6 ms·

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and conside

Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns out immigrants are lazy welfarers. As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees, the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.

programmarchy 9y ago
This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  It is one of the terrible side effects of all welfare programs. If you have socialized medicine, suddently it makes sense to ban products and practices for public health (since it lowers costs). If you agree to split the bill with the friends, you end up having to make rules on what people should be able to order to make sure things dont go too out of whack.
  - Zahlmeister 9y ago
    Meanwhile, if healthcare is profit-driven, suddenly it makes sense to recommend pointless treatments for revenue reasons. Obamacare is basically the worst of both worlds.
pandaman 9y ago
When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immigrants who are the 1st class citizens. So as long as you can make babies on the US soil you are going to get welfare no matter what. Repelling 14th amendment would have had interesting consequences as well (like creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population) so control of the borders seems to be the most rational and practical solution.
- slang800 9y ago
  > creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.
  - pandaman 9y ago
    Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come back. 1. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-56-May17_0.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-...
    - slang800 9y ago
      > the US can not deport illegals en masse Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation. > they do not even track visa overstays ATM Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?
      - pandaman 9y ago
        It is, of course, a political issue. The Federal government has little power inside the country (e.g. see how several states have open trade in drugs, which the USFG proclaimed illegal) and states, who hold most of the interior power, are very incentivised to have illegals since most of welfare comes from the Fed while the state's own power is determined chiefly by its population number so a state has a lot of upside and almost no downside by growing its population through illegal immigration. I'd imagine, in a hypothetical timeline where the 14th amendment could be repelled, the political balance is very different from the current one and the laws enabling the current situation could be changed just as well. However in the real world even the 14th repeal is highly unlikely.
DrScump 9y ago
In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open Immigration to the USA was never "open". Entire races were periodically excluded (e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act), and legal immigrants were subject to health checks.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Well, open-er. You didnt need to have a sponsor company to remain in the united states. A foreigner cannot live in the united states today, health check or not, without some monetary or time commitment to a specific set of people.
  - masonic 9y ago
    Yet, tens of millions do.
slang800 9y ago
> In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. That is incorrect. Before the Hart-Celler act in 1965, immigration was restricted to European countries with a quota system based on national origin. We even had health checks and required residency of up to 14 years before citizenship was granted (changed to 5 years with the Naturalization Law of 1802). Up until the 1960's, America was about 90% white, so 1800's to early 1900's immigration law has very little to do with "what it is" today.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  This is an interesting data point! It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals. This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically. I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.
  - slang800 9y ago
    > It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. Yeah, the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 introduced the quota system. However, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 responded demographic changes well before a formal quota system. And, of course, citizenship was restricted to free white people of good character, until the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the 14th amendment in 1868. So, without a welfare system or possibility of citizenship there was little incentive for non-whites to try to come to America. > This would imply that it wasn't the [rise] of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration It certainly wasn't only welfare. We had immigration and citizenship laws well before the start of a welfare system in the 1930's. For example, early Chinese immigration was driven by low-skill railway construction and mining jobs. So their exclusion was because they drove down wages and were culturally incompatible. I would say that immigration law has become significantly more complicated as it is opened up to as many people as possible. However, I don't think it gets more restrictive than "free white people of good character"... If that rule were applied today, less than a tenth of the world population would be eligible.

programmarchy 9y ago

This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.

conanbatt 9y ago
It is one of the terrible side effects of all welfare programs. If you have socialized medicine, suddently it makes sense to ban products and practices for public health (since it lowers costs). If you agree to split the bill with the friends, you end up having to make rules on what people should be able to order to make sure things dont go too out of whack.
- Zahlmeister 9y ago
  Meanwhile, if healthcare is profit-driven, suddenly it makes sense to recommend pointless treatments for revenue reasons. Obamacare is basically the worst of both worlds.

pandaman 9y ago

When you give welfare you suddenly end up with people who are willing to immigrate just to claim it. And w.r.t. denying it to immigrants, it's already being denied (legal immigrants cannot be a public charge for 5 years, illegals are ineligible for federal welfare, however some states still give the state's welfare etc) but, because of the 14th amendment's jus soli, you cannot deny welfare to the children of any immigrants who are the 1st class citizens. So as long as you can make babies on the US soil you are going to get welfare no matter what. Repelling 14th amendment would have had interesting consequences as well (like creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population) so control of the borders seems to be the most rational and practical solution.

slang800 9y ago
> creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.
- pandaman 9y ago
  Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come back. 1. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-56-May17_0.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-...
  - slang800 9y ago
    > the US can not deport illegals en masse Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation. > they do not even track visa overstays ATM Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?
    - pandaman 9y ago
      It is, of course, a political issue. The Federal government has little power inside the country (e.g. see how several states have open trade in drugs, which the USFG proclaimed illegal) and states, who hold most of the interior power, are very incentivised to have illegals since most of welfare comes from the Fed while the state's own power is determined chiefly by its population number so a state has a lot of upside and almost no downside by growing its population through illegal immigration. I'd imagine, in a hypothetical timeline where the 14th amendment could be repelled, the political balance is very different from the current one and the laws enabling the current situation could be changed just as well. However in the real world even the 14th repeal is highly unlikely.

DrScump 9y ago

In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open Immigration to the USA was never "open". Entire races were periodically excluded (e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act), and legal immigrants were subject to health checks.

conanbatt 9y ago
Well, open-er. You didnt need to have a sponsor company to remain in the united states. A foreigner cannot live in the united states today, health check or not, without some monetary or time commitment to a specific set of people.
- masonic 9y ago
  Yet, tens of millions do.

slang800 9y ago

> In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be what it is. That is incorrect. Before the Hart-Celler act in 1965, immigration was restricted to European countries with a quota system based on national origin. We even had health checks and required residency of up to 14 years before citizenship was granted (changed to 5 years with the Naturalization Law of 1802). Up until the 1960's, America was about 90% white, so 1800's to early 1900's immigration law has very little to do with "what it is" today.

conanbatt 9y ago
This is an interesting data point! It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. The original law had no quotas for latin american or bilateral countries or professionals. This would imply that it wasnt the raise of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration, historically. I should devote more time to studying the american history of immigration to support claims like the one I said.
- slang800 9y ago
  > It seems there was a law passed in the 20's that originated this, reversal/change in 65. Yeah, the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 and Immigration Act of 1924 introduced the quota system. However, laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 responded demographic changes well before a formal quota system. And, of course, citizenship was restricted to free white people of good character, until the Naturalization Act of 1870 and the 14th amendment in 1868. So, without a welfare system or possibility of citizenship there was little incentive for non-whites to try to come to America. > This would imply that it wasn't the [rise] of welfare what caused the increased restrictions of immigration It certainly wasn't only welfare. We had immigration and citizenship laws well before the start of a welfare system in the 1930's. For example, early Chinese immigration was driven by low-skill railway construction and mining jobs. So their exclusion was because they drove down wages and were culturally incompatible. I would say that immigration law has become significantly more complicated as it is opened up to as many people as possible. However, I don't think it gets more restrictive than "free white people of good character"... If that rule were applied today, less than a tenth of the world population would be eligible.