So there are different kinds of nationalism. Immigration debates to a large degree comes down to civic nationalism vs ethnic nationalism
Civic nationalism basically says ‘if you share our cultural values (democracy, human rights, minority rights etc), obey the law, pay taxes, contribute, etc you are welcome to apply to live here.
Ethnic nationalism basically says you have to be a certain race, religion, language, geography to qualify as a ‘true patriot’ and people who do not fit in those boxes will always be an invader.
The issue is that with some forms of immigration, it gets complex. When immigrants from the MENA region move to the EU, they may not share the civic values regarding religion, women’s rights, gay rights, anti-semitism, sexual violence, contributions to the economy, crime etc.
However their concerns are derided as ethnic nationalism by people who are very pro-immigration and think immigration can only be a net benefit because they see all rejection of immigration as being driven by ethnic nationalism.
Which is like if Japan (which has racist attitudes against whites) said they didn’t want to allow Americans who are MAGA to move there. Some people would say that that is an acceptable form of civic nationalism since MAGA do not share Japanese values, but others would say it is ethnic nationalism and ‘racism against white people’ and therefore unacceptable, even though the civic nationalists would be fine with non-MAGA white Americans immigrating to Japan.
Roughly 75% of Palestinians supported the oct 7th attack which involved the intentional targeting of civilians. Should Israelis be expected to allow unrestricted immigration from Gaza and the west bank?
We should be encouraging immigration by educated people who believe in western values. We should especially try to attract the top 0.1% in human capital (highly intelligent, highly educated people).
But lots of people of all races, religions, genders, geographies, etc are shitty people. If 60 million Trump voters of all races, genders and religions wanted to move to Canada, Canada has the right to say ‘no, you do not share our values and we don’t want you here’.
It can be good in some ways and instances (practically and morally) and bad in others. As a socialist I believe we should strive for open borders but this would be something that could only feasibly happen without issue over the course of decades, not tomorrow. In the meantime we should have border control and stringent rules regarding immigration. We should also do our best to improve the world so people don’t need to go elsewhere to have good lives and uplift and empower the working class that already exists in our own countries so the threat of losing their job as a result of the corporate demand for a permanent underclass of cheap labor vanishes.
Immigrants have contributed enormously to life in Great Britain. Go back far enough, and you have the Romans and Vikings, not to mention those ruffians from Normandy, to thank for a lot of things that have lasted thousands of years.
Today, we are beset by refugees (both political and economic) from Africa and the Middle East, who are prepared to risk their lives to reach this island. Sadly, many of them have fallen for the smugglers’ blandishments, who charge high fees for their assistance. Naturally, these criminals portray a much different picture of the reception they will get here.
For one, as you don’t know what even one poll would read, did you just pull that guess out of your hat?
For two, if it’s so, it seems extremely likely that if the Republicans would allow a reasonable path to citizenship, a large part of the motivation for opposing them would go away.
Do you think you live in a world in which the jobs such people will take are the only ones that need, and are worth, doing?
And I might point out that my highly intelligent and eventually highly educated father started off starving on the streets in a war zone, as a member of an ethnic group that many at the time (and some still) thought couldn’t assimilate to USA values.
Selfishly, I don’t want my country to become as undesirable a place to live as the countries people are currently trying to flee from.
This means that fully open borders are out of the question. Travel is too safe and cheap (when done legally) to make legal open borders a viable choice.
I also agree that immigration is overwhelmingly positive, and we are currently wrongheaded to open our arms to people in the upper economic classes while essentially shutting out those who are looking to do the lower paid labor the economy rests upon.
Last is about enforcement. As long as our immigration laws are the equivalent of a 25mph speed limit on I-95, I’m against rigid enforcement. Fix the law, then enforce the law.
Nope, there are millions of jobs immigrants can do. In the US, millions of latino immigrants perform a lot of jobs in construction, agriculture, services, etc.
The issue is that since these immigrants aren’t covered by things like labor law, they get paid less and exploited more. So reforms need to happen to raise the wage floor and offer protections for immigrant workers.
But also certain forms of immigration are abused to drive down wages. The H1-B visa for example is used to pay workers less and keep them terrified since their employer controls if they stay in the country. This shifts bargaining power away from workers and onto employers. Employers will always favor immigrant laborers since immigrants are poorer, not covered by as many legal protections, and their employer controls their citizenship. So laws need to be done to restore balance between employers and employees so employees do not get abused and exploited.
But regarding the top 0.1% in human capital, we need to encourage immigration for them from all over the planet. We are better off having these people inventing things, doing research, filing patents, etc in the US than if they were doing it in a nation like Russia or China. Also a brilliant person in Sudan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Mexico, etc may not have the opportunities to use their talents in their home countries, and they can contribute more to humanity in a developed western nation.
And that’s why we need to let a lot more people immigrate legally who will do all sorts of jobs. Because then they won’t be vulnerable to all of that crap, and people born here won’t be at that disadvantage in applying for those jobs.
Should we also accept people in your top fraction of a percent? Sure, if they’ll come; most of them are probably happy where they are. But we shouldn’t be concentrating on them to the exclusion of others. We should be providing the education for people already here, and for new immigrants who may want to come because they can’t get that chance where they were born or driven to, to join that group.
Point of order: of course they are. They are not permitted to work, though, so if they try to get the applicable labor laws enforced, they risk more than legal employees would.
There are really two things that should be required for immigrants, and then let them come.
Some sort of proof that they can live here with a reasonable standard of living (i.e. not resort to public assistance, which is limited). It’s a bad thing to let in more people than we can take care of, and it’s unfair to our native poor. We’re not obligated to let people in at the expense of anyone who’s already here.
We also need to ensure that they’re
Require action toward citizenship. I personally don’t like the idea of people living and working here, but not being willing to be part of it in the ways citizens are. So let’s give them a clear and achievable path to citizenship, but require them to actually move along it at some pace or get kicked out.
There’s a third, but it kind of goes without saying- you can’t be a known criminal here or in your home country and immigrate.
Otherwise, I don’t see the problem with immigration.
I have an example that I think might illuminate what they’re getting at. I once dated a British woman who was in graduate school with me. Smart person, hard worker, and all the things you’d want an immigrant to be. And she wanted to become a US citizen. But the path was long, twisty, and difficult. It seemed to me that it’s one thing if you’re someone whose potential is unknown for the government to require that sort of path to citizenship, but something else entirely when we’re talking about a person who is a native speaker of English, will have two graduate degrees when she graduates, and is likely to be a payer of a lot of tax and active in her community. It always seemed to me that the government would have had a real interest in making permanent residence and citizenship extremely easy for her, but they treated her just like they would some unskilled person who doesn’t speak English and didn’t have a dime to their name.
There’s nothing wrong with greasing the skids for more attractive citizenship candidates. I don’t know that we should necessarily actively recruit in other countries though. And I think the path to citizenship is likely far more onerous than it needs to be. It should be onerous enough to prove someone’s willing to be a citizen, but it doesn’t have to be nearly as long and difficult as it currently is.
Broadly I would say that a country has a right and obligation to maximize its own interests. It should always involve identifying immigrants, denying ones that are known criminals or belligerents, and putting the brakes on ones that are likely to become a public charge. i.e. someone who isn’t able-bodied should be bringing other strengths to the table, whether that’s intellectual output or investment capital or whatever.
But apart from that, I don’t think immigration should be either valorized or demonized. It’s a fact that America is a country of immigrants, starting with the British who stepped off the boat at Jamestown. It is who we are and how we do things. The white ones who got here yesteryear are no better than the brown ones who knock at the door today.
It should be less of a velvet-rope-and-machine-guns affair than “here’s a visa that describes your rights and obligations, you’ve got N months to get your situation sorted out or apply for renewal, here’s an application for citizenship, please consider submitting ASAP. Follow the rules and you’ll have no issues.”
We should be built for high-volume throughput for admissions, approvals, and citizenship, all of it. Make people go through the gate, but make the gate enormous and vacuum-powered, it should be designed suck people into the country rather than spitting them out of it.
I would say that it should be geared toward citizenship, with permanent residence being more of an expat kind of thing, not for people to come here and live for decades without actually becoming citizens.
I would agree with this, people need to commit. If for no other reason than it gives them protection that can’t be taken away. But it’s reasonable to say that if you’ve enjoyed the benefits of residency for 10 years, then you need to pick up the rights and obligations that come with citizenship, by being a citizen.
No stupid English-language requirements of course, just pass the test that proves you understand how our government works.
Which is still not “Open Borders” That term needs to die.
But of course, convicted violent felons, Cartel members, terrorists, and people with communicable diseases still need to be stopped and not let in.
Let in people who want to and can work. We need farm workers.
Please note, no nation has open borders now, and even the USA during the wave of Ellis Island European immigrants still had some rules- diseased people were not allowed, for an example.
If they are here to be farm workers for several months a year and send money home, then go back- fine with me.
I don’t think the path should be long, twisty, and difficult for either the skilled person or the unskilled one. And a lot of things people think are “unskilled” aren’t. Try keeping up with a trained fruit picker in the field sometime — and doing so without damaging the crop or the plants, and producing a salable harvest.
As far as people unlikely to be able to support themselves — let them in too, if there’s someone legitimately here who will agree to take care of them. Grandparents. Children. People born or injured so that they can’t work, but who are loved by those who can. The price of citizenship shouldn’t have to be abandoning one’s loved ones.
As far as communicable diseases, it seems to me that that depends on the disease. Is it already running rampant in the country being immigrated into? Is it easily treatable? Temporary quarantine facilities might make a lot more sense in most cases than refusing people altogether.
As far as criminal history, I think that depends on what and why and how long ago. Stealing food to eat, demonstrating against an oppressive government, getting in a bar fight thirty years ago, getting in a dozen bar fights over the last three years, and stalking, raping, and murdering somebody can all get you a criminal history. But they’re not all the same thing, and they shouldn’t all get the door locked against you forever.
Without having read the thread: Allowing immigration is morally correct, both from a human standpoint and a biblical one. One of my college classes (and I still have the book) showed that immigration to the United States has always been a net positive.
The government does make it quite a bit easier for these candidates; we have school and work visas as well as special paths for desired skills. For ‘unskilled’ workers you pretty much just have an overloaded lottery system. But perhaps I agree with your broader point, that it should be easy for an in-demand applicant.
This might create more trouble than it’s worth because you then need to define a policy of how to handle people that are not progressing on this path. We already have an issue of what to do with people that have over-stayed their visas, what to do with their US-born children, etc.