Reasoning about immigration laws is pointless because the foundation is based on magical thinking. There is no logic at all behind any of it. Citizenship by blood, by birthplace, by religion... then you look into getting a travel visa, or a work permit. There's nothing rational about any of it. Just endless lunacy. I probably shouldn't complain, as I'm eligible for four different citizenships... but when you look into this stuff, there's nothing very logical about it, and it's somewhat depressing that the planet is still this bizarre.
I'm not so sure it's illogical. It's tough to kick people out of a country that they were born in. While a 3 time armed robber born in the US and released from prison will be back on the streets of the US - ideally he / she would be sent somewhere else.
Immigration is a rare time when a country can choose what people to allow in or not. I would think that a country should be more concerned about its own residents than about residents of other countries. So for example, when the US sees that visitors / immigrants from some other country has on average high rates of unsavory activities - the US is in a position to restrict entry.
In a slightly extreme example: Imagine a country, safe-istan, has almost no crime. But 50% of immigrants / visitors from crime-istan commit crimes when they visit safe-istan. Should safe-istan allow all people from crime-istan unrestricted entry into their country? Or should they have an application / visa program?*
*I actually think this is a pretty realistic situation - visible especially in the Nordic countries and Japan.
I'd expand that to cultural preservation in general. The French like being French and living in a French country, with all that entails concerning values, music, food, and way of life. The Japanese like being Japanese and living in a Japanese country. Mass migration can change the character of a country. It's totally logical to want to preserve your culture and way of life.
If 100 million people from the Middle East moved into France (to use a hyperbolic thought experiment), it would cease to be a French country. And we don't need to use this thought experiment. You're kidding yourself if you think that mass migration from the Middle East and Northern Africa into France over the last few decades has been anything but an unmitigated disaster. There are plenty of great people from those countries, and their children, who have assimilated and contributed great things to French society. But the problems are so great that I think most French people would turn back the clock and undo the whole thing if they could.
This will be controversial, but France doesn't have any right to be a "French" country. Individuals have rights, but cultures and nations don't have a right to exist. If they did we would be obliged to preserve them, but peoples, countries and cultures always vanish over time, and there's no general obligation to stop this happening. Saying otherwise is simply a conservative demand, with no ethical basis.
"The French like being French and living in a French country, with all that entails" - This claim also implies a right for the French people to preserve the ethnic composition (white French) of their country, which is both racist and probably impossible.
I'd argue the aggregate human benefit to letting people from poor countries move to wealthy countries far outweighs any inconvenience or discomfort caused to the wealthy. 100 million people aren't going to move from the Middle East, but they might well move from subsaharan Africa, and it would certainly greatly improve their lives, and living conditions in Africa as they sent money 'back home'. French culture does not seem important compared to stopping millions of deaths from disease and starvation.
Is it more racist than demanding the right for the non-French people to change the ethnic composition of their host country?
and probably impossible.
Japan does it quite successfully. Try getting Saudi / Qatari citizenship ...
it would certainly greatly improve their
lives, and living conditions in Africa
You state this pretty confidently. Have you got any evidence to back this up? Historically, successful countries have been the exception rather than the norm. The norm is failed states.
The fear of the anti-immigration crowd (whether right or wrong) is that mass migration will bring the target country down, rather than lift the immigrants up.
Part of the rights of individuals is self-determination. If a people want to pick and choose who they admit into their community, that is their right. If they want to close their borders to the rest of the world, that is their right as well.
The fact that everything dies in the long run doesn't mean that those who hold their nations and cultures dear today should not work toward their preservation. An argument from nihilism isn't convincing to me. You and I will die too, but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing the good life in the meantime.
Besides, it's not a given that all current nations and cultures will die. They will certainly change over time, but it could very well be that the first human colony in another galaxy will fly an American flag. It's unlikely, but who knows.
Travel restrictions sound okay until you're in a situation where they actually affect you. I went on my share of hostel trips after university. I have yet to meet a traveler from any country, who thought it was fair that they couldn't work or live wherever they wanted. If you wanted to live in Japan, for example, and some Japanese guy told you he was worried you'd personally be damaging the country with your foreign values, I doubt you'd find much merit in the argument. That might be correct, I don't know, but it's hard to accept when the liberty being denied is one's own.
"As it should be" kind of rubs me the wrong way. The world is the way it is, not because it's the best of all possible worlds, but through a bunch of historical accidents.
You wouldn't want to live in a world where you were subject to the majority rule of the entire human race, which seems to be the logical conclusion of your reasoning on this.
I get your drift, but at this point we're conflating two different issues. I'm just arguing for freedom of movement. There are many forms of government under which that could happen. Everything from the mundane (treaties) to fringe ideas (direct democracy, government by AI, total anarchy, or whatever else). But to discuss the merits of those... feels like it's going OT.
Depends which Americans you ask. Try asking old, white and rural people about this and you might get a surprising answer. There is a disagreement about what America is and what's un-American and foreign.
The US is a mix of different European cultures and touches of other cultures in some regions. Hamburgers, pizza, enchilada's for simple minded examples?
I'm not talking (just) about who came on the mayflower, there has been influxes of immigrants since the founding of the nation. I currently reside in a part of town referred to as "German Village", which was settled primarily by German immigrants in the mid to late 1800's and continues to have places that serve "German" cuisine.
America from its founding was a place for people of all stripes to gather. It of course not only is a amalgamation of cultures but it has birthed its own cultures, some of which are associated with certain groups or regions: southern culture, new england culture, african american culture to name a few subcultures/groups--even the cultures we've birthed show diversity!
I'm the son of Cuban immigrants and I think that immigration levels are much too high right now, of populations that are a mismatch for our economic needs (lots of low-skill workers, but we have a tragic surplus of low-skill labor), into a system that doesn't encourage integration (welfare state and identity politics), and sometimes from cultures that don't share our values.
I think anyone who wants to come to this country to become one of us should be able to, provided they;
Can pass the citizenship test.
Can speak english at a conversational or better level.
Can afford a more than nominal sum for a visa (1500-5000 dollars).
Can pass a criminal history check of some sort.
Doing so would get you a 5 year work visa, after the expiration of that, you could renew it again, and after that, you must either formally file for citizenship (and then agree to remain here for 5 years after other than short visits home) or go back home for at least 5 years when you can start the process over again.
I agree with the citizenship test and the criminal history test. I think English at a conversational level is good too for practical reasons but that matched with the visa sum would select for more wealthy and hence educated immigrants. That isn't an issue, but given that many illegal aliens are filling unskilled jobs that Americans are unwilling to fill seems to suggest to me that the general desire is for unskilled immigration, not skilled. I mean this is hackernews, just look at how many H1b visa stories make the front page. Generally, people benefit from low skilled labor while they suffer from skilled immigrants who would compete with them while accepting lower wages.
I believe if we passed these rules, you'd see schools open just on the other side of the border. But, my idea is that it would be accompanied by a guest worker program, that would allow someone to come for say, 8 out of a rolling 12 year period.
if you asked those same old white and rural people a century ago.. well wait - they would have largely been freshly immigrated from Scandenavia or Germany.
This divide has existed as long as the united states has existed - and it will exist as long as there is immigration - this pressure exists to ensure that too much immigration doesnt happen, and that the melting pot can keep up.
That said, we're the only country in the world where being an 'real member of the country' largely means some legal gobbily-gook and deciding that you wish to ascribe to some somewhat nebulous american ideals.
The constitution and the philosophy espoused in the declaration of independence are perhaps open to interpretation but it's not that nebulous. I do agree you saying "somewhat" could either be sarcasm or you could literally mean that the "American ideals" are just somewhat nebulous other than totally arbitrary.
What constitutes the whole of american ideals is somewhat nebulous is what I was saying. I value american ideals, but my concept of what american ideals mean - outside of a few very key items - may vary widely from another person my age, with a similar background.
Yes, but as far as I can tell this is not France's biggest problem, and if they fixed the bigger problems this one would get a lot more manageable.
It's... frustrating... that a failure in presenting 1st, 2nd, 3rd generations of immigrants with a good life results in terrorism, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Some years ago, there was a judge in a Southern town who had the bright idea of giving their criminals a bus ticket to LA. One of the criminals was arrested in LA and told cops and prosecutors about this. LA authorities were annoyed, and there was some press coverage. Someone pointed out that LA could easily give bus tickets to a few hundred of their crooks and send them to the Southern town. The judge stopped sending people to LA.
If all the worlds borders were open then economies would move to the average. Workers in poor countries would move to rich countries (because they have higher wages) until those countries wages had gone down, and the countries they left would have their wages go up due to the supply decrease in workers.
It's complete logical self interest for country richer than the average to not want to allow this to happen.
The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while the increased supply of labor decreases prices in rich countries, and the new equilibrium would be strictly better for both sides.
Find a good economics textbook. (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public).
Free trade (and free immigration, which is essentially the same) is undoubtedly good on the whole. However, the current anti-trade pandering from Trump / Sanders and the like may also be correct.
Expanded access to markets may be unequal. For example, if there was an untapped country that had a million unemployed meteorologists - signing a free-trade deal with that country would most likely be terrible for meteorologists in America - although all other Americans would be better off with improved weather forecasts.
Replace "meteorologists" with "factory laborer" and you can see why so many of the current anti-trade folks are upset with what they see happening. They aren't barbers or plumbers - they're factory workers. The barbers, plumbers and engineers get cheaper stuff (and are better off), but the factory workers get paid less.
I'm sorry but that's transparently bullshit, an example of good on paper but bad I reality. It does very little but line the pockets of a select few in the rich nations. There is no reason for me to give a shit about someone in Africa if it means my own family, my own people struggle.
Clearly you use that phrase to mean people who share a nationality with you. Historically, this phrase has been used more often to refer to people with the same skin color, or religion, as you.
You could use the exact words you used to justify systematic exclusion of people of another race or religion from jobs and markets controlled by "your people". I like to think that we’d all consider that appalling.
Like race or religion, nationality is largely determined by an accident of birth. It is inconsistent to hold that racial or religious discrimination is unethical, but discriminating on the basis of nationality is somehow okay.
We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when mass migrations happen, they threaten the host country and also don't solve the problem back in the source country. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for Africa and Middle East in this century, as technology advances quickly.
And I assume a very similar argument was made in apartheid South Africa, or Jim Crow US.
“We are all human, we deserve the same opportunities. But when [black people move into white neighborhoods], they threaten [white neighborhoods] and also don't solve the problem back in [black neighborhoods]. The solution would be to make it better to live everywhere, so that people would not be so tempted to migrate. It will probably happen for [Cape Town and Johannesburg?] in this century, as technology advances quickly.”
Or, in other words, you propose the “separate but equal” solution.
It lines the pockets of everyone who purchases better, cheaper goods and has more money left over for other stuff. Everything we buy that's made abroad is made abroad because doing it that way makes it better or cheaper or both.
> The flow of capital and education to poor countries would increase their productivity (and thus wages and standard of living) while the increased supply of labor decreases prices in rich countries, and the new equilibrium would be strictly better for both sides.
The fact that it isn't zero-sum doesn't mean that it's always strictly better for both sides. There are many policies that will give +4 to a foreign citizen at the cost of -2 to a US citizen, which is not zero sum but is still not to the advantage of the US.
> (This is an issue where economists are in almost universal agreement, and almost universally opposed by politicians and the general public).
Not an unexpected result, since economists are generally utilitarians more than nationalists and politicians the opposite.
> If all the worlds borders were open then economies would move to the average.
That's not the case. That premise would only hold true in a bad simulation - ie one that ignored or removed thousands of factors. Back in actuality, those thousands of factors would still ensure drastic differences between countries. Equilibrium in regards to this premise is inherently impossible. Any amount of friction alone guarantees it, and there would be vast amounts of friction.
One other simple reference proves this point dramatically as well: governance.
The equilibrium theory of borders is equivalent to the perfect market pricing theory in equity markets. Both assume and require omniscience along with perfect action at all times by all actors. All possible knowledge must be perfectly distributed to all actors involved at all times, and then digested and acted on identically at exactly the same time. It collapses into comedy extremely quickly if you try to actually pursue the thought concept.
> That's not the case. That premise would only hold true in a bad simulation - ie one that ignored or removed thousands of factors. Back in actuality, those thousands of factors would still ensure drastic differences between countries. Equilibrium in regards to this premise is inherently impossible. Any amount of friction alone guarantees it, and there would be vast amounts of friction.
The conclusion that all countries with open borders would become exactly average is clearly wrong, but the principle that allowing unrestricted immigration will tend to move your country closer to the average still holds.
And is actually worse than that, because the people in an above average position within their own countries would have less incentive to emigrate. If you open your borders to countries with exactly the same population composition but your country has more economic mobility or better social assistance programs then those things will disproportionately attract economically weak immigrants.
This is highly confusing to political partisans because the two issues contradict party lines in the US. Democrats generally favor both reducing immigration restrictions and increasing social assistance and mobility, but the two policies don't mesh well.
Yes. If you want to amuse yourself, take a look at the "I Want Out" section of Reddit. How quickly people begin to question when they realize how restrictive the situation really is. It all seems rational until you discover you can't spend more than three months in your girlfriend's country, or accept that job offer if some committee hasn't placed it in the "skilled labor" column.
Especially when human rights are only bestowed on citizens by a government and denied for others just for not being born in their country. Seems hypocritical to me.
Yes, and you could make an argument that using blood or place of birth - as opposed to ideology - actually hinders people who have similar values from living together in the same parts of the world.
It isn't logic, it's politics. Immigrants who become citizens get the vote. It should be self-evident that the ideological composition of the voters controls what our laws and constitution will be and is therefore very important to the existing people.
Even outside of general ideological differences, you can imagine the trouble if antagonistic governments were free to send a million of their people to vote in strategic districts in swing states.
...while I'm ranting: citizenship in return for military service, honorary citizenship, citizenship from owning property, and outright purchase of citizenship. Can anyone think of more? I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.
