3 ms·

But this is precisely the point of nationhood at all. Otherwise, what is the meaning of one's nationality? This is opportunity which gives you an unfair advanta

But this is precisely the point of nationhood at all. Otherwise, what is the meaning of one's nationality? This is opportunity which gives you an unfair advantage vs less fortunate nations, which your forefathers created and defended for you and you can enjoy - and defend for your posterity. It is like capital: you can be born into money and enjoy the unfair advantage of never having to work 9-5. Just collective, shared by everyone with the same citizenship. Do we need to abolish private capital too? I come from Soviet Union where we tried to do just that. Result was the worst passport to have, truly :) to the point that the border defences were pointed inwards - to prevent escape rather than infiltration.

tzs 5y ago
> But this is precisely the point of nationhood at all. Otherwise, what is the meaning of one's nationality? If it was the point of nationhood then wouldn't we expect immigration control to be one of the first things new nations implement? Yet the United States had wide open borders until 1875, 83-99 years (depending on who you ask) into nationhood. It wasn't until the Page Act in 1875 that restricted immigration of Chinese women that the US started controlling immigration. That was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which extended restrictions to include men. By the end of the century they had added some restrictions on non-Chinese immigrants such as a small immigration tax, a requirement that you could take care of yourself, and a requirements that you were diseases free. In 1917 a literacy test was added, but you could take it in your native language. It wasn't until 1924 that the US got restrictions the seriously limited integration beyond the anti-Chinese limits. The Immigration Act of 1924 introduced per-country limits based on how many people in each country were in the US in 1890. The official goal was to "preserve the ideal of US homogeneity". But no one really cared whether or not say the ratio of Scots to French in the US was changing. It was almost certainly about Jews. The European countries whose contribution to US immigration had increased disproportionately were largely those that had greatly stepped up persecution of Jews, and it was Jews trying to escape that persecution that was making the immigration increases from there disproportional. By limiting those countries based on 1890 levels they could reduce the number of Jews that got in. That's not as effective as an actual limit on Jews, but even in 1924 that would have been difficult to do.
- anovikov 5y ago
  Maybe this is precisely because before 1875, the country had a lot more land than people, and simply needed to fill in the ranks? Canada and Australia does the same till now (ok there's a point-based system but it's so easy anyone qualifies).

tzs 5y ago

> But this is precisely the point of nationhood at all. Otherwise, what is the meaning of one's nationality? If it was the point of nationhood then wouldn't we expect immigration control to be one of the first things new nations implement? Yet the United States had wide open borders until 1875, 83-99 years (depending on who you ask) into nationhood. It wasn't until the Page Act in 1875 that restricted immigration of Chinese women that the US started controlling immigration. That was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which extended restrictions to include men. By the end of the century they had added some restrictions on non-Chinese immigrants such as a small immigration tax, a requirement that you could take care of yourself, and a requirements that you were diseases free. In 1917 a literacy test was added, but you could take it in your native language. It wasn't until 1924 that the US got restrictions the seriously limited integration beyond the anti-Chinese limits. The Immigration Act of 1924 introduced per-country limits based on how many people in each country were in the US in 1890. The official goal was to "preserve the ideal of US homogeneity". But no one really cared whether or not say the ratio of Scots to French in the US was changing. It was almost certainly about Jews. The European countries whose contribution to US immigration had increased disproportionately were largely those that had greatly stepped up persecution of Jews, and it was Jews trying to escape that persecution that was making the immigration increases from there disproportional. By limiting those countries based on 1890 levels they could reduce the number of Jews that got in. That's not as effective as an actual limit on Jews, but even in 1924 that would have been difficult to do.

anovikov 5y ago
Maybe this is precisely because before 1875, the country had a lot more land than people, and simply needed to fill in the ranks? Canada and Australia does the same till now (ok there's a point-based system but it's so easy anyone qualifies).