Unconventional warfare

[ChefBourgeoisie]

If a "developing" (read: shithole) country had a large population, and if this country wanted to wage warfare against the United States in a plausibly deniable manner, might it not just nudge its own people to emigrate there? Think about it.

1. The cost of waging war in this manner is negligible.
2. The damage they cause just being there is so much more profound than any rifle, grenade, or shoulder-launched missile could hope to do.
3. Any attempt to fight back by the United States is met with condemnation. Even deportations are more like a time-out, than the elimination of a combatant: they'll be back in 6-12 months.
4. This manner of warfare encourages traitors in the United States to help the enemy.

Now, keep in mind that this wouldn't even have to be a deliberate act. If these things are true for the scheming Machiavellian enemy who does it deliberately, how are they any less true for the incompetent, buffoonish third-world country doing it by accident?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The way I see it, even if you have an unplanned situation that resembles a coordinated outcome, it does not make the underlying thing a "war" in any useful sense
Consider how a swarm of termites can make a house collapse. Would that make the termites soldiers engaging in unconventional warfare? In my opinion the answer is no, and the useful findings from that situation are that the structure is vulnerable, and that the vulnerability is being exploited by incentives/physics, and not by a command hierarchy

It's the same thing with the USA and immigration
If the damage is profound, then the causal mechanism is almost entirely inside the US state apparatus. Shit like welfare, transfer rules, public schooling burdens, labor licensing, a cartelized housing policy, voting-redistribution mechanisms, and blowback caused by foreign policy, just to name a handful of things. These mechanisms turn migration into forced cost-shifting and institutional decay.
Consider

they'll be back in 6-12 months.

deportations are more like a time-out

If the mechanisms I named wouldn't exist, these statements wouldn't even be coherent. Like, in order to be coherent, they presuppose this entire state-managed pipeline.

The way I see it, all you do by calling it "war" is to smuggle in collective guilt (treating migrants as a "combatant" class) and enemy-style remedies (treating a policy failure like a battlefield).
If you want to make the point that mass migration under current institutional conditions can create large negative externalities, then just say that outright and target the institutions and domestic operators responsible for maintaining those conditions. If your point is that foreign governments are intentionally exporting people as a weapon, then that's a separate claim that needs separate evidence. "It could happen intentionally, therefore it's war even when it's incidental" fucks up the distinction that lets you meaningfully determine what remedies make sense

 

[Pelican Bones]

might it not just nudge its own people to emigrate there

No, but you can send your own people to infiltrate then agitate to have Somalians brought in, though.

 

[umseriously]

Obviously. Demographics is destiny after all. Southern California is essentially becoming Mexico 2 for instance.

 

[dick brain]

Cool it with the antisemitic remarks.