into account the impact on both the host society and countries of origin.

All sensible stuff.  Of course, they knew the social tensions were coming.  Anyone without blinders on could see it coming from a mile away.

You know what’s crazier?

That report was written in 2001, and not one person in 10,000 knows it.

Some of the points from the Executive Summary:

    1. The numbers of migrants needed to offset declines in the working-age population are significantly larger than those needed to offset total population decline. Whether those larger numbers of migrants arewithin the realm of options open to Governments depends to a great extent on the social, economic and political circumstances of the particular country or region.

    2. If retirement ages remain essentially where they are today, increasing the size of the working-age population through international migration is the only option in the short to medium term to reduce declines in the potential support ratio.

    3. The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing (i.e., maintain potential support ratios) are extremely high, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than has occurred in the past.

    4. Maintaining potential support ratios at current levels through replacement migration alone seems out of reach, because of the extraordinarily large numbers of migrants that would be required.

    5. Possible future increases in economic activity rates for people aged less than 65 years cannot, on their own, be a solution to the decline in the active support ratios caused by population ageing.

Here’s where I’m going with this.

The backlash against immigrants, migration, and government policies are already vociferous and the potential for civil conflict is real and growing.

Governments around the world know this.

For instance, if you’re a white American who opposes the teaching of the ridiculous Critical Race Theory in your kids’ schools, you may be on this naughty list.

I think the great Austrian economist and philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe will ultimately be proven correct.

Who The Rulers Really Want In Their Country

Hoppe wrote Democracy: The God That Failed, a series of essays refuting the idea that democracy was “the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Thanks to Hoppe, I hate when midwits recite Churchill’s wrong-headed quote (usually incorrectly).

For Hoppe, democracy is a “soft variant of communism.”  And “has nothing to do with freedom.”

Those words may sting.  But after your initial shock and horror, you’ll almost certainly agree with him.

Do you feel free right now?  Can you seriously describe this democratically accepted state of things as free?

Of course not.

One of the essays in the book is titled, “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration.”

In it, Hoppe writes:

Migration policies become predictably different, once the government is publicly owned. The ruler no longer owns the country’s capital value, but only has current use of it. He cannot sell or bequeath his position as ruler; he is merely a temporary caretaker. Moreover, “free entry” into the position of a caretaker government exists. Anyone can, in principle, become the ruler of the country.

Democracies as they came into existence on a world-wide scale after World War I offer historical examples of public government.

What are a democracy’s migration policies? Once again assuming no more than self-interest (maximizing monetary and psychic income: money and power), democratic rulers tend to maximize current income, which they can appropriate privately, at the expense of capital values, which they cannot appropriate privately. Hence, in accordance with democracy’s inherent egalitarianism of one-man-one-vote, they tend to pursue a distinctly egalitarian – non-discriminatory – emigration and immigration policy.

As far as emigration policy is concerned, this implies that for a democratic ruler it makes little, if any, difference whether productive or unproductive people, geniuses or bums leave the country. They have all one equal vote. In fact, democratic rulers might well be more concerned about the loss of a bum than that of a productive genius. While the loss of the latter would obviously lower the capital value of the country and loss of the former might actually increase it, a democratic ruler does not own the country. In the short run, which most interests a democratic ruler, the bum, voting most likely in favor of egalitarian measures, might be more valuable than the productive genius who, as egalitarianism’s prime victim, will more likely vote against the democratic ruler.

I can’t encourage you to read that essay, and the entire book, enough.

So the conclusion I reach is that like a rubber band that’s been stretched too far, current migration policy, UN-backed or not, will snap.

At that point, you need to be on the right side of the fence, whatever country that is.

As Nomad Capitalist founder Andrew Henderson says, “You’d rather be three years early than one day late.”

Have a fantastically profitable week ahead!

All the best,

Sean

You May Also Be Interested In:

Without One of THESE, You Will Fail

Trading is as much a mental game as it is a technical game. If you don’t believe that you are going to succeed as a trader, chances are you won’t. You need to get into the right mindset as a trader or you’ll never make it.

Sean Ring

Around the World in 22 Years with Sean Ring

Okay, let's take it from the top.

Joisey!

For something I did in a past life, I was born in New Jersey. I haven’t figured out what that was yet. Joking aside, I loved growing up in Hasbrouck Heights. It was a fun town.

I was...

View More By Sean Ring