[flagged]
Who’s saying the Guatemala adds MORE value ?
They can add the same value as an Appalachian and still be a win for the country
> Are the Chinese sitting around saying “what we need to improve this country is a bunch of non-Chinese.” Are Indians saying that? Japanese?
The Chinese are saying they want more people
The Japanese certainly want more people too
At the end of the day, you have to ask: what makes America, America? Is it the best minds from all over the world? I don’t think so. America was a world power long before significant skilled immigration. Instead, I think it’s the distinct cultural and political values of the English settlers who founded the country—not just the elites, but especially the “common people.”
I see very few people in those countries expressing the American sentiment that the country is “enriched” by having immigrants from non-Chinese/Japanese backgrounds come to the country. If those countries could stabilize their populations without foreign immigration, they’d do that in a heartbeat.
Native Americans are ~3% of the current US population.
It's hard to muster up conviction that US citizens are any more deserving of US opportunity than anyone else willing to work for it.
Much of the immigration of the 1800s was similarly settlement, as German and Northern European immigrants pushed west along with British settlers and established their own communities there. Mass immigration in the modern sense, such as Italian immigration to existing communities, happened long after the nation was established.
Is it? New York City grew from 60,000-ish to 3 million from 1800 to 1900 - did a person from Europe that move to New York city in 1816 or 1876 immigrate or settle? They were not getting 40 acre land grants!
“Also in [their] midst is found a multitude of Europeans pushed daily by misfortune and loose behavior to the shores of the New World; these men bring to the United States our worst vices, and they have none of the interests that could combat the influence of those vices. Inhabiting the country without being citizens, they are ready to take advantage of all the passions that agitate the country; consequently we have for some time seen serious riots break out in Philadelphia and New York. Such disorders are unknown in the rest of the country, which is not worried about them, because until now the city population has not exercised any power or any influence on the rural population. I regard the large size of certain American cities and above all the nature of their inhabitants, however, as a genuine danger that threatens the future of the democratic republics of the New World, and I am not afraid to predict that it is there that they will perish[.]”
The America that de Tocqueville wrote about is America. At least, it’s the America that’s special and worthy of emulation. It’s a democratic America, where free, independent citizens engage in collective self-governance.
New York City is the antithesis of that—a place where elites leverage ethnic conflict to garner votes, to control a population that mostly doesn’t have the tools or traditions necessary for self-government.
It has contrived to survive Tammany Hall and Gritty (so far).
> New York City is .. a place where elites leverage ethnic conflict to garner votes
This is sort of an hilarious assertion at this moment in time.. I mean, elites didn't pick Eric Adams to be mayor of NYC.. they think he is a buffoon!
Let’s hope we get immigrants and not colonizers or settlers then
I was of the impression that one could not settle land that was already populated.
>It's hard to muster up conviction that US citizens are any more deserving of US opportunity than anyone else willing to work for it.
This is what a lifetime of globalization and capitalist propaganda does to a brain. In societies where the poison has not fully taken hold, people care about their fellow citizens' well-being being more than that of non-citizens. If a fellow citizens struggles to compete in the job market, they don't think "Job Unit #123123213 should just work harder if he doesn't want to be replaced".
All humans deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Obviously the US can't take in the world's entire immigrant population, but IMHO because of its history it has a moral imperative to accept a large number of immigrants.
And if it should come to pass that anti-immigration talking points come true, and immigrants do indeed 'take our jobs', then that needs to be addressed at a structural level (tax, education, welfare policy) rather than the border.
I feel like I'm the rare type of person who is both very pro immigration but also very anti- endless low skill immigration.
I take my cues from LKY, I guess:
http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2013/02/dont-take-fruit-...
Why would a Guatemalan immigrant + a sixth generation Appalachian add less value to American society than only a single sixth generation Appalachian?
> Where does this thought process come from?
Immigration is a source of economic growth at a certain threshold. China doesn't need net immigration because they have too much labour relative to their economic potential, India likewise. The Japanese on the other hand are indeed considering changing their position on immigration because of a labour imbalance.. in 1995 Japan's per capita GDP was nearly double Canada's.. now Canada is crushing Japan - which has become a nation of retirees. Now perhaps there is a magic formula to generate levels of productivity that can offset the fertility issues that come with prosperity but no nation has managed to find it. The fact of the matter is that all modern research seems to indicate that poorer nations waste labour, rich ones lack it - so net immigration works out to be a win-win in general. (The specifics of skilled immigration is more complicated, there are of course some market inefficiencies in all things.) Japan has invested a lot of public resources into figuring out how to age & grow and they've aged and not grown, if you have a solution to offer them that has worked elsewhere I know they would be excited to hear it.
It would be very surprising to find a large number of Guatemalans saying “what we need to improve this country is a bunch of non-Guatemalans” where non-Guatemalans implied "cheaper labour" because they have lots of cheap labour doing absolutely nothing productive.
Why do you think folks who walked thousands of miles to somewhere nobody would receive them to build a better life for their family mostly through backbreaking Labor would be a shitty American?
Less kindly the Average Appalachian voted to reinstall a reality TV star who wants to end democracy. I don't think Appalachians on average actually share our values.
> Why do you think folks who walked thousands of miles to somewhere nobody would receive them to build a better life for their family mostly through backbreaking Labor would be a shitty American?
Because there’s more to being an American than willingness to engage in backbreaking labor?
> Less kindly the Average Appalachian voted to reinstall a reality TV star who wants to end democracy. I don't think Appalachians on average actually share our values.
What does “democracy” mean? Does it refer to collective self-government, or just harvesting the most ballots from everyone we can shove into the country?
A certain party wouldn’t have won any elections in recent memory without the support of people who weren’t born in America, who are just giving their vote to whoever promises them material support. Is that democracy?
As a group they tend to be great Americans — the backbreaking labor is just part of it; the main story is that we all benefit from an influx of immigrants who have demonstrated the ability to formulate and execute an action plan to try to improve their and their families' lives in the face of difficult circumstances — hmm, sounds like entrepreneurial startup founders, no?
> A certain party wouldn’t have won any elections in recent memory without the support of people who weren’t born in America, who are just giving their vote to whoever promises them material support. Is that democracy?
You really think that's why Democrats win?
There is not a single group of Central Americans that have positive fiscal impact over their lifetime. Their kids are also not becoming doctors and engineers.
Agreed; glad you think so too.
> Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window.
The problem is that "common sense" often proves to be neither, because we're quite capable of grossly misjudging what constitutes valuable human capital. Recall that we used to deny adult citizens the right to vote, or to serve on juries or in public office, unless they were white male property owners over 21 years old — who knows how much society lost as a result by way of productivity, and how many such men were actually counterproductive.
Simple game theory: we have two choices - A. focus immigration on high skill or B. focus immigration on low skill. If by some possibility you're right, and all people are blank slates and genetics is fake, then either choice is correct. If I am correct (suggested by ~50 years of hard data), then choice A is a huge boon to the country, while choice B bankrupts the country.
It is astonishing that you are pushing for choice B with this knowledge. Like I said before, the worst thing for those left-of-center is thinking that there may be some inherent differences in different populations. It's the worst thought that could enter their mind. They live their entire lives trying to prove to people that they don't think this. This (plus knowing that you have enough money to shield yourself if the ideas that you advocate end up being destructive), allows you to virtue signal without a care.
Bye.
A question dctoedt - I assume you're from DC (per your name). Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Why not? Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?
If you'd clicked on my handle, you'd immediately see that's an unfounded assumption. (Although I did live in suburban Maryland for a few years in my early teens when my dad was stationed in downtown DC.)
> Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable?
Somehow I don't think you're a lawyer — please stop trying to play Perry Mason (you do know who that is, right?), because competent lawyers don't do what you're seemingly trying to do here, not even on cross-examination: Jurors see through the bullshit and it pisses them off.
> Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?
Au contraire: I didn't grow up with money; while I'm not poor, I hardly qualify as a limousine anything. But as I've gotten older I've become less rigidly judgmental; less inclined to berate people for (what I regard as) their fuck-ups; more respectful of differences in viewpoints; and more tolerant of errors in judgment (of which I've made my share). I've also come to appreciate that more people need opportunities like the ones I had --- as well as those that I didn't have.