3 ms·

> One can be wary of, for example, the increased infrastructural strain of, say, large numbers of uneducated third worlders entering a country suddenly, without

by nkoren 8y ago

> One can be wary of, for example, the increased infrastructural strain of, say, large numbers of uneducated third worlders entering a country suddenly, without being hostile to or fearful of their culture. As somebody who is passionately pro-immigrant, I haven't been shy of having this conversation with people. The whole issue of "infrastructural strain" is difficult to address in a way that feels non-adversarial, because the facts only live on one side of the issue. Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than they take in terms of services; the only counter to that is vague tabloid anecdotes that are quite transparently racist and xenophobic. But facts like this do not matter in such a debate; people have an emotional discomfort with immigrants. When pressed, the defense ranges from "Fine, I don't have any facts to support beliefs; that's just what I believe" to -- perhaps more honestly? -- stories of how immigrants "aren't like us," how they "swarm like cockroaches", and "breed like vermin", etc. (Those last two from a couple of prominent Brexiteers whom I'd started the evening legitimately intending to befriend. Things got real honest after the second pint.) So can one have "legitimate concerns" about "the increased infrastructural strain of, say, large numbers of uneducated third worlders entering a country suddenly" without being a xenophobe? In my experience -- and really, I've wrestled with this -- no. Not any more than one can have "legitimate concerns about conspiracies of international Zionist bankers" without being a raving anti-semite. In both cases, straight-up lies are being used to provide a cover of legitimacy for attitudes that are unquestionably xenophobic, and often virulently so.

fromthestart 8y ago
>Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than they take in terms of services But all of those studies were conducted in countries with regulated borders. Your entire argument is flawed and, ironically, emotionally biased. I have no personal attachment to immigration either way, there is a rational argument to be made here: would a billion uneducated third worlders dumped on a country like England over the span of a month overwhelm the infrastructure?A million? Look at NYC, for example. Our subways are packed at rush our already. Same with Japan. Rationally, there is obviously some rate of influx that a city cannot accommodate, and this rate is probably not impossible in today's world. Your friends are terrible examples.
- davidgould 8y ago
  Would those billion immigrants to England be made out of straw perchance? This is not a strong argument for a rational basis to oppose immigration. Further your original claim that you are not opposed to the immigrants for cultural or racial reasons is undermined by your repetition of the phrase "uneducated third worlders". It is not the case that third world persons are inherently uneducated. Further, specifying "third world" is itself culturally or racially motivated. It is hard to believe the that you are arguing in good faith and not merely seeking to disclaim the cultural and racial basis of your prejudice.
fvdessen 8y ago
> The only counter to that is vague tabloid anecdotes that are quite transparently racist and xenophobic. I know it's not a scientific experiment, but the latest French interior minister (Gérard Collomb) recently resigned while giving a very strong warning about the situation of the relations between the 'native' and 'foreign' french; here is a translated quote; > "Mister the Prime minister, I went in all those neighbourhoods, -- (lists foreign origin majority neighbourhoods) -- The situation is dire and that is where a democratic re-conquest is needed, as in those neighbourhood the law of the strongest, the law of cartels, the law of radical islam, have taken the place of democracy. We need to bring back security in those neighbourhoods, (..) but we need a global vision car if now we live side by side, i am afraid tomorrow we live against each other. We are facing immense problems. (...) We need to stop immigration in those neighbourhoods or the situation will become completely out of control" The former french president echoed similar concerns. They are both socialist and not known to be racists. Maybe the situation is specific to France, but it doesn't it show that there can be legitimate concerns and downside about immigration ?

by nkoren 8y ago

fromthestart 8y ago

>Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than they take in terms of services But all of those studies were conducted in countries with regulated borders. Your entire argument is flawed and, ironically, emotionally biased. I have no personal attachment to immigration either way, there is a rational argument to be made here: would a billion uneducated third worlders dumped on a country like England over the span of a month overwhelm the infrastructure?A million? Look at NYC, for example. Our subways are packed at rush our already. Same with Japan. Rationally, there is obviously some rate of influx that a city cannot accommodate, and this rate is probably not impossible in today's world. Your friends are terrible examples.

davidgould 8y ago
Would those billion immigrants to England be made out of straw perchance? This is not a strong argument for a rational basis to oppose immigration. Further your original claim that you are not opposed to the immigrants for cultural or racial reasons is undermined by your repetition of the phrase "uneducated third worlders". It is not the case that third world persons are inherently uneducated. Further, specifying "third world" is itself culturally or racially motivated. It is hard to believe the that you are arguing in good faith and not merely seeking to disclaim the cultural and racial basis of your prejudice.

fvdessen 8y ago

> The only counter to that is vague tabloid anecdotes that are quite transparently racist and xenophobic. I know it's not a scientific experiment, but the latest French interior minister (Gérard Collomb) recently resigned while giving a very strong warning about the situation of the relations between the 'native' and 'foreign' french; here is a translated quote; > "Mister the Prime minister, I went in all those neighbourhoods, -- (lists foreign origin majority neighbourhoods) -- The situation is dire and that is where a democratic re-conquest is needed, as in those neighbourhood the law of the strongest, the law of cartels, the law of radical islam, have taken the place of democracy. We need to bring back security in those neighbourhoods, (..) but we need a global vision car if now we live side by side, i am afraid tomorrow we live against each other. We are facing immense problems. (...) We need to stop immigration in those neighbourhoods or the situation will become completely out of control" The former french president echoed similar concerns. They are both socialist and not known to be racists. Maybe the situation is specific to France, but it doesn't it show that there can be legitimate concerns and downside about immigration ?