5 ms·

The primary objection to that idea is the complete destruction of your country's culture.

geofft 8y ago
Again, protectionism. If a billion people in India and a billion people in China are competing in global markets, my country's culture isn't going to survive anyway. How is Ottoman culture doing these days? Honestly, how is the British culture of even a century ago doing these days? How long did the Japanese culture so carefully preserved survive Matthew Perry's arrival? (Also as it happens I'm an American-born child of Indian immigrants, so I am actually a carrier of American culture and not Indian, so I have reason to question the implicit assumption that immigrants will destroy culture.)
- fiblye 8y ago
  If you dig in, a lot of cultures have roots going back centuries. People might be wearing tshirts and jeans everywhere you go, but the way they handle family matters and daily routines is very different.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  You're a carrier of American culture (at least in some superficial way) because you grew up surrounded by Americans. If 500 million people moved here, they would not grow up surrounded by Americans.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Well, okay, but there are multiple times 500 million people living in other countries growing up extremely not surrounding by Americans, and they are preparing to quash America's culture entirely in 100-200 years through economic dominance. Do you prefer that outcome?
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  You hate the heritage of America, where you never were able to fit in, and want to see it replaced by the same rootless existence that you suffered. If my parents had raised me in India I would have suffered similarly... Some self-reflection is in order.
- comesee 8y ago
  You're a superficial carrier of American culture. Sure you speak English and consume American media, but you have socialist values which are not American. This is the land of the free, not the land of government-enforced equity and insanely high marginal taxes for the rich. Let me guess, you're anti 2nd amendment? If there were more people who thought like you in America, the country would indeed collapse in on itself.
  - danmaz74 8y ago
    The op talked about the free market always winning, and you accuse him of being a socialist?
    - comesee 8y ago
      He supports universal health care and 70% marginal tax rates. that's socialism
  - geofft 8y ago
    No, I'm pro-Second Amendment. Probably more strongly than you: I believe the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain a continuous threat of violent revolution against the government, not to let people hunt deer or whatever, and as a result I believe that the people have a right to own weapons sufficient to win a war against their own government—either by letting the people have a nuclear deterrent, or by disarming the government to the point of having no weapons the people can't have. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.
    - comesee 8y ago
      But you are a socialist aren't you? Is being a billionaire immoral?
an_cap 8y ago
I suppose you also lament the destruction of masculine work culture engendered by allowing women in the workplace?
- geofft 8y ago
  Leave him alone, he just wanta to secure the existence of his people...
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    > Leave him alone, he just wanta to secure the existence of his people... Wow, you need to learn how to distinguish between stuff your brain tells you and reality.
  - comesee 8y ago
    The bill of rights is culture. Twitter has totally corrupted your world view.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  What. One consequence of unlimited immigration to America would be a major setback in women's rights and practical freedom in many pockets of the country.
CalRobert 8y ago
Bummer, isn't it? I left the US because of its work culture (always working all the time, or trying to look like it) and now it's infecting Europe, or parts of it at least. But that was without throngs of Americans moving here
mars4rp 8y ago
I bet native Americans of couple centuries ago agree with you.
fzeroracer 8y ago
To be fair, American culture is the destruction of other cultures if you take a critical eye at American history. It's quite funny to see people so protective of it.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Well, I'm not talking about American culture, I'm talking about any country taking in immigrants, and general reasons to object to it. It certainly isn't economics-only. (America has already undergone this process in many waves, e.g. when non-Quakers took over Pennsylvania, or when Californians move to Idaho.)
  - geofft 8y ago
    I was gonna ask - are you also in favor of putting restrictions on Californians moving to Idaho?
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      I haven’t actually told you my immigration policy, and it’s clear you’ve incorrectly decided you know what it is. My immigration policy would be to let in the set and sequence of immigrants that makes this country as nice a place to live as possible. Approximated with a greedy algorithm, that means picking the individual that makes this country the most nicer place, letting them in, and then repeating the calculation until we’ve run out of people that make the country a better place for us to live. Culturally, that means cultural optimization, not preservation. I’d happily stop 99.999% of noncitizens from moving here and working here while allowing Californians to move to Idaho. (I’d also remove the financial penalties California places on people that moved from Idaho to California.)
      - geofft 8y ago
        That's not a coherent policy - that basically describes everyone's policy. That describes the current US policy. That describes my policy. It's just that you've shifted it to a discussion of what makes the country a "nice place to live," which obviously lots of people disagree on. In particular you haven't answered what to do when there are conflicting arguments over whether bringing in a particular person would make the country a nicer place to live or not, or for whom it's nicer. Specifically, I think that this country would be a nicer place to live for myself if I can hire whomever I want for my team regardless of citizenship and without big government second-guessing my decision, and if they can feel confident about their long-term future once they move, therefore making them a) more likely to accept and b) happier and more productive when they're here. I also think that the number of people who have moved into the SFBA (myself included, I'll be honest—feeling uncomfortable with that is part of why I left) have made it a worse place to live. I think there are ways to solve that other than internal migration restrictions, and I have other philosophical objections to internal migration restrictions, but I do see their appeal. You, for some reason that I don't totally follow, either don't think that SFBA has become a worse place to live or that this isn't an important criterion in deciding internal policy; I'm curious which it is (or whether I've misinterpreted).

Again, protectionism. If a billion people in India and a billion people in China are competing in global markets, my country's culture isn't going to survive anyway. How is Ottoman culture doing these days? Honestly, how is the British culture of even a century ago doing these days? How long did the Japanese culture so carefully preserved survive Matthew Perry's arrival? (Also as it happens I'm an American-born child of Indian immigrants, so I am actually a carrier of American culture and not Indian, so I have reason to question the implicit assumption that immigrants will destroy culture.)

fiblye 8y ago
If you dig in, a lot of cultures have roots going back centuries. People might be wearing tshirts and jeans everywhere you go, but the way they handle family matters and daily routines is very different.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
You're a carrier of American culture (at least in some superficial way) because you grew up surrounded by Americans. If 500 million people moved here, they would not grow up surrounded by Americans.
- geofft 8y ago
  Well, okay, but there are multiple times 500 million people living in other countries growing up extremely not surrounding by Americans, and they are preparing to quash America's culture entirely in 100-200 years through economic dominance. Do you prefer that outcome?
patrickg_zill 8y ago
You hate the heritage of America, where you never were able to fit in, and want to see it replaced by the same rootless existence that you suffered. If my parents had raised me in India I would have suffered similarly... Some self-reflection is in order.
comesee 8y ago
You're a superficial carrier of American culture. Sure you speak English and consume American media, but you have socialist values which are not American. This is the land of the free, not the land of government-enforced equity and insanely high marginal taxes for the rich. Let me guess, you're anti 2nd amendment? If there were more people who thought like you in America, the country would indeed collapse in on itself.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  The op talked about the free market always winning, and you accuse him of being a socialist?
  - comesee 8y ago
    He supports universal health care and 70% marginal tax rates. that's socialism
- geofft 8y ago
  No, I'm pro-Second Amendment. Probably more strongly than you: I believe the original purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain a continuous threat of violent revolution against the government, not to let people hunt deer or whatever, and as a result I believe that the people have a right to own weapons sufficient to win a war against their own government—either by letting the people have a nuclear deterrent, or by disarming the government to the point of having no weapons the people can't have. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though.
  - comesee 8y ago
    But you are a socialist aren't you? Is being a billionaire immoral?

an_cap 8y ago

I suppose you also lament the destruction of masculine work culture engendered by allowing women in the workplace?

geofft 8y ago
Leave him alone, he just wanta to secure the existence of his people...
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  > Leave him alone, he just wanta to secure the existence of his people... Wow, you need to learn how to distinguish between stuff your brain tells you and reality.
- comesee 8y ago
  The bill of rights is culture. Twitter has totally corrupted your world view.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
What. One consequence of unlimited immigration to America would be a major setback in women's rights and practical freedom in many pockets of the country.

CalRobert 8y ago

Bummer, isn't it? I left the US because of its work culture (always working all the time, or trying to look like it) and now it's infecting Europe, or parts of it at least. But that was without throngs of Americans moving here

mars4rp 8y ago

I bet native Americans of couple centuries ago agree with you.

fzeroracer 8y ago

To be fair, American culture is the destruction of other cultures if you take a critical eye at American history. It's quite funny to see people so protective of it.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Well, I'm not talking about American culture, I'm talking about any country taking in immigrants, and general reasons to object to it. It certainly isn't economics-only. (America has already undergone this process in many waves, e.g. when non-Quakers took over Pennsylvania, or when Californians move to Idaho.)
- geofft 8y ago
  I was gonna ask - are you also in favor of putting restrictions on Californians moving to Idaho?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    I haven’t actually told you my immigration policy, and it’s clear you’ve incorrectly decided you know what it is. My immigration policy would be to let in the set and sequence of immigrants that makes this country as nice a place to live as possible. Approximated with a greedy algorithm, that means picking the individual that makes this country the most nicer place, letting them in, and then repeating the calculation until we’ve run out of people that make the country a better place for us to live. Culturally, that means cultural optimization, not preservation. I’d happily stop 99.999% of noncitizens from moving here and working here while allowing Californians to move to Idaho. (I’d also remove the financial penalties California places on people that moved from Idaho to California.)
    - geofft 8y ago
      That's not a coherent policy - that basically describes everyone's policy. That describes the current US policy. That describes my policy. It's just that you've shifted it to a discussion of what makes the country a "nice place to live," which obviously lots of people disagree on. In particular you haven't answered what to do when there are conflicting arguments over whether bringing in a particular person would make the country a nicer place to live or not, or for whom it's nicer. Specifically, I think that this country would be a nicer place to live for myself if I can hire whomever I want for my team regardless of citizenship and without big government second-guessing my decision, and if they can feel confident about their long-term future once they move, therefore making them a) more likely to accept and b) happier and more productive when they're here. I also think that the number of people who have moved into the SFBA (myself included, I'll be honest—feeling uncomfortable with that is part of why I left) have made it a worse place to live. I think there are ways to solve that other than internal migration restrictions, and I have other philosophical objections to internal migration restrictions, but I do see their appeal. You, for some reason that I don't totally follow, either don't think that SFBA has become a worse place to live or that this isn't an important criterion in deciding internal policy; I'm curious which it is (or whether I've misinterpreted).