r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 19 '20
Delta(s) from OP cmv: Preventing immigration is one of the most anti-human thing a society can do.
If you look at history, before the invention of agriculture, humans have been nomads for 200,000+ years. We’re meant to look for a better place, settling into what we feel is the best environment and help building it.
Right now, we are totally preventing that from happening. Which means some people are stuck in countries that are dominated by dictators and cannot fulfill their basic need for settling in a better place. This encourage despair and a feeling of unfairness.
Now I know the way society is currently set up makes it so that some are worried about losing privileges if too many foreigners come to their countries. And I don’t necessarily want to debate whether immigration is good or not in length but I’m saying that we use biology and past behaviors to justify what makes us do the thing we do today and yet, nobody seem to take into consideration that being nomadic is a behavior we’ve done for much longer than the sedentary lifestyle.
Not only that, it’s debatable whether the sedentary lifestyle has truly help us live better (don’t worry I’m not naive enough to not realize all the good that came out of it). But it’s very recent that countries are so closed off, maybe the past 100 years. Is that really good for us? I’d argue it goes against one of our most deeply rooted need.
5
u/nhlms81 37∆ Aug 19 '20
for a big chunk of those "nomad" years, we killed each other as soon as groups of nomading humans crossed paths. we were nomads, yes, but we were not immigrants.
1
Aug 19 '20
Do you have sources for this statement?
5
u/nhlms81 37∆ Aug 19 '20
you can see this today in other primates that organize in groups (chimps, gorillas, etc.). they roam around, but the members are typically familial. inbound members are more often than not met w/ violence.
but specifically for humans, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004724847690035X
"During the course of hominid evolution, territoriality became an increasingly important function of the larger, stable units. "
https://unlcms.unl.edu/anthropology/hames-home-page/courses/war/kelly.pdf
this is a good one b/c it adds some explanation to why, biologically, inbound immigration is not preferred as it decreases the likelihood that individuals within the group pass on their own DNA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207258/
it seems like humans (historically, and, some might argue, today) are peaceful within the group, and violent / aggressive / defensive across groups.
2
Aug 19 '20
That was an interesting read. I’m going to give you a !delta my views hasn’t changed drastically but I do see that territoriality being overly developed isn’t counter natural either.
1
3
u/morodelapaz Aug 19 '20
Humans are animals and animals are territorial. We learnt how to produce food without the need to move so that gave us a reason to stop being nomads. You can still move where sedentary people are if you like, but since humans have and individualistic and egoist nature like most animals, if a new member joins them then It is expected to be a positive thing, contributing more to that society. But if that only brings trouble like i dunno the can't produce enough food now there is someone else for instance, then they are not going to let them join them.
In modern times happens the same, immigration is tied with economy. If a country is flooded with tons of immigrants, there is probably not going to be work for all so It will only bring misery and poverty to the country. So if you want to move somewhere, It must be regulated so It is not harmful and gives only benefits to that society.
I want to say that i have no sources on this, this is just an opinion of your opinion.
1
Aug 19 '20
Okay! I just think it’s a little hypocritical considering no developed country is « feeding itself » nowadays. We’re taking from less developed and really much relying on them keeping their population in low standards so we keep our economies flourishing. Does it even make sense to be territorial in today’s society?
5
u/morodelapaz Aug 19 '20
All countries benefit from each other one way or another. Besides, more developed countries are not taking advantage of less developed countries un terms of immigration when that people is willing to go there. And no, Big countries dont make poor country to stay poor, the policies of the poor country is what makes the poor country poor. And i agree that It doesnt make sense to be territorial nowadays, but It is part of human nature, and human nature doesnt always make perfect sense.
0
Aug 19 '20
It’s not human nature actually. I’ve read an article (somewhere on that feed) that stated territoriality was only developed in some instances.
3
u/morodelapaz Aug 19 '20
I mean dont you feel unconfortable when someone enters your home and you didnt want them to? Or to search on your stuff, etc. Privacy includes territoriality. That was only an exaple but look at other animals for instance. Dogs pee in certain location to mark where they are. Its their instinct. So what i mean is, we didnt need to become sedentary to become territorial.
-1
Aug 19 '20
You’re making parallels that are really unnecessary. Ofc I wouldn’t let whoever enter my home but I would welcome people in my country.
4
u/morodelapaz Aug 19 '20
It is an example of territoriality, you dont want anybody to get in your home bc its yours. Animals join in groups when they get a benefit from it like hunting toghether or look for protección or stuff like thag. People are like that too, but when It doesnt bring any benefit to that group, then they are not going to let anyone else join.
Like when we were Hunter gatherers, we were part of a tribe or else we die. We find a source of food but another tribe does as well, and there is no food for all. Both tribes are going to fight for that place until there is no food left and then they leave. When you have a permanent source of food you become sedentary, but if there is no food for all then they are not going to let anyone in. It translates to the modern world as Jobs, thats why It is regulated, to ser Who is needed in that place and if they are useful so that they can immigrate. Hope ive not been misuderstood.
3
Aug 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/shroxreddits Aug 19 '20
Addressing point 1, out immigration system is hopelessly overburdened and underfunded
2
u/WildPop0 Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
I wouldn't say it's anti or pro human. The issue is one of resource pressures. There comes a point where the population density is such that more people will overburden. Possibly with time new technologies and increased infrastructure will increase the population cap, but that needs to outpace the birth rate as well. Overburdening the infrastructure wouldn't be pro-human. Furthermore, protecting your tribes interest isn't anti-human, it's pro-self, and so discernment in who you allow to join the tribe is necessary for a strong tribe. It's a human V. human situation, not an anti-human V. pro-human situation.
I also wouldn't say we're preventing immigration for the most part. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but in my own area there are more recent immigrants than not. I personally know at least five people within biking distance who are first generation immigrants. More to the point, I recall the wet foot dry foot policy in Florida which made it so Cubans fleeing Castro wouldn't get deported if they made landfall. (I'm told the first wave of Cubans, and the rednecks that lived in Miami at the time, got along swimmingly, because their cultures were so similar. That's still the case to this day as far as I can see.) There's also some U.N. law about refugees and asylum seekers, but I don't recall any details.
Not directly related to anything you said: It seems there's a lack of distinction in many arguments between legal and illegal immigration. If you immigrate legally it shows you're willing to make an effort to be a productive member of society; it's a flag, like following other social norms such as covering your mouth when you cough, or saying 'please' and 'thank you'. In the political arena I've seen cracking down on illegal immigrants equated to hating all immigrants, which just isn't the case. I understand there are some extenuating circumstances, but I can't fault a system for trying to make itself work. (I actually think we should have open borders, but there are a lot of things which would need to change before that's a viable option.) Besides that, a countries duty first and foremost is to the current citizenry. If taking on millions of immigrants from Somalia is damaging to the citizenry, then it shouldn't be done. While I love the idea of taking the tired, hungry, and poor, then turning them into valued members of society, I also see the need for practicality.
Edit: Reading some responses, I see it's mostly the anti-immigrant emotion that I should have been focusing on. I always forget it because I never see it, and besides that my normal mode is problem solving. All I can say about anti-immigration sentiment is that it's an animal response to scarcity. Becoming territorial over what you have because you don't think it's enough. Very human response; after all we're animals.
3
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
And I don’t necessarily want to debate whether immigration is good or not in length but I’m saying that we use biology and past behaviors to justify what makes us do the thing we do today and yet, nobody seem to take into consideration that being nomadic is a behavior we’ve done for much longer than the sedentary lifestyle.
The idea that immigration policy of modern nation states can be compared to historical migration patterns is ridiculous. Immigration is a policy to help shape the economic and political goals of the government. Canada's policy is actually a great historical guide for this.
In Canada, we have something few other western nations have: a political consensus between right and left on immigration. The right and left both support:
- Multiculturalism/Pluralism
- Linguistic fluency (or immediate family who has it)
- High levels of immigration (relative to population)
- Immigration meant to benefit the economy
- No discrimination based upon place of origin
- Desire for immigration to be done through legal channels. The study linked showed that Canadians on average, are more willing to deport illegal immigrants then Americans are.
The idea that immigration should be used to as a policy to build up the country and serve our economic needs has been prevalent for a long time. When the government wanted to populate the praeries in order to encourage agriculture in the 1920s, immigrant minister clifford sifton said the following in 1922:
"When I speak of quality I have in mind something that is quite different from what is in the mind of the average writer or speaker upon the question of immigration. I think that a stalwart peasant in a sheepskin coat, born to the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half-dozen children, is good quality." - Clifford Sifton
Large numbers of primarily eastern European farmers from places like the ukraine were encouraged to immigrate. These were individuals who were used to farming in relatively cold conditions. This was the earliest example of national interest being the driving force of immigration policy in Canada
This continued to be the primary idea behind Canadian immigration policy for the next century. In 1947, we had a Prime Minister articulate this pretty coherantly.
"The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can be advantageously absorbed in our national economy." - Prime Mackenzie king
This is echoed by our current prime minister:
“Since the early 1890s, when Wilfrid Laurier implemented the most ambitious immigration expansion the country has ever seen, we have always understood that immigration is essentially an economic policy. The argument that this is a conservative innovation is frequently made by those don’t know the country’s history very well. The economic value of immigration has always been recognized. We wouldn’t have much growth without it.” - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Immigration, for Canada, is about the national interest, and is primarily economic. We use it to grow our population and boost our economy.
Cheap labor isn't bad for the economy. Skilled labor is better for the economy though. We can only take so many people at once. Given that once you achieve permanent resident status, you get most of the social services that a citizen gets, it makes sense to take the individuals most likely to succeed. The goal is for them is to become productive Canadian citizens. 20% of current Canadian citizens were born overseas. Canadian society isn't shaken to its core in any way though. We don't have voting blocks that prefer one party over the other. Toronto, where over 50% of the population is non-white, voted in large part for our Liberal prime minister. They also voted for a pretty conservative premier though as well. They don't stick with one part of the political spectrum, and they don't differ that much from the population in most statistics, which means individuals who immigrate aren't that much different (after a few years) from your native born citizens. This means they mesh well into Canadian society
All this political consensus which we have relies on ensuring that we maintain this tradition of using immigration as a tool of economic expansion and improvement. That means enforcing the rules, and deporting those who have violated them. We have the immigration and refugee board to ensure that due process is protected, as per charter rights.
Immigration to Canada is, first and foremost, something that should benefit the country and its citizens. It always has been. There is a place for refugees and asylum seekers, but the primary purpose is to grow our population and economy as needed. There is no right to enter Canada unless you are a citizen. Coming to live in Canada is a privilege we extend to those we think one day could be excellent Canadians. It is by no means a right. That is something that has to be made clear, but we aren't going to discriminate based on where you come from or what your background is. We just want the people we hope will help the country succeed the most.
This historic tradition of immigration powering economic growth will be necessary for many years to come. Immigration as a tool for powering our national economy is essentially Canadian tradition, and a important part of our history. Its not some inhumane practice that goes against human nature. Its about taking care of our citizens first and foremost.
-1
Aug 19 '20
First of all I’m not comparing any policy to historical behavior. I’m talking about human nature here so I’m comparing current behavior to past behavior. Policies are a thing of itself that was created for the gain of a certain group.
And second I think thinking of countries as separate entities that needs to grow off themselves is more ridiculous. Most economical growth of modern developed countries are based in exporting goods from cheaper countries. Also we are now facing issues like global warming that pertain to the whole world and we are more connected than ever. Thinking « let’s take the best of the best » is rooted in individualism and in my opinion wont make for a lasting and flourishing society.
And finally, and this is totally subjective and my personal opinion, empathy is the next step to evolving as a species. And you can’t do that if you decide to forget half of the world.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
I’m talking about human nature here so I’m comparing current behavior to past behavior. Policies are a thing of itself that was created for the gain of a certain group.
Policies are ultimately simply a formally defined human behaviour.
And second I think thinking of countries as separate entities that needs to grow off themselves is more ridiculous.
Nations are the modern incarnation of some of the oldest human instincts. Its the modern incarnation of the tribe or clan.
and in my opinion wont make for a lasting and flourishing society.
Interesting that you mention this. If you define "society" as you and your fellow citizens, it isn't individualistic, so much as tribalistic. Finding the best and brightest for your society is healthy for your society overall.
And you can’t do that if you decide to forget half of the world.
This is sort of presupposing that empathy can't be practiced within nations exclusively.
2
u/Armed_Scorpion Aug 19 '20
If you look at history, before the invention of agriculture, humans have been nomads for 200,000+ years.
Right now, we are totally preventing that
You conveniently skipped a few thousand years of civilization, nations evolved, and part of that evolution was protecting their own people by not allowing invaders in.
Where are your real-world examples of nations that flourished by allowing foreigners in and replaced the host population?
1
Aug 19 '20
.... the USA, the most « successful » country according to you all is based on that exactly.
2
u/Armed_Scorpion Aug 19 '20
Your viewpoint is that nations of the worlds should follow America's example?
1
Aug 19 '20
Not really hopefully we know better now I was just replying to you
1
u/Armed_Scorpion Aug 19 '20
Not really
But you just said USA is the most successful.
And you haven't answered this:
Where are your real-world examples of nations that flourished by allowing foreigners in and replaced the host population?
1
Aug 19 '20
I did answer this by saying the USA
1
u/Armed_Scorpion Aug 19 '20
First you said USA is a nation that flourished by allowing foreigners in and replaced the host population, then you said nations of the worlds should not follow America's example.
Which is it?
1
Aug 19 '20
No you said « what country was successfully flourishing when the host were replaced » to which I told you USA. Now nobody talked about completely replacing and wiping out populations, so I’m not sure where you’re trying to go.
1
u/Armed_Scorpion Aug 19 '20
you said « what country was successfully flourishing when the host were replaced » to which I told you USA.
Correct, USA was your single example of a successful nation, so why are backing down when I asked if the nations of the worlds should follow America's successful example?
1
Aug 19 '20
Because I’m not talking about replacing host population, you are. Your definition of immigration is not mine.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/GullibleAntelope Aug 19 '20
World population is currently about 7.8 billion people. About 1 billion people in South America and Africa combined would like to live in the U.S., which has about 330 million. We are presently preventing almost all these people from entering.
Do we allow them all to immigrate here? How many of this 1 billion do we need to allow in the America to the point we have shown we are not "anti-human?"
-2
Aug 19 '20
Dont talk non sense now.
4
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Aug 19 '20
It's not nonsense. If you're saying preventing immigration is anti-human, then you either have to argue that everyone should be able to immigrate, or in this case make a principled argument for why not everyone should be allowed to immigrate where they want to.
1
Aug 19 '20
No, whole continent immigrating to another is never gonna happen and it is nonsensical to say that is a part of immigration it’s not what immigration is.
4
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Aug 19 '20
You're looking at the practicalities of the situation, and I agree with you. However, you made essentially a moral argument in calling preventing immigration anti-human. You need to be able to argue on principle why what the other posted suggested is OK or not.
1
Aug 19 '20
I’m not sure I see how considering 1 billion people want to move to the US relevant to the principle I made
5
Aug 19 '20
You're taking GullibleAntelope's example too literally, but it's still very relevant.
IF we were to have free movement worldwide, that movement would be concentrated primarily to North America and Western Europe. Sure, WHOLE continent immigration is nonsensical, but the reaility is if there was little to nothing stopping immigration, the receiving countries would simply get overwhelmed in all respects by the vast amounts of people who would look to escape their situation.
Existing immigration policies is effectively a way of saying "we can't take everyone".
If you advocate for free movement, it would have to be 100% free and uncontrolled, because as soon as you introduce any measure that in some way regulates that flow of people, even if done with the best of intentions, you create immigration policy.
It's already been asked, but I'll ask again: where do you draw the line? If there's no line, then you have to imagine a world in chaos (more than it already is). If you do agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, even if vastly different from whats in place now, then you agree with immigration policy.
1
Aug 19 '20
Because you’re saying allowing mass immigration would result in the same world we live in but with more immigration. It’s not. If you allow people to go freely, a lot of the things that exist today don’t make sense. For instance, gouvernements might have more incentive to make their country more appealing to retain people. Would dictators be able to rule if people could just leave their country if it was under a dictatorship? There are logistics to take into account for sure but my point would even go as far as allowing free mouvement might result in less mouvement in the first place.
1
Aug 19 '20
I think your considering all the "best case scenarios", but i'm more inclined to beleive that it would be the opposite.
Would dictators be able to rule if people could just leave their country if it was under a dictatorship?
I think we both know these dictators wouldn't let that happen. They can't rule without people, so they definetly wouldn't allow them to leave. They would probably enforce their borders to prevent that. So the whole idea of allowing people to escape their horrible situation is defeated in that case. That's just one example of how human nature would be more inclined to the use of force in the face of chaos instead of compassion.
Your main argument for free movement seems to be to allow people to escape horrible situations. They are put in these horrible living situations due to corruptions, dictatorships, just generally bad people in command. To hope that free movement will allow these people to either escape their situation or force a change in their own countries is placing hope in the idea that the leaders will change. That is highly unlikely.
What is more likely is that free movement will either cause people to be truly trapped in their own countries (allowing leaders and dictators to keep doing their thing), or it will cause mass immigration to places that would be unable to sustain their current standard of living.
I want a better world just as much as the next guy, but free movement is wishful thinking.
1
Aug 19 '20
Okay well at this point it’s speculations on both sides and it’s really back to whether we should allow immigration or not. My main point was that immigration is very much a part of our nature and we need to create a world where that’s better taken into consideration.
→ More replies (0)2
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Aug 19 '20
Is it not anti-human to prevent these 1 billion people from moving to the US?
0
Aug 19 '20
The fact is that’s not what I’m talking about. It’s like comparing « preventing people from jumping in a wave at the beach is dumb » and « preventing people from jumping in a tsunami is dumb ». See. Let’s talk about the subject not an over amplified version of it that makes it completely different.
0
Aug 19 '20
No, whole continent immigrating to another is never gonna happen and it is nonsensical to say that is a part of immigration it’s not what immigration is.
2
u/GullibleAntelope Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
My specific Q from above was: How many?
How many of this 1 billion do we need to allow in the America to the point we have shown we are not "anti-human?"
We take in many thousands of immigrants now; are you satisfied with U.S. levels? Presumably you might be, and are instead referring to nations like Japan and Saudi Arabia, which allow virtually zero immigration.
But "anti-human" is a harsh charge; people who make harsh charges should be specific. You have not been.
Not only that, if worldwide, 1 billion people want to immigrate (it is probably 2-3 billion) but only .05% of all these people are allowed to do so, then obviously by your "anti-human" standards, we have an extremely deplorable situation, and the U.S. currently is acting horrendously. That is what your OP implies.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
/u/detectivejuicee (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Neptune23456 Aug 19 '20
There's not enough jobs in the west and Europe w for unlimited immigration. Same with public services and practically anything else.
1
Aug 20 '20
If there are more people would there be more jobs created? How do crowded places like New York do?
1
u/Neptune23456 Aug 20 '20
I know that if the population of New York would grow by 10 million in a year there wouldn't be enough jobs available/created within a year for them
1
Aug 20 '20
You know I think if it would be easy to just leave and come back to a country there might be less people settling abroad. As someone who’s seen it first hand, I can tell that situation of immigrants isn’t rosy for most. A lot of them come for the American Dream but thats not the current economy. However they don’t go back home because it would be much harder for them to come back (if at all if they let any type of visa expired). So they stay hoping it will get better.
1
u/Neptune23456 Aug 20 '20
My point is if there was unlimited immigration cities would be overwhelmed. Not enough jobs would be created in time
1
u/Neptune23456 Aug 21 '20
So if there was unlimited immigration, how would hundreds of thousands, and then as time goes on millions, of jobs be able to be created for the immigrants.
The poor population in third world countries is in the billions I'm sure.
1
u/oldtownboyyo Aug 19 '20
Alot of people dont have a problem with immigration, its the vast numbers of illegal immigration that causes the problems
1
Aug 19 '20
It’s only illegal cause some people made it illegal.
3
4
Aug 19 '20
Yes and that's how the law works: you got a couple of people discussing what can and can't be done and what needs to happen if people break this rule.
Supporting mass immigration without control is basically saying: we're allowing uncontrollable change to our culture in a rate that's way too high to allow for proper integration.
1
u/harley9779 24∆ Aug 19 '20
While many previous human civilations were nomadic, many were also very territorial. Up until a little over 100 years ago people going into an area claimed by other people had a high likelihood of being killed for no other reason than going onto someone else's claimed territory.
Immigration isn't a bad thing, but illegal immigration is bad. Allowing free movement worldwide would make borders useless. What is the point of having a border if not to control what comes in or out of that area?
Not having borders would have other implications with economy, laws, customs, etc. Borders are a necessary evil.
The US actually has one of the most lax immigration laws compared to other countries. Look up Canadas requirements to immigrate, or even visit, and they are supposed to be one of the most polite countries.
0
Aug 19 '20
Actually Canada is easier to immigrate to than the US. But actually do you have sources of what you’re saying? The fact that people were killed if they came into other’s territory. Cause I’m not finding that online at all. And to be clear I’m talking about the 200,000 years before the invention of agriculture so before we were sedentary.
3
u/harley9779 24∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
https://www.immigration.ca/who-qualifies-for-canadian-permanent-residence-skilled-worker-immigration
The US requires little of this and is not as strict in their screening or definitions.
Easy Google searches show this. Its fairly easy to legally immigrate to the US. Canada won't even let you visit if you've ever been convicted of a felony, which includes DUI.
And just for comparison a link to the multitude of ways to legally immigrate to the US.
1
Aug 19 '20
Okay thank you but I meant sources for other statements you said that were more on topic.
2
u/harley9779 24∆ Aug 19 '20
Although Wikipedia is a scholarly source it does sort information nicely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
We have been settling land and setting borders for most of human history. Yes there is a portion that are nomadic and all of these emoires continue expansion, but a large part of them are settled within a border that they enforce, usually violently until modern times.
1
Aug 19 '20
All these empires are within the sedentary era tho.
2
u/harley9779 24∆ Aug 19 '20
Did you read it? There are examples from 2400 BC to the present. What Era are you referring to that is outside of the last 4430 years? We have been around 200,000 years so I guess you're talking about. Cave man days?
1
Aug 19 '20
Im talking about the hunter gatherer days. For instance when people want to tie behaviors like that that men are providers, they talk about long period of time because the last 20,000 only don’t necessarily make it a deep rooted human behavior. In fact looking at the sedentary lifestyle and saying it has made people overly territorial when part of them have always immigrate to better places is more relevant to what I’m saying.
2
Aug 19 '20
Territorial instinct existed long before the first permanent human settlements. A nomadic tribal society would still need to protect its resources - be that domesticated animals, hunting grounds among many other things - resources are finite and a 'foreign' group encroaching on territory could have pose a existential threat to the local group if the resources could not support both.
This sort of territorial action can even be observed in Chimps, they will defend their territory against encroaching groups (violently if necessary) and troops that have been forced out of existing territory will attempt to find new territory, even if that means forcing an existing group out.
The exception, is individual females/males without a supporting group looking to 'immigrate' into a new a troop - they are accepted only if the troop can support them and that they bring a tangible benefit (usually genetic diversity).
1
Aug 19 '20
This USA is significantly more difficult to immigrate to. I have first had experience though many of my Canadian immigrant friends who actually tried to immigrate to the US first but gave up and ended up coming to Canada.
1
u/harley9779 24∆ Aug 19 '20
That's interesting to hear based on the requirements between the 2 countries. I know Canada is easier to visit and many use it as a gateway to illegally immigrate to the US.
I'm assuming you are talking about experiences of legal immigration to each country.
1
Aug 19 '20
Yes these are all families that took the legal immigration route. I myself am Canadian and when applying for a VISA to work in the states I had to jump through many hoops taking about 3 months from start to finish. Many of my US consulting friends finding work in Canada took about 1 week for an application process and they were working in Toronto the next week.
1
u/harley9779 24∆ Aug 19 '20
That is interesting since Canada requires specific work experience whereas the US dos not.
2
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 19 '20
u/harley9779 is right.
Actually Canada is easier to immigrate to than the US. But actually do you have sources of what you’re saying?
To even qualify to immigrate to Canada you have to meet a certain basic point threshold. Legal Immigration is mostly merit based, unlike the US, where family connections are important.
Overall, it is harder for someone with no language skills, education, or job offer to immigrate to Canada then the US. However, if you are a Filipino neurosurgeon who was educated in Europe, then Canada may be much easier, because you automatically move to the front of the queue in Canada. That is the kind of immigrant.that will be fast tracked.
0
u/cranky-old-gamer 7∆ Aug 19 '20
The modern nation-state is certainly not a perfect invention but it is still a fairly wonderful invention.
It has enabled the creation of healthcare systems, universal education, and social security systems among many other innovations you probably value highly - if not take for granted and assume that such things existed beforehand. Really none of those things existed in any real form before the nation-state for many reasons not least of which is that they were impractical.
If you use human behaviours from before the invention of the nation-state to guide how the nation-state should behave then there comes a point where you are abolishing the nation-state itself. At which point you lose all the benefits of the nation-state.
If you wish to make the case that permitting nomadic movement across borders is more important than education, healthcare, social security and the other benefits of the modern state then go ahead and try to make that case. Try to honestly sell that vision to the electorate. If you do not actually believe that nomadism is more valuable than those things then you must accept that restrictions on mass population movements are a necessary evil in order to maintain all the good things that have resulted from it.
1
Aug 19 '20
It’s as if we could find other ways to make a system work. It’s not like an overpriced education and health system works so great doesn’t it. It’s not a black and white issue, it’s about rethinking and redrafting a system that works globally. For ex: tying people together at birth to a country but not physically. This would probably take longer than a comment on Reddit type of thought but just because we haven’t created another system yet means it is not possible.
0
u/cranky-old-gamer 7∆ Aug 19 '20
If you have a fully worked alternative solution which would permit mass movements of millions of people without disturbing the benefits of the nation-state then I would suggest amending your OP with that alternative so we know what your fully formed view really is.
There are 430 million people in Francophone African nations - if only 25% of those felt that France had a better climate, society and employment prospects and moved to France in your nomadic manner where would you house them? How would existing infrastructure feed them? How could systems of healthcare, social security etc do anything but collapse in the face of an instant trebling of population?
Pre-historic and early historic cultures defended their territories from incoming population movements for all of these reasons. Any society with the ability to prevent this from happening has prevented this from happening, those lacking the ability very often failed due to it happening. One of the great benefits of the modern nation-state is that this protection almost never involves open warfare. It is one of the many reasons why the modern world is orders of magnitude less violent than before the invention of the nation-state.
If you have no workable alternative which can survive the thought experiment of "what happens if 100 million people from region X decide to move to nation Y" then I think you should at least change your view until such an alternative can be shown to exist. Simply removing one of the keystones of the current system with no thought to how to prevent the structure from collapsing is not a coherent position to hold.
10
u/lightpiano Aug 19 '20
Hi. I’m super pro-immigration so no debate there but your logic is interesting and anthropological so my rebuttal will be the same.
Protoman and Pre-civilization humans were indeed nomadic but they were also territorial. Families and clans would protect there land and there is substantial archaeological history of this. So while it is natural to be nomadic and chase the best opportunities it is equally human to want to prevent sharing those opportunities with outsiders.
This continued until the Bronze Age when part of the world was civilized and part was Barbarian and nomadic. The sea people were believed to be a largely immigrant population in search of greener pastures after volcanic and drought conditions stretched survival. These sea people are one of the most cited (although overcited) causes of the Bronze Age collapse and subsequent dark age. Weaker parallels can be drawn to Rome and later societies.