5 ms·

Assuming you're in the US, what is your opinion of the Statue of Liberty? Should we test it down as we no longer want the hungry, sick, and poor? Immigration c

Assuming you're in the US, what is your opinion of the Statue of Liberty? Should we test it down as we no longer want the hungry, sick, and poor? Immigration causes financial issues for welfare programs for sure. But you're abandoning how the US became what we are today if you want to gate entry based on merit or similar metrics.

davidguetta 2y ago
I'm not american but I'm not sure you want to live in what was the US at that time in terms of crime statistics. People in a country should be able to chose whether they want or not other people and how much. It's a basic idea. Also i think you are overlooking the impact of literally barbaric cultures and values that some people are briging through their culture / religion. At least the US immigrants had european heritage. Not all cultures blend well unfortunately...
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > I'm not american but I'm not sure you want to live in what was the US at that time in terms of crime statistics. There's a lot at play when comparing now and then, I don't think its as easy as pegging it fundamentally on immigration laws. Our government was much smaller then. Our legal system was much smaller then. Policing looked much different. We didn't have welfare programs helping those in need. The list goes on and on, pinning crime statistics on immigration impossible. > People in a country should be able to chose whether they want or not other people and how much. It's a basic idea. Maybe, that would depend largely on how much you think the individual matters compared to the collective. Going back to an earlier era with effectively open immigration, our country was driven much more by the rights of the individual than it is today. If that's what most people want there's nothing wrong with that, but the question isn't as simple as people getting to decide who they want to let in.
  - davidguetta 2y ago
    > There's a lot at play when comparing now and then, I don't think its as easy as pegging it fundamentally on immigration laws. Our government was much smaller then. Our legal system was much smaller then. Policing looked much different. We didn't have welfare programs helping those in need. The list goes on and on, pinning crime statistics on immigration impossible. From an external point of view it feels almost ANY US welfare program (starting with education or healthcare for everybody) is terrible compared to the counterpart of Europe ones for example so that's not a good argument for uncontrolled immigration in the US. Then, you'll also see that people is Europe are slowly realizing exactly what I said about some cultures that cannot mix, so maybe the quality of welfare programs have nothing to do with it ? > Maybe, that would depend largely on how much you think the individual matters compared to the collective. Going back to an earlier era with effectively open immigration, our country was driven much more by the rights of the individual than it is today. If that's what most people want there's nothing wrong with that, but the question isn't as simple as people getting to decide who they want to let in. Yeah well indeed when there's not much of a society and you're a new world there's no point to gatekeep, indeed. Once you've reached peak country in economy & some values it thus may be worth trying to preserve the culture that brought you there instead of saying it's "oppression" and it must be "deconstructed" by immigration for example.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > From an external point of view it feels almost ANY US welfare program (starting with education or healthcare for everybody) is terrible compared to the counterpart of Europe ones for example so that's not a good argument for uncontrolled immigration in the US. If you're comparing welfare programs based on cost of the program to the financial benefits to the average person, I'd totally agree. It seems like European programs are generally much better at this than the US. > Then, you'll also see that people is Europe are slowly realizing exactly what I said about some cultures that cannot mix, so maybe the quality of welfare programs have nothing to do with it ? Well this gets to the underlying point, immigration and welfare programs are fundamentally at odds. It sounds like you'd prioritize welfare and accept tradeoffs that limit immigration. I just have the opposite priority, I don't believe its my right to tell someone else they can't live here and accept that means welfare programs can't work.
workingdog 2y ago
We're not governed by poetry on statues. If we decide we're full, that's ok.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Sure, though we shouldn't hold up the poetry or the statue as a symbol of our country then. There is a lot of what went into America that would be (or has been) lost by completely abandoning the idea though. Maybe its worth it, that's not for any one person to decide, but its a huge change and there's always the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It is still a symbol of the country. Settling the US was a meat grinder, and you basically turned up and sank or swam. You weren't ever a cost back then; you were an asset. Now with all the various welfare programmes you can easily become a cost, although of course that's only a proportion of the people coming in, just as it's only a proportion of the people born in the country. But it's silly to equate what happened back then with what's happening now. And it's unfair to hold the US to this standard and not any other country. Particularly when the US takes in more (legal) immigrants than any other country each year.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Totally agree on the challenge with welfare programs. To me that's more a sign that welfare programs were never going to be sustainable though. We still haven't found a way to secure our borders, without that welfare is a blank check. I don't hold other countries to a standard only because I have no say in how the are run. I would actually prefer to see countries freely allowing immigration and emigration, but I'm not going to say anyone else has to or even should. What's often lost, in my opinion, with regards to the statue is that the whole point was that anyone should be able to move here if they want to give it a shot and none should be able to take away that right from anyone else.

davidguetta 2y ago

I'm not american but I'm not sure you want to live in what was the US at that time in terms of crime statistics. People in a country should be able to chose whether they want or not other people and how much. It's a basic idea. Also i think you are overlooking the impact of literally barbaric cultures and values that some people are briging through their culture / religion. At least the US immigrants had european heritage. Not all cultures blend well unfortunately...

_heimdall 2y ago
> I'm not american but I'm not sure you want to live in what was the US at that time in terms of crime statistics. There's a lot at play when comparing now and then, I don't think its as easy as pegging it fundamentally on immigration laws. Our government was much smaller then. Our legal system was much smaller then. Policing looked much different. We didn't have welfare programs helping those in need. The list goes on and on, pinning crime statistics on immigration impossible. > People in a country should be able to chose whether they want or not other people and how much. It's a basic idea. Maybe, that would depend largely on how much you think the individual matters compared to the collective. Going back to an earlier era with effectively open immigration, our country was driven much more by the rights of the individual than it is today. If that's what most people want there's nothing wrong with that, but the question isn't as simple as people getting to decide who they want to let in.
- davidguetta 2y ago
  > There's a lot at play when comparing now and then, I don't think its as easy as pegging it fundamentally on immigration laws. Our government was much smaller then. Our legal system was much smaller then. Policing looked much different. We didn't have welfare programs helping those in need. The list goes on and on, pinning crime statistics on immigration impossible. From an external point of view it feels almost ANY US welfare program (starting with education or healthcare for everybody) is terrible compared to the counterpart of Europe ones for example so that's not a good argument for uncontrolled immigration in the US. Then, you'll also see that people is Europe are slowly realizing exactly what I said about some cultures that cannot mix, so maybe the quality of welfare programs have nothing to do with it ? > Maybe, that would depend largely on how much you think the individual matters compared to the collective. Going back to an earlier era with effectively open immigration, our country was driven much more by the rights of the individual than it is today. If that's what most people want there's nothing wrong with that, but the question isn't as simple as people getting to decide who they want to let in. Yeah well indeed when there's not much of a society and you're a new world there's no point to gatekeep, indeed. Once you've reached peak country in economy & some values it thus may be worth trying to preserve the culture that brought you there instead of saying it's "oppression" and it must be "deconstructed" by immigration for example.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > From an external point of view it feels almost ANY US welfare program (starting with education or healthcare for everybody) is terrible compared to the counterpart of Europe ones for example so that's not a good argument for uncontrolled immigration in the US. If you're comparing welfare programs based on cost of the program to the financial benefits to the average person, I'd totally agree. It seems like European programs are generally much better at this than the US. > Then, you'll also see that people is Europe are slowly realizing exactly what I said about some cultures that cannot mix, so maybe the quality of welfare programs have nothing to do with it ? Well this gets to the underlying point, immigration and welfare programs are fundamentally at odds. It sounds like you'd prioritize welfare and accept tradeoffs that limit immigration. I just have the opposite priority, I don't believe its my right to tell someone else they can't live here and accept that means welfare programs can't work.

workingdog 2y ago

We're not governed by poetry on statues. If we decide we're full, that's ok.

_heimdall 2y ago
Sure, though we shouldn't hold up the poetry or the statue as a symbol of our country then. There is a lot of what went into America that would be (or has been) lost by completely abandoning the idea though. Maybe its worth it, that's not for any one person to decide, but its a huge change and there's always the risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It is still a symbol of the country. Settling the US was a meat grinder, and you basically turned up and sank or swam. You weren't ever a cost back then; you were an asset. Now with all the various welfare programmes you can easily become a cost, although of course that's only a proportion of the people coming in, just as it's only a proportion of the people born in the country. But it's silly to equate what happened back then with what's happening now. And it's unfair to hold the US to this standard and not any other country. Particularly when the US takes in more (legal) immigrants than any other country each year.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Totally agree on the challenge with welfare programs. To me that's more a sign that welfare programs were never going to be sustainable though. We still haven't found a way to secure our borders, without that welfare is a blank check. I don't hold other countries to a standard only because I have no say in how the are run. I would actually prefer to see countries freely allowing immigration and emigration, but I'm not going to say anyone else has to or even should. What's often lost, in my opinion, with regards to the statue is that the whole point was that anyone should be able to move here if they want to give it a shot and none should be able to take away that right from anyone else.