5 ms·

> I get that we can't open the flood gates Serious question, has this ever been shown to be a concern. If we would open for free migration, is there seriously

> I get that we can't open the flood gates Serious question, has this ever been shown to be a concern. If we would open for free migration, is there seriously any reason to think that migration would be so intense that the country wouldn't be able to handle it? I ask because I seriously doubt it. Historically migration has been pretty liberal, and there are place which offer free movements of people (e.g. the EU) where opening up the borders (or the flood gates if you will) has turned out to be a great success.

historia_novae 4y ago
Fell free to ask any Native American to get an insightful answer to this question.
- solveit 4y ago
  While this is a technically correct answer, I can't help but think the US isn't at particular risk of being colonised by a militarily overwhelming foreign force that also has smallpox. Indeed, if this were a concern, mere immigration law would hardly help!
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    Technically speaking, the US is the overwhelming military force that also has smallpox (in a BSL-4 lab somewhere), so perhaps his warning was for other countries, just in case? But the point about the immigration law probably not helping much in this scenario still stands.
  - masonic 4y ago
    >that also has smallpox. Are you seriously unaware that that's "not a thing"? No US government entity, military or otherwise, has ever deliberately infected a native population with smallpox. You're reduced to making shit up?
    - runarberg 4y ago
      I don’t see your parent implying that anyone deliberately infected other populations with smallpox.
    - solveit 4y ago
      I did not say that anyone was deliberately infecting anyone. But smallpox doesn't care about your intentions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- runarberg 4y ago
  I don’t think any Native American societies lost their lands, language and culture, because they had free migration as a policy. Rather they lost it because of an active genocide conducted by a hostile force.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
> If we would open for free migration, is there seriously any reason to think that migration would be so intense that the country wouldn't be able to handle it? Depends on what you think "be able to handle it" means. There are many tradeoffs. > there are place which offer free movements of people (e.g. the EU) where opening up the borders (or the flood gates if you will) has turned out to be a great success The EU has a very strict immigration policy for people outside of the EU and it also has natural language barriers that bar foreigners from almost all jobs.
- netsharc 4y ago
  > The EU has a very strict immigration policy for people outside of the EU and it also has natural language barriers that bar foreigners from almost all jobs. I would disagree, or do you mean immigration as in naturalisation? The EU's blue card [1] system will give you a residence permit (initially a limited one that you'll have to extend after a few years, and afterwards usually a permanent one) if you have a master's degree and a job offer where the salary is market-compatible. As for the language, places like Germany are desperate for IT people that the companies are adopting English as the corporate language, it also helps with the employees from other EU countries who are there thanks to freedom of movement. [1] https://visaguide.world/europe/eu-blue-card/ https://visaguide.world/europe/eu-blue-card/
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    As you have noted the blue card allows you to work in any EU country once you get a work permit in one. You can go on LinkedIn and see how many companies are ready to sponsor your first work permit even for positions that require a degree and 5+ years of experience. Places like Germany are desperate for IT people, yes, but most companies still wouldn't hire people without ready work permits.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > The EU has a very strict immigration policy for people outside of the EU and it also has natural language barriers that bar foreigners from almost all jobs. In addition to the EU immigration policy, each individual state has got it’s own, and it’s typically a lot laxer than the EU one. So it’s not really that simple. The blue pass is a bad example.
daenz 4y ago
I googled our immigration backlog, and according to multiple sources[0], the current number of pending immigration applications is 10M. These are people who are willing to fill out the applications and wait. It's not unreasonable to assume that this is the tip of the iceberg, and that there there are many more people who don't bother to apply because of the processing times and likelihood of getting in. Suppose there are 5x more people who would instantly migrate if immigration was completely open. That's about 17% of the current US population. That seems like a lot of people for local communities to absorb, especially if these are people that require a lot of financial assistance. 0. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-immigration-backlogs-mounting-undermine-biden https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-immigration-backl...
- lambda 4y ago
  Why are you assuming that folks will require a lot of financial assistance?
  - daenz 4y ago
    I would be assuming if I said "especially because", not "especially if"
- runarberg 4y ago
  Your methodology is flawed. You have no idea how extensive the backlog is, nor how reflective it is of a general willingness (and ability) to migrate to the USA. For all you know 90% of all migrants willing and able to migrate to the USA have (or will) filed the paperwork to do so. The backlog could also be abnormally large at the moment and cases are piling up. 10M could very well be the accumulation of the past 3-10 years of immigration applicants. So the actual range here—if migration was set free—could very well be as low 1M or as high as 10M. Regardless. Even assuming the high end here, and in a 10 year period, 100M people would migrate to the USA. My honest question was, is there any reason to be concerned about that figure?
  - daenz 4y ago
    >as high as 10M Assuming the upper bound is as high as the backlog of immigration applications is not reasonable. A reasonable assumption is that the upper bound is at least as high as the applications. >My honest question was, is there any reason to be concerned about that figure? I answered that. Adding a large number of new people puts a strain on society. If you don't think people are being paid enough, or get enough benefits, or have a high enough standard of living, or that there's enough affordable housing, then why do you think adding more people would fix that?
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
"Great success" is relative... In my small EU country, this has created a caste of low-paying jobs that only immigrants do, and the hiring process usually goes along "put out an ad, offer minimum pay" - "noone local wants to do that job for minimum wage" - "complain you can't get workers" - "get work visas for foreigners". This would/could be mitigated by raising the minimum wage for foreign workers (eg., you need a cleaning lady, the pay for a foreign worker must be atleast 1.5x the average pay currently working cleaning ladies get, so they'll try to get a local for atleast 1.499x the average pay first and then if really desparate hire a foreigner).
- lambda 4y ago
  We have plenty of the low-paying jobs that only immigrants do in the US as well. Some are via temporary work visas, some are via undocumented immigrants. The fact that they are undocumented immigrants means that they have very few legal protections, which makes it a lot easier for employers to exploit them.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  If you also pay immigrants well, they actually integrate well. A huge barrier to integration is lack of social mobility. Europe hasn't really closed the class gap between Europeans and immigrants (either economic immigrants, or escaping a shit country immigrant)
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    But if you pay well, you also get the locals to do the job. I know higly educated people in demand (scientists, engineers,...) are well paid anywhere, but "free immigration" would bring in a lot of people, bringing a lot of jobs down to minimum wage or even lower.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      I mean all of this needs executive pay to not keep skyrocketing vs everyone else.
- 4y ago
rayiner 4y ago
> where opening up the borders (or the flood gates if you will) has turned out to be a great success. Yup, great success: https://apnews.com/article/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef https://apnews.com/article/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef
- honeybadger1 4y ago
  Germany is definitely a modern cautionary tale of open door policy not working.
- thoms_a 4y ago
  You can also look at Canada, which brings in ~500,000 (documented, skilled) immigrants per year relative to their 35MM population. Of course, housing in Canada is now the most expensive in the entire OECD. Alas, the Canadian government is deeply committed to the same lord and savior of the USA, the Free Market(TM), to magically produce the required infrastructure for this massive population influx. However, His Invisible Hand has not yet intervened in Canada's favor.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    Canadian immigration policy is the exact opposite of "opening the flood gates and letting everyone in". It's a highly "discriminatory" point based selection process, accepting almost exclusively educated and skilled candidates. If anything the American immigration policy is much closer to what's being proposed, considering it usually aims for immigrant diversity (through the lottery, for example) rather than just education/work status. They are also more lenient towards undocumented immigrants, and deal with a ton more of them than we do here. The only thing canada proves is that you can take a high number of immigrants yearly relatively easily (at least on the short/medium term, as you said infrastructure and housing aren't keeping up) as long as they are vetted and carefully picked. Now, maybe the last part isn't even necessary, but we wouldn't know just by looking at Canada.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      > It's a highly "discriminatory" point based selection process, accepting almost exclusively educated and skilled candidates. Judging by my family's experience, Canada's model is an excellent way to get lots of college-educated foreigners working retail service jobs. Just because the Canadian government assigns points for a Bangladeshi college degree doesn't mean Canadian employers do. The kids end up doing pretty well, but I'm not sure that's the intended function of the immigration system. > considering it usually aims for immigrant diversity An essential element of the U.S. system is family reunification. It encourages social stability by ensuring that immigrants usually already have a community and support network here.
donthellbanme 4y ago

historia_novae 4y ago

Fell free to ask any Native American to get an insightful answer to this question.

solveit 4y ago
While this is a technically correct answer, I can't help but think the US isn't at particular risk of being colonised by a militarily overwhelming foreign force that also has smallpox. Indeed, if this were a concern, mere immigration law would hardly help!
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  Technically speaking, the US is the overwhelming military force that also has smallpox (in a BSL-4 lab somewhere), so perhaps his warning was for other countries, just in case? But the point about the immigration law probably not helping much in this scenario still stands.
- masonic 4y ago
  >that also has smallpox. Are you seriously unaware that that's "not a thing"? No US government entity, military or otherwise, has ever deliberately infected a native population with smallpox. You're reduced to making shit up?
  - runarberg 4y ago
    I don’t see your parent implying that anyone deliberately infected other populations with smallpox.
  - solveit 4y ago
    I did not say that anyone was deliberately infecting anyone. But smallpox doesn't care about your intentions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
runarberg 4y ago
I don’t think any Native American societies lost their lands, language and culture, because they had free migration as a policy. Rather they lost it because of an active genocide conducted by a hostile force.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

> If we would open for free migration, is there seriously any reason to think that migration would be so intense that the country wouldn't be able to handle it? Depends on what you think "be able to handle it" means. There are many tradeoffs. > there are place which offer free movements of people (e.g. the EU) where opening up the borders (or the flood gates if you will) has turned out to be a great success The EU has a very strict immigration policy for people outside of the EU and it also has natural language barriers that bar foreigners from almost all jobs.

netsharc 4y ago
> The EU has a very strict immigration policy for people outside of the EU and it also has natural language barriers that bar foreigners from almost all jobs. I would disagree, or do you mean immigration as in naturalisation? The EU's blue card [1] system will give you a residence permit (initially a limited one that you'll have to extend after a few years, and afterwards usually a permanent one) if you have a master's degree and a job offer where the salary is market-compatible. As for the language, places like Germany are desperate for IT people that the companies are adopting English as the corporate language, it also helps with the employees from other EU countries who are there thanks to freedom of movement. [1] https://visaguide.world/europe/eu-blue-card/ https://visaguide.world/europe/eu-blue-card/
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  As you have noted the blue card allows you to work in any EU country once you get a work permit in one. You can go on LinkedIn and see how many companies are ready to sponsor your first work permit even for positions that require a degree and 5+ years of experience. Places like Germany are desperate for IT people, yes, but most companies still wouldn't hire people without ready work permits.
sgjohnson 4y ago
> The EU has a very strict immigration policy for people outside of the EU and it also has natural language barriers that bar foreigners from almost all jobs. In addition to the EU immigration policy, each individual state has got it’s own, and it’s typically a lot laxer than the EU one. So it’s not really that simple. The blue pass is a bad example.

daenz 4y ago

I googled our immigration backlog, and according to multiple sources[0], the current number of pending immigration applications is 10M. These are people who are willing to fill out the applications and wait. It's not unreasonable to assume that this is the tip of the iceberg, and that there there are many more people who don't bother to apply because of the processing times and likelihood of getting in. Suppose there are 5x more people who would instantly migrate if immigration was completely open. That's about 17% of the current US population. That seems like a lot of people for local communities to absorb, especially if these are people that require a lot of financial assistance. 0. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-immigration-backlogs-mounting-undermine-biden https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-immigration-backl...

lambda 4y ago
Why are you assuming that folks will require a lot of financial assistance?
- daenz 4y ago
  I would be assuming if I said "especially because", not "especially if"
runarberg 4y ago
Your methodology is flawed. You have no idea how extensive the backlog is, nor how reflective it is of a general willingness (and ability) to migrate to the USA. For all you know 90% of all migrants willing and able to migrate to the USA have (or will) filed the paperwork to do so. The backlog could also be abnormally large at the moment and cases are piling up. 10M could very well be the accumulation of the past 3-10 years of immigration applicants. So the actual range here—if migration was set free—could very well be as low 1M or as high as 10M. Regardless. Even assuming the high end here, and in a 10 year period, 100M people would migrate to the USA. My honest question was, is there any reason to be concerned about that figure?
- daenz 4y ago
  >as high as 10M Assuming the upper bound is as high as the backlog of immigration applications is not reasonable. A reasonable assumption is that the upper bound is at least as high as the applications. >My honest question was, is there any reason to be concerned about that figure? I answered that. Adding a large number of new people puts a strain on society. If you don't think people are being paid enough, or get enough benefits, or have a high enough standard of living, or that there's enough affordable housing, then why do you think adding more people would fix that?

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

"Great success" is relative... In my small EU country, this has created a caste of low-paying jobs that only immigrants do, and the hiring process usually goes along "put out an ad, offer minimum pay" - "noone local wants to do that job for minimum wage" - "complain you can't get workers" - "get work visas for foreigners". This would/could be mitigated by raising the minimum wage for foreign workers (eg., you need a cleaning lady, the pay for a foreign worker must be atleast 1.5x the average pay currently working cleaning ladies get, so they'll try to get a local for atleast 1.499x the average pay first and then if really desparate hire a foreigner).

lambda 4y ago
We have plenty of the low-paying jobs that only immigrants do in the US as well. Some are via temporary work visas, some are via undocumented immigrants. The fact that they are undocumented immigrants means that they have very few legal protections, which makes it a lot easier for employers to exploit them.
aaomidi 4y ago
If you also pay immigrants well, they actually integrate well. A huge barrier to integration is lack of social mobility. Europe hasn't really closed the class gap between Europeans and immigrants (either economic immigrants, or escaping a shit country immigrant)
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  But if you pay well, you also get the locals to do the job. I know higly educated people in demand (scientists, engineers,...) are well paid anywhere, but "free immigration" would bring in a lot of people, bringing a lot of jobs down to minimum wage or even lower.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    I mean all of this needs executive pay to not keep skyrocketing vs everyone else.
4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

> where opening up the borders (or the flood gates if you will) has turned out to be a great success. Yup, great success: https://apnews.com/article/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef https://apnews.com/article/438bb0ac98d04459ab2e392f3c4fc5ef

honeybadger1 4y ago
Germany is definitely a modern cautionary tale of open door policy not working.
thoms_a 4y ago
You can also look at Canada, which brings in ~500,000 (documented, skilled) immigrants per year relative to their 35MM population. Of course, housing in Canada is now the most expensive in the entire OECD. Alas, the Canadian government is deeply committed to the same lord and savior of the USA, the Free Market(TM), to magically produce the required infrastructure for this massive population influx. However, His Invisible Hand has not yet intervened in Canada's favor.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Canadian immigration policy is the exact opposite of "opening the flood gates and letting everyone in". It's a highly "discriminatory" point based selection process, accepting almost exclusively educated and skilled candidates. If anything the American immigration policy is much closer to what's being proposed, considering it usually aims for immigrant diversity (through the lottery, for example) rather than just education/work status. They are also more lenient towards undocumented immigrants, and deal with a ton more of them than we do here. The only thing canada proves is that you can take a high number of immigrants yearly relatively easily (at least on the short/medium term, as you said infrastructure and housing aren't keeping up) as long as they are vetted and carefully picked. Now, maybe the last part isn't even necessary, but we wouldn't know just by looking at Canada.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > It's a highly "discriminatory" point based selection process, accepting almost exclusively educated and skilled candidates. Judging by my family's experience, Canada's model is an excellent way to get lots of college-educated foreigners working retail service jobs. Just because the Canadian government assigns points for a Bangladeshi college degree doesn't mean Canadian employers do. The kids end up doing pretty well, but I'm not sure that's the intended function of the immigration system. > considering it usually aims for immigrant diversity An essential element of the U.S. system is family reunification. It encourages social stability by ensuring that immigrants usually already have a community and support network here.

donthellbanme 4y ago