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.