Do you support unlimited immigration?

[Person Man]

Do you think if a reliable way to "biologically" assimilate newcomers, the needle would move on the issue?

Is this the Borg?

Something like that, yes. But CRISPieR. Cheap In vivo genetic engineering. Right now, ethicists, researchers, and doctors are pissing themselves over it. And rightfully so. We don't really know how to use it in a humane way and yet we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

[Person Man]

I should probably clarify my stance. I obviously don't support the removing of all immigration barriers right away, but at the same time I find it very hard to justify this stance morally, even though I've asked a few times on this site and elsewhere. It seems to me that denying people a chance to improve their own lives (for the sake of an abstract concept like building a nation-state) is basically against every tenet of liberalism as I understand the ideology.

This was basically the one thing Bush/Cheney did well on.

[politicallefty]

Do you think if a reliable way to "biologically" assimilate newcomers, the needle would move on the issue?

Is this the Borg?

As far as immigration goes, I've long believed the US is basically a passive form of the Borg. That's what separates immigrants to the US from immigrants to various European countries. As disturbing a concept as the Borg, we fully accept a passive version and quite like it in reality. We absorb and accept their culture and differences. The difference is that we respect their individuality and uniqueness.

For example, a Muslim immigrant to France will have a radically different experience versus a Muslim immigrant to Atlanta. The US assimilates immigrants in a way that almost no other country can do.

[Person Man]

Do you think if a reliable way to "biologically" assimilate newcomers, the needle would move on the issue?

Is this the Borg?

As far as immigration goes, I've long believed the US is basically a passive form of the Borg. That's what separates immigrants to the US from immigrants to various European countries. As disturbing a concept as the Borg, we fully accept a passive version and quite like it in reality. We absorb and accept their culture and differences. The difference is that we respect their individuality and uniqueness.

For example, a Muslim immigrant to France will have a radically different experience versus a Muslim immigrant to Atlanta. The US assimilates immigrants in a way that almost no other country can do.

We might longer have that ability in a week. Hyperbole? Maybe but...

[DC Al Fine]

I should have clarified my thoughts before. I don't support unlimited immigration per se. I do support having some loose standards without caps. I want our immigration policies to support bringing whole families into this country. Immigrants that I have seen are some of the hardest working people you've ever seen. They'll work in restaurants for 12+ hours at a time and pick vegetables for just as long. It may be hard work for some, but they're ultimately having a better life and a better standard of living than they would otherwise. Ultimately, if we have people in this country working that hard and paying taxes, I want to grant them citizenship and the general benefits of American society. (With a larger tax base, I'd love to see the benefits of American society expanded to include single-payer healthcare and free college tuition for the middle class.)

The problem I find with unlimited (or almost unlimited) immigration debates is that otherwise logical, and rational people turn into handwaving libertarians. There is an astonishing naivete among unlimited immigration advocates about the drawbacks of their stance. 

As I noted in a previous post some of the drawbacks include
1) Brain drain hurting the economy of their country of origin
2) Difficulty maintaining a welfare state in the face of massive, massive immigration
3) Diminished bargaining power by workers
4) Potential for increased crime, lack of social trust etc

These drawbacks and others largely get papered over, as evidenced by this thread. Not every immigrant is going to be a the hardworking shopkeeper from your saccharine narrative.

That remark about being a liberal at 20 and a conservative at 40 seems relevant here.

You are aware that Canada is a nation of immigrants as much as the US, correct?

[politicallefty]

The problem I find with unlimited (or almost unlimited) immigration debates is that otherwise logical, and rational people turn into handwaving libertarians. There is an astonishing naivete among unlimited immigration advocates about the drawbacks of their stance. 

As I noted in a previous post some of the drawbacks include
1) Brain drain hurting the economy of their country of origin
2) Difficulty maintaining a welfare state in the face of massive, massive immigration
3) Diminished bargaining power by workers
4) Potential for increased crime, lack of social trust etc

These drawbacks and others largely get papered over, as evidenced by this thread. Not every immigrant is going to be a the hardworking shopkeeper from your saccharine narrative.

Those are legitimate issues. I've never heard the first as an issue and the second is only ever brought up by conservatives to oppose immigration. I'm not aware of any actual evidence of immigration forcing a general leech on the welfare state. The third is quite interesting to hear from someone on the right, considering how much conservatives have worked to reduce and outright eliminate workers' bargaining power. As for the fourth, our justice system is in place to arrest and deport/jail those that commit crimes before obtaining citizenship.

That remark about being a liberal at 20 and a conservative at 40 seems relevant here.

You are aware that Canada is a nation of immigrants as much as the US, correct?

I'm not sure why you roll your eyes at that. Do you not share the belief that the US and Canada are fundamentally similar nations both from British heritage and being nations that have formed primarily from a strong culture of assimilating immigrants?

[Ban my account ffs!]

He's from Nova Scotia.  Not many immigrants going there...so I'm not surprised he rolled his eyes.

But really he was probably miffed that that was your response rather than actually disagreeing with what you said.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Speaking for myself here, but I'm 29 and I'm probably to the left on immigration as opposed to when I was 20. You are aware that Canada is a nation of immigrants as much as the US, correct?

If you count American Loyalists and British/French colonists as immigrants, sure.

I can't tell if you're being ignorant or racist here.  It's one or the other or both.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I should have clarified my thoughts before. I don't support unlimited immigration per se. I do support having some loose standards without caps. I want our immigration policies to support bringing whole families into this country. Immigrants that I have seen are some of the hardest working people you've ever seen. They'll work in restaurants for 12+ hours at a time and pick vegetables for just as long. It may be hard work for some, but they're ultimately having a better life and a better standard of living than they would otherwise. Ultimately, if we have people in this country working that hard and paying taxes, I want to grant them citizenship and the general benefits of American society. (With a larger tax base, I'd love to see the benefits of American society expanded to include single-payer healthcare and free college tuition for the middle class.)

The problem I find with unlimited (or almost unlimited) immigration debates is that otherwise logical, and rational people turn into handwaving libertarians. There is an astonishing naivete among unlimited immigration advocates about the drawbacks of their stance. 

As I noted in a previous post some of the drawbacks include
1) Brain drain hurting the economy of their country of origin
2) Difficulty maintaining a welfare state in the face of massive, massive immigration
3) Diminished bargaining power by workers
4) Potential for increased crime, lack of social trust etc

These drawbacks and others largely get papered over, as evidenced by this thread. Not every immigrant is going to be a the hardworking shopkeeper from your saccharine narrative.

Surely brain drain is more relevant to current point based immigration systems, which disproportionately tap the most educated and skilled workers from developing countries?

As for 2 and 3, this is where the smallness of nations betrays the workers, pensioners and ordinary people of the world. I'm pretty hopeful that as the contradictions between a globalised economy regulated by squabbling nations assert themselves, things like regulations, social secuirity and taxation will increasingly be applied at an international, and perhaps even global scale. Otherwise I fear the barbarism of hypernationalism with reassert itself as a response to the race to the bottom to "keep the national economy competitive".

That's really the failure of the EU. It has a bureaucracy and freedoms of movement, but never invested in much of a superstructure to unite the people out of cowardice.

[politicallefty]

But really he was probably miffed that that was your response rather than actually disagreeing with what you said.

That's not going to work on me. I'm far more of a Hillary-style debater than a Trump-style. I'd much rather debate the facts of an issue. I do have a tendency to irritate those that try roll over when it comes to debating real issues.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not sure why you roll your eyes at that. Do you not share the belief that the US and Canada are fundamentally similar nations both from British heritage and being nations that have formed primarily from a strong culture of assimilating immigrants?

But really he was probably miffed that that was your response rather than actually disagreeing with what you said.

It's a silly red herring and treats me like I'm not aware of basic history to boot. Hence the eyeball roll. You of all people Snowguy, given your historical skepticism of global warming, ought to be aware of trite lines that don't actually address your point.

But really he was probably miffed that that was your response rather than actually disagreeing with what you said.

That's not going to work on me. I'm far more of a Hillary-style debater than a Trump-style. I'd much rather debate the facts of an issue. I do have a tendency to irritate those that try roll over when it comes to debating real issues.

Good grief. The ego on this one.

[DC Al Fine]

I should have clarified my thoughts before. I don't support unlimited immigration per se. I do support having some loose standards without caps. I want our immigration policies to support bringing whole families into this country. Immigrants that I have seen are some of the hardest working people you've ever seen. They'll work in restaurants for 12+ hours at a time and pick vegetables for just as long. It may be hard work for some, but they're ultimately having a better life and a better standard of living than they would otherwise. Ultimately, if we have people in this country working that hard and paying taxes, I want to grant them citizenship and the general benefits of American society. (With a larger tax base, I'd love to see the benefits of American society expanded to include single-payer healthcare and free college tuition for the middle class.)

The problem I find with unlimited (or almost unlimited) immigration debates is that otherwise logical, and rational people turn into handwaving libertarians. There is an astonishing naivete among unlimited immigration advocates about the drawbacks of their stance. 

As I noted in a previous post some of the drawbacks include
1) Brain drain hurting the economy of their country of origin
2) Difficulty maintaining a welfare state in the face of massive, massive immigration
3) Diminished bargaining power by workers
4) Potential for increased crime, lack of social trust etc

These drawbacks and others largely get papered over, as evidenced by this thread. Not every immigrant is going to be a the hardworking shopkeeper from your saccharine narrative.

Surely brain drain is more relevant to current point based immigration systems, which disproportionately tap the most educated and skilled workers from developing countries?

First off, I was mostly complaining about the lack of attempts to refute open border skeptics. The objections I raised weren't all mine, and were just a list of items people had raised either in this thread or in one of the more recent open borders threads that I hadn't seen attempts to address.

That said, you raise some very interesting points here. Thank you.

Re: brain drain, I admit that you are partially correct. A higher proportion of immigrants will be high skill in a points system compared to open borders. However I'd posit that the brain drain is still a major issue due to absolute numbers. If the "cost" of immigration to the USA is basically the cost of a plane ticket, you're still going to get massive numbers of relatively high skill people leaving their countries of origin and harming the economy for those who remain.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. The people who live in a certain place have no right to dictate who can and can't come.

[Mopsus]

Yes. The people who live in a certain place have no right to dictate who can and can't come.

Does this principle extend to homeowners/lessors?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes. The people who live in a certain place have no right to dictate who can and can't come.

Does this principle extend to homeowners/lessors?

What a cool and original comparison that totally makes sense when you think about it.

[Mopsus]

Yes. The people who live in a certain place have no right to dictate who can and can't come.

Does this principle extend to homeowners/lessors?

What a cool and original comparison that totally makes sense when you think about it.

Thanks, I agree! That's why I made it