Remix.run Logo
jfengel 8 hours ago

I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot. To which there is an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow.

Instead we're doing exactly the opposite, cutting down on legal immigration as well. Making it hard for me to believe that it was ever about illegal immigration at all.

cmiles74 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even worse, with changes like this we are taking large swathes of legal immigrants and transforming them into illegal immigrants. It reads to me that a substantial number of green card applicants will now be subject to ICE detention.

6 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
leoqa 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The cynical take is that with US companies expecting productivity increases via AI, they need to protect the US workers from competition via foreign labor. The current administration was voted in with an anti-immigration mandate so this is consistent. The practical reality is that you are not safe on any visa, it can be terminated arbitrarily by the state department and your recourse is likely expensive and timely.

solenoid0937 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The current admin does not understand that our lead comes from immigrants. Sorry, but most Americans are kind of mediocre academically.

I do not understand why the "American First" MAGA crowd can't get it through their thick skulls that everything nice they have, including our technological lead, is built by immigrants that are just smarter than they are.

This is just an ego problem I suspect. It bruises the ego of MAGA voters to realize that immigrants actually are smarter, they actually do get paid more (and not because they're "taking the jobs" but because they are actually more desirable.)

jedberg an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's a simple matter of math. The USA has less than 5% of the world's population. It's statistically impossible for that 5% to be the smartest 5% in the world. Therefore, if we want the smartest people in the world, we have to allow immigrants.

hallole 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The smartest aren't uniformly distributed across the Earth.

jedberg 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's true. It is possible that the smartest 5% are all here in the USA. But it is statistically unlikely that's true.

hallole 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

You put words in my mouth. I don't claim that the smartest are clustered in the USA.

jerkstate an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

is your contention that this new process is too difficult for the smartest 5% in the world to figure out?

jedberg an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No? Not sure how you reached that conclusion. I'm just stating that the USA needs immigrants if we want to increase our median intelligence because we can't possibly have the smartest people in the world born here.

ori_b 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The smartest 5% are able to figure out where they're not welcome.

https://yaledailynews.com/articles/international-grad-school...

SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The current American immigration process is not figure-out-able. As any immigration lawyer will tell you, there's strategies with higher or lower chances of success, but there's nothing at all like a roadmap which will definitely lead to permanent residency if you follow it well.

genxy 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

come on, don't do this here.

eecc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m not sure US academia is mediocre. It’s more like… normal?

But America being what it is, it attracts those with most potential creating and sustaining a network effect.

But there’s nothing intrinsically good or bad of the US, and it’s quite easy to mess up the equilibrium and go back to the mediocrity you mentioned

seanmcdirmid an hour ago | parent [-]

It’s a numbers game. Taking the best from the world talent pool is going to provide better results than from the much smaller American talent pool. Unless your country has more than a billion people, you need to look at world talent.

genxy 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

The US has to especially encourage immigration since we have gone out of our way to make the education system systemically broken. Our funnel is broken on purpose. Look at countries with strong showings in things like chess or running. Why is that? They encourage large populations of kids to participate, the larger the pool the more top performers.

deeg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not an ego problem. It's a racial one.

hallole 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Our lead does not come from immigrants. The American people, who are a distinct people, have shown time and again a potential for great things.

Even if it were true, there are wider effects of immigration that you must consider. The purpose of life isn't to increase GDP. It reflects poorly on you that you must cast your opponents as being stupid and spiteful. Could it be that MAGA voters are humans with real motivations and rationales?

james_marks 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

By “American People” you mean native Americans?

Because Literally everyone else in the US is an immigrant. Or are you referring to the Spanish that settled the west? The French in the far south? The Italians and Jews that populated New York? The British and Africans?

I’m painting in broad strokes, but to say “the American People” as if it’s somehow distinct from immigrants is just ladder pulling.

krapp 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless your people walked across the Bering Strait during the last ice age you're an immigrant.

38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
platevoltage 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Could it be that MAGA voters are humans with real motivations and rationales?

No, it couldn't. Trump tells then to vote a certain way, they do it. Look at Massie's primary as an example.

p_j_w 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The current administration was voted in with an anti-immigration mandate

Given that they’re underwater for approval rating on immigration it seems both you and they have misread the room. Most people’s objections have to do with immigrants who are violent criminals that are going around neighborhoods hunting for cats and dogs to eat. This is what their campaign was highlighting as a problem. They have not been cracking down specifically on those immigrants. For this, they have no mandate.

kentm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We’ve also seen that you’re not safe on a green card either.

sunshowers an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Trump has -20% to -25% net approval depending on the poll, and his approval rating on immigration is -10 to -15%. Clearly people do not like any of this in practice even though they might have liked it in theory.

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
thatfrenchguy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, the issue is that a large number H1B folks have vital skills for the US economy and that even just 20% of those leaving would mean every single big tech company would be in immense trouble

ben_w an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> even just 20% of those leaving would mean every single big tech company would be in immense trouble

I'm not so sure.

I think it would play out like this:

1. 20% H1Bs leave; 2. Those migrants are now in countries of origin, looking for work; 3. Many of the big US tech companies will already have offices in those countries, and those that don't can make new offices if they wanted to; 4. many, but likely not all, of those employees are now working for the same employer (or close enough), just in a different jurisdiction; 5. as none of these employees are physically in US hotspots, all the other stuff that happened in those hotspots because of big tech pay, suffers, conversely all the stuff which was suppressed because of those wages may (possibly) return; 6. two of the things that go down are the number of people transitioning from temporary visa to citizenship, and the available talent pool for the local-to-those-places startup and VC scenes.

platevoltage 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Certainly a lot of them do. It's also true that having a large portion of them leave will just mean that the company will have to replace them with someone who will require a higher wage, and won't have any issue leaving if the workplace culture degrades.

ern an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I know this is going to. be contentious, but US mainstream discourse seems to have completely eliminated the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, in the last 10 years. Everyone seems to be a "migrant".

postflopclarity an hour ago | parent [-]

US policy has also nearly completely eliminated the distinction, by making legal immigration close to impossible and ~arresting~ kidnapping people at courthouses who are there for their immigration hearings, then shipping them off to foreign torture camps.

didgetmaster an hour ago | parent [-]

It is so nearly impossible, that somewhere between a half million and a million people have done it every year for the past few decades (including last year).

happytoexplain 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In my experience, the phrase is just used to mean, "I don't hate immigrants, but..." (which, like the phrase "I'm not racist, but...", you are free to doubt case-by-case). I.e. it is not inherently inconsistent to apply the same disclaimer regarding a belief that legal immigration is too loose, too high, mismanaged, whatever; since that doesn't necessitate a belief that immigration as a concept is bad.

stego-tech 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm right there with you, and it's why I go to great pains to articulate the entirety of my position on immigration when I get into these sorts of debates. The simpler someone's position on immigration is, the less they understand it at length or the more extremist their viewpoints tend to be.

zulux 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's wickedly complicated, isn't it? I'm distressed by anybody who doesn't change their position from time to time.

slg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that complicated, my immigration policy is "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

postflopclarity an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

my position has been steady since the start of my political consciousness (maybe ~12 years?)

all laws, including immigration laws, should be enforced consistently and universally, and without bias. and the laws should be changed to make it much simpler and easier to immigrate especially if you are able to already secure employment, housing, and health insurance.

bluegatty 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow."

Not really.

The answer is: have a fair, transparent and function system.

Then - yes - you can totally 'increase' (or decrease) as needed.

'Increase a bit' likely the right thing to do - but it's a completely separate question.

But throwing Green Card holders out is completely insane, grabbing people out of church and schools and putting them into detention without oversight is cruel and inhumane.

The national debate is insane.

Just basic, normal, reasonable policy and process.

That's it.

Like DMV level stuff.

Then you can adjust the numbers one way or another.

rubyfan 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It wasn’t ever about illegal immigration. It’s a way to make the position sound logical and tolerable. Now the goal post is moving to make only certain people legal.

p_j_w 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

Trump equivocated when it came time to condemn people shouting “The Jews will not replace us” and the Proud Boys. Anyone who thinks it’s just about illegal immigrants is delusional.

cmiles8 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Somewhat ironically many of those most vocal about supporting all this are immigrants.

Those that jumped through all the hoops above bar, paid their dues in a messed up system where they bit their upper lip and got through it, and have been extremely frustrated at others trying to game the system.

behnamoh 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I was one of them, and supported the idea of going after illegal immigrants. But now they're coming after me too, a faculty with a PhD, researching AI.

valleyer an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You really weren't paying close attention to their rhetoric, then.

friendlyasparag 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But you obviously knew what they really meant to accomplish, right? How could you not, being a faculty with a PhD. And yet you supported them anyways.

muglug an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m also an immigrant.

When I heard the crowd roar every time Trump said “we’re going to kick them out” I knew exactly what the crowd was cheering. Trump never used those moments to say “but America is a nation of immigrants and we celebrate their contributions”. He wanted to rile up a crowd while maintaining a fig-leaf of “oh it’s only illegals who are evil”

You don’t have to have a PhD to understand the appeal and consequences of nativist populism — just the slightest understanding of history.

JCattheATM 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot.

A lot of those people had no issue with ICE bullying and detaining legal immigrants.

cwillu 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Or citizens who look like a immigrants.

mikelitoris an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s a smokescreen people use to claim it’s not racist. It reminds me of that south park episode with the cable company representatives with velcro pockets. “Oh you want to migrate here legally? Oh it will take 3 years and it requires an active employment offer at application time and on arrival? Oh no… tell me more”

rwmj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The aim is not to fix the problem. These populists would be out of power the moment the problem is fixed. They want to prolong it - even make it worse - because that's what keeps people angry.

SecretDreams 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They only want a certain type of immigrants. I know some that go through the process easy breezy and others that absolutely suffer. It is largely dictated by country of origin, outside of the normal checkboxes.

Larrikin 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Trump grew up when anybody not white legally could be treated as less than. He lost this legal ability in his formative years in college.

Stephen Miller is upset he never got to experience that.

Immigrants from Europe will some how get an exception depending on their skin color. Same goes for South Africans

simonsarris 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Many people hold one or more of the following positions:

1. Illegal immigration is bad, and we should do more to reduce it.

2. Immigration (any kind) is too numerous. Eg someone could say "Nashua, New Hampshire is now 17.2% foreign born and I think that is too high." Within 2. there are multiple separate reasons to have the position. One could think that its bad for assimilation, or one could be upset that the Nashua school system's budget increases are almost completely due to having to hire more ELL staff to accommodate the rapid rise in non-English speakers in a school system that used to be almost entirely English speakers. I'm sure there are more complicated examples but I hope that one is easy to understand.

3. Immigration (any kind) is used to lower wages of the working and middle class via labor and program abuses. At the low end, this used to be a leftist talking point (the kind Bernie Sanders once talked about). At the high end, it is grousing about H1B abuses. Despite many agreeing that th program has large abuses, H1Bs are legal immigrants.

Your idea of an "easy solution" doesn't remotely correspond to a solution for people who think #2 or #3. Even for #1, someone who dislikes illegal immigration does not necessarily want more legal immigration, though that used to be a very common view (eg, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, I think George Bush too). If a person believes #3, increasing the number of legal immigrants may simply increase the corresponding abuses.

n.b. the text above is descriptive, not normative.

Georgelemental 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I hear it a lot too. It makes no sense. Obviously, if only the illegality was the problem, we could just declare all immigration legal and that would "solve" it. But it wouldn't, obviously, because that's not what people are concerned about at all

peyton 6 hours ago | parent [-]

What are people concerned about? If I walk into your house uninvited, that’s trespassing. Is that “solved” by declaring all entry into residences legal?

ben_w 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem with these analogies is that your nation is not only your nation, but also the nation of all the people who are very happy with all the migrants, for whatever reason.

> If I walk into your house uninvited, that’s trespassing.

Sure.

What happens if your kid invites round a friend of theirs you don't like?

What happens if you are a kid and your sibling does?

What happens if you rent out a room to a lodger, and the lodger invites someone over?

What happens if you're a tenant in a rental, and the landlord sends in an emergency plumber?

Remember, every single migrant working illegally in your country is someone that another person in your country wanted to employ; if you're in the US, most of those employers will be selling you your food and your houses, which most of you seem to like, while some were South Koreans making data centres which you personally may hate but your pension funds love.

Supermancho 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The U.S. is an aggressively capitalist system. A person’s value is usually measured in dollars exchanged for labor. Legal immigration status is not a certification of capability, so it has little practical utility. In a capitalist exchange, it literally doesn’t matter.

What the lower classes are concerned about is the value of their labor relative to others’, while the upper classes are concerned with getting a good deal by avoiding increases to the labor-cost floor. Bribes/subsidies and offered scams, have worked so far.

If the federal government, as an institution, were genuinely concerned about illegal immigration, it would have a different set of tactics. Start by punishing the sources of capital (fewer people), then property owners (more people), and only afterward the laborers themselves (many people).

What I see is a combination of class warfare and political theater, not a sincere effort to enforce the law. The law is incidental, made obvious by the exceptions the administration has had to carve out for certain industries.

TheOtherHobbes an hour ago | parent [-]

It's collective narcissism. Narcissists only ever express one emotion - aggressive contempt. So the destruction, incoherence, murder, and abuse are all predictable outcomes of a malignantly narcissistic regime.

Out groups are always the initial targets for these movements, but as time goes on any form of dissent will cause narcissistic wounding and will be treated accordingly.

b0sk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was from the official DHS account -- https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2006472108222853298

What do you think they mean by "100 million"?

thisisit 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its not about immigration at all. It is about creating a "us vs them" tribal narrative. That's why people defend even US citizens being harassed under this administration. And the justification is because they might hold a different PoV.

The irony is that if anyone thinks they are going to solve this problem - I have a bridge to sell. If GoP solves this then they are going to lose of the biggest talking points in next elections. I can see this being challenged and drama played out for long time saying "other side" is not letting them move forward with it.

All the while the "extraordinary" Green Card will actually be "ordinary" - done by greasing POTUS palms. Because POTUS and his supporters are hell bent on turning America into a third world low trust country.

snapplebobapple 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Point of order: that is blatantly untrue. Anti illegal immigrant has everything to do with ensuring the people in the country are known and allowed. It is completely uncoupled from legal immigration. To say an easy solution is increasing legal immigration is just saying lets leave all the security holes wide open and just make it so only the real bad guys use them because others have an easier time going legal.

jmyeet 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are deeper lesson here.

First, a lot of the immigrants that people complain about now are only immigrants because the US fucked up their country. Venezuela is the poster child for this. There are consqeuences to destabilizing other countries for American corporate interests.

Second, companies like illegal immigration. It allows them to pay people sub-minimum wage in horrible working conditions and if the workers every complain, you just call in ICE to deport them. You pay a small fine for employing undocumented migrants and the next day hire a new batch. You probably even have avoided paying wages to the deported workers.

Third, a lot of attention is paid to people who sneak into the country. This is the minority. Also, "entering without inspection" (that's the legal term) is a civil infraction (unless you've previously been deported; then it's a crime), much like a traffic ticket. You technically aren't a criminal if you do this.

But the majority of undocumented migrants are visa overstayers. They get a legal visa to come to the US, often a visit visa, a student visa or a temporary work permit (eg J1, H2A, H2b) and just don't leave.

And to answer your implied question, it's not about illegal immigration. It's about white supremacy and the exploitation of labor under capitalism.

tstrimple 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This pattern plays out across so many things conservatives say. It was never about free speech. It was never about being civil after someone was killed. It was never about balancing the budget. Their anti-dei stance was never about fairness. And no it was never about illegal immigration. It’s almost like they lie constantly about their beliefs. To themselves as much as everyone else.

seanmcdirmid an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They were always just against immigrants, legal or not. It was obvious back then, it should be super obvious now. And most of them didn’t really hate all immigrants, just those with a particular skin color. The MAGA movement was always racist at its core, no one should be surprised by the turns it has taken.

gib444 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you believe mass immigration has any negative side effects, at all?

Let's say hypothetically the UK increased its population by around 3 million since 2020, including one particular influx designed and implemented by Boris Johnson to suppress wage inflation, which had a direct effect on the lower end of the job market for the native population. You could also easily argue it led to a direct surge in popularity of the far right party Reform.

Purely hypothetical of course...

You'd consider that a good thing?

kadomony an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not. Trump has always wanted to revert back to a predominantly white America if he could achieve it. The government is racist and hides their racism behind shitty interpretations of our founding articles.

platevoltage 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not anti immigrant, I just really care about paperwork \s

kibwen 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

grosswait 7 hours ago | parent [-]

And I will stop assuming that people know what the word fascist actually means

kibwen 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

~ Jean-Paul Sartre, 1944

koe123 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

georgemcbay 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

santoshalper 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

romaaeterna 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

ilinx 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s sad that pragmatically adjusting quotas is never the loudest argument in the room. I’m in favor of greatly increasing legal immigration, providing paths for safe work and citizenship (when that’s the goal). I’ll admit that my idea of an ideal system is probably not palatable for many. But if we could start from anywhere near a sane baseline, I’d understand wanting to gradually find sustainable quotas that take all factors into account. I’m done with purity tests and letting perfect be the enemy of good.

I suppose by “all factors” I mean all factors aside from exploitation and xenophobia, but I hope we could at least move the Overton window back that far.

romaaeterna 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay. Let's choose a small random country as a basis for your immigration ideas. Ie., Rwanda (pop 14.8m) or Israel (pop 10.24m). What is the quantity of immigration flow that you want, who and from where and on what basis of admission over what time period. What are your intended demographic, social, and political shifts that you say are going to be "not palatable" for the people living there now? In fact, please expand on exactly how "not palatable" you expect your plans to be for them.

cmiles74 7 hours ago | parent [-]

This strikes me as an unreasonable demand on the author of the comment. Part of the point of the current system was (at least at some point) to have knowledgeable people, armed with the available facts, figures and theories make some attempt at balancing the safety of the incoming people against (at the very least) their economic impact on the country. From there some rudimentary guard rails (quotas, visa type, etc.) would be set. I suspect few of us in this forum feel comfortable making these decisions from behind a phone, tablet or laptop.

My understanding is that many of us, perhaps including the author of the comment to which you are responding, would like to see at lease some small, inching movement towards such a system.

romaaeterna 6 hours ago | parent [-]

On the contrary, asking for well-thought out political thought is the most reasonable demand in the world. If you have an idea about health care, national defense, or trade policy, I expect thought and numbers, not vague platitudes.

For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point? Inching movement from the near-zero flows of the mid-20th century? Inching movement from the mass flows of the 21st century? Both ideas would have major consequences, and if you are going to advocate for mass social change, you should think it out and advocate with care and thoughtfulness.

cmiles74 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’d take rapid movement, honestly, I simply think it unlikely. In terms of what kind of change, I was speaking of movement toward a rational system with clear goals, with decisions made by knowledgeable people. With that in mind any movement, I think, should be estimated from the present. We can’t change the past!

Agreed, care and thoughtfulness should be the rule, not the exception. Presently we are getting neither. I’m a software developer, I don’t work in policy; but I believe our immigration position should be aligned with policy goals and I’m not sure we have any of those, either.

In any case, re-categorizing so many legal immigrants in order to imprison them strikes me as pointless and fundamentally wrong.

sobellian 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do we need to quantify an exact quota to qualify as well thought out political thought? Some people think about this issue from the basis of fundamental freedoms. Innocent, productive people deserve the opportunity to move where they obtain the most prosperity.

If I advocated abolition in the 19th century, it would be missing the point to turn around and say "oh yeah? And how many slaves would you like to free per year, and what effects do you expect that to have? Include examples of past slave rebellions"

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> For example, you want small inching movement. From what starting point?

The obvious assumption is that they mean from where we are right now. We're not going to suddenly be at the mid-20th century again. This comes off as argumentative more than curious (as do your other comments in this thread, for what it's worth).

romaaeterna 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change. Easy example: if you are in a car with an accelerator pedal depressed.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Advocating for small inching change to a rate is different from advocating from small inching change.

No, it isn't. It is a change; whether it's acceleration or velocity is an implementation detail. Whether it should be changed suddenly or gradually is the spec.

matwood 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US's strength is/was in part because of immigration. The best and brightest want to come to the US to go to school and then they often stay for the enormous opportunities only available in the US. I want any immigrant that wants to come to the US given a reasonable path to make that happen.

You are right that the Native Americans were completely misplaced by immigrants, but immigration made the US what it is today and I see no reason it won't continue to make the US a uniquely strong country.

romaaeterna 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You may be interested to learn that American immigration flows were higher or lower at various times (nearly zero for long periods). As you allude to with Native Americans, the effects of the different flows were not uniform on all people, and instead caused various negative and positive effects. The period of Americans great post-WWII economic and military rise came during its longest period of immigration moratorium, during which its population was fairly homogeneous. In recent decades, America has begun to decline economically and militarily relative to China, a country not subject to these "strengthening flows". Odd case.

sobellian 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The citizenry would probably fare no worse than with the arrival of the Irish, the Italians, or the Germans. What are you expecting, for the Indians or Chinese to sack DC aux Visigoths?

the_gastropod 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Open borders” was pretty much standard across the world prior to World War 1. These tightly controlled immigration policies are, historically speaking, incredibly new.

I think it’s self evident that the U.S. benefited greatly from its mass immigration inflows in the 19th and 20th centuries.

romaaeterna 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your statement has no basis whatsoever in reality. The US, for example, had a four-decade moratorium on immigration beginning in 1924. Mass immigration flows appeared at various times and places in the past (often accompanied by bloodshed and suffering), but it's highly incorrect to imagine that 21st-century 1st world demographic shifts are some sort of historical norm.

Timon3 an hour ago | parent [-]

How is the moratorium of any relevance considering WW1 ended a few years before 1924?

gib444 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a different world now

margalabargala 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you serious?

"Oh, you support immigration? Write an entire nation's immigration policy. Can't/won't do it? You must be a paid shill."

People are allowed to have opinions without regurgitating policy documents on demand.

dmm 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

lanstin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People coming to live in your area, not your personal home, to work hard for opportunities, are in no material way like pick pockets. Your analogy is so extreme I am tempted to assume you argue in bad faith. The economic success of the United States, its simultaneous growth and flexibility and prosperity is directly caused by our heightened skills to welcome immigrants and make use of their talents and desire for success (compared to other countries with similar demographics). We are awesome at welcoming people into a modern society that values smarts, individual diversity, getting along with neighbors of differing backgrounds, hard work, risk taking, striking out on your own, the NBA, good home cooked food, fast food, and Taylor Swift, and getting them to enjoy these things also.

dmm 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't say they were pickpockets. I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.

I love immigration. We should have lots of immigration! But it should occur within consistently, fairly enforced laws passed by our legislative system. I get that our immigration system is arguably broken and that it's very difficult to pass meaningful legislation, but that doesn't mean we should just allow whoever is president to dictate immigration policy.

lanstin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So the thing to analogize is that DHS is acting like a junior high school gang, enforcing ever shifting rules and norms capriciously for the fun of bullying to score points with the onlookers. The bullied folks are not analogous to pick pockets. We have laws, laws under which TPS is legal for ever, under which we don’t round up and export people without criminal records, laws under which people pay taxes and raise their families here; all of this suffering being caused by Miller is not for the effects of the policies but for the demonstration of cruelty, contempt for differences, and a distraction from the roll back of a middle class centric economy where hard work and education were a pathway to a good family life.

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
dahart an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.

Isn’t this straw man? Who said anything about eliminating laws or being inconsistent about legal immigration? The top comment was only pointing out that slowing the flow of legal immigration does not fix illegal immigration and probably makes it worse. Some people don’t love immigration or feel we should have lots, despite the benefits, and sometimes those people say contradictory things.

throw-away_42 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, it would be utterly absurd to decriminalize cannabis. Oh, wait...

shigawire 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is to make a system where people are less incentivized to commit crimes.

vidarh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This comparison is flawed because there is not legal pickpocketing, but there is legal immigration.

If there was a legal pickpocketing, and someone claimed to only be opposed to illegal pickpocketing, then it would be reasonable to point out that unless they're lying about their intent a solution to preventing illegal pickpocketing would be to make it all legal.

The analogy falls apart because nobody argues that they are "only" opposed to illegal pickpicketing.

If people are opposed to any form of immigration, then they should just admit that, rather than pretend they're only opposed to illegal immigration.

atom_arranger an hour ago | parent [-]

a. Opposed to someone taking my money against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.

b. Not opposed to someone taking my money in exchange for goods or services I want.

a. Opposed to someone moving into my country against my will and the law just because they want to, “for a better life”.

b. Not opposed to someone moving into my country because I married them and want them here.

There’s a whole spectrum between a and b, but I think most people are against a.

Legal pickpocketing is taxes you’re opposed to, or wages being garnished.

In theory people who say they’re only against illegal immigration are saying they completely agree with all policies regarding legal immigration, now and maybe into the future. Likely not what these people actually believe because while possible it would be a silly position. They’re probably just saying it to try to find some common ground with very pro immigration people. Likely a fools errand.

EnPissant 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What's wrong with letting the citizens of a country have agency in who they allow in? This isn't the gotcha you think it is.

lanstin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case the people brought up in the United States are sacrificing the well fare of their own children to preserve their own fears. I think that is wrong.

I want to keep the US a destination for hard work and smarts and striking out on your own. Don’t shelter your lazy kid, show them the beauty of complexity and mastery. Have them master some difficult skills, whether that’s a second language or botany or math or public speaking or building things. We are all responsible to each other for excellence. Respond to the opportunities for excellence, of what we can build together, dont’t yield to sloth and resentment being satisfied with turning your back on your own potential. The future is awesome and we welcome all who want to contribute! We welcome competition - better to be second best to the best than turning your back and cutting yourself off from the course of history.

kalkin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lots of things are wrong with giving people the power to make choices that affect the whole world, while excluding others who are equally or more affected, based on where they happened to be born.

If the logic is that people who are born somewhere else shouldn't have any agency over immigration laws, well, why does someone who lives in some town in my country with a negligible immigrant population get a say in who I and my colleagues can invite to work with us, and who I and my neighbors can invite to live with us?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If someone says they're not anti immigrant and then turns around to say immigration should be more difficult, there's an obvious logical disconnect in their worldview. It doesn't matter about illegal vs. legal: they want to make immigration more difficult, after claiming they are not against immigration. The comment does not claim there's anything wrong with the policy choice, just that the following policy preference betrays the initial statement as false.

sokoloff 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn’t seem inherently contradictory for someone to think “I’m not anti-immigrant” and “my ideal target for legal immigration is at 80% of its current rate”.

singpolyma3 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Um. Yes. Those are obviously contradictory.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think I see where you're coming from. To use an example, Switzerland has tight immigration controls due to the policies which grant citizens and permanent residents certain welfare benefits, since they don't want those to be leeched by people who do not contribute as much back. That is against immigration while not being anti-immigrant; the point is that the immigration itself does not motivate the policy which limits immigration, instead being motivated by the existence and meaning of other policies (a kind of protectionism).

Tying this back to OP's comment, it's hard to see these policy changes as any sort of legitimate protectionism and it's just as hard to divorce them from the justifications given by people who start with "I'm not anti-immigrant".

throwawaypath 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you're not for open borders and millions streaming in illegallly every year, you're literally a fascist. That's basically where the left is with immigration. There's no limit to immigration, and limit is fascism.

singpolyma3 a few seconds ago | parent | next [-]

If the borders are often then no one is coming in illegally

convolvatron 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

there are quite a number of issues with the situation as it was evolved. lots of people are intersted as a matter of policy in admitting that the US is largely functional because of immigrant labor, but relying in illegal immigration to fill those roles hasn't been great for the structure of the country or the laborers themselves. and to be clear this is not just harvesting the crops, and raisin the children, and building the houses, its also doctors and engineers and all sort of other professions.

so there a huge need to have a difficult policy discussion about what to do without cratering the economy.

but when you start removing civil liberties and running around in gangs grabbing random brown people off the streets and sending them to indefinate detention in the middle of nowhere, dumping people in Somalia, claiming you have the right kill anyone you want, you shouldn't be surprised when people start waving around the f word.

throwawaypath 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>but when you start removing civil liberties and running around in gangs grabbing random brown people off the streets and sending them to indefinate detention in the middle of nowhere, dumping people in Somalia, claiming you have the right kill anyone you want, you shouldn't be surprised when people start waving around the f word.

You've been propagandized to believe that is happening. Remember when we were grabbing random brown people, including Black Olympian school superintendents right off the streets and sending them to concentration camps?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/27/us/ian-roberts-des-moines-sup...

Months later the truth comes out: illegal alien with guns in his possession, which is a federal crime. Deportation order issued under Biden's administration.

The post-truth era has made the f word effectively meaningless.

jazzypants an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe they saw the roving bands of masked militants roaming the streets and grabbing people without warrants with their own eyes like I did.

SpicyLemonZest 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Sending masked goons to pull people off the streets is unconditionally fascist, and the people who participated are criminals who all belong in prison. If some of the goons were particularly conscientious and never arrested someone without good cause, that's great, and perhaps if they prove that we can shorten their sentences.

EnPissant 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The following things are not in contradiction:

1) Someone can be against illegal immigration and for legal immigration.

2) That same person's idea about who should immigrate to the country may exclude most or all of the people who are currently immigrating illegally.

It's not like you can only be against illegal immigration because they forgot to fill out some form. Legal immigration has a component of deciding who gets in.

jfengel 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

EnPissant 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> I hear "I'm not anti immigrant, I'm anti illegal immigrant" a lot. To which there is an easy solution: increase the number of legal immigrants we allow.

Being "anti illegal immigrant" doesn't have to imply you let in whoever wants as long as they follow some process. You are taking away the agency of the people to select its immigrants.