I was equating that statement with the OP’s assertion, I think both are poor ideas.
Immigration isn’t a zero-sum game but lets not pretend it’s ‘the more the merrier’ either, hence the need for moderation with controlled numbers.
That’s pretty much the way that the employment based visa system in this country works already. You need a guaranteed job offer from an employer, and in most cases, he needs to show that he can’t fill it with American labor.
I believe in many countries at least in the past immigration was forbidden unless you already had a job or at least a source of income.
Cite?
In the last 40 years could be “in the past” I suppose.
Frylock, Great Debate threads are most often started with an assertion and then a cite, thereby asking others to challenge it.
You’ve apparently asked us a question and then asked us to find evidence to disprove it.
I doubt this.
How do you “disprove” a “question”?
What the fuck are we debating then?
From the OP:
I’m still curious how it’s possible to disprove a question. My expectation was that you had in fact miscommunicated and you would take that opportunity to clarify yourself. But was it not a miscommunication?
Don’t ask me to explain you. If you want a debate then make a statement.
Are you new here?
As far as I can tell, you’re the only person in the thread having the trouble you describe.
The OP is written with a view towards seeing reasons drawn up for and against limitations on immigration. Though it only asks explicitly for reasons “for,” it is pretty well a certain thing, as everyone knows and everyone knows the OP knows, that reasons against will come up as well. Hence, the OP is written in order to inaugurate a debate. Such OPs are the purpose of the Great Debates forum.
Have I justified the OP to you sufficiently O Moderator?
I’m seeing the following types of reasons being given:
-
Economic–They’ll take our jobs.
-
Infrastructural–Too many too fast will overload our systems.
-
Security–They might be criminals or worse.
-
Cultural–They won’t get along with us or each other.
Not seeing a lot of citations of fact, rather, for the most part intuitions of what is plausible or likely. Was hoping for something better but I know it’s not easy–I certainly haven’t shown myself to be willing to do the work have I?
Regarding reason type 1 listed above, I’ve never been sure how seriously to take it. The inclusion of the term “our” in the sentiment “they’ll take our jobs” makes it hard to understand how the objection is supposed to go–for presumably, if someone immigrates and becomes a citizen, they’re one of us now! So they’ve taken nothing. I need to see a more clearly formuilated version of this objection before I can think too seriously about it.
Regarding the other concerns, I wonder if this would make everyone happy:
Immigration is to have the following limits:
-
Each municipality shall be audited (or perhaps self-audit) for its ability to take on new members in its population, adjustments will be made according to normal internal migration patterns, and the result will be used to determine a maximum number of immigrants to be permitted into the country. Additional adjustments will probably need to be made as a result of the fact that not all municipalities are equally likely to recieve immigrants. Rather than giving each municpality an individual quota (seems too messy and somehow unAmerican don’it?) instead the total permitted to immigrate into the country will be reduced by some fairly large percentage so as not to overload the more likely recipients of immigrated citizens.
-
Each potential immigrant recieves a full background check prior to entry. Crimes comparable to felonies result in being barred from entry.
-
Create separate neighborhoods or regions for each culture, nationality, ethnicity, or however it’s best to divide people up.
Do these strictures make everyone happy?
1, I am of agreement with your statements on.
2 seems to be specifically about overpopulation vis a vis housing and such things (at least, that’s the tone I get from the description, though I may be misreading it). What about the other infrastructural concerns which were raised (e.g., supra-municipal entitlement programs)? 2 also seems hopelessly bureaucratic; there must surely be a workable, more free market approach to the problems it is meant to address? [What currently keeps cities and states from being swamped too quickly by Americans moving in from elsewhere in the country? Is it a solution which could hope to scale?].
3, I think everyone essentially agrees on.
4, I am not at all comfortable with, but I’m also not sure I understand what you are proposing there… I don’t know how it’s reconciled with your statement that individual quotas for different municipalities “seems too messy and somehow unAmerican”.
I’d like that a lot better than what I wrote above. Does everyone agree that market forces will ensure a workable distribution of immigrants, at least in the normal course of events?
If not, why not?
Me too.
(FTR I myself am disposed by nature to think “if they’ve served their time etc then let them on in” but A. that’d never fly with most people and B. it’s only a disposition and not an attitude informed by facts.)
I agree that there is such a tension in my post. (I put it there on purpose, fwiw.) What I’m hoping for regarding this number four is to hear what realistic alternatives people have for dealing with the “they won’t get along with us or each other” problem. If there aren’t any alternatives to the proposal I made, then it seems the only options are to disallow immigration, or else to make our peace with the idea that there might be citizens of our nation who don’t get along with each other.
Specifically, although the hope is that overall, the productivity of newly Americans immigrants will add more to the government coffers than they take out, it seems inevitable that decreasing difficulty of immigration would at some point begin to increasingly strain, but not necessarily break, the level of manageable generosity (or even the solvency altogether) of particular existing entitlement programs, with different people having different opinions on how that trade-off should be managed. (E.g., there will surely be those who believe immigrants do not “deserve” access to any of these programs, so we ought not allow immigration to introduce any strain, however small, upon them). What principle should we use to guide these decisions?
I think it must be acknowledged that, at the same time as quality of life would rise extraordinarily for many newly American immigrants, in the general levelling out of things, quality of life would also fall by some amount for many existing Americans, if only by virtue of “sharing the wealth” to some degree. (This ties into the concerns raised in 1). It seems only fair to me (indeed, morally imperative) to allow the world to go down this path of open competition and equality of opportunity, but that is a tough proposition to sell to the ones currently on the winning side of the market distortion.
-
Milton Friedman pointed out that you can’t have a welfare state and unrestrained immigration. Basically you’re going to get far more people who are welfare dependent than the system can sustain.
-
Groups have different average levels of academic achievement, so you risk increasing inequality, social tension and the proportion dependent on welfare by not having controls.
The Economist recently touched on this issue:
-
The more serious economic issue is the one I noted in my post above - that you risk lowering the education level of the population which leads to future economic losses.
-
Infrastructural. There’s been another thread on environmental issues associated with population growth. A basic example is the demand for water exceeding supply.
-
Security. This can be a factor as groups tend to have have different crime rates.
-
Cultural. This seems to be more of an issue in Europe as there has been increasing anti-semitic violence linked to Muslim immigration.