I'm going to hijack this alternative history thread (which, no disrespect, love me some good alternative history), to pose what I swear is a sincere question and not a gotcha:
I was just re-reading the latest SB article on immigration (as part of the ongoing series) and it, like many SB articles on immigration, emphasizes the need to have a rules-based order for immigration management and enforcement. No argument here.
But what I always find fascinating is how in the SB comments, immigration is often *uniquely* cast as one of the few areas where it is extremely important to have and maintain rules; people will scoff at MY's focus on expired plates or loudly extoll their god-given right to drive 100 mph regardless of who it puts at risk*, but immigration activates a different nerve where *here*, there can be no exceptions (note that I'm not accusing individuals of hypocrisy; I'm not necessarily saying it's the same people expressing these opinions, just noting the general mood).
Why is this? Why does the notion of rules and enforcing rules uniquely activate a deeply felt nerve when it comes to enforcing immigration? I would say something about people's deep-seated belief in territorial integrity, but I don't think so - there was a lot of shrugging at summarily executing people who happen to be in boats off the coast of Venezuela, which is as clear violation of territorial integrity as they come.
Again, not an accusation of hypocrisy or bad faith - I'm just trying to understand why immigration excites - in some cases uniquely - a defense of "rules" where in other domains it's more like, eh, if it's convenient.
Because most Americans think speeding is either good or a trivial issue (ditto for the other listed offences) but that illegal immigration is bad and serious.
Notably people feel strongly about rules like fare evasion, theft etc. so I don’t think immigration is unique in that regard.
You are getting at a key insight, which is that "following the rules" doesn't really matter that much to anyone. What matters is the degree to which one dislikes the underlying substantive thing (which in this case isn't necessarily immigration writ large - different people have different views about what types of immigration are good or bad).
>Why is this? Why does the notion of rules and enforcing rules uniquely activate a deeply felt nerve when it comes to enforcing immigration?<
I think rules should be enforced in all or most areas: taxes, paying your subway fare, littering, polluting, spending what Congress allocated, the speed you drive at, voting, consumer charges, etc. Either enforce rules or change/remove them.
But perhaps the reason the enforcement of immigration rules gets so much attention (and very broad support nearly everywhere these days, except for the hard left) is the realization that immigration has an extremely potent effect on *electoral politics*.
Anway, I believe we're hardwired by evolution to fear/loathe/avoid resource competition, and so yes, the specter of "excessive" numbers of newcomes touches something deeply primal in our species.
I think he means it affects electoral politics by bringing out strong right-aligned feelings from people who might not otherwise vote with the right. Which is true - it does do that. Whether that's why it gets so much attention here or not, I don't know.
"people will scoff at MY's focus on expired plates or loudly extoll their god-given right to drive 100 mph regardless of who it puts at risk"
Where do you get the people of SB saying these kinds of thing? Maybe a few have, but the median opinion here agrees with MY on expired plates and thinks speeding is bad. The entire Democratic party, especially its white-collar, professional middle class branch, is the party of rule-following nowadays.
The premise is very flawed.
But even taking that as a starting point the average view here is probably "be like Obama" which is closer to "let's make some reasonable effort to enforce the rules" than to "let's get every single illegal at all costs". I'm not sure why that would be very different from other viewpoints on rules-following.
It's a failure to walk in another man's shoes. Virtually all Slow Borers will never be involved in illegal immigration in any way. As much or maybe more importantly, no one in their family or social circle will be involved in illegal immigration. It's easy to be in favor of strict enforcement when you know that there is no consequence at all for yourself or anyone you know.
Darkly, it's generally unseemly to be against immigration broadly, especially when you're sophisticated to know that you and your immigrant ancestors are not like these immigrants. So being in favor of a strict enforcement of the rules for their own sake sidesteps any grappling with that.
They're also unlikely to interact with the issues exacerbated by illegal immigration. It's easy to be in favor of lax enforcement when there are no visible consequences for anyone you know.
I strongly dispute that this is the case, and I think that a belief that rules should be followed and an aesthetic appreciation of orderliness have more explanatory power than anything else when considering how the comments are going to come down on any particular issue.
I'm sure someone on here has disagreed with Matt about the license plates but I think most people agree with him, and I'm not sure who is pro-extreme speeding but I don't think it's most people or that this is a much-discussed idea.
Other widely held lawful-aligned views are that governments should do what it takes to prevent people from creating a disorderly environment in public spaces, and that traditional vices like gambling should be discouraged.
Just throwing it out there, illegal immigration alters the permanent socioeconomic ecosystem in a way that momentarily speeding, or whatever, does not (unless you hit and kill someone, but Americans are not so sympathetic to the accidental killer driver).
When your kids behave badly it's part of the normal scenario. If a guest in your house behaves badly it's considered rude. In addition to ingrained animal territorialism maybe we expect immigrants to behave better. On my many trips to Mexico I tried to not act like a complete dope whereas here I was more susceptible, lol.
The response to this is the ‘have you ever run through a red light’ scene from Dave. Americans don’t view traffic laws as ‘real’ laws. Like when you are asked if you have been convicted of a crime traffic violations are excepted.
Because the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must. The US has never had the slightest respect for borders when it comes to doing things like bombing boats, so is not taken seriously when talking up the sanctity of borders. The only anti-immigration position I really respect is the isolationist paleocon position that US authority also ends at the border. Otherwise talk of borders just feels like the old saying.
>The US has never had the slightest respect for borders when it comes to doing things like bombing boats
What are you referencing here? The Trump administration's recent attacks on claimed Venezuelan drug smugglers? Those appear to be illegal, but they took place in international waters. I don't know how respect for international borders or foreign sovereignty plays into it
There is a big miss here: with all that seacoast, there is no way that Mr. Winston “We can invade Constantinople by sea” Churchill won’t try *something*. He had a lot of British boats, the intense need to knock Italy out of the war, and quite a few options.
So take your pick: Roman Gallipolli? The Sicilian Republic? Whatever it is, it’s getting called “Operation Hauteville”.
I'm also highly skeptical Austria would've stood any chance against a (albeit weakened) Russia even leading up to the Revolution but this is what makes these alt histories so fun.
One point I think Matt is overlooking - Italian neutrality helped indirectly bring the Ottoman Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers, which ultimately proved much more distracting to the Allies (especially the British).
Long story short, the Germans had a modern battlecruiser - the Goeben - in the Mediterranean on the outbreak of war. Since the neutral Italians were unwilling to allow it to dock more than 48 hours and any Austrian port could be easily blockaded, the Goeben fled into the Dardanelles and forced the Ottomans to choose between the Germans and the British. The Ottoman Pasha allowed the ship to pass by the Turkish minefields. Once the Goeben (and its escort the light cruiser Breslau) were in the straits it could not be easily ejected or controlled by the Turks, and in fact precipitated actual war with Russia and the Ottomans by sailing in to the Black Sea on its Admiral's own initiative and bombarding Russian ports. Had the Goeben been allowed to dock in an Italian port such as Taranto, the Ottomans may well have stayed neutral.
Didn’t Russia enter the war before it was clear that the Ottomans would? Obviously they want Constantinople, but it is not clear that the Turks enter the war based on that alone (though it is certainly possible)
One of the things that really stands out in military history is how lopsided conflicts usually are—the side with better organization and technology usually completely trounces the other side even though by the numbers it might seem like a more even fight. The most extreme examples being things like the Spanish conquest of the New World where for example a couple hundred Spaniards defeated the entire Incan Empire at Cajamarca. World War I was less extreme but the main takeaway is also that the smaller countries made little difference in the face of the war machines of the major advanced powers Germany, Britain, France, and even the US later. I would count Austria-Hungary as a less-advanced power here because they also lost pretty consistently, and Germany had to bail out Austria-Hungary’s losses against Russia in the early stages of the war by shifting troops from France to East Prussia where they quickly romped the Russians. Romania joining the Allies made no difference at all when Germany overran it quickly. So I think Italy switching sides would not have mattered—even if it freed up Austrian units, they were probably the worst-performing large country and also required German bailouts.
The broader lesson about politics is that power and competence really matter, if Austria-Hungary had performed better militarily and held off Russia in the initial stages of the war, that would’ve freed up way more German troops to attack France than Italy would have. The Entente won ultimately because they controlled more resources including a vast colonial empire they could use to starve the Central Powers, not because they gave up bits of their empire to minor powers to induce them to join the war.
If Matt (and anyone else) is having a Hapsburg nostalgia moment, this NY Times article about the long lost Florentine Diamond is fascinating. Back in 1919 some of the Hapsburg jewelry, including this gem, were deemed to be personal Hapsburg property, not 'crown jewels'. The matriarch manage to keep them hidden in Switzerland, then Canada, for a century.
The other counterfactual is what would have happened had Wilson kept the US out of the war? By 1917, the Allies & the Central Powers were broke. Only US money kept the Allies afloat; the Central Powers starved, even with Ukraine's grain. Would all the European powers have collapsed? Would they have been forced to make peace? Either way, what would the consequences have been?
Random thought on the impending end of the shutdown: Like a lot of Democrats I'd prefer to see this thing continue, until Senate Republicans are forced to gut the filibuster. HOWEVER, one political silver lining (albeit a horrible one for millions of people) is the specter of big increases in health insurance premiums. Had Republicans buckled on this, they'd be doing themselves a political favor.
This is a gift-wrapped issue for Democrats. And yes, there are a lot of pissed off members of my political tribe right now. But as we saw last week, the REAL way to stick it to MAGA is to beat them in elections. A blowout in next year's midterms will be more satisfying on that score than forcing Republicans to back down on Obamacare subsidies in the here and now.
I have read both explanations. Italy, in my view, was never likely to join the Central Powers in the war (they were terrified of the British navy), but they were more likely to just stay neutral. There is a world where neither side views Italy as important and they sit out, which would have a similar impact to your scenario. I could see Italy joining at the end, if a Central Powers victory seemed likely, but as opportunists: not as part of any concrete gains.
In the end, if the Triple Entente survives the initial onslaught, and the US still joins, I suspect WWI ends similarly.
Thanks. A fun read. I don’t doubt your speculation that with Italy joining the Central Powers, they would have won WWI. It was “a close run thing” anyway. Also, France was on the verge of revolution even in victory, so a defeat would have had catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, you can’t really be too deterministic about these things. Most importantly, your parallel to the potentially existential threat that Donald Trump is posing to our political system in comparison to the failure of Austria to recognize the risk of failure in WWI is very apt. Rather than bashing Schumer and the ten renegades, Democrats need to pick up a half dozen more fair weather friends because they can’t afford any more enemies.
Minor correction. South Tyrol had two parts. What we call South Tyrol now was dominated by German speakers and even as part of Italy is still 70% German speaking. The region of Trento had more Italian speakers and is more what Italy wanted. They wanted South Tyrol as well since that would extend their control to the Alpine passes.
Hemingway never would have gone to Italy and written the classic A Farewell to Arms. So literary karma wise the world would have been far worse. 😎But I think all of these empires needed to be broken up, especially Austria. And I doubt if Germany would have been better off. Hitler did enough damage even starting from a weak Germany. So I think Italy did the right thing 🙂
Germany would clearly have been better off if they’d won World War I; there would be no Hitler.
The only two empires that were really broken up were Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans and neither was good for their poorer peripheral areas that gained “independence”, it resulted in a century of war and poverty in the Balkans and never-ending war and poverty in the Levant.
Small countries in the Balkans also would not have survived on their own in the early 20th century surrounded by predatory big powers, that’s why the Allies forced them to unite into Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, but even those were too small and quickly taken over by Germany in WWII. Only the EU allows small countries in Europe to survive. The small countries broken from the Ottoman Empire are all either failed states or empires of their own.
I'm going to hijack this alternative history thread (which, no disrespect, love me some good alternative history), to pose what I swear is a sincere question and not a gotcha:
I was just re-reading the latest SB article on immigration (as part of the ongoing series) and it, like many SB articles on immigration, emphasizes the need to have a rules-based order for immigration management and enforcement. No argument here.
But what I always find fascinating is how in the SB comments, immigration is often *uniquely* cast as one of the few areas where it is extremely important to have and maintain rules; people will scoff at MY's focus on expired plates or loudly extoll their god-given right to drive 100 mph regardless of who it puts at risk*, but immigration activates a different nerve where *here*, there can be no exceptions (note that I'm not accusing individuals of hypocrisy; I'm not necessarily saying it's the same people expressing these opinions, just noting the general mood).
Why is this? Why does the notion of rules and enforcing rules uniquely activate a deeply felt nerve when it comes to enforcing immigration? I would say something about people's deep-seated belief in territorial integrity, but I don't think so - there was a lot of shrugging at summarily executing people who happen to be in boats off the coast of Venezuela, which is as clear violation of territorial integrity as they come.
Again, not an accusation of hypocrisy or bad faith - I'm just trying to understand why immigration excites - in some cases uniquely - a defense of "rules" where in other domains it's more like, eh, if it's convenient.
* But that shit is sociopathic, what the hell.
It's almost unfair to compare anything to driving. Americans have a unique obsession with driving like a maniac.
Because most Americans think speeding is either good or a trivial issue (ditto for the other listed offences) but that illegal immigration is bad and serious.
Notably people feel strongly about rules like fare evasion, theft etc. so I don’t think immigration is unique in that regard.
You are getting at a key insight, which is that "following the rules" doesn't really matter that much to anyone. What matters is the degree to which one dislikes the underlying substantive thing (which in this case isn't necessarily immigration writ large - different people have different views about what types of immigration are good or bad).
>Why is this? Why does the notion of rules and enforcing rules uniquely activate a deeply felt nerve when it comes to enforcing immigration?<
I think rules should be enforced in all or most areas: taxes, paying your subway fare, littering, polluting, spending what Congress allocated, the speed you drive at, voting, consumer charges, etc. Either enforce rules or change/remove them.
But perhaps the reason the enforcement of immigration rules gets so much attention (and very broad support nearly everywhere these days, except for the hard left) is the realization that immigration has an extremely potent effect on *electoral politics*.
Anway, I believe we're hardwired by evolution to fear/loathe/avoid resource competition, and so yes, the specter of "excessive" numbers of newcomes touches something deeply primal in our species.
Illegal immigrants can’t vote though. They might impact electoral politics through Census and districting but it’s unclear which party this helps.
I think he means it affects electoral politics by bringing out strong right-aligned feelings from people who might not otherwise vote with the right. Which is true - it does do that. Whether that's why it gets so much attention here or not, I don't know.
"people will scoff at MY's focus on expired plates or loudly extoll their god-given right to drive 100 mph regardless of who it puts at risk"
Where do you get the people of SB saying these kinds of thing? Maybe a few have, but the median opinion here agrees with MY on expired plates and thinks speeding is bad. The entire Democratic party, especially its white-collar, professional middle class branch, is the party of rule-following nowadays.
The premise is very flawed.
But even taking that as a starting point the average view here is probably "be like Obama" which is closer to "let's make some reasonable effort to enforce the rules" than to "let's get every single illegal at all costs". I'm not sure why that would be very different from other viewpoints on rules-following.
It's a failure to walk in another man's shoes. Virtually all Slow Borers will never be involved in illegal immigration in any way. As much or maybe more importantly, no one in their family or social circle will be involved in illegal immigration. It's easy to be in favor of strict enforcement when you know that there is no consequence at all for yourself or anyone you know.
Darkly, it's generally unseemly to be against immigration broadly, especially when you're sophisticated to know that you and your immigrant ancestors are not like these immigrants. So being in favor of a strict enforcement of the rules for their own sake sidesteps any grappling with that.
They're also unlikely to interact with the issues exacerbated by illegal immigration. It's easy to be in favor of lax enforcement when there are no visible consequences for anyone you know.
I strongly dispute that this is the case, and I think that a belief that rules should be followed and an aesthetic appreciation of orderliness have more explanatory power than anything else when considering how the comments are going to come down on any particular issue.
I'm sure someone on here has disagreed with Matt about the license plates but I think most people agree with him, and I'm not sure who is pro-extreme speeding but I don't think it's most people or that this is a much-discussed idea.
Other widely held lawful-aligned views are that governments should do what it takes to prevent people from creating a disorderly environment in public spaces, and that traditional vices like gambling should be discouraged.
Just throwing it out there, illegal immigration alters the permanent socioeconomic ecosystem in a way that momentarily speeding, or whatever, does not (unless you hit and kill someone, but Americans are not so sympathetic to the accidental killer driver).
When your kids behave badly it's part of the normal scenario. If a guest in your house behaves badly it's considered rude. In addition to ingrained animal territorialism maybe we expect immigrants to behave better. On my many trips to Mexico I tried to not act like a complete dope whereas here I was more susceptible, lol.
The response to this is the ‘have you ever run through a red light’ scene from Dave. Americans don’t view traffic laws as ‘real’ laws. Like when you are asked if you have been convicted of a crime traffic violations are excepted.
Because the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must. The US has never had the slightest respect for borders when it comes to doing things like bombing boats, so is not taken seriously when talking up the sanctity of borders. The only anti-immigration position I really respect is the isolationist paleocon position that US authority also ends at the border. Otherwise talk of borders just feels like the old saying.
>The US has never had the slightest respect for borders when it comes to doing things like bombing boats
What are you referencing here? The Trump administration's recent attacks on claimed Venezuelan drug smugglers? Those appear to be illegal, but they took place in international waters. I don't know how respect for international borders or foreign sovereignty plays into it
I'm definitely bringing this up on a future date.
There is a big miss here: with all that seacoast, there is no way that Mr. Winston “We can invade Constantinople by sea” Churchill won’t try *something*. He had a lot of British boats, the intense need to knock Italy out of the war, and quite a few options.
So take your pick: Roman Gallipolli? The Sicilian Republic? Whatever it is, it’s getting called “Operation Hauteville”.
I will maintain the Gallipoli campaign was a good idea but failed due to:
1) Poor execution
2) Lack of Army-Navy cooperation
3) Complete lack of understanding of modern minefields
4) Slowness in taking seriously the need for professionally manned minesweeping vessels
Once it failed, there was the interminable throwing good money after bad, but the idea was reasonable.
I'm also highly skeptical Austria would've stood any chance against a (albeit weakened) Russia even leading up to the Revolution but this is what makes these alt histories so fun.
I don’t get it. Austria won against the actual Russia and was a signatory to Brest-Litovsk.
One point I think Matt is overlooking - Italian neutrality helped indirectly bring the Ottoman Empire into the war on the side of the Central Powers, which ultimately proved much more distracting to the Allies (especially the British).
Long story short, the Germans had a modern battlecruiser - the Goeben - in the Mediterranean on the outbreak of war. Since the neutral Italians were unwilling to allow it to dock more than 48 hours and any Austrian port could be easily blockaded, the Goeben fled into the Dardanelles and forced the Ottomans to choose between the Germans and the British. The Ottoman Pasha allowed the ship to pass by the Turkish minefields. Once the Goeben (and its escort the light cruiser Breslau) were in the straits it could not be easily ejected or controlled by the Turks, and in fact precipitated actual war with Russia and the Ottomans by sailing in to the Black Sea on its Admiral's own initiative and bombarding Russian ports. Had the Goeben been allowed to dock in an Italian port such as Taranto, the Ottomans may well have stayed neutral.
Good point, but Russia’s price for entry was always Constantinople. So the clash was coming.
Didn’t Russia enter the war before it was clear that the Ottomans would? Obviously they want Constantinople, but it is not clear that the Turks enter the war based on that alone (though it is certainly possible)
One of the things that really stands out in military history is how lopsided conflicts usually are—the side with better organization and technology usually completely trounces the other side even though by the numbers it might seem like a more even fight. The most extreme examples being things like the Spanish conquest of the New World where for example a couple hundred Spaniards defeated the entire Incan Empire at Cajamarca. World War I was less extreme but the main takeaway is also that the smaller countries made little difference in the face of the war machines of the major advanced powers Germany, Britain, France, and even the US later. I would count Austria-Hungary as a less-advanced power here because they also lost pretty consistently, and Germany had to bail out Austria-Hungary’s losses against Russia in the early stages of the war by shifting troops from France to East Prussia where they quickly romped the Russians. Romania joining the Allies made no difference at all when Germany overran it quickly. So I think Italy switching sides would not have mattered—even if it freed up Austrian units, they were probably the worst-performing large country and also required German bailouts.
The broader lesson about politics is that power and competence really matter, if Austria-Hungary had performed better militarily and held off Russia in the initial stages of the war, that would’ve freed up way more German troops to attack France than Italy would have. The Entente won ultimately because they controlled more resources including a vast colonial empire they could use to starve the Central Powers, not because they gave up bits of their empire to minor powers to induce them to join the war.
If Matt (and anyone else) is having a Hapsburg nostalgia moment, this NY Times article about the long lost Florentine Diamond is fascinating. Back in 1919 some of the Hapsburg jewelry, including this gem, were deemed to be personal Hapsburg property, not 'crown jewels'. The matriarch manage to keep them hidden in Switzerland, then Canada, for a century.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/arts/design/florentine-diamond-resurfaces-hapsburg.html
The other counterfactual is what would have happened had Wilson kept the US out of the war? By 1917, the Allies & the Central Powers were broke. Only US money kept the Allies afloat; the Central Powers starved, even with Ukraine's grain. Would all the European powers have collapsed? Would they have been forced to make peace? Either way, what would the consequences have been?
Random thought on the impending end of the shutdown: Like a lot of Democrats I'd prefer to see this thing continue, until Senate Republicans are forced to gut the filibuster. HOWEVER, one political silver lining (albeit a horrible one for millions of people) is the specter of big increases in health insurance premiums. Had Republicans buckled on this, they'd be doing themselves a political favor.
This is a gift-wrapped issue for Democrats. And yes, there are a lot of pissed off members of my political tribe right now. But as we saw last week, the REAL way to stick it to MAGA is to beat them in elections. A blowout in next year's midterms will be more satisfying on that score than forcing Republicans to back down on Obamacare subsidies in the here and now.
Spain often feels like the odd man out in 20th century Europe.
I have read both explanations. Italy, in my view, was never likely to join the Central Powers in the war (they were terrified of the British navy), but they were more likely to just stay neutral. There is a world where neither side views Italy as important and they sit out, which would have a similar impact to your scenario. I could see Italy joining at the end, if a Central Powers victory seemed likely, but as opportunists: not as part of any concrete gains.
In the end, if the Triple Entente survives the initial onslaught, and the US still joins, I suspect WWI ends similarly.
Great job, Austria! [claps sarcastically]
Thanks. A fun read. I don’t doubt your speculation that with Italy joining the Central Powers, they would have won WWI. It was “a close run thing” anyway. Also, France was on the verge of revolution even in victory, so a defeat would have had catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, you can’t really be too deterministic about these things. Most importantly, your parallel to the potentially existential threat that Donald Trump is posing to our political system in comparison to the failure of Austria to recognize the risk of failure in WWI is very apt. Rather than bashing Schumer and the ten renegades, Democrats need to pick up a half dozen more fair weather friends because they can’t afford any more enemies.
Minor correction. South Tyrol had two parts. What we call South Tyrol now was dominated by German speakers and even as part of Italy is still 70% German speaking. The region of Trento had more Italian speakers and is more what Italy wanted. They wanted South Tyrol as well since that would extend their control to the Alpine passes.
Hemingway never would have gone to Italy and written the classic A Farewell to Arms. So literary karma wise the world would have been far worse. 😎But I think all of these empires needed to be broken up, especially Austria. And I doubt if Germany would have been better off. Hitler did enough damage even starting from a weak Germany. So I think Italy did the right thing 🙂
Germany would clearly have been better off if they’d won World War I; there would be no Hitler.
The only two empires that were really broken up were Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans and neither was good for their poorer peripheral areas that gained “independence”, it resulted in a century of war and poverty in the Balkans and never-ending war and poverty in the Levant.
Small countries in the Balkans also would not have survived on their own in the early 20th century surrounded by predatory big powers, that’s why the Allies forced them to unite into Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, but even those were too small and quickly taken over by Germany in WWII. Only the EU allows small countries in Europe to survive. The small countries broken from the Ottoman Empire are all either failed states or empires of their own.