5 ms·

I'm appalled by the need for statistics showing how "useful" immigrants are. Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one. I understand

I'm appalled by the need for statistics showing how "useful" immigrants are. Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one. I understand some people will not be swayed by moral arguments, but society doesn't seem to try anymore. Utilitarian arguments have become the default.

edblarney 10y ago
"Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one." Equating 'pro immigration' with 'morality' is the rather problematic basis of your statement. Many countries (most, in fact) do just fine without large scale immigration policies. Many nations with immigration are struggling to cope. Moreover, there are serious flaws with US immigration policy such that one could be opposed to it on that basis. Very, very few people 'hate immigrants'. But significant numbers of people think it's inappropriate to have people sneaking across the border, without documentation or status, and others just don't support large scale immigration, or perhaps have other criteria.
kolbe 10y ago
When merely being a person gives you rights to government-issued finite resources, it has to be a utilitarian argument.
- atomi 10y ago
  You need to be a lawful permanent resident to qualify for any federal public benefits.
  - kolbe 10y ago
    Tell that to the emergency care centers that aren't allowed to turn away anyone or else they will not receive medicare reimbursements.
    - atomi 10y ago
      That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die? They do pay sales taxes, rent payments (they have to live somewhere) that go towards property taxes and the majority also pay into social security which they will never qualify for. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrant... And by the way, many have kids that are Americans by birthright. So, I'm not sure what the benefit is to scapegoating the undocumented immigrant labor class. Maybe you can answer that.
      - ygaf 10y ago
        >That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die? You implied that illegal immigrants consume no government resources / cannot be a utilitarian concern.
      - kolbe 10y ago
        I'm just offering you counter arguments to the idea that the government doesn't give out resources to people. I'm sorry you can't handle one refutation without turning to emotional arguments. Another is Fannie Mae subsidizing housing. Another is public school. Another is protection under the law. Another is all public road/land use. The fact of the matter is that we have finite resources. And simply being a person inside the US's borders give you rights to these resources, and if we do not make sure that the return we get from the presence of the people we're letting in at least makes up the cost of bringing them in, then we are doomed.
        atomi 10y ago
        Speaking of emotional arguments, we're not all doomed. Again, a lot of those public services are paid for through taxes immigrants do pay into, like property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, and even income taxes. And again, their children are Americans by birthright so public education is an investment in Americans. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/... http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf We can argue resource allocation, entitlement programs but considering China has 1 billion more people with a land mass not much larger than ours, we're certainly not running out of space. And if you gave them a pathway to amnesty it would be much easier to allocate entitlement programs and have common sense taxation.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Lawful permanent residency is generally the ultimate goal of legal immigration. So if you let a million people in - tourists and (genuinely) temporary workers aside - you have to assume that you'll be dealing with a million permanent residents, and, eventually, citizens, somewhere down the line. In fact, if that were not the case, it would make things even worse. Imagine if you take a million people, and after a few years, kick most of them out, and only a few get permanent residency. Who would want to build their life around that?
libdong 10y ago
I am equally disappointed when people use moral arguments. The problem is: your morals != my morals. Utilitarianism gives you much more of an objective measure of something, which everyone can discuss on the same premises. This (hopefully) removes the need to resort to the pissing contest that is emotional appeals.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Utilitarianism doesn't actually give you an objective measure. It just shifts the subjectivity towards the definition of terms such as "harm" and "benefit". In case of immigration, this is very prominent: e.g. is cultural diversity beneficial or harmful?
armenarmen 10y ago
That's all well and good. But do you think that telling people who are apprehensive about immigration (for any reason) that they are wrong/dumb/stupid is likely to change their opinion? Or do you think that having a stranger tell them that they are a wrong/dumb/stupid person for feeling a way will further alienate them and reinforce their current opinion? Is honey better than vinegar?

edblarney 10y ago

"Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one." Equating 'pro immigration' with 'morality' is the rather problematic basis of your statement. Many countries (most, in fact) do just fine without large scale immigration policies. Many nations with immigration are struggling to cope. Moreover, there are serious flaws with US immigration policy such that one could be opposed to it on that basis. Very, very few people 'hate immigrants'. But significant numbers of people think it's inappropriate to have people sneaking across the border, without documentation or status, and others just don't support large scale immigration, or perhaps have other criteria.

kolbe 10y ago

When merely being a person gives you rights to government-issued finite resources, it has to be a utilitarian argument.

atomi 10y ago
You need to be a lawful permanent resident to qualify for any federal public benefits.
- kolbe 10y ago
  Tell that to the emergency care centers that aren't allowed to turn away anyone or else they will not receive medicare reimbursements.
  - atomi 10y ago
    That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die? They do pay sales taxes, rent payments (they have to live somewhere) that go towards property taxes and the majority also pay into social security which they will never qualify for. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrant... And by the way, many have kids that are Americans by birthright. So, I'm not sure what the benefit is to scapegoating the undocumented immigrant labor class. Maybe you can answer that.
    - ygaf 10y ago
      >That is literally the least we can do. Or would you rather we deny emergency medical treatment and let people just die? You implied that illegal immigrants consume no government resources / cannot be a utilitarian concern.
    - kolbe 10y ago
      I'm just offering you counter arguments to the idea that the government doesn't give out resources to people. I'm sorry you can't handle one refutation without turning to emotional arguments. Another is Fannie Mae subsidizing housing. Another is public school. Another is protection under the law. Another is all public road/land use. The fact of the matter is that we have finite resources. And simply being a person inside the US's borders give you rights to these resources, and if we do not make sure that the return we get from the presence of the people we're letting in at least makes up the cost of bringing them in, then we are doomed.
      - atomi 10y ago
        Speaking of emotional arguments, we're not all doomed. Again, a lot of those public services are paid for through taxes immigrants do pay into, like property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, and even income taxes. And again, their children are Americans by birthright so public education is an investment in Americans. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/... http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf We can argue resource allocation, entitlement programs but considering China has 1 billion more people with a land mass not much larger than ours, we're certainly not running out of space. And if you gave them a pathway to amnesty it would be much easier to allocate entitlement programs and have common sense taxation.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Lawful permanent residency is generally the ultimate goal of legal immigration. So if you let a million people in - tourists and (genuinely) temporary workers aside - you have to assume that you'll be dealing with a million permanent residents, and, eventually, citizens, somewhere down the line. In fact, if that were not the case, it would make things even worse. Imagine if you take a million people, and after a few years, kick most of them out, and only a few get permanent residency. Who would want to build their life around that?

libdong 10y ago

I am equally disappointed when people use moral arguments. The problem is: your morals != my morals. Utilitarianism gives you much more of an objective measure of something, which everyone can discuss on the same premises. This (hopefully) removes the need to resort to the pissing contest that is emotional appeals.

int_19h 10y ago
Utilitarianism doesn't actually give you an objective measure. It just shifts the subjectivity towards the definition of terms such as "harm" and "benefit". In case of immigration, this is very prominent: e.g. is cultural diversity beneficial or harmful?

armenarmen 10y ago

That's all well and good. But do you think that telling people who are apprehensive about immigration (for any reason) that they are wrong/dumb/stupid is likely to change their opinion? Or do you think that having a stranger tell them that they are a wrong/dumb/stupid person for feeling a way will further alienate them and reinforce their current opinion? Is honey better than vinegar?