4 ms·

Letting in a lot of smart people benefits the citizens of the United States, that's why I said it's a win-win. Do you think we'd be better off if we excluded Mu

Letting in a lot of smart people benefits the citizens of the United States, that's why I said it's a win-win. Do you think we'd be better off if we excluded Musk to hire a native-born American instead in our aerospace industry? Just going back in time, do you think the US would be better off if we'd excluded Irish immigrants? Italians? Germans? If blocking immigration somehow benefits native-born citizens, you'd logically have to think our population should have stayed the same as it was when we broke away from Britain. We'd be about the size of say Colombia, maybe with a bit higher GPD

vkou 2y ago
> Do you think we'd be better off if we excluded Musk to hire a native-born American instead in our aerospace industry? Given where he ended up, probably. Cheap rockets are nice, but speed-running a complete destruction of public trust, culture, and of any illusion that the country is one with rule of law for the benefit of a few insecure billionaire narcissists is a juice that wasn't worth the squeeze.
- mlindner 2y ago
  Elon Musk is in fact incredibly popular, even if he is highly polarizing. His poll numbers are similar to Trumps and Trump won the national election.
  - vkou 2y ago
    Telling me that Musk is incredibly popular in Texas or Alabama is like me telling you that Putin is incredibly popular in Moscow. 'Strongmen' authoritarians peddling revanchist fantasies that'll make their country great again are often popular. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's a net good. The man himself is an insecure narcissist who can't let any slight, real or imagined go unanswered. It would be sad and funny if he didn't own a speech platform, or hitch himself to an absolutely insane political movement.
    - mlindner 2y ago
      Yes the Falcon 9 and Starship rockets are fantasies... /s
remarkEon 2y ago
The current immigration regime is still relatively new, it is not as if it has existed for the entirety of the existence of the United States. It's an artifact of the late 20th century, and only just now accelerated in the early 21st. That's barely a single generation. So, no, I don't take it as a given that essentially limitless immigration - even if loosely constrained on "high skill" - is somehow axiomatically good for the United States.
- hash872 2y ago
  I'm a little confused. It's possible to be very pedantic and say that the current immigration law only dates back to the 60s, but the population of the United States is 97.9% not from this continent. There was a wave of British, Spanish, and French immigration in the 17th & 18th centuries, followed by Germans, Italians, and Irish in the 19th & 20th. In the 19th century the legal regime about immigration was literally 'open borders', there were hardly any legal controls at all. The vast vast majority of us are the descendants of immigrants (my apologies if you personally are 100% Native American, didn't mean to lump you in)
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    I think you're the one being overly pedantic if you only qualify 100% Native American as "American". This country isn't just some economic zone that people come to and from for the purposes of commercial or business activity. If that's all it was, then a much more lax or liberal immigration regime would make perfect sense. >but the population of the United States is 97.9% not from this continent. This would be a surprise to the 85% of us who were actually born here. In its most simplified form, what those of us who are skeptical of the current immigration regime are wondering out loud is if these processes do actually make "people born in America" better off. "Immigration is always good" has been the mantra since, as you speculate, the 1960s. Probably worth evaluating that idea from first principles from time to time.
    - hash872 2y ago
      But we're all descended from immigrants. Do you think it was wrong when the British & Italian & Irish & German all moved here en masse? Assuming no, what would be different about the latest wave of immigrants?

vkou 2y ago

> Do you think we'd be better off if we excluded Musk to hire a native-born American instead in our aerospace industry? Given where he ended up, probably. Cheap rockets are nice, but speed-running a complete destruction of public trust, culture, and of any illusion that the country is one with rule of law for the benefit of a few insecure billionaire narcissists is a juice that wasn't worth the squeeze.

mlindner 2y ago
Elon Musk is in fact incredibly popular, even if he is highly polarizing. His poll numbers are similar to Trumps and Trump won the national election.
- vkou 2y ago
  Telling me that Musk is incredibly popular in Texas or Alabama is like me telling you that Putin is incredibly popular in Moscow. 'Strongmen' authoritarians peddling revanchist fantasies that'll make their country great again are often popular. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's a net good. The man himself is an insecure narcissist who can't let any slight, real or imagined go unanswered. It would be sad and funny if he didn't own a speech platform, or hitch himself to an absolutely insane political movement.
  - mlindner 2y ago
    Yes the Falcon 9 and Starship rockets are fantasies... /s

remarkEon 2y ago

The current immigration regime is still relatively new, it is not as if it has existed for the entirety of the existence of the United States. It's an artifact of the late 20th century, and only just now accelerated in the early 21st. That's barely a single generation. So, no, I don't take it as a given that essentially limitless immigration - even if loosely constrained on "high skill" - is somehow axiomatically good for the United States.

hash872 2y ago
I'm a little confused. It's possible to be very pedantic and say that the current immigration law only dates back to the 60s, but the population of the United States is 97.9% not from this continent. There was a wave of British, Spanish, and French immigration in the 17th & 18th centuries, followed by Germans, Italians, and Irish in the 19th & 20th. In the 19th century the legal regime about immigration was literally 'open borders', there were hardly any legal controls at all. The vast vast majority of us are the descendants of immigrants (my apologies if you personally are 100% Native American, didn't mean to lump you in)
- remarkEon 2y ago
  I think you're the one being overly pedantic if you only qualify 100% Native American as "American". This country isn't just some economic zone that people come to and from for the purposes of commercial or business activity. If that's all it was, then a much more lax or liberal immigration regime would make perfect sense. >but the population of the United States is 97.9% not from this continent. This would be a surprise to the 85% of us who were actually born here. In its most simplified form, what those of us who are skeptical of the current immigration regime are wondering out loud is if these processes do actually make "people born in America" better off. "Immigration is always good" has been the mantra since, as you speculate, the 1960s. Probably worth evaluating that idea from first principles from time to time.
  - hash872 2y ago
    But we're all descended from immigrants. Do you think it was wrong when the British & Italian & Irish & German all moved here en masse? Assuming no, what would be different about the latest wave of immigrants?