I believe that candidates for office should lay out the position you just stated if they favor it — and that other candidates should lay out a different position, if they favor an alternative — and that legislation should ensue accordingly, when the voters make their voices heard (unless we can rig up a plebiscite or something for this one, and leave the representatives out to directly guide off the results). I kind of figured that’s what we were already doing.
So argument from authority then? You do know that there have been many unjust laws on the books in the past right? Using that definition, at one point “the will of the people” was that interracial marriage was illegal. At one point “the will of the people” was that slavery was legal. Using it in that way adds nothing to your argument and says nothing about right or wrong.
As for continuous use, in following this thread, you have more than once equated consent regarding your home to consent for immigration. The same question goes for that, who grants consent for a nation of 350 million people? You? Me? You seem to conflate the sort of will one person has over their own home and person, with the “will” of 350 million people over the entire nation. It seems like that is meant to convey a certain unearned authority.
I’m still confused: the OP seems to be asking about consequences of immigration, and what consequences should lead to a decision that there’s too much. The recent discussion seems to be about the process of making that decision, not about the reason for making that decision. That seems to be a very different discussion to me. Any answer along the lines of “Whatever we decide is too much immigration is what we should decide is too much immigration” is begging the question.
We tried to do that, but one man stomped all over the process. We had a bipartisan deal on the table in 2024 to help make our immigration process better and alleviate the issues caused by more legal asylum seekers than we had the courts and staff to process. You may remember the bus and plane loads of immigrants being trafficked from Texas and Florida to blue cities? Well one man decided his will was more important than “the will of the people” and he ordered his minions in the house to scuttle the bill because he needed the issue to be unresolved so he could continue to campaign on it. This is what happens when one person decides to substitute their personal will for “the will of the people”.
So what is your recourse when “the will of the people” is circumvented and replaced by the will of one person (who was not in elected office at the time"?
Good point. Dropping my participation in the tangent.
That discussion honestly has run its course?
Most of us recognize that there can be too much, at least theoretically, but that current levels are well below it. Current levels of immigration, including undocumented workers, benefits the economy and society overall. And that two things are simultaneously true: it is not racist or even ignorant to believe in immigration control and enforcement as a just and important function; and immigration and control enforcement is currently, as well as often historically, subverted to and driven by racism and xenophobia. Current administration to great degrees.
i believe it’s an argument from authority only in a limited sense required by the SDMB: my belief is that, as someone who believes certain laws should be changed — because of course not all laws are just or wise — we can passionately advocate for such changes: trying our best to change the minds of the people who get to make the call about what the law of the land will be.
As I understand it, if I’d be totally fine with going well beyond ‘encouraging advocacy against a law I disagree with’ all the way over to ‘encouraging illegal activity in the face of a law I disagree with’, I wouldn’t be allowed to say so — because of the board’s policy on “Breaking the law. Do not encourage illegal activity or describe means by which to engage in illegal activity.”
So, yeah, in a sense, I stop myself upon saying that my answer is to talk at the decisionmakers who have the final say. But I (a) could name plenty of stuff on the books that I’d like to change by legally reasoning with people, and I (b) don’t believe that I’m allowed to mention whether there are laws that I’d encourage people to break.
Well, (a) vote against the representatives if they aren’t doing what you want, and (b) don’t vote for the guy who isn’t in elected office, if you don’t want him in elected office — and make your case to other people who get to have a say in turn. Or vote for them and advocate for them, if you like what they’re selling.
Right. Yes, it is technically possible to have too much immigration, but do that many people really want to come to the USA? I mean it is just possible to have too much of many good things- but that rarely happens. But the US has NEVER had too much immigration, and today has not enough. So, since the idea that someday the US could have too much is therefore an idea that is highly improbable, I think the argument here may really be that immigration of well, “certain people” is a bad thing.
That’s a nation-state. A nation is often more of a cultural construct. And in many parts of the world, the idea of nation and nation-state are very intertwined and overlap quite a bit.
That’s not so in the US, and I think that’s a big piece of the friction we’re experiencing. To many, the idea of there being a “American nation” of white, middle class, Christian people is a powerful one, and that’s what they idealize when they talk about making America great again; they’re wanting to return to the days when that “nation” was the dominant one in the US. Which was the case as recently as 1970, when 83.3% of the nation was white, non-Hispanic.
Now it’s 62% and declining. This freaks people out; when they think of being “American”, they see this idealized white culture of the 50s, 60s, and 70s as the default, and see all these ethnic people as wanting to show up and mess that up/not assimilate/whatever, and they get agitated.
So to them, immigration is a threat to the way they perceive the future of the country, and a threat to the way of like they have/would like to have. It’s not right, and it’s a bit absurd, but that’s how a lot of them feel.
So do you disagree with the Republicans who are rubber stamping the asinine law breaking of immigration and refugee law?
(It has to be noted that the TPS case continues, the Supreme court allowed deportations to continue before they finally decide the case)
One reasoning of the Supremes was that:
What's next for immigrants with TPS after Supreme Court ruling? | PBS News.
“The Court did not rule that ending TPS for Haiti or Syria was sound or that conditions there are safe,” James Sample, law professor at Hofstra University, said in an email. “It ruled that those judgments belong to the DHS Secretary and are largely insulated from judicial second-guessing.”
What if those judgments are stupid and inhumane? Because stupid people in the administration do not care when conditions are not good to return people to a country like Haiti.
Are you sure you’re doing this right? You’re quoting my statement that, AFAICT, “I wouldn’t be allowed to say” that I encourage illegal activity, and then you’re — asking *if I disagree with lawbreaking?*
Yes, I’m going to reply that I disagree with lawbreaking. Of course I’m going to reply that I disagree with lawbreaking. It happens to be an honest response, but — you just quoted me noting the form I believe my response is required to take.
Didn’t you already have the answer to the question?
Sure…
So it is OK to realize that a lot of the past rhetoric from you had hubris of Napoleonic proportions. Immigration has more people supporting more of it, what is currently happening is misguided extremism and hubris that will more likely lead to more people voting against those rubber stampers in congress.
This is such a hot topic in the States that I don’t know if a measured debate is possible. I haven’t been following it that closely so I’m not going to get involved in that. Instead, I’ll talk about Asia.
Taiwan has the problem that if it allowed completely open borders it would get overwhelmed by Chinese. China’s population is 1.4 billion while Taiwan is about 23 million, so about 60 times larger.
China is actively trying to absorb Taiwan, and has threatened to do by force, if necessary.
Of the two major political parties, KMT is quite China friendly, and they believe that they can control the tiger, so they wouldn’t mind letting in millions of Chinese to gain control.
Under “unification” Taiwan would lose sovereignty and Taiwanese would lose freedom.
I doubt that anyone is going to seriously argue that unlimited immigration would be in Taiwan’s best interests.
For a less violent example, consider New Zealand. Most Americans who’ve visited fell in love with the place. Pretty, relatively unspoiled, largely familiar food and language, high quality government; what’s not to love?
New Zealand’s population is a bit over 5 million. California alone is 40 million and the USA is roughly 350 million. If 1 in 100 Americans successfully emigrated to NZ, that’s swell their population from 5M to 8.5M, a 70% increase. And Americans, with all their cultural baggage, would represent 40% of the new total.
Darn few countries are going to sign up for that onslaught.
Two great examples where there actually is threat from too much. Although I recall that New Zealand’s more pressing concern is emigration (to Australia)?
I think even in that context even New Zealand has a sizable number concerned about too many coming in too fast. Especially among those less well off.
My sense is that the actual data there is the same as here: more immigration helps the economy and raises all boats, including those feeling economically uncertain, but the argument that the immigrants are competing for jobs, housing, and using resources still seems convincing to a sizable group who are feeling economically insecure? So increasing immigration numbers is a concerning prospect even in a very multiculturally tolerant country; same is an easier sell.
One of my favorite coworkers likes to say, “It’s not a problem until it’s a problem,” meaning, she’s not going to borrow trouble and worry about forbidding an activity just on the remote chance it might create issues.
I think that applies here. Nobody’s going to sign up for a sudden 70% increase in their population. But nobody’s doing that. It’s not a problem that’s real. Let’s not make it a problem.
These are what I call “kraken repellent problems.” Of course we don’t want people to be attacked by giant squid monsters while they’re swimming off the coast of North Carolina. So shouldn’t we install giant kraken-repellent beacons along the coastline, blocking shipping and terrifying everyone? Sure, there haven’t been any kraken attacks ever, and some people say they’re not real, but the more we talk about them, the more terrified people get, and isn’t it worth it to install the beacons just for peace of mind? Isn’t it what the public is calling for, after our massive “BEWARE THE KRAKENS” PR campaign?
I totally agree. My point was not to say “OMG; we’re about to be overwhelmed unless we slam all the doors tight.”
My point was more that a small country has a different range of potential problems than a large country does. Worrying about potential excess immigration to the USA is about 99.9% racism and a smidgen of classism.
That makes sense.
Dividing problems into “potential problems” and “actual problems” can also clarify, with the additional category of “implausible problems.”
So:
-The US being overwhelmed by tens of millions of violent refugees is an implausible problem, and we should waste no time on it.
-The US seeing an increase in drug smuggling if we relax all border patrols is a potential problem, and we should build that into our plans about border patrols.
-The infrastructure of certain border communities being overwhelmed by immigrants is an actual problem, and we should address it (probably through increased resources for their infrastructure).
At this point I’m unaware of any plausible potential problems with a plausible significant increase in immigration to the US, and I’m aware of plenty of actual problems created by draconian immigration laws and enforcement.
Speaking of resources, we also have a huge mismatch in the number of immigrants we need for the economy, vs the number we have, vs the number of immigration courts & staff’s ability to process the people and paperwork. Evening those out would help.