Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwattsun | Hacker News Reader

This is why I'm flabbergasted by people who oppose immigration to the United States. We are lucky to be a country that young people want to move to. Additionally, I've road tripped 100k miles all over North America. One surprising thing was just how empty the place is, especially the Western US of course, but also places like Western Pennsylvania. Outside the major cities, the US is sparsely populated. I know it doesn't feel that way to people living in major metro areas or at least it didn't to me until I drove around and had a look.

View on HN

> This is why I'm flabbergasted by people who oppose immigration to the United States.

They're opposed because to them, the United States is the people living there, not the landmass. From that point of view, adding a different people to the land worsens the crisis, not ameliorates it.

If, indeed, it is a crisis at all - nearly every country is currently at its most populous in history by far, and ecosystems are at their limits. We're nowhere near worrying about extinction from underpopulation - quite the opposite.

That would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that they are themselves descendant of immigrants :)

Well that was before all the social programs we have currently. Before you were welcome, but you were also on your own, there was no social security, SNAP, etc. Most people that I know who are for limiting immigration point to that. And they have a point. I happen to think that immigrants create wealth though, they don't swallow it up on the whole.

You believe immigration reduces the bonds of kinship? That it erases the millenia of shared history from before they immigrated?

I wonder which people are incapable of becoming Americans and why? As far as I know there are few legal restrictions at least.

There is a cap to how many immigrants can become citizens. Or are you talking about something else? The back log for immigrant->citizenship is on the order of at least 10 years currently unless you have money and influence to get it short-circuited.

The old "there's no clear line therefore there's no difference at all" trick.

Of course anyone can "become an American" (or in other words, the definition of American can be broadened to include anyone). That doesn't mean adding large numbers of new "Americans" each year (~1 million/year, for more than a decade now, even during Trump) won't change the character of the country, or increase conflict as different groups pursue their ethnic self-interest.

> ecosystems are at their limits.

This is true due to resource intensity of consumption.

It's due to resource consumption per individual, multiplied by the number of individuals. Since multiplication is commutative, both terms are equally at fault.

But since we have ample time left to change our lifestyles and societies to be more eco-friendly, there's no harm in ignoring one half of the causes, right?

Edit: To clarify, the half that is being ignored is the number of people, in the people times consumption per capita equation.

> But since we have ample time left to change our lifestyles and societies to be more eco-friendly, there's no harm in ignoring one half of the causes, right?

What exactly is being ignored?

Depopulation of the country-side is an issue in Spain too. But immigrants don't move there. They go to urban areas, especially when their presence is illegal. Spain tried to get immigrants from South America move into to the villages by giving them a residential permit (and even a farm, I believe), but it was not successful, AFAIK.

Is it still going on? Sounds like a good offer

Possibly. I cannot find anything on the official immigration website (https://extranjeros.inclusion.gob.es), but newspapers still write about it. Some reports are positive (exclaiming 10% of the population in targeted areas, but that turns out to be less than 20,000 people in total). Here's a recent article from El País: https://elpais.com/espana/2021-09-18/la-juventud-migrante-re.... Perhaps this website can be of help: http://volveralpueblo.org

You shouldn't be flabbergasted, racism isn't new or surprising in America.

Racism isn't new in America or anywhere else in the world.

The difference between America and the rest of the world is that America has more immigrants relative to its population and in absolute terms than any other country.

Out of curiosity, can you name a non Western country less racist than America?

I wouldn't know because I'm American and only know enough about my own country to comment on it, our culture, and our politics. I don't think comparison is relevant.

I'm not surprised by racism. I'm surprised at the anti-immigration sentiment as public policy. I understand that racists vote in racist representatives, but at some point the representatives will have to make the case for more immigration to keep America young and vibrant.

An enormous part of this country does not want it to be young and vibrant if that means it isn't white, Christian, and English speaking.

Like I don't want to be coy about this, the Republican Party is diametrically opposed to any kind of immigration reform that would let in more people that don't look and talk like their voters. The only policy that republicans support that might decrease their average age is anti education and anti birth control/abortion measures.

We should not continue to be surprised by this. It's what they've been saying for decades. You can't counter an irrational fear of the other with rational arguments about immigration - the racist nugget at its core just has to be nipped in the bud.

Why would they do that, though? The thing the representatives care most about is getting re-elected. It's much easier (and productive to their interests) to point the finger at various other causes for economic decline than attempt to convince your constituents that bringing in immigrants is the solution. No one wants to be told that they are the problem, and "the other" needs to be brought in to fix it.

Many people are racist/xenophobic and don't want people of other races or cultures "taking over" their neighborhoods or towns. Even those who aren't actively racist are just resistant to change on that level, because it scares them.

It makes more sense if you understand that leaders that use racism for political gains generally don’t care about serving the public; they’re in it to advance their own ambitions or act as agents for moneyed interests. The policies they support are motivated by the desire to hold power at any cost.

This is why you see all the other vile laws against abortion and the “don’t say gay laws”… they don’t actually benefit the states at all but are a useful tool for the politicians that peddle them to stay in power.

Racism is everywhere, don't act like it's unique to the USA.

Strange take. Saying that racism is not new in the US (because the discussion was about the US) is not the same thing as saying that racism is a uniquely US problem.

Racism sucks :(

Are you sure these people are out there besides a tiny minority? Can you name a member of Congress or Senate that opposes all immigration to the US?

Opposing immigration hardly has any support in the US, what has support is opposing certain kinds of immigration. From their point of view some immigrants can be a net negative to the country, regardless of how many children they bring with them or have, and prefer immigration to be restricted for them.

So I don't think you need to be flabbergasted because a tiny minority opposes immigration. For any idea there's a tiny minority that will believe in it.

Open spaces are beautiful, and it's not necessarily a good thing to simply fill every area up with people.

Who are they beautiful for, if there's no people to appreciate it?

There were parts of my trip to Alaska where as far as I knew I was the only person in the forest wilderness from horizon to horizon. It was bizarre to experience absolutely no man-made noise. I found a section of Wyoming that was undisturbed land dating back in time. Not even Native Americans ever settled there. If things go to hell, I know a lot of places where I could go live a quiet life.

Edit: A picture of Alaskan Spring wilderness I took in 2005

https://imgur.com/Cm7b7EW

And if they're filled up, they're not beautiful.

for visiting, not trashing with more human. There are enough humans. We are consuming faster than things can be restored fixed, and we're heading for a population crash.

You should travel around and see if you're still worried about filling it up

I think you may find far fewer people than you expect to be fully anti-immigrant. I'm 100% pro immigration, and 100% anti illegal-immigration, and that has caused me to be branded as "anti-immigrant" a number of times(only online, where nuance doesn't exist)

I think part of the reason might be that "illegal immigration", in the US at least, is a legal fiction that hasn't even existed for a century. The rules are entirely arbitrary and are designed to keep the legacy majority in power. They convince people that this is the right thing to do through fear-mongering and lies, telling people that immigrants take their jobs, reduce wages, have incompatible values, destroy "our" culture, etc.

I've been doing genealogy research lately, and when my great-grandparents immigrated to the US (around 1910), the only requirement for "legal" immigration was that they entered the country at a designated port of entry and were identified and documented on entry. Around 10 years later they were US citizens (and that length of time was more due to them not feeling they needed it, than due to any bureaucratic nonsense).

I expect that if we were to re-adopt a similar system today, it would not be catastrophic in the ways the government (both the left and right) would like us to believe. So I think you are branded anti-immigrant at times because being "anti illegal-immigration" is just kinda missing the point, and shows a lack of compassion and empathy for people who immigrate in ways that don't tick the arbitrary boxes.

I'm not sure what legal fiction you are talking about: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

The rules are not arbitrary. At least, they are only as arbitrary as literally every law is. You probably enforce similar rules in your own domain. Or maybe you are as compassionate and empathetic as you claim, and just let uninvited people stay on your property.

> and shows a lack of compassion and empathy for people who immigrate in ways that don't tick the arbitrary boxes.

It appears you have a savior complex. I'll guess you imagine illegal border crossers are all poor brown women with children fleeing gang violence, just yearning for freedom. Otherwise I'm not sure how you can talk about empathy and compassion about a group of millions of people per year who all have different experiences and motivations for illegally entering the US.

In threads like this, everyone who is against illegal immigration is assumed to also be against legal immigration. This has no factual basis and demonstrates this isn’t a conversation, it’s political posturing.

The government still owns around 50% all land in the west, so it is harder to get that land to live on. The east coast is largely built up to the mississippi because historically people needed the rivers to move cargo. Over land was really expensive and dangerous. Here's a neat map of all the federally managed lands, it supports that the west is largely empty: https://gisgeography.com/federal-lands-united-states-map/

Because we are a tribal people and don't want to be invaded by foreigners. Additionally, adding to the labor supply and suppressing wages does not help families afford to have more children. A nation should boost its domestic birth rate, and if there's a cultural problem that pushes towards declining birth rates, they should address that. Bringing in new people is not a solution it is just another problem.

Actually babies are not very good workers; I'd rather have adults who are already capable of working as employees.

A country is more than an economic zone. Culture, cohesion and community matter, not simply constant replacement through immigration.

Babies grow up to be adults. We don't need foreign workers, that's a myth for corporations to make more profits through suppressing wages.

Hire your own countrymen and women to work as employees for you. Check the male labor participation rate, there are plenty of workers available.

> A country is more than an economic zone.

This would probably come as a surprise to the likes of Mitt Romney and Donald Trump (different though they may be, there's a reason they share a political party). I've often heard the slogan, "run the government like a business" which should tell you something. And though Trump may use nativist rhetoric he never had any qualms about hiring guest workers for his own businesses.

All that is to say, while there is a constituency for such feelings, there are no real representatives for it in government.

Ok? I know you don't support those two, so why use their ideas as defense of your position? They are fools all the same, if that's how they govern and what they promote.

I'm not aware of a position that I took in that last comment. It was mostly a comment about the views of the owners of capital in America. They may be fools, but their opinions are the greatest force shaping American governance, especially now that they've greatly advanced their vision of replacing the judiciary in the US (who are now the de facto legislators), so it's important to know where they're coming from.

My own views tend toward the pragmatic - when the time comes to replace my roof, I just want someone who can do the job, because I sure don't want to.

You realize that most of those areas don't have enough water to support large populations don't you? And it's getting worse as the west is currently experiencing a drought that could last a century or more given historical precedence and the added complications of climate change.

This a million times. But, the reason is clear: my demographic is terrified of being a minority. The fear of this is being stoked by Fox News and other similar media outlets. Especially in the US, the fear of reprisals from past bad deeds (slavery and Jim Crow laws) are the immediate reasons.

> my demographic is terrified of being a minority

I don't see why - in other countries throughout the world, minorities live in harmony with majorities, especially when they're ethnically very distinct, so that they are still visibly a different group even after culturally assimilating.

It is only the US where this is a source of conflict.

> I don't see why

I think the parent answers this question fairly well: many white people in the US don't want black people to be the majority, because they fear that black people will then have the power to retaliate for centuries of oppression.

And beyond that, they fear that a "new majority" will change culture and values (and as a result, law) in ways that make them uncomfortable.

This doesn't only apply to the white/black dynamic. And it's all bullshit, of course, but the people in power (who are mostly older white people) have been using effective fear-mongering tactics for decades.

>in other countries throughout the world, minorities live in harmony with majorities, especially when they're ethnically very distinct, so that they are still visibly a different group even after culturally assimilating.

>It is only the US where this is a source of conflict.

Not sure this is sarcasm or just naivety when other countries have literal wars and genocides over these RIGHT NOW

Desire for immigration doesn't imply that you want completely uncontrolled immigration.

Maybe you want to bring in mostly educated non-criminals? Or mostly people who generally agree with the governing philosophy and our notion of freedom, so that it might not be voted away?

Don't worry about those people. The US still allows a larger total number of immigrants per year than any other nation in the world. Over a million people a year - basically the same as all of western Europe combined:

"In absolute numbers, the United States has a larger immigrant population than any other country, with 47 million immigrants as of 2015. This represents 19.1% of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, and 14.4% of the United States population. ...

According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016. Of these, 48% were the immediate relatives of United States citizens, 20% were family-sponsored, 13% were refugees or asylum seekers, 12% were employment-based preferences, 4.2% were part of the Diversity Immigrant Visa program..." [1]

That's roughly 3,200 new Americans every day, 365 days a year. 1/5 of the world's migrants come to one country: The USA. I personally think this is something to be proud of. We are still a nation of immigrants and though the Trump administration did try to curtail immigration, the system is still functioning and relatively robust.

Now, what to do about top international talent avoiding the country because of radical right wing politics that demonize immigrants and conservative lawmakers that consistently try to prevent people coming? I think that's a solution with an obvious answer.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_St...

I do wonder about two things, though:

Did those numbers decline meaningfully during the Trump presidency? His constituency and platform is very anti-immigrant.

Regardless of that, how many immigrants in the US feel secure in their status? I know a lot of people on H-1B visas who have been in the green card line for over a decade, and live with the constant stress of losing their job and having to leave the country nearly immediately. I also know some who are asylum seekers, and stats aren't awesome there, either; I think something like 40% of them are ultimately rejected, some after years of being in limbo. Even family-sponsored immigration can take years to work its way through the system.

So sure, we have a lot of immigrants here, but I do wonder how many of them actually feel welcome, and secure in their progress toward permanent residency or citizenship, if that's what they desire. And meanwhile, all these immigrants -- even those who have waited years and been granted green cards -- can't vote and meaningfully participate in how they are governed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com