4 ms·

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

by 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?
  - runarberg 4y ago
    >> as high as 10M Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant yearly migrants. If every year fewer applications are processed then filed, it adds to the backlog. So the only information you get by looking at the backlog is total number of willing migrants. However they (or rather we, as I am personally one of the applicants in that backlog) are not gonna migrate here all at once, some are willing but not able (for whatever reason), some are old and no longer relevant, some are duplicate, etc. In reality an open border policy would come gradually. So the number of yearly migrants would gradually grow, until it reaches a local peak and then slow down. Many willing people will delay their migration if they can’t find a job, etc. So I pulled that lower bound of 1M from current migration trends. Last year it was about 700k but that was a covid year, so 1M is an easy guess of a lower bound. As for the upper bound I just took a wild guess... There is no way of knowing that number unless you do some extensive survey, and plug it into a computational model (I wonder if anyone has ever done that). But honestly the actual number doesn’t actually matter. Societal modelling is a funny science with a lot of interacting variables. The current state of prohibitory migration actually affects the behavior of current migrants, if the migration would be free, the behavior would be different (think decriminalizing drugs). My skepticism about the concerns people have for free migrations is that I actually see little evidence to warrant these concerns. People say stuff like: “puts a strain on society” without explaining how, or by showing evidence. Historically societies have grown by way more then 17% over a short period and did just fine. Currently the societies which are taking many migrants seem to handle it kind of well actually. There are rural communities in Iceland which grow by 30-40% in a single year by taking in 4-5 refugee families, and do just fine. So given our evidence so far, I would say that any concerns about “opening up the floodgates” are unjustified.

by daenz 4y ago

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?
- runarberg 4y ago
  >> as high as 10M Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant yearly migrants. If every year fewer applications are processed then filed, it adds to the backlog. So the only information you get by looking at the backlog is total number of willing migrants. However they (or rather we, as I am personally one of the applicants in that backlog) are not gonna migrate here all at once, some are willing but not able (for whatever reason), some are old and no longer relevant, some are duplicate, etc. In reality an open border policy would come gradually. So the number of yearly migrants would gradually grow, until it reaches a local peak and then slow down. Many willing people will delay their migration if they can’t find a job, etc. So I pulled that lower bound of 1M from current migration trends. Last year it was about 700k but that was a covid year, so 1M is an easy guess of a lower bound. As for the upper bound I just took a wild guess... There is no way of knowing that number unless you do some extensive survey, and plug it into a computational model (I wonder if anyone has ever done that). But honestly the actual number doesn’t actually matter. Societal modelling is a funny science with a lot of interacting variables. The current state of prohibitory migration actually affects the behavior of current migrants, if the migration would be free, the behavior would be different (think decriminalizing drugs). My skepticism about the concerns people have for free migrations is that I actually see little evidence to warrant these concerns. People say stuff like: “puts a strain on society” without explaining how, or by showing evidence. Historically societies have grown by way more then 17% over a short period and did just fine. Currently the societies which are taking many migrants seem to handle it kind of well actually. There are rural communities in Iceland which grow by 30-40% in a single year by taking in 4-5 refugee families, and do just fine. So given our evidence so far, I would say that any concerns about “opening up the floodgates” are unjustified.