7 ms·

Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree

Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree with that. Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences? That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.

diminoten 7y ago
It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded. Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem. There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves! Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out. The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff. Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. Nobody is filtering out the undocumented, and yet here we are, still net gaining from their existence in the US. Further, no one is asking you to make that tradeoff, it is not at the expense of lower runs of our society, because immigrants are the lower runs of our society, at least they are right now, due to how we treat them. Also, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? You say it's not a tradeoff you're willing to make, but why not? People are people, regardless of where their birth town is. Why do you value natives higher than non-natives, despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives? You want to keep America small, its economy small, and its people worse off, all because you believe there's a false tradeoff. That's a problem. To put this another way, if there "magically" were no tradeoff at all, if the "lower runs of American native society" weren't "negatively impacted", would you change your position?
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. The articles you cite are specific to legal immigrants. > Finally, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? The nation-state exists in service of its citizens, not the wider world. > despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives I come from a family of legal immigrants. Not the long-winded "trace my family to the Mayflower" way, but in the "my family speaks another language" way. I have no argument against legal immigration that selects for what our society most needs. Open borders are a free for all that throws our lower rungs to fend for themselves.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        ...I don't think you understand what an open border means, and if you're getting hung up on the "legality" of it, an open border would literally make immigration legal. If you have no argument against legal immigration, then you have no argument against an open border, as it changes the policy, making immigration generally legal in its various forms. Further, a nation-state's service to its people is a geographic and societal one. Once more people enter into the geographic area and participate in the society governed by the state, those people become its citizens, in every relevant sense. Additionally, you are admitting to agreeing with the idea that "Americans are more deserving humans to non-Americans" and that is xenophobic, literally the textbook definition. It's funny to me that you think the Wikipedia article titled, "The Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration" is about legal immigrants. Open borders is not a "free for all", and I hate to break this to you, but our lower rungs already do fend for themselves. Allowing more immigrants into this country would in no way further their dire straits, and in many ways it'd likely help them, as a larger poor population would increase votes for programs and infrastructure to support poor people.

diminoten 7y ago

It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded. Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem. There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves! Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.

mieseratte 7y ago
> but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out. The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff. Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
- diminoten 7y ago
  That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. Nobody is filtering out the undocumented, and yet here we are, still net gaining from their existence in the US. Further, no one is asking you to make that tradeoff, it is not at the expense of lower runs of our society, because immigrants are the lower runs of our society, at least they are right now, due to how we treat them. Also, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? You say it's not a tradeoff you're willing to make, but why not? People are people, regardless of where their birth town is. Why do you value natives higher than non-natives, despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives? You want to keep America small, its economy small, and its people worse off, all because you believe there's a false tradeoff. That's a problem. To put this another way, if there "magically" were no tradeoff at all, if the "lower runs of American native society" weren't "negatively impacted", would you change your position?
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. The articles you cite are specific to legal immigrants. > Finally, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? The nation-state exists in service of its citizens, not the wider world. > despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives I come from a family of legal immigrants. Not the long-winded "trace my family to the Mayflower" way, but in the "my family speaks another language" way. I have no argument against legal immigration that selects for what our society most needs. Open borders are a free for all that throws our lower rungs to fend for themselves.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      ...I don't think you understand what an open border means, and if you're getting hung up on the "legality" of it, an open border would literally make immigration legal. If you have no argument against legal immigration, then you have no argument against an open border, as it changes the policy, making immigration generally legal in its various forms. Further, a nation-state's service to its people is a geographic and societal one. Once more people enter into the geographic area and participate in the society governed by the state, those people become its citizens, in every relevant sense. Additionally, you are admitting to agreeing with the idea that "Americans are more deserving humans to non-Americans" and that is xenophobic, literally the textbook definition. It's funny to me that you think the Wikipedia article titled, "The Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration" is about legal immigrants. Open borders is not a "free for all", and I hate to break this to you, but our lower rungs already do fend for themselves. Allowing more immigrants into this country would in no way further their dire straits, and in many ways it'd likely help them, as a larger poor population would increase votes for programs and infrastructure to support poor people.