5 ms·

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 fro

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.
  - tormeh 10y ago
    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.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      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.
      - Aloha 10y ago
        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.
        noobermin 10y ago
        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.
- sevenless 10y ago
  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.
  - mafribe 10y ago
    which is both racist 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.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    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.
- tormeh 10y ago
  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.
- charlesism 10y ago
  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.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Immigration policy isn't for your convenience as a foreigner. It's made solely for the benefit of the people who already live there, as it should be.
    - charlesism 10y ago
      "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.
      - marcoperaza 10y ago
        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.
        charlesism 10y ago
        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.
Animats 10y ago
"ideally he / she would be sent somewhere else." Where? Who would want them? 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.

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.
- tormeh 10y ago
  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.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    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.
    - Aloha 10y ago
      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.
      - noobermin 10y ago
        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.
sevenless 10y ago
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.
- mafribe 10y ago
  which is both racist 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.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  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.
tormeh 10y ago
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.
charlesism 10y ago
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.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Immigration policy isn't for your convenience as a foreigner. It's made solely for the benefit of the people who already live there, as it should be.
  - charlesism 10y ago
    "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.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      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.
      - charlesism 10y ago
        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.

Animats 10y ago

"ideally he / she would be sent somewhere else." Where? Who would want them? 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.