> Excluding them from opportunity simply because they were born on the other side of some arbitrary, imaginary line is cruelty and selfishness beyond belief.
National borders are not arbitrary, imaginary lines. One of the fundamental attributes of a sovereign entity is the ability to define "inside" and "outside" and control the flow between "inside" and "outside" just as that is one of the fundamental attributes of a organism.
People everywhere are not the same. Those in your country are bound together with you in the social compact. Now, it's good and necessary to allow immigration to a certain extent, but in doing so the only consideration should be what maximizes the prosperity of those who are already part of the community. Anything else undermines the social compact, and those who lobby to systematically undermine the social compact in this way to depress wages and boost corporate profits verge on sociopathy.
> Those in your country are bound together with you in the social compact. Now, it's good and necessary to allow immigration to a certain extent, but in doing so the only consideration should be what maximizes the prosperity of those who are already part of the community. Anything else undermines the social compact
Please keep in mind that what you're writing bears strong similarity to America's long history of nativist sentiment. At various points in our history it has been very popular to try to keep out French, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, and all sorts of other immigrant groups. "They're not the same as us" and "How do we benefit from them coming here?" often have strong appeal in the moment and end up looking foolish and small-minded in hindsight. I think that "Give me your tired, your poor" is a perfectly fine immigration policy, not just for feel-good sentimentality but also because eking out perceived benefits for the existing members of our "social compact" might be at odds with both ethics and what's healthy for the future of the country.
That has nothing to do with what is happening now which in The middle of an unemployment crisis Americans are losing jobs, wages, and befits to foreigners so a handful of people can't get richer. Wake up.
Of course, if those people came to America, they would then consume goods and services of their own, which would provide opportunities to other Americans.
There is a long history of cycles in immigration to the US. There were discrete periods of high immigration, followed by resulting social stress and unrest, and then long periods of zero net immigration. From the 1880s through the 1910s there was mass immigration and near the end of that period something like one in five native born supported the KKK. It was too much, too fast, and immigration was shut down. From 1924 to the late 1960s net immigration was zero and this was a period of improving social cohesion, and great economic progress.
We are in the midst of an immigration wave unprecedented in length and volume. The number of people who have come here since the late 1960s and their more pronounced differences from historical immigrants do not compare. An immigration time out is clearly called for, as it was in 1924.
I also can't wrap my head around people being OK with the idea of the US population growing to over 500 million. Why are folks in a hurry to turn this place into India?
>We are in the midst of an immigration wave unprecedented in length and volume. The number of people who have come here since the late 1960s and their more pronounced differences from historical immigrants do not compare.
What percentage of the population is currently foreign-born, something like 10%? Is the late 1800s it got up to almost 15%, so this certainly isn't "unprecedented".
>I also can't wrap my head around people being OK with the idea of the US population growing to over 500 million. Why are folks in a hurry to turn this place into India?
Without even considering the differences in infrastructure, we have more than 3X the land area with about a quarter of the population...I think we'll be fine!
I am an American living in Italy, and I'm confused by all the nationalistic blah blah. I have friends here who are a lot more important to me than people in the US. Am I supposed to consider people who happen to be born in the same country somehow more important? I can't manage that, sorry.
It's not a matter of asking you individually to consider a random American more important than your friend in Italy. Rather, it's about what should be the priority of national immigration policy. When a people get together and form a social compact and a government to secure their interests, the guiding policy of that government must be whatever maximizes the interest of its constituency.
That's why the open borders/free trade talk is often deeply troubling. It's one thing to argue that these policies will ultimately maximize American prosperity. You can argue that stealing away the brightest people from other countries will ultimately benefit the U.S. in the long run, etc. The problem arises when the arguments loose that utilitarian mooring and end up arguing that American policy should be concerned with lifting up Indians and Chinese in a way that doesn't necessarily maximize the prosperity of those Americans who are already here. The American government has no business caring about the "huddled masses" elsewhere. At one time it was in our interest to accept anyone and everyone, by virtue of the fact that we had a huge relatively unpopulated country, but that incentive changed as we became a mature, populous society.
Rich countries don't lift other countries out of altruism. They do it because it's in their own strategic interest. Take a look at what's going on in Europe for a few clues about what happens when too many of your neighbors go too far out of whack.
we had a huge relatively unpopulated country, but that incentive changed as we became a mature, populous society.
Sorry but you still are a huge, relatively unpopulated country[1].
> Favoring those "in your tribe" over those "outside your tribe" is a classical, deeply embedded social norm.
Some of us dream of a world where we rise above some of our baser monkey instincts.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."
In any case, my tribe is not defined by where I happened to be born.
> In any case, my tribe is not defined by where I happened to be born.
When push comes to shove and your security is threatened, it'll be Iowans and Nebraskans that go to war to fight for your security, not Indians or Chinese...
(Not that an Indian or Chinese person cannot be an Iowan or Nebraskan, obviously).
Comments
> Excluding them from opportunity simply because they were born on the other side of some arbitrary, imaginary line is cruelty and selfishness beyond belief.
National borders are not arbitrary, imaginary lines. One of the fundamental attributes of a sovereign entity is the ability to define "inside" and "outside" and control the flow between "inside" and "outside" just as that is one of the fundamental attributes of a organism.
People everywhere are not the same. Those in your country are bound together with you in the social compact. Now, it's good and necessary to allow immigration to a certain extent, but in doing so the only consideration should be what maximizes the prosperity of those who are already part of the community. Anything else undermines the social compact, and those who lobby to systematically undermine the social compact in this way to depress wages and boost corporate profits verge on sociopathy.
How is elevating the corporation above humanity sociopathy, but elevating the nation state above humanity is not?
> Those in your country are bound together with you in the social compact. Now, it's good and necessary to allow immigration to a certain extent, but in doing so the only consideration should be what maximizes the prosperity of those who are already part of the community. Anything else undermines the social compact
Please keep in mind that what you're writing bears strong similarity to America's long history of nativist sentiment. At various points in our history it has been very popular to try to keep out French, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, and all sorts of other immigrant groups. "They're not the same as us" and "How do we benefit from them coming here?" often have strong appeal in the moment and end up looking foolish and small-minded in hindsight. I think that "Give me your tired, your poor" is a perfectly fine immigration policy, not just for feel-good sentimentality but also because eking out perceived benefits for the existing members of our "social compact" might be at odds with both ethics and what's healthy for the future of the country.
That has nothing to do with what is happening now which in The middle of an unemployment crisis Americans are losing jobs, wages, and befits to foreigners so a handful of people can't get richer. Wake up.
Of course, if those people came to America, they would then consume goods and services of their own, which would provide opportunities to other Americans.
I think we need a Godwin's law for "Wake up", though I guess we should be grateful you didn't say "sheeple".
There is a long history of cycles in immigration to the US. There were discrete periods of high immigration, followed by resulting social stress and unrest, and then long periods of zero net immigration. From the 1880s through the 1910s there was mass immigration and near the end of that period something like one in five native born supported the KKK. It was too much, too fast, and immigration was shut down. From 1924 to the late 1960s net immigration was zero and this was a period of improving social cohesion, and great economic progress.
We are in the midst of an immigration wave unprecedented in length and volume. The number of people who have come here since the late 1960s and their more pronounced differences from historical immigrants do not compare. An immigration time out is clearly called for, as it was in 1924.
I also can't wrap my head around people being OK with the idea of the US population growing to over 500 million. Why are folks in a hurry to turn this place into India?
>We are in the midst of an immigration wave unprecedented in length and volume. The number of people who have come here since the late 1960s and their more pronounced differences from historical immigrants do not compare.
What percentage of the population is currently foreign-born, something like 10%? Is the late 1800s it got up to almost 15%, so this certainly isn't "unprecedented".
>I also can't wrap my head around people being OK with the idea of the US population growing to over 500 million. Why are folks in a hurry to turn this place into India?
Without even considering the differences in infrastructure, we have more than 3X the land area with about a quarter of the population...I think we'll be fine!
What percentage of the population is currently foreign-born
12.9%
http://www.census.gov/how/infographics/foreign_born.html
Cool page, thank you.
The "social compact" of the USA arguably includes "Give me your tired, your poor,your huddled masses..."
> People everywhere are not the same.
Yes, they are, fundamentally.
I am an American living in Italy, and I'm confused by all the nationalistic blah blah. I have friends here who are a lot more important to me than people in the US. Am I supposed to consider people who happen to be born in the same country somehow more important? I can't manage that, sorry.
It's not a matter of asking you individually to consider a random American more important than your friend in Italy. Rather, it's about what should be the priority of national immigration policy. When a people get together and form a social compact and a government to secure their interests, the guiding policy of that government must be whatever maximizes the interest of its constituency.
That's why the open borders/free trade talk is often deeply troubling. It's one thing to argue that these policies will ultimately maximize American prosperity. You can argue that stealing away the brightest people from other countries will ultimately benefit the U.S. in the long run, etc. The problem arises when the arguments loose that utilitarian mooring and end up arguing that American policy should be concerned with lifting up Indians and Chinese in a way that doesn't necessarily maximize the prosperity of those Americans who are already here. The American government has no business caring about the "huddled masses" elsewhere. At one time it was in our interest to accept anyone and everyone, by virtue of the fact that we had a huge relatively unpopulated country, but that incentive changed as we became a mature, populous society.
> The American government has no business caring about the "huddled masses" elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but I consider myself first and foremost a human being, with 'American' down the list a few notches.
Granted, there are practical limits, but realistically, there's still tons of room in the US.
Also: the economy is not some zero-sum game with one single "lump of labor" to go around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
I think America, as a policy, should have its borders as open as possible.
However, America absolutely has the right to secure its borders as its citizens wish.
(I don't think you are necessarily saying this; but replying to your comment just seems a sensible place to drop it into the conversation.)
Rich countries don't lift other countries out of altruism. They do it because it's in their own strategic interest. Take a look at what's going on in Europe for a few clues about what happens when too many of your neighbors go too far out of whack.
we had a huge relatively unpopulated country, but that incentive changed as we became a mature, populous society.
Sorry but you still are a huge, relatively unpopulated country[1].
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/World_pop...
sociopathy. i dont think it means what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder:
"2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;"
Favoring those "in your tribe" over those "outside your tribe" is a classical, deeply embedded social norm.
> Favoring those "in your tribe" over those "outside your tribe" is a classical, deeply embedded social norm.
Some of us dream of a world where we rise above some of our baser monkey instincts.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers."
In any case, my tribe is not defined by where I happened to be born.
> In any case, my tribe is not defined by where I happened to be born.
When push comes to shove and your security is threatened, it'll be Iowans and Nebraskans that go to war to fight for your security, not Indians or Chinese...
(Not that an Indian or Chinese person cannot be an Iowan or Nebraskan, obviously).
it'll be Iowans and Nebraskans that go to war to fight for your security
It will more likely be Texans and Arkansans.
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/E8F05D884C7E78E4...
I live in Italy, not the US, so no, it won't be Iowans and Nebraskans. Or maybe they will be. Who knows.
Also: you seem awfully sure that the US will not be involved in threatening my security. I'm pretty sure of that too, but not 100% sure.