4 ms·

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 econo

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).
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      That doesn't describe current US policy, which prevents people from coming that would make the country a nicer place to live, and lets many people in that wouldn't. By design, it even brings in random people. I'm not describing a policy, I'm describing an ideal. (A simple concrete policy proposal is below.) You said: > Here's a simpler proposal: anyone from anywhere can come here and take any job. So that doesn't describe your policy proposal either. Plenty of people can hold down a job and make the country a worse place for others, or a subset of others, simply by competing for resources, driving down wages in the sector they work in, by being a criminal, or by voting immorally. I want to let everybody you'd let in, except for people whose immigration would make the country a worse place. Define that ideal as you will. As a pretty good approximation, we could limit immigrants to those that could qualify for military service. > myself included, I'll be honest—feeling uncomfortable with that is part of why I left That's also a reason why I left. My policy as a national policy, is to make the country a nice place for all of its citizens (except criminals and slovenly degenerates) to live in. So that includes people that might like to move from Arizona to California. They're making their own lives better, which counts for something. > 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 If you're like most employers, that means you're happier if you get to drive down working class wages, while you get to reap greater profits from your pre-established position in the market. That's good for you, but not good for the average American. To make my goals a little more nuanced: Economically, I want only the smartest immigrants, which do advanced stuff like start companies, work for them, or work in healthcare, which drive up the demand for working-class labor, letting average Americans negotiate a better piece of the pie, while driving down the cost of their healthcare. Culturally, I want supply limited so that immigrants assimilate, and I want all the immigrants and their children to be crime-free pro-life Republican voters. :-)
fzeroracer 8y ago
This is a thread and topic about America and immigration in America. To suddenly shift and say that you're somehow not talking about American culture seems rather incredibly disingenuous. And that said, a culture does not deserve to live by virtue of existing. It's protectionism and xenophobia, founded purely because of fears that immigrants will somehow replace your culture with something you view as being lesser. This is a two-way street because I have seen people use it as an argument against letting in people that would destroy woman's rights or what now here in America...and I've heard it used in fears of immigrants fighting for minority rights or woman's rights in countries like Japan. It's an argument born out of irrational fears and one I find not compelling at all.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Well I certainly object to the destruction of America’s culture too, but the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration. And it’s not an irrational fear. It’s a very obvious fact that America with wide open borders would be a worse place for existing Americans to live, just look at the average country and ask if Americans would like to live there, and why not.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    I don't believe it's a very obvious fact at all, considering America has had very lax borders in the past and I would not describe it as being a far worse place to live. If you're going to describe something as an obvious fact, how about you back up your obvious fact with citations or data? Otherwise then yes, it would be an irrational fear. And I would imagine the converse is true: If you asked anyone in another first world country if they would like to live in America, I would bet you'd see the results end up rather negative. Especially after the past few years of nonsense we've exhibited to the rest of the world.
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. You don’t need studies and citations to figure this out, you need to hold in your head a model of reality. You need above average people, who give more than they take, in order to drive the quality of the country upward.

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).
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    That doesn't describe current US policy, which prevents people from coming that would make the country a nicer place to live, and lets many people in that wouldn't. By design, it even brings in random people. I'm not describing a policy, I'm describing an ideal. (A simple concrete policy proposal is below.) You said: > Here's a simpler proposal: anyone from anywhere can come here and take any job. So that doesn't describe your policy proposal either. Plenty of people can hold down a job and make the country a worse place for others, or a subset of others, simply by competing for resources, driving down wages in the sector they work in, by being a criminal, or by voting immorally. I want to let everybody you'd let in, except for people whose immigration would make the country a worse place. Define that ideal as you will. As a pretty good approximation, we could limit immigrants to those that could qualify for military service. > myself included, I'll be honest—feeling uncomfortable with that is part of why I left That's also a reason why I left. My policy as a national policy, is to make the country a nice place for all of its citizens (except criminals and slovenly degenerates) to live in. So that includes people that might like to move from Arizona to California. They're making their own lives better, which counts for something. > 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 If you're like most employers, that means you're happier if you get to drive down working class wages, while you get to reap greater profits from your pre-established position in the market. That's good for you, but not good for the average American. To make my goals a little more nuanced: Economically, I want only the smartest immigrants, which do advanced stuff like start companies, work for them, or work in healthcare, which drive up the demand for working-class labor, letting average Americans negotiate a better piece of the pie, while driving down the cost of their healthcare. Culturally, I want supply limited so that immigrants assimilate, and I want all the immigrants and their children to be crime-free pro-life Republican voters. :-)

fzeroracer 8y ago

This is a thread and topic about America and immigration in America. To suddenly shift and say that you're somehow not talking about American culture seems rather incredibly disingenuous. And that said, a culture does not deserve to live by virtue of existing. It's protectionism and xenophobia, founded purely because of fears that immigrants will somehow replace your culture with something you view as being lesser. This is a two-way street because I have seen people use it as an argument against letting in people that would destroy woman's rights or what now here in America...and I've heard it used in fears of immigrants fighting for minority rights or woman's rights in countries like Japan. It's an argument born out of irrational fears and one I find not compelling at all.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
Well I certainly object to the destruction of America’s culture too, but the construction of geofft’s argument is that categorically he could only think of one possible objection to immigration. And it’s not an irrational fear. It’s a very obvious fact that America with wide open borders would be a worse place for existing Americans to live, just look at the average country and ask if Americans would like to live there, and why not.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I don't believe it's a very obvious fact at all, considering America has had very lax borders in the past and I would not describe it as being a far worse place to live. If you're going to describe something as an obvious fact, how about you back up your obvious fact with citations or data? Otherwise then yes, it would be an irrational fear. And I would imagine the converse is true: If you asked anyone in another first world country if they would like to live in America, I would bet you'd see the results end up rather negative. Especially after the past few years of nonsense we've exhibited to the rest of the world.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Simply by increasing population, traffic, and pollution it would make the country worse off. You don’t need studies and citations to figure this out, you need to hold in your head a model of reality. You need above average people, who give more than they take, in order to drive the quality of the country upward.