3 ms·

> We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface. This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a de

> We’re quite westernized, but there are profound cultural disconnects under the surface. This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state. I certainly acknowledge that immigration has some potential negative effects, particularly where large groups of immigrants congregate in one area, for example the British immigrants in the Spanish Costa del Sol. Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place?

rayiner 5y ago
> This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state. Cultural homogeneity has upsides and downsides. Some of the most successful countries in the world (Japan, the Scandinavian countries, etc., are culturally homogenous). For example, Tokyo wouldn’t work if it was culturally heterogenous. Culturally heterogenous cities all end up kind of looking like Toronto, London, New York, etc. Interesting and vibrant, but not exactly orderly and organized. > Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place? Except at the end of the day they both vote and have to live under the kinds of governments picked by the other. For example during COVID, my dad was completely unable to relate to why some people had civil liberties objections to lockdown orders. (Not just concluding, on the balance, that lockdowns outweighed the impact on civil liberties, but completely unable to understand there was even a balancing process at issue.) He welcomes the centralization of power in DC, the idea that a well-credentialed bureaucracy will tell the backwaters of the country what to do. (One of the things we forget is that elite immigrants are often elite in their home countries. My family is from the same educated, ideologically forward thinking tiny minority of people who decided it would be tenable to impose secularism in the 1972 Bangladesh constitution, on a country that’s overwhelmingly Muslim.) Of course this drives my wife nuts—her family kept moving west to get as far away from the government as physically possible. Now to some extent this parallels cultural conflicts that already exist in America. But large scale immigration certainly changes the balance. When I was growing up, Northern Virginia was what I’d call “traditional American elitist.” Where there is an elite, but being elite is considered somewhat unseemly, so even the elites pay homage to the “common man.” With the large scale Asian immigration to Northern Virginia over the last 30 years, the culture has changed quite dramatically. What used to be an “under the breath” hostility to the “rest of Virginia” has become an open one. We can debate about the merits of these views—but that’s not my point here. My point is that this cultural disconnect exists even with educated, high-income immigrants. And it’s entirely reasonable for folks who are already in the US to see that as a reason to oppose large scale immigration. Certainly, if the shoe were in the other foot, and Americans were streaming into Dhaka bringing with them their hedonistic individualism, there would be outrage among Bangladeshis.
- valarauko 5y ago
  I think you make some compelling arguments, and largely echo my own on this matter - immigration has long term unintended consequences, cultural among them. That said, what do you see as a reasonable immigration policy? How many immigrants? Same as now, or way less? Do you see a Canada style points based system as desirable? Or is there a different criteria on which to evaluate potential migrants?
  - rayiner 5y ago
    I think ideally we’d want to maintain the foreign born population at something like 10% (it was under 5% in 1970 and is close to 15% today). I think a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t enforce the law, which creates a lot of resentment. If we don’t have the stomach to deport undocumented immigrants except for criminal offenses, we should just admit that coming here illegally is a de facto path to citizenship and count those immigrants against the overall quota. That would in practice lead to a decrease in overall immigration, which would be fine. The Canada style points system has advantages, but note that Canada has virtually no illegal immigration. In the US; by contrast, legal immigration as a practical matter is on top of the folks who come here illegally (but also as a practical matter will eventually receive legal status).
    - valarauko 5y ago
      Hmm. I think I understand your point: keep foreign born population under 10%, and you avoid some of the pushback against perceptible "demographic change" (ethnic/cultural). I wonder though how adjusting for undocumented immigrants against the overall number would work, and the impact it would have. The legal immigration system also strongly leans against a large influx of people from any one country & towards a more diverse mix. This isn't the case with most undocumented immigrants, who largely (though not entirely) come from a handful of countries based on geographical access. Now, for me as an Indian biomedical researcher with a PhD working in the US, the path to immigration today is incredibly steep, almost to the point of non-existent. Adjusting for the undocumented burden would severely curtail the pathway for people like me, so I would be biased against your proposal. I can see the merit in it, though. Still, the fact that my co-worker who is a Spanish citizen faces an exponentially lower barrier to entry does stings. If the goal is to keep the foreign born population under 10% (or perhaps establish a cap at the present 15%), does it matter where they come from? Or is the country wise quota one of the things that should be retained?

rayiner 5y ago

> This seems prefaced on the idea that the cultural homogeneity is a desired state. Cultural homogeneity has upsides and downsides. Some of the most successful countries in the world (Japan, the Scandinavian countries, etc., are culturally homogenous). For example, Tokyo wouldn’t work if it was culturally heterogenous. Culturally heterogenous cities all end up kind of looking like Toronto, London, New York, etc. Interesting and vibrant, but not exactly orderly and organized. > Your example doesn't strike me as one which I recognise as a problem. Even if neither your dad nor your wife are willing to give an inch in accepting the other may have a point, is this not better than neither of them having been exposed to that point in the first place? Except at the end of the day they both vote and have to live under the kinds of governments picked by the other. For example during COVID, my dad was completely unable to relate to why some people had civil liberties objections to lockdown orders. (Not just concluding, on the balance, that lockdowns outweighed the impact on civil liberties, but completely unable to understand there was even a balancing process at issue.) He welcomes the centralization of power in DC, the idea that a well-credentialed bureaucracy will tell the backwaters of the country what to do. (One of the things we forget is that elite immigrants are often elite in their home countries. My family is from the same educated, ideologically forward thinking tiny minority of people who decided it would be tenable to impose secularism in the 1972 Bangladesh constitution, on a country that’s overwhelmingly Muslim.) Of course this drives my wife nuts—her family kept moving west to get as far away from the government as physically possible. Now to some extent this parallels cultural conflicts that already exist in America. But large scale immigration certainly changes the balance. When I was growing up, Northern Virginia was what I’d call “traditional American elitist.” Where there is an elite, but being elite is considered somewhat unseemly, so even the elites pay homage to the “common man.” With the large scale Asian immigration to Northern Virginia over the last 30 years, the culture has changed quite dramatically. What used to be an “under the breath” hostility to the “rest of Virginia” has become an open one. We can debate about the merits of these views—but that’s not my point here. My point is that this cultural disconnect exists even with educated, high-income immigrants. And it’s entirely reasonable for folks who are already in the US to see that as a reason to oppose large scale immigration. Certainly, if the shoe were in the other foot, and Americans were streaming into Dhaka bringing with them their hedonistic individualism, there would be outrage among Bangladeshis.

valarauko 5y ago
I think you make some compelling arguments, and largely echo my own on this matter - immigration has long term unintended consequences, cultural among them. That said, what do you see as a reasonable immigration policy? How many immigrants? Same as now, or way less? Do you see a Canada style points based system as desirable? Or is there a different criteria on which to evaluate potential migrants?
- rayiner 5y ago
  I think ideally we’d want to maintain the foreign born population at something like 10% (it was under 5% in 1970 and is close to 15% today). I think a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t enforce the law, which creates a lot of resentment. If we don’t have the stomach to deport undocumented immigrants except for criminal offenses, we should just admit that coming here illegally is a de facto path to citizenship and count those immigrants against the overall quota. That would in practice lead to a decrease in overall immigration, which would be fine. The Canada style points system has advantages, but note that Canada has virtually no illegal immigration. In the US; by contrast, legal immigration as a practical matter is on top of the folks who come here illegally (but also as a practical matter will eventually receive legal status).
  - valarauko 5y ago
    Hmm. I think I understand your point: keep foreign born population under 10%, and you avoid some of the pushback against perceptible "demographic change" (ethnic/cultural). I wonder though how adjusting for undocumented immigrants against the overall number would work, and the impact it would have. The legal immigration system also strongly leans against a large influx of people from any one country & towards a more diverse mix. This isn't the case with most undocumented immigrants, who largely (though not entirely) come from a handful of countries based on geographical access. Now, for me as an Indian biomedical researcher with a PhD working in the US, the path to immigration today is incredibly steep, almost to the point of non-existent. Adjusting for the undocumented burden would severely curtail the pathway for people like me, so I would be biased against your proposal. I can see the merit in it, though. Still, the fact that my co-worker who is a Spanish citizen faces an exponentially lower barrier to entry does stings. If the goal is to keep the foreign born population under 10% (or perhaps establish a cap at the present 15%), does it matter where they come from? Or is the country wise quota one of the things that should be retained?