3 ms·
> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpo
by snazz 6y ago
> The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration.
I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by this statement? Are you referring primarily to jobs and government assistance?
- vageli 6y ago> > The resources in the US are simply too scarce to support unfettered immigration. > I fundamentally disagree with you, but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Is there any country with unfettered immigration?
- petschge 6y agoSvalbard might fit the bill. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Svalbard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Svalbard
- ashtonkem 6y agoDepends on your timespan. In the modern era only failed states that can’t actually secure their own borders have unfettered immigration; but it’s pretty rare for people to want to go into such countries. Scroll back a few centuries, and what we’d consider to be “open borders” was much more the norm. Then again, a few centuries before that and the vast majority of residents in Europe couldn’t legally leave the land that they were on, forget the concept of immigration. Leaving town could make you an outlaw, let alone your country.
- sushid 6y agoThat's still true in some places today.
- CamTin 6y agoThe United States before 1924 for one. Passports and travel documents didn't really exist at all until Napoleonic-ish times and weren't widespread until about WWI. I personally feel that defining "citizen" in any other way than "people who are currently living here" is a form of apartheid and antithetical to our constitution.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoPart of why immigration law is so confusing and contradictory is that the framers of the Constitution had no concept of someone living in a country (with intent to stay) and not being a citizen. Even slaves and women were considered citizens.
- wang_li 6y agoThey definitely did have an idea of people living here who were not citizens. Thus the Naturalization Act of 1790.
- wang_li 6y agoOr in 1882 when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act.
- konbaji 6y ago> but I’m interested in hearing your viewpoint. Given my downvotes it seems others here are not so interested. Nevertheless, I will give you an example. Housing. I am a bay area native and through my lifetime I have seen certain immigrants from Europe and South Asia, push up the cost of housing. Those tech H1B workers only serve to exacerbate this issue. I can no longer afford to buy a property unless I work in tech or win the lottery. Others like myself have grown resentful, rightfully so, of these transplants and immigrants.
- runbyfruity 6y agoSo what makes you think that immigrants are the tipping point? If there were no immigrants, who's to say white people (who are themselves... descended from immigrants) wouldn't fill those housing units? Edit: housing prices are somewhat a function of demand, and I don't think you've adequately shown that any excess demand is driven by (recent) immigrants. You're being downvoted because this rhetoric is blatantly jingoistic. There ARE nuanced conversations to have about immigration policy; "immigrants make Bay Area housing expensive" is not one of them.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoWhy do you feel entitled to live in the bay area? Why not move to India or Nevada?
- refurb 6y agoIndia? Well probably because he's not an Indian citizen?
- pqhwan 6y agoI say this knowing that it is a blunt statement, but if you believe that being born (and your ancestors being born) in America (the continent) entitles you to the land more than newcomers, the notion doesn’t hold much historical water.
- tfsh 6y agoYour place of birth should not entitle you cheaper access to housing or land.