Hacker News Reader

>The EU doesn't really do integration, it assumes everyone is a self-motivated tech worker who will do all the integration work themselves.

The EU consists of welfare states. Thus the incentive structure for an immigrant is totally different than in the US. Further more MENA immigration which is what Europe has most of is not the same kind of immigration that the US enjoys. The amount of state expenditure on facilitating and integrating immigrants in western Europe is insane.

Western Europe has bendt over backwards the last 50 years to accommodate people of cultures that have pretty much nothing in common with European culture, values and historically has been the enemy both culturally and religiously - the world did not start in 1945 as many on the left in Europe thinks.

> The EU consists of welfare states

That's a stretch... those welfare states aren't that universal and realistically most people in such situations would be barely above subsistence level.

But yeah, Europe generally gets people who can't get into US with all the outcomes of that.

Well yeah, I should've stated Western Europe more with regards to the welfare state, - Central/Eastern Europe hasn't been that enthusiastic about MENA immigration and they don't have that level of social security nets.

Also even the illegal immigrants that come to the US is easier to integrate than the immigrants from MENA in Europe. Culturally they are much closer, even though there has been a influx of illegal immigrants from other places than Americas last couple of years.

This is a very deep difference in immigration in EU vs US that is quite foreign to many Americans.

I feel like people's perceptions around certain topics might shift quite a bit, depending on how those are implemented.

Suppose you have a fairly open border policy. Lots of folks get to contribute to the economy, there’s some cultural exchange, it’s pretty okay.

What if there isn’t a good plan in place for making people integrate with the local culture and you end up with large groups of people whose beliefs and behaviour are incompatible with those of the local population, e.g. calls for religious rule in an otherwise democratic country and increased violence? Not the blown out of proportion election claims in the US, but rather the real question of what happens to people after they cross the border? If that detail is unaddressed then people might grow to desire more closed borders, even if the issues lie elsewhere.

It’s a bit similar to the self-described “pro-life” movement, except when you look past those strongly held beliefs, things get more complex. For example, if children are born in families that can’t really afford them, will there be enough government assistance to school and feed them? What about daycare? What about neither of the people being mature enough to be good parents? That’s setting the personal freedom argument aside for just a second, it’s like they care about the births but don’t have the rest figured out, similarly to the discourse about borders.

I think you’re correct that the right solution would involve focusing on integration.

> What if there isn’t a good plan in place for making people integrate with the local culture and you end up with large groups of people whose beliefs and behaviour are incompatible with those of the local population, e.g. calls for religious rule in an otherwise democratic country and increased violence? Not the blown out of proportion election claims in the US, but rather the real question of what happens to people after they cross the border? If that detail is unaddressed then people might grow to desire more closed borders, even if the issues lie elsewhere.

Integration is primarily a numbers game. Most people don't integrate into the local culture unless they are cut off from their own. If you have so many immigrants that you either need to build immigrant housing or fill up entire towns with them then you don't get immigrans assimilating into the local culture but rather them bringing their own culture no matter what other measueres are implemented. So yes, a good implementation of immigration needs closed borders at least for foreign cultures - these things are not independent.

>That's why the US doesn't have a migrant integration crisis like the EU does - we know how to welcome and inculturate people

I believe you got this other way around. The US doesn't have a migrant immigration crisis like the EU does, because it's a big isolated island with relatively strict immigration policy. The people who immigrate to the US are exactly the kind of self-motivated workers who do the integration work themselves.

Many here believed that investing in integration will magically make open borders policies work, and the countries did. Less people in Europe believe it now.

Another thing is, how much immigration does US get? In Europe, many countries can have a significant fraction (a few percent) of their population immigrate over a few years (for example check how big UA immigration was). That makes integration much harder.

To be clear, I'm not against immigration, but it's a complex topic and I believe you're a bit too optimistic and extreme about it.

>For the sake of full transparency: I'm an open borders maniac, which makes me left wing by American standards and basically persona non grata in Europe.

I don't get dividing people into two neat categories (left and right). And you're welcome in Europe, it would be great to have you and I'm sure you would do well here!

It’s just an objective fact that in any political thread the top comments are one of either:

1. A lazy attempt at seeming impartial while holding a subtle, elitist anti-republican opinion.

2. A not-so-subtly marxist or socialist outburst.

Under each comment the top 3 direct replies are an agreeing sentiment that pretends to add some nuance to the discussion. The fourth might be a contrarian (either right wing or conservative) opinion that gets barraged by downvotes and angry responses.

The audience here skews towards those the truth.

Of course, the ones that cannot tolerate any dissenting opinion will either whine or leave.

> The audience here skews towards those the truth.

The truth is that this sentence is believed by every audience ever convened.

However, this format doesn't immediately squash critical opinions (besides ␟ stuff), which eventually allows critical discourse to actually occur.

Other side promote engagement. This site still rewards discourse.

    > The audience here skews towards those the truth.

  The truth is that this sentence is believed by every audience ever convened.

Actually you are correct, I should had known better to type "truth", as if a thing existed.

This site definitely skews towards objectivity.