> 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!
Comments
> 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.