4 ms·
> very few politicians are willing to take the time to explain to other voters how immigration is in the collective interest of all. Some immigration is in the
by anamax 16y ago
> very few politicians are willing to take the time to explain to other voters how immigration is in the collective interest of all.
Some immigration is in the collective interest but all isn't and suggesting otherwise is counterproductive.
What? You want to argue all? Okay - what's the collective benefit in importing folks convicted of genocide? There are lots of groups whose collective cost is higher than their collective benefit. (Yes, we grow some of the locally, but that's not a reason to increase the supply.)
The "let's import all the smart people" advocates have been played for saps by the open borders folk.
- anigbrowl 16y agoI meant to type 'immigration reform' and skipped omitted the word by mistake, which completely changed the meaning of the sentence. Sorry about that. By 'reform' incidentally, I mean consistent facts-based legislation giving the existing system a complete overhaul. Regardless of what policy one supports, the patchwork of exceptions and contradictions in the current legislation leads to a great deal of inefficiency and confusion. Making it simpler and more consistent would make revised rules (whatever they turn out to be) easer and cheaper to administer.
- anamax 16y agoEvery proposal is called "reform", so that word is basically meaningless. Yes, the current system is a disaster. However, that doesn't imply that we can't end up with an even worse system. That said, I'll stand by my statement that the folks who claim to be interested in importing "the best and the brightest" have chosen poor allies, namely the open borders folk.
- anigbrowl 16y agoI defined my meaning in technical, policy neutral terms, which is apparently getting downvoted for...well, I don't know why, unless someone thinks that inefficiency, inconsistency and red tape are highly desirable. You can stand by your statement all you want, because I am not going to get drawn into a policy debate with you. Your first remarks in the thread were arguing with a position I never expressed to begin with.
- anamax 16y ago> I defined my meaning in technical, policy neutral terms, Let's review. >>>By 'reform' incidentally, I mean consistent facts-based legislation giving the existing system a complete overhaul. "Consistent facts-based" doesn't imply improvement, let alone good even if you throw in efficient and less red-tape.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- loewenskind 16y agoThis is a very good and important (often skimmed over) point. It doesn't even need to be genociders. What about career criminals? One of the benefits of immigration is integration of the foreign culture into the local one but I don't want every possible culture to integrate, just the ones that aren't negative.