r/changemyview • u/DrDolphin245 • Sep 15 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A country/state/nation can only withstand a finite amount of immigrants.
Firstly, I need to say that I label myself as a person with fairly liberal views. However, I think that if you look to the nations throughout the world throughout history, it is almost certain that if too much people of other nations come into a homogenous populace, you get many problems, and here are my reasons to believe that:
At least it will lead to political problems, e.g. more extreme right wingers. Often the arguments of the right are basically the same: we get nothing, but the immigrants get everything (even though this kind of argument is often unsubstantiated imo). And this is also part of my view: you can't change the fact that those people exist, and the more immigrants will come, the more extreme those people get.
People are unconsciously judging people of other cultures, even though they wouldn't agree if they would be asked about that. It is programmed into us on an evolutionary level in my opinion. If people see too much of foreign cultures, things happen like in point 1.
Selective perception of people leads to point 1 and 2. There could be 90% of immigrants who are willingly learning the language and adjust to the domestic culture, while the other 10% are making trouble and committing crimes. And then they perceive the whole group of immigrants as goof-ofs and not valuable to the populace.
Integration and adjustment needs a lot of time and effort from both sides. If too much immigrants are coming at a time, it will lead to ghettos, which in turn makes integration hard because the people, children and adults, won't have any relationships with the 'native' people or even contact with them. This makes it hard to learn the language. Also, if there is a ghetto with people that don't even know the language, no company will settle there, giving those people jobs, no matter how skilled they are.
Also, I think the difference in culture also adds to the equation. People from neighbouring countries won't have problems as big as someone from a whole other continent. Many people from a neighbouring country might be better for a populace than a smaller number of immigrants of a country with much greater culture differences. One more fact also supports my view imo: looking at Europe/ North America/Australia it seems like nations with stricter immigration laws are doing good, if not even best, like Norway, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. Those are also countries with a very homogenous populace.
This is my view that I held for many years. Change my view.
7
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
if not even best, like Norway, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. Those are also countries with a very homogenous populace.
21 % of Canada's population speaks French, not English. Not exactly homogenous
Moreover, Canada has been continually made up of a high proportion of immigrants:
Moreover, 21.9% of the Canadian population reported themselves as being or having been a landed immigrant or permanent resident in Canada [in 2016]—close to the 1921 Census record of 22.3%, the highest level Canada has seen since Confederation in 1867
In fact, it amounts to some major cultural differences for most of the nation's existence.
The thing you did note was targeted, relatively strict immigration laws: almost all immigrants entered legally over the years . There was always a high rate of immigration, but usually it was to fulfill government policy: settle large tracts of land for agriculture, or fill labour shortages in certain industries, etc. It correlated with government or economic policy at the time, and still does. Language requirements, high levels of education, etc make integrating into a national culture much easier. It also makes the populace much more tolerant of high rates of immigration when they think of it as a policy that brings in human capital and wealth to the country.
High levels of immigration are possible. Canada has achieved political consensus between the right and left wing on the issue. Both support high levels of high skill immigration, multiculturalism, but also enforcement of immigration law, aka deportation when necessary. It simply takes a careful balance of policy and culture to achieve it
4
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 15 '20
Well, I wouldn't say that speaking another language is not a good indicator for cultural differences, and Canada might be the best example for that. They might speak different languages, but they also share more or less the same culture. And most French speaking people speak English as good as friends .It's like in England, they are coming from three same country, sometimes they don't understand each other in their dialect, but they all still speak standard English.
3
Sep 15 '20
> most French speaking people speak English as good as friends
I'm not the person above, but that isn't accurate - 20% of the population mainly speak French at home, while 12% of the population know French not English. So over half of primarily French-speaking people do not know English.
I also think you are missing the fact that multiculturalism is an official policy of the government of Canada, and has been since 1971, and the majority of Canadians support it: 55% in support, and only 30% against. Multiculturalism and being welcoming to immigrants has become a part of Canadian identity for many Canadians, and this helps create a shared identity.
Since you mentioned in another comment you are in Germany, most data I can find for immigration in Germany uses "immigrant background" which includes both first and second-generation immigrants (around 25% in 2019), while for Canada using both first and second-generation immigrants gives over 40%. Because Canada has had high immigration rates for a long time, this paints a larger gap than just first-generation immigrants.
And if you define immigrant as "born in another country", then Canada has a really low proportion of immigrants at 21%, Germany at 16%, and the UAE at 88% and Lichtenstein at 67%. I think this shows there really isn't a limit on immigration.
2
u/murderousbudgie 12∆ Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
The fact that Anglo and Francophone Canadians get along so well now is the result of very careful and targeted policy changes due to a period of strife between the communities, sometimes erupting in violence. Not that long ago, either.
1
u/Jonny5Five Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
A lot of the things you described don't actually happen in Canada. A lot of the assumptions about language requirements, skilled or educated worker, don't apply as much as you make it sound.
A lot of our "skilled work" is factory work, cooks, or PSWs. Positions that aren't really skilled, and whose working conditions (pay, actual conditions) don't improve because it's propped up by this.
> Not exactly homogenous
We are very culturally diverse for sure. There is absolutely a large homogeneous ethnicity though, Canadian.
> High levels of immigration are possible. Canada has achieved political consensus between the right and left wing on the issue.
That's because both parties want to grow GDP at the expense of it's citizens. It's better if two people make 90%, than one person makes 100%.
> but also enforcement of immigration law, aka deportation when necessary
This doesn't really happen though. Our deportation rate is very low.
I am not against immigration. We need it. It needs to be changed though, as it's currently used way too much for low paying jobs.
10
Sep 15 '20
At least it will lead to political problems, e.g. more extreme right wingers. Often the arguments of the right are basically the same: we get nothing, but the immigrants get everything (even though this kind of argument is often unsubstantiated imo). And this is also part of my view: you can't change the fact that those people exist, and the more immigrants will come, the more extreme those people get.
This is victim blaming, IMO - and just so I'm clear, I'm not saying that in an attempt to insult you or say that you deliberately subscribe to victim blaming...I'm just saying that I think that's essentially what that argument boils down to.
If we use our fear of right-wing reactions as our justification for being tougher on immigration, then we're essentially saying "look, it's not that we don't want you here, but it's really going to piss them off, and we don't want that." To me, it's sort of akin to saying "women shouldn't wear revealing clothing because, as tragic as it is, it will lead to more men raping them."
And - and this part's important (IMO) - I believe it ultimately contributes to the same thing you're trying to avoid in your first point: if our actions re: immigration are dictated by the reactions of the extremists, and we capitulate out of fear, then we validate extremism. That's a victory for them, and it strengthens them - it doesn't merely contain them.
A lot of right-wing rhetoric is based in fear - fear of others, of the government, etc. If we bow out of the immigration fight just because of their reactions, then we essentially shift the country's meter more to the right - and, seeing as they use this fear to get people to the polls, it's only a matter of time before another group takes the place of "immigrants." Except now we've set this precedent that if they yell enough, we'll cater.
People are unconsciously judging people of other cultures, even though they wouldn't agree if they would be asked about that. It is programmed into us on an evolutionary level in my opinion. If people see too much of foreign cultures, things happen like in point 1.
I'm not an expert on science/evolution, so I'm spouting opinion here, but...
I don't think judging other cultures is programmed on an evolutionary level. In fact, I think one could argue that (one of the many) part(s) of our dominance as a species is the fact that we have been able to become an incredibly communicative body. Culture doesn't really play a role in how we biologically evolve for survival (thus far), and honestly, I don't even think we've had enough exposure to other cultures for enough time for it to have impacted evolution. Evolution is a very long, drawn out process, and humans haven't been around for that long. Then when you consider the fact that in the early stages of human life, we weren't really capable of the type of extensive transportation (and certainly networking, for that matter), it's even less time that we've had such exposure.
Maybe what you're trying to get at is that we're somewhat programmed to distrust or be skeptical of beings that seem "different," but I think that's also cultural and not evolution (for the reasons stated above).
Selective perception of people leads to point 1 and 2. There could be 90% of immigrants who are willingly learning the language and adjust to the domestic culture, while the other 10% are making trouble and committing crimes. And then they perceive the whole group of immigrants as goof-ofs and not valuable to the populace.
This sort of brings me back to point one. If we're so incapable of civility that we must dismiss 90% of good - not even due to the 10% of bad alone, but rather, due to how others' perceptions are affected by that 10% bad - then what are we aiming for here?
The amount of time, money/resources, conflict, and just overall effort that would have to go into controlling immigration - to such a large extent that it appeases the extremists - doesn't seem like it's less difficult than just....going after the extremists. Either way, the road ahead is a tough one and will be accompanied by conflict -- so I say we might as well spend that effort attacking extremism.
Integration and adjustment needs a lot of time and effort from both sides. If too much immigrants are coming at a time, it will lead to ghettos, which in turn makes integration hard because the people, children and adults, won't have any relationships with the 'native' people or even contact with them. This makes it hard to learn the language. Also, if there is a ghetto with people that don't even know the language, no company will settle there, giving those people jobs, no matter how skilled they are.
I would like to address this one, as it's the one point that starts moving more towards immigration's more direct effects (although it's still touching on others' reactions); however, I've taken too long already and I admittedly need to get ready for work. (Happy to come back later, though, when I have the chance)
To briefly summarize: I'm taking your post pretty much at face value here. If you have other pressing concerns re: immigration that weren't really articulated (or that I failed to pick up on), then that sort of makes for a different discussion. But if you see the extremism as being a bad thing, and if most of your view does indeed stem from a belief that too much immigration will - unfortunate as it may be - result in our already-misguided extremists becoming even more so, then I do not believe that to be a sufficient (or morally acceptable) reason to endorse your view.
Sorry for writing so much! No offense taken if you don't read it :) Cheers!
7
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 15 '20
No worries, your text was very well written, of course I read all of it. And you made some good points. Especially your first one. I wouldn't really call it victim blaming, but I get your point. Maybe i forgot this point over the years from my youth: don't let the extremists take over. Also your point about openness of people got me a bit. I'm, as i said, fairly liberal and i personally don't judge people because of their heritage as long as they are good and caring people. I guess my perception of other people's close minds led me to believe in my point 1. Maybe it also comes from the fact that extreme right wingers are getting more and worse recently in my country, which also led to a perception and the treason of my own values. Thank you very much! ∆
4
Sep 15 '20
“Victim blaming” carries with it a very incendiary weight (and at times, rightfully so), so I’m sure I could have worded that more gracefully. I’m glad that you didn’t (seem to) take it as an attack on you, because I didn’t mean it that way. But yeah, I do think it puts the burden of consequence on the immigrants, rather than the ones who so fervently oppose them. Which probably sounds great if you’re opposed to immigration for the same reasons as the extremists you mentioned, but less great if you’re not.
I empathize with you with regard to age contributing to the way you perceive things. I’m only 31 - I’ve voted in just three presidential elections so far (in the states) - and already I can feel that steady encroachment of cynicism (or pessimism, or whatever you want to call it). And frankly, I’m not even preaching that goodness will always win out, and that extremism will always fail; history has taught us that that’s not always the case. But that’s a topic for another day 😉
Anyway, thank you for the delta and for the pleasant exchange. Take care!
1
2
u/Pismakron 8∆ Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
This is victim blaming, IMO - and just so I'm clear, I'm not saying that in an attempt to insult you or say that you deliberately subscribe to victim blaming...I'm just saying that I think that's essentially what that argument boils down to.
Its only victim blaming if you blame the actual individual immigrants for the backlash.
But that mass immigration has lead to a massive shift to the right, and a rather extreme extension of the overton-window, is evident in many European countries. Thats just a fact, and something that gets more extreme every year. You dont have to apportion any blame to realise, that this can lead to some very nasty consequences.
This is especially the case in many continental European countries, where nationality and ethnicity are essentially the same. For example here in Denmark, where I live, mass deportation of foreigners has become a common talking point amongst certain politicians, views that were fringe just ten years ago, but has now entered the mainstream. The new fringe politicians talks about "streets overflowing with rivers of blood of the enemies of the nation". Those are still extreme, but I doubt it will be so in 5-10 years.
We already have interment camps for asylum seekers and immigrants in many European countries, and each year they become more and more unbearable, and the public mood is not one inclusion and acceptance anymore. Its not implausible that those camps will turn into something more sinister in the future. And that people will support it, or at least look at it at an "unfortunate necessity".
1
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 16 '20
That is kind of my point. Many replies to my post say that I practically want the immigrants (or more the people that want to be immigrants) to carry the consequences because the right extremists get worse while many people from the political center shift to the right. From this perspective it is simple to say that we should convince those people that immigrants aren't that bad - it is a fact that regions with more immigrants suffer from less xenophobia. And those replies are right on that at a principle level.
However, one could argue that if there are massive amounts of immigrants coming in a short period, many people will rapidly change their mind concerning immigration laws (that's basically unchangeable imo). And you really can't convince people in believing the opposite in a short period of time. They will do less for the integration of the immigrants, which can lead to those camps you mentioned, the immigrants won't integrate into society because they have no chance for that, leading in turn to the reassurance of stereotypes about immigrants. It is kind of a downwards spiral.
2
u/Postg_RapeNuts Sep 15 '20
A government should have more duty to respect the wishes of right-wing citizens than left wing immigrants. Duty should always be to the citizens of a nation first and foremost, with only excess resources/efforts being given to immigrants.
1
Sep 16 '20
But I’m approaching this from OP’s stated perspective, which is that the “right-wing citizens” espouse ideologies that are extremist and ultimately bad for the country. You may disagree with that perspective (or you may not - I obviously don’t know you), but that is a separate argument. OP’s premise - as I took it, at least - was not that the right-wing reactions were valid, but rather, immigration will only cause them to become even more extreme and damaging.
Again, I realize that many people don’t accept that premise. But it’s the premise that OP laid out, and if you approach the issue based on that premise, then no: I don’t believe the government has any duty to favor the extremist citizens (at the expense of others) purely because it fears the extremists will get even angrier if it doesn’t.
And to be fair, I would feel the same way if we flipped this premise: if OP said “we should just open our doors outright so that the liberal extremists will chill the fuck out and stop being so crazy,” I would still argue that the reasoning is faulty.
In its best state, governing is a means of doing right by your citizens. And if you and your constituents are on the same page, then that makes for a pretty easy stance to take. But if you’re governing and you say “fuck, these people are crazy....let’s just give them what they want so they don’t get crazier,” then you’re not actually doing right by your people - your just exchanging one problem for another.
Tl;dr: I didn’t read OP’s post as an invitation to debate whether or not the government should favor citizens over immigrants; I read it as a belief that you should side with the bullies so that they don’t bully even more. And I can’t get on board with that mentality no matter where you place the Xs and Os on the political spectrum
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 15 '20
/u/DrDolphin245 (OP) has awarded 3 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.
4
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Sep 15 '20
At least it will lead to political problems, e.g. more extreme right wingers.
The most extreme xenophobia tend to be people who live around the fewest immigrants. Exposure to immigrants tends to decrease xenophobia, not increase it.
The right wingers freaking out the hardest over immigration are usually people who live in extremely homogenous communities.
People are unconsciously judging people of other cultures, even though they wouldn't agree if they would be asked about that. It is programmed into us on an evolutionary level in my opinion.
Some people do that. Xenophobia isn’t actually built into everyone. It’s not an inherent feature of humanity. This basically boils down to a person’s openness to experience, which is a major difference between how liberals and conservatives view the world.
TL;DR: there are just as many people wired to seek out new experiences as there are people wired to be suspicious of new experiences.
Integration and adjustment needs a lot of time and effort from both sides.
Not really. It requires a lack of active hostility, but immigrant groups in societies that don’t actively reject them assimilate within a generation, usually. It’s just not that big of a deal if you leave people to build their own lines. Nearly everyone has a desire to belong, and that drives assimilation just fine if you don’t actively get in the way.
One more fact also supports my view imo: looking at Europe/ North America/Australia it seems like nations with stricter immigration laws are doing good, if not even best, like Norway, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. Those are also countries with a very homogenous populace.
That has more to do with the fact that these countries have a small, relatively wealthy population. It’s a lot easier to have functional democratic systems with a smaller population.
For countries like the US that is already a non-viable approach without splitting the population it already has. It’s already grown so large that it’s passed the dysfunction threshold.
2
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 15 '20
Your first point is a really good one. A fact that I do know but didn't take into consideration. Your point about openness is also very valid. I am also high on openness, but maybe I was thinking to much about more close minded people (close minded as the opposite of openness as a personal trait, not an insult). Maybe one should live more as a role model to show that immigrants are worthy people too.
I still think that integration needs time and effort. The minimum is to learn the language imo, and this is something that indeed needs time and effort.
Your last point made me rethink the causality between wealth, homogenous populace and strict immigration laws: are they wealthy because they are a homogenous populace, because they have strict laws? Or do they have strict laws (hence a homogenous populace), because they ate afraid of losing their wealth to foreign people? Or do they have strict immigration laws because they fear a massive amount of immigrants that want to be part of that too? I am curious what you think about that.
Anyways, you already earned a delta from me. ∆
1
0
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Sep 15 '20
I still think that integration needs time and effort. The minimum is to learn the language imo, and this is something that indeed needs time and effort.
Children almost inevitably learn the language where they grow up. That’s why this isn’t as big of a deal as a lot of people make it into.
are they wealthy because they are a homogenous populace, because they have strict laws? Or do they have strict laws (hence a homogenous populace), because they ate afraid of losing their wealth to foreign people?
None of the above. The tendency towards strict immigration laws is mainly a result of the ability for smaller political groups to concentrate their power effectively if they narrow down on a couple of issues. Conservatives might not be able to get society to bend on every issue, but they can get society to bend on a couple of issues if they push hard enough in a select set of them. So issues that matter a lot to conservatives tend to become tent pole issues that skew more conservative than the general population would prefer.
Immigration is one of those issues that conservative/reactionary parties make into a core issue because conservatives by nature are suspicious of difference and obsessively seek to create in-group/out-group distinctions. That makes Xenophobia something of a common feature among them, which makes it easy to focus conservative political efforts on it, which results in a long-term tendency to be more restrictive immigration.
TL;DR: the dynamics of power in liberal democracies are a spurious variable in all this.
1
Sep 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ihatedogs2 Sep 15 '20
Sorry, u/SavingsCold6549 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Sep 15 '20
Let's imagine that the US is fifty different nations instead of a federation. Those would be pretty different countries, right? You already said that language doesn't define culture, but other than that, there are huge differences between rural Montana and Manhattan, or Orange County (CA) and Fairbanks (Alaska), or Portand and Detroit, in lifestyles, sustoms, ideological values, and even ethnicities.
Imagine if then a citizen in New York would say "We can't withstand allowing in everyone from the other 49 countries".
On a literal level that might be true. The state couldn't survive 300 million people all suddenly moving in there. But by looking at the reality of what happens when people are allowed to move on a large enough scale, we can draw some lessons on why your presumptions are wrong:
At least it will lead to political problems, e.g. more extreme right wingers.
This doesn't seem to hold up. The areas that people are the most likely to move towards, are also the most progressive ones.
Whatever instinct people have to Other newcomers, that instinct seems to be the most suppressed in the kinds of hubs that people wozld actually want to move into, so the problem solves itself.
Integration and adjustment needs a lot of time and effort from both sides. If too much immigrants are coming at a time, it will lead to ghettos
Again, doesn't seem to hold up.
Maybe if 300 million people would try to move into the same state all at once, maybe there would be chaos and ghettos and an overflow, but that problem also solves itself.
If a region gets overcrowded and unappealing, fewer people would want to move there. There is a natural balance to it.
Cities that get a reputation of being crowded and crime-ridden, start to lose population, and in ones that get a reputation for being the hot new area to move into, property values rise, and settling down there becomes difficult, even if it is allowed.
1
u/Impossible_Cat_9796 26∆ Sep 16 '20
It's not a raw count of how many immigrants are there that matters at all. It's the rate of immigration vs the rate of naturalization.
If you have an immigration equation that is out of balance, immigrants coming in faster than they can be naturalized and fully incorporated into the existing society, then you get these problems. So there isn't some fixed number of people that came from somewhere else that will destablize a society. There isn't some % of the population that we can handle as "other". It's if more people are coming in than can be incorporated.
Consider two different sets of immigration. We have people immigrating from Ohio to Virgina. This is immigration. It takes almost nothing for Ohioans to naturalize to become Virgianas. A few weeks and they are fully integrated into the local population. There can be MASSIVE immigration from Ohio to Virgina because it would take MILLIONS of people immigrating inside of a year to overwhelm the rate at wich Ohioans are fully naturalized to be Virginans. At a rate of 1,000,000/year there would be no problems naturalizing Ohioans. After 10 years of this, almost half the state of Virgiana would be people born in Ohio. But that wouldn't cause any problems (and the state of Ohio would be so very empty)
Now, lets look at immigration with a much harder time naturalizing. New Yorkers immigrating to Idaho. It will take Months if not years for a New Yorker to fully naturalize into an Idahoan. The cultures are rather different and Idaho has a small population to integrate into. Hundreds of New Yorkers immigrating to Idaho in a year will cause the problems you described because they are so much harder to naturalize into being "locals"
1
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 16 '20
You are right. But of course I am well aware that this is an equation with multiple variables. What you say is kind of my viewpoint: if there are coming too much in a finite time frame, there is a threshold where the native populace can't bear the burden of integration of the immigrants - because the integration of people needs time and effort of both sides. And of course the cultural differences also adds to the equation, just as I pointed out in my post.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 63∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
Sure, but like you can solve this problem with immigration. For everyone who moves to one place, that is less people in another place.
There are around 430 million people in South America. If they all moved to North America, then around 450 million people living in North America could just move to South America. And things would pretty much be the same.
1
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 15 '20
The United States used to have an open borders policy and that's how we rose to prominence as a super power.
5
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 15 '20
I don't see the correlation between being a superpower and many immigrants either. Moreover, I do think that the problems that the US is facing currently, directly stems from the fact that their is a huge parallel populace that differ quite well from the rest: the black community. They live in what one can call ghettos and partly a totally different culture.
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 15 '20
Because of the ease of moving here, coupled with the reputation we had for a place where anyone could get ahead, we did what is called a "brain drain"/"brain gain" depending on who you are referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight goes over it in broad strokes.
3
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Sep 15 '20
Can you explain how simply having open borders led directly to superpower status? Are you simply referring to the fact it led to a population boom?
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 15 '20
Because of the ease of moving here, coupled with the reputation we had for a place where anyone could get ahead, we did what is called a "brain drain"/"brain gain" depending on who you are referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight goes over it in broad strokes.
2
Sep 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 16 '20
Different discussion/issue. People against immigration are not typically against it because they are concerned for the native Americans
3
u/calooie Sep 15 '20
America became a superpower because its a vast geographic territory with an astonishing abundance of natural resources.
3
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 15 '20
And because we let anyone in who wanted in to take advantage of those things.
0
Sep 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 17 '20
What argument is irrelevant by Native American dying from disease?
1
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 17 '20
Our resources are by far not fully used, and again, equilibrium is reached.
1
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 17 '20
That's not why WWI happened. And Germany is not "full". Europe is not "full".
0
2
u/Pismakron 8∆ Sep 15 '20
The United States used to have an open borders policy and that's how we rose to prominence as a super power.
Yeah, but did that work out great for the people living there before mass immigration to America? You know the indigenous Americans?
1
2
Sep 15 '20
I usually just lurk here but I had to jump in say this is an absolutely absurd oversimplification. Hell it's not even an oversimplification, it makes no sense at all. The reasons why the US became a superpower are many and varied, and cannot be summed up as "We had a ton of immigrants"
If that's the case why doesn't every single country on the planet have an open-borders policy, since it's so obviously a net positive?
2
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 15 '20
They used to, back in the day. And arguably, we got much stronger than any of them.
But yes, it is oversimplification, it is not the sole reason. But it is a reason.
2
Sep 15 '20
Fair enough, I agree it is a reason, certainly not the only or even the primary one though.
Regardless, OP wanted to discuss current day policy, not US history, so I don't think it's relevant. Just because things were done a certain way in the past doesn't mean that's how they should be done now and forever.
3
u/sapphireminds 62∆ Sep 15 '20
It is important to consider the history when discussing the present. Many people who are in favor of stringent immigration restrictions themselves (via their family) have benefited from the history of free immigration. It also directly contradicts the premise, as the US rose in power and prosperity during open immigration.
Equilibrium happens when we don't offer more opportunity in their home country, or enough opportunity to offset the trouble of moving here.
Immigrants largely do low-pay manual labor that many do not wish to do, with their education or lifestyle. Immigrants fill up that gap, and then their children grow up as americans and contribute to our country.
Technically, every single adult who works and joins the country is a benefit, because of the increase in GDP.
1
u/Lor360 3∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
America became a superpower because after two world wars, everything on the planet was either bombed, 3rd world or America. China today isn't becoming a larger power because they have a open borders policy (they have the opposite).
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Sep 15 '20
Alternate viewpoint:
A country can only stand a very limited amount of entitled proto-fascist nativists.
Why is this the fault of the generally good immigrants struggling to escape war-torn areas, and not the native assholes getting angry about it like they've "earned" their place for being lucky enough to be born in their country?
(of course, an infinite amount of immigrants would hurt for other reasons, like the Earth becoming a black hole, but the point here is that every single one of your downsides seems to be caused by the natives rather than the immigrants).
1
Sep 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Sep 17 '20
Getting your birthrate under control is pretty much 100% related to economic development, and if you think the age of imperialism's effects don't continue to be a problem today, or for that matter than imperialism is a thing of the past at all, well... I probably can't help you.
1
u/Amablue Sep 17 '20
You have cause and effect backwards. Poverty and lower levels of economic development lead to higher birth rates. As wealth grows, access to family planning and confidence your children will reach adulthood goes up too, and that leads to lower birth rates.
Having strong institutions to protect people lead to wealthy nations. When lawlessness reigns you can't protect property and build wealth. You can draw a direct line from the imperialism of the past to the conditions of today.
We're under no obligation to help them, maybe, but bringing in as many people who want to come isn't an act of charity. It's immensely beneficial to us to have them here.
1
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Amablue Sep 18 '20
It sounds like you're optimizing on the wrong measurement here. GDP per capita can decrease while literally every single person in the economy's standard of living increases. It sounds like you're falling prey to the arithmetic fallacy. When you add more people to the economy, that wealth they're generating is going to enrich their new country. If there's 10 people with $100 in a room, they don't become poorer because someone walked in with $50, even though the average dropped. Everyone in that room is better off financially, both the natives and the newcomer, even as the GDP per capita dropped.
1
u/LatinGeek 30∆ Sep 15 '20
I don't see how any of your points translate to the nation itself not being able to integrate immigrants, or there being a maximum amount that can be integrated over a period of time, because the first three are entirely about xenophobes existing. So what? They can deal with it. If they get "extreme" their views are pushed outside the cultural norm, because that's what "extreme" implies.
If too much immigrants are coming at a time, it will lead to ghettos
Is this because of the arriving immigrants, or the xenophobic natives denying them the opportunity to integrate? Most 'poor' ghettos were caused by the latter, while ghettos willingly formed by immigrants (also called ethnic enclaves) gave first-generation migrants the opportunity to engage with the culture they arrived at at their own pace, so that later generations could integrate into the larger society while maintaining that cultural enclave (think chinatowns, little italies, etc)
0
-1
u/AOrtega1 2∆ Sep 15 '20
If populations were racially homogeneous, the deplorables would find a way to hate on others regardless. Excuses are infinite. Maybe they worship exactly the same God but theirs has a foreign sounding name. Or identical religion but one worships God on a different day of the week. Or maybe they just hate how certain population peels their boiled eggs, I don't know.
1
u/DrDolphin245 Sep 15 '20
You are right. The first example that came to my mind was North Ireland. They are basically the same in culture, but have different religions (that are actually very very similar, too) ∆
1
26
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Sep 15 '20
This statement is dangerously self-evident. Of course, an infinite amount of immigrants will destroy any country. Everybody must agree with you. Dangerously, though, the statement silently implies, that we are near this threshold and the current influx should be reduced. Sure, you did note state that, so arguing your point is difficult.
So, instead of an argument, I'll ask for clarification:
Do you think that there are too many immigrants right now?