3 ms·

I think you make some compelling arguments, and largely echo my own on this matter - immigration has long term unintended consequences, cultural among them. Th

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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?