Immigration Reform

[Human_Action]

@Debaser

Here’s another example. I never said anything about the minutemen. Neither did anyone else. BrainGlutton randomly brings them up in post #38, which I didn’t respond to because his thinly veiled accusations of racism aren’t worth responding to.

Now he’s demanding that I explain whether they would exist in some hypothetical. Who knows? I don’t know any of them. I haven’t ever talked to one of them. Who knows what they think?

I’ll tell you what I think. If there was tens of millions of people, of any color, swarming over the boarder from Canada that didn’t speak English, didn’t have college degrees or specialized skills and seemed to have no regard at all for our laws? Yes, I would have a problem with that.

I think advocacy for a tight immigration policy can be motivated by racism, but it’s not necessarily so. Therefore, I don’t think it needs to be brought into immigration debate on either side.

You’ve stated that:

@Debaser

If we let in basically anyone our entire civilization would break down under the strain of the hundreds of millions of people who would come in.

Now, BrainGlutton seemd to take this as referring just to Latin American immigrants:

@BrainGlutton

Nonsense. Our economy might be strained, but our civilization is substantially the same as that south of the border.

This lead you into the discussion of civilizations.

I’d like to return to your point from above. Assuming you’re speaking of immigration from the world at large, not just Mexico, I think you may have a point. Being an American is really about a set of values, enshrined in our Constitution: liberty, equality, rule of law, limited government, democracy, and so forth.

Much of the rest of the world does not share these values. New immigrants tend to acquire them, or at least their children do. It’s not absurd to suggest that there’s a “carrying capacity” at work, that the percentage of immigrants over a certain time needs to be below some threshold to maintain that transmission of American values. As an analogy, note that a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often rejected on the grounds that the Palestinians would hold a majority in the new single state, and could transform it so as to make it hostile to the Jewish minority.

Whatever that threshold might be, it’s much less than we take it at present. But if that was indeed your point, I think it merits discussion.

[DWMarch]

@Flyer

4. Get serious about patrolling the border. Any attempt to illegally immigrate shall be punished with 5 years in prison, followed by automatic deportation.

Five years of food, housing and health care? Plus a graduate course in an American crime college? And then a free ticket home to boot! Where do I sign up?

[Dr.Drake]

@Debaser

I’ll tell you what I think. If there was tens of millions of people, of any color, swarming over the boarder from Canada that didn’t speak English, didn’t have college degrees or specialized skills and seemed to have no regard at all for our laws? Yes, I would have a problem with that.

This paragraph hits a bit close to home for me. Can I ask you more about the language issue? There are plenty of communities in the US who do not speak English: Spanish is spoken by millions, for example, continuously spoken in what is now the US since before Jamestown (though obviously kept vibrant by immigration). Navajo is another. There’s a lot of tension between the two goods of “a common language is useful” and “forcing cultual change on others is bad,” but since the US has no de jure official language, why bring immigration reform in on one side? You can make a substantial contribution to the US culture and economy even if you’re monolingual in something other than English.

Just FYI, most immigrant languages die quickly, as there are so many social and economic advantages to knowing the national, institutionally-supported language and you need large numbers (or isolation) to sustain an immigrant language community. I think “pass a simple English test OR commit to a destination where there is support in the immigrant’s language” would be better if slightly more complicated. I wouldn’t expect that support to be provided by the government, just registered with the government.

Canada does require immigrants to demonstrate proficiency in either French or English, and the UK in English.

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

It’s funny because I usually try to avoid arguing for the various things that BrainGlutton likes to bring up to argue against. This one is a good example. He brings up in the thread a book that I haven’t read by an author I’ve never heard of. He then argues against it.

I did that only because Huntington, like you, posits a distinction between the “civilizations” north and south of the Rio Grande, only he appears to have put a whole lot more thought into it than you have, and it’s still bullshit even when he does it; therefore, entirely relevant here.

[Debaser]

@Human_Action

I’d like to return to your point from above. Assuming you’re speaking of immigration from the world at large, not just Mexico, I think you may have a point. Being an American is really about a set of values, enshrined in our Constitution: liberty, equality, rule of law, limited government, democracy, and so forth.

Much of the rest of the world does not share these values. New immigrants tend to acquire them, or at least their children do. It’s not absurd to suggest that there’s a “carrying capacity” at work, that the percentage of immigrants over a certain time needs to be below some threshold to maintain that transmission of American values. As an analogy, note that a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often rejected on the grounds that the Palestinians would hold a majority in the new single state, and could transform it so as to make it hostile to the Jewish minority.

Whatever that threshold might be, it’s much less than we take it at present. But if that was indeed your point, I think it merits discussion.

Good, thoughtful post.

I’d say the arguments against uncontrolled immigration can be lumped into two broad categories. One is what you mention: Volume. We simply can’t have hundreds of millions of people coming in all at once from anywhere without it breaking down our system. We couldn’t handle it from Mexico or from China or Africa either. *

*I specifically am mentioning countries and regions with populations much poorer than ours because these are the people most likely to immigrate. Of course, Central and South America is a more likely source than Africa or Asia just because of geography.

You need time to assimilate people. Immigrants are much more likely than natives to need government support, and we’re already going bankrupt because of entitlements. It’s like a lifeboat from the Titanic being swamped by too many people at once climbing aboard.

That’s one element. The other is who we are letting in.

I think there’s a big difference between someone who has specific skills, like a doctor or a software engineer who wants to come here and a migrant worker with no skills. Every year Google and Microsoft and others request more visas than they get. As a result they must open offices outside the US to hire workers. There is an entire booming economy being created up in Vancouver by highly skilled US educated people who can’t get visas and end up there.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being discriminate about who we let in. To make it race neutral, because I’m sure Brainglutten is going to find something racist in what I’m saying, look at India: I’m fine with letting in the educated, English speaking workers from companies like Patni, InfoSys and Tata. I wouldn’t want to empty out the slums of India onto our streets here in the US. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

[Debaser]

@Dr.Drake

This paragraph hits a bit close to home for me. Can I ask you more about the language issue?

Sure. I hear where you are coming from. Even the OP of this thread had an English language component.

There’s a lot of tension between the two goods of “a common language is useful” and “forcing cultual change on others is bad,” but since the US has no de jure official language, why bring immigration reform in on one side?

I hear what you are saying and I agree with a lot of it. However for me the “common language is useful” wins every time.

You can make a substantial contribution to the US culture and economy even if you’re monolingual in something other than English.

Maybe.

But look at it not at an individual level but on the aggregate. Let’s let 20,000 people in to the country broken into two groups:

A. 10,000 people in that speak English
B. 10,000 people that don’t.

Which group will start the most small businesses? Which group will file the most patents? Which group will be most likely to have college degrees, or get them after they come to the US?

The English speakers win every time.

Which group will require the most government assistance?

Canada does require immigrants to demonstrate proficiency in either French or English, and the UK in English.

Yes. Those are sensible policies.

[Dr.Drake]

@Debaser

Yes. Those are sensible policies.

I don’t know. My husband is Welsh. If we went back to the UK, why shouldn’t I be allowed to file my immigration documents in Welsh?

As for small businesses, you could make the argument that immigrants without English create more business, because they are required to hire people to file their taxes and patents and business licences who DO speak English. As far as college education, most adult immigrants will not go on to pursue a college degree. Their children, however, will likely be proficient in English and therefore it’s moot.

Interesting side issue, anyway.

[Human_Action]

@DWMarch

Five years of food, housing and health care? Plus a graduate course in an American crime college? And then a free ticket home to boot! Where do I sign up?

If this was serious, I think you’re way off base with this idea.

@Debaser

I’d say the arguments against uncontrolled immigration can be lumped into two broad categories. One is what you mention: Volume. We simply can’t have hundreds of millions of people coming in all at once from anywhere without it breaking down our system. We couldn’t handle it from Mexico or from China or Africa either. *

*I specifically am mentioning countries and regions with populations much poorer than ours because these are the people most likely to immigrate. Of course, Central and South America is a more likely source than Africa or Asia just because of geography.

You need time to assimilate people. Immigrants are much more likely than natives to need government support, and we’re already going bankrupt because of entitlements. It’s like a lifeboat from the Titanic being swamped by too many people at once climbing aboard.

I agree volume is a concern, though my primary basis for this is cultural assimilation, rather than a burden on government services. We seem to be able to handle the current numbers well enough, but that won’t necessarily hold true for any number.

I think immigrants are of tremendous value to a society, and open immigration was a major part of what made the United States great. I’d like to preserve it as much as possible, while ensuring that the nation’s values remain secure.

@Debaser

That’s one element. The other is who we are letting in.

I think there’s a big difference between someone who has specific skills, like a doctor or a software engineer who wants to come here and a migrant worker with no skills. Every year Google and Microsoft and others request more visas than they get. As a result they must open offices outside the US to hire workers. There is an entire booming economy being created up in Vancouver by highly skilled US educated people who can’t get visas and end up there.

That’s a reasonable view. I’ve no problem with giving priority to those whose skills are needed most, and accepting all others up to a point at which assimilation might be threatened. I’m not certain how to set that point, though.

@Debaser

I hear what you are saying and I agree with a lot of it. However for me the “common language is useful” wins every time.

I don’t place as much emphasis on language; we have no official language, and the opportunity to learn English is very much available to everyone that wants to.

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

I’d like to return to your point from above. Assuming you’re speaking of immigration from the world at large, not just Mexico, I think you may have a point. Being an American is really about a set of values, enshrined in our Constitution: liberty, equality, rule of law, limited government, democracy, and so forth.

Much of the rest of the world does not share these values. New immigrants tend to acquire them, or at least their children do. It’s not absurd to suggest that there’s a “carrying capacity” at work, that the percentage of immigrants over a certain time needs to be below some threshold to maintain that transmission of American values.

That could as easily be a 19th-Century argument against Chinese immigration. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now. We could have absorbed vast numbers from that democracyless land without threatening our constitutional order.

@Human_Action

As an analogy, note that a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often rejected on the grounds that the Palestinians would hold a majority in the new single state, and could transform it so as to make it hostile to the Jewish minority.

:rolleyes: Really, really bad example. First, no immigration-wave to America is ever going to outnumber the native-born population, not even if we had unlimited immigration like we had for most of the 19th Century (until people started getting scared of the Yellow Peril). Second, it does not apply even to Israel/Palestine – a united Israel/Palestine still would have a Jewish majority, and that would take a generation or two to change, long after both groups got well used to sharing the same country and state.

[Human_Action]

@BrainGlutton

That could as easily be a 19th-Century argument against Chinese immigration. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now. We could have absorbed vast numbers from that democracyless land without threatening our constitutional order.

Not really, in that I’m not talking about excluding any group. Anyone can either become democratic / pluralistic with time, or have their children become so. Unless, perhaps, the pro-democracy side is a plurality or minority rather than a vast majority.

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes: Really, really bad example. First, no immigration-wave to America is ever going to outnumber the native-born population, not even if we had unlimited immigration like we had for most of the 19th Century (until people started getting scared of the Yellow Peril).

Probably not, no. But transportation technology has certainly improved, as has the world’s access to American cultural exports. It’s not above discussion, at least.

@BrainGlutton

Second, it does not apply even to Israel/Palestine – a united Israel/Palestine still would have a Jewish majority, and that would take a generation or two to change, long after both groups got well used to sharing the same country and state.

Are you sure about that? I was assured otherwise in the current Israel/Palestinian thread. Let me do some more research.

[Human_Action]

Ok, you’re right, per this article.

So, the analogy only works if you shift it forward a couple decades, THEN unify the state. Point take.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

I think immigrants are of tremendous value to a society, and open immigration was a major part of what made the United States great. I’d like to preserve it as much as possible, while ensuring that the nation’s values remain secure.

From what I’ve read, there were pretty strict quotas in the past, as well as tests for mental and physical fitness.

[Human_Action]

@Lynn_Bodoni

From what I’ve read, there were pretty strict quotas in the past, as well as tests for mental and physical fitness.

As far as I know, the Page Act of 1875 was the first law to restrict immigration to the United States. If so, then we did have a lengthy period of open immigration.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lynn_Bodoni

From what I’ve read, there were pretty strict quotas in the past, as well as tests for mental and physical fitness.

“Quotas” is an ugly word in this context. It refers to the national-origins-quota system set up by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was frankly and baldly designed to preserve America’s character as a white man’s country, and northwest-Euro at that.

[Human_Action]

@BrainGlutton

“Quotas” is an ugly word in this context. It refers to the national-origins-quota system set up by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was frankly and baldly designed to preserve America’s character as a white man’s country, and northwest-Euro at that.

It doesn’t follow, however, that all objections to regulating immigration are motivated by racism.

I don’t particularly care where our immigrants come from. No other nation has our exact values and Constitution, so they all need to absorb new values to some degree to become Americans.

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

It doesn’t follow, however, that all objections to regulating immigration are motivated by racism.

No. There are indeed some non-racist arguments for immigration-control that make sense.

All of them have to do with economics, job-competition, or environmental protection.

None of them have anything to do with this:

@Human_Action

No other nation has our exact values and Constitution, so they all need to absorb new values to some degree to become Americans.

[Human_Action]

@BrainGlutton

No. There are indeed some non-racist arguments for immigration-control that make sense.

All of them have to do with economics, job-competition, or environmental protection.

None of them have anything to do with this:

Suit yourself. You can arbitrate what makes sense to you.

So, just to return to that analogy, if there were more Palestinians than Israeli Jews at this moment, would the Jews (and other non-Palestinian Israelis) be wise to avoid merging into one state? If so, why? If not, why not?

[DrCube]

@Human_Action

So, just to return to that analogy, if there were more Palestinians than Israeli Jews at this moment, would the Jews (and other non-Palestinian Israelis) be wise to avoid merging into one state? If so, why? If not, why not?

There’s only one state there at the moment, so there is nothing to merge. And yes, they ought to grant citizenship to all the people who live in their country and treat them as equals. It’s the only moral thing to do.

It’s funny because similar arguments were used against freeing the slaves. “We can’t have a bunch of Negroes running around our country in nice clothes, owning property and voting!” Even Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship them all to Liberia for that reason.

So do you agree with Abe, or do you think offering citizenship to freed slaves was a good idea? Or only because they were a minority? Why does their relative proportion in the population even matter?

[Human_Action]

@DrCube

There’s only one state there at the moment, so there is nothing to merge. And yes, they ought to grant citizenship to all the people who live in their country and treat them as equals. It’s the only moral thing to do.

Ok, the analogy isn’t working to convey my ideas, so I’ll discard it and just use a direct argument.

@DrCube

It’s funny because similar arguments were used against freeing the slaves. “We can’t have a bunch of Negroes running around our country in nice clothes, owning property and voting!” Even Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship them all to Liberia for that reason.

So do you agree with Abe, or do you think offering citizenship to freed slaves was a good idea? Or only because they were a minority? Why does their relative proportion in the population even matter?

I don’t think the situations are particularly analogous. Yes, offering citizenship to free slaves was a good idea. In their case, regardless of their minority status.

My point was simply this: America, unlike most other states, has no racial or religious identity, or even an official language. It is a nation of immigrants from all lands, and the national identity is instead based on certain ideals and values. These values are shared by the vast majority of Americans of all backgrounds: democratic government, the natural rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, rule of law, pluralism, and so forth.

With time, I feel that these values are so conducive to human dignity, that they will win over the vast majority of immigrants, or failing that, the immigrants’ children.

Thus, the only way immigration could threaten those values, and perhaps not even then, would be in the event of a massive influx in a short period of time. In such a case, it is conceivable that other values: authoritarianism, co-mingling of church and state, government control of industry, and so forth could gain sufficient purchase as to threaten the existing order.

In other words, if 20 million immigrants from China came to the U.S. next year, in due time I believe they’d embrace liberal democracy, especially since those who’s seek to immigrate to the U.S. in the first place might well be pre-disposed to support U.S. values.

But if there were 200 million? More? Then who can say? Such a voting bloc might be able to affect our government framework in a way that undermines those treasured values.

Is such a massive wave likely, if open immigration were announced? Probably not. The matter is worth discussing, though, in my view, in a thread about immigration reform and open borders.

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

My point was simply this: America, unlike most other states, has no racial or religious identity, or even an official language. It is a nation of immigrants from all lands, and the national identity is instead based on certain ideals and values.

Bullshit. America is not an idea-state like the Soviet Union, it is an ordinary nation-state like France, national identity based on language and culture and shared history. France has had ten different constitutional regimes since 1789, and through it all France remains France. America under a completely different system of government would remain America. America divided into independent countries would remain one American nation, if not state, just as China has remained the same nation throughout all of its periods of political division.