6 ms·

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 blo

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.

charlesism 10y ago
...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.
- charlesism 10y ago
  And I missed a few common ones ...by marriage ...by continuous residence ...political asylum! Duh!
- Bulkington 10y ago
  Birth tourism, or the politically freighted 'anchor baby'? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
It's quite depressing to see how the concepts of country, nationality, borders are still widely accepted without questioning.
- charlesism 10y ago
  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.
- enlightenedfool 10y ago
  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.
  - charlesism 10y ago
    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.
Negitivefrags 10y ago
There is nothing illogical about it. 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.
- superuser2 10y ago
  Economies are not zero-sum. 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).
  - mistermann 10y ago
    The way you describe it, it sounds like you believe there are no negative consequences for anyone, anywhere, ever.
  - tuna-piano 10y ago
    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.
  - 10y ago
tuna-piano 10y ago
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.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  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.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    This clearly doesn't apply the United States then, who's culture is swallowing up immigrants and adding their influences to our melting pot.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> There is no logic at all behind any of it. 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.

charlesism 10y ago

...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.

charlesism 10y ago
And I missed a few common ones ...by marriage ...by continuous residence ...political asylum! Duh!
Bulkington 10y ago
Birth tourism, or the politically freighted 'anchor baby'? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

It's quite depressing to see how the concepts of country, nationality, borders are still widely accepted without questioning.

charlesism 10y ago
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.
enlightenedfool 10y ago
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.
- charlesism 10y ago
  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.

Negitivefrags 10y ago

There is nothing illogical about it. 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.

superuser2 10y ago
Economies are not zero-sum. 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).
- mistermann 10y ago
  The way you describe it, it sounds like you believe there are no negative consequences for anyone, anywhere, ever.
- tuna-piano 10y ago
  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.
- 10y ago

tuna-piano 10y ago

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.

marcoperaza 10y ago
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.
- noobermin 10y ago
  This clearly doesn't apply the United States then, who's culture is swallowing up immigrants and adding their influences to our melting pot.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> There is no logic at all behind any of it. 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.