4 ms·

> I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some are

> I don't blame anybody for seeking a better life, but I'd think at some point, an excess amount of illegal migration would have a noticeable impact in some areas. I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Only one where the current inhabitants are somehow superior. This doesn’t _just_ apply to international immigration, but also local. In HCOL places, people constantly don’t want people moving in from other cities. What justifies that? Somehow the locals in the city are superior to everyone else in the _entire world_? Thankfully you cannot restrict moving across state borders. So what justifies restricting moving across national borders? I really can’t think of a rational justification. The reality is that the world had a shortage of nice places with high quality of living. Restricting immigration (or local migration) to reduce demand means that those people must stay in their lower quality of life area because of some artificial rule. That’s not fair. What makes a local any different from an immigrant? Both are people. If the immigrant wants to pay a lot of money to purchase a home from a local, why is that a bad thing?

logicalmonster 4y ago
I appreciate your response, and wanted to make a few quick points to your uncharacteristically (for HN) reasonable rebuttal. I just want to give a little nutshell version of my thoughts here because this is a very long and nuanced discussion that might not work best on HN. > I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. Ultimately as a philosophy, I'm not super in favor of the concept of nations either. However, so long as we exist in a world with governments, somebody is making your area's rules. If it's not your group, it's outsiders who vote with their feet and who are going to decide it for you, to their own economic and cultural advantage and not necessarily yours. Completely unfettered mass migration would not be as objectionable if we were living in a more libertarian system: no welfare state, no subsidized transportation, no rules preventing the right of free association, etc. Then everybody is just their own person who poses no potential of financial burden on you with their presence and who you're not forced to associate with if you don't want to. The problem is that you can't have both a massive welfare state and unfettered immigration without posing many significant problems for the native population. > What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Please note that I didn't explicitly make the argument that migrants are driving out current inhabitants. I simply made an economics point about housing prices. All other things being equal, the demand for housing increasing would tend to increase the price, right?
jnash 4y ago
The logic is that if your house can only comfortable accommodate 4 people then it makes sense to say no to the 100 people who also wants to move in. Resources are not infinite. The same goes with culture. The more people you add to a culture who doesn't care about or understand your culture, the more your culture will be destroyed.

logicalmonster 4y ago

I appreciate your response, and wanted to make a few quick points to your uncharacteristically (for HN) reasonable rebuttal. I just want to give a little nutshell version of my thoughts here because this is a very long and nuanced discussion that might not work best on HN. > I don’t find this to be a useful line of thought most times because it’s extraordinarily nationalistic. Ultimately as a philosophy, I'm not super in favor of the concept of nations either. However, so long as we exist in a world with governments, somebody is making your area's rules. If it's not your group, it's outsiders who vote with their feet and who are going to decide it for you, to their own economic and cultural advantage and not necessarily yours. Completely unfettered mass migration would not be as objectionable if we were living in a more libertarian system: no welfare state, no subsidized transportation, no rules preventing the right of free association, etc. Then everybody is just their own person who poses no potential of financial burden on you with their presence and who you're not forced to associate with if you don't want to. The problem is that you can't have both a massive welfare state and unfettered immigration without posing many significant problems for the native population. > What logic justifies saying that migrants are driving out current inhabitants? Please note that I didn't explicitly make the argument that migrants are driving out current inhabitants. I simply made an economics point about housing prices. All other things being equal, the demand for housing increasing would tend to increase the price, right?

jnash 4y ago

The logic is that if your house can only comfortable accommodate 4 people then it makes sense to say no to the 100 people who also wants to move in. Resources are not infinite. The same goes with culture. The more people you add to a culture who doesn't care about or understand your culture, the more your culture will be destroyed.