4 ms·

> Absent other argument, I'd say "where they've been since the 50's" is a good prior to take, no? Please listen to the NYT podcast I linked. In 1950, immigrati

> Absent other argument, I'd say "where they've been since the 50's" is a good prior to take, no? Please listen to the NYT podcast I linked. In 1950, immigration had been severely restricted for three decades, dropping the foreign-born population from 14.7% in 1910 to 5.4% in 1960. Then, Congress enacted Hart-Celler in 1965, but promised that it would not increase immigration. According to Gallup, public support for increasing immigration has never exceeded 34% since that time, and from 1965 to 2000, was under 10%. But in that timeframe, the foreign-born population has grown from a low of 4.7% in 1970 to 15.6% in 2024--higher than it ever was in the 20th century. So no, continuing to ignore the immigration laws Americans voted for and have consistently supported is not a good prior.

acdha 1y ago
> the foreign-born population has grown from a low of 4.7% in 1970 to 15.6% in 2024--higher than it ever was in the 20th century. This is going to be exaggerated by the decline in the domestic birth rate over that same period. It’s widely recognized that the U.S. has avoided the aging population effect seen throughout the advanced economies solely due to allowing more working-age immigrants.
jacquesm 1y ago
And that's a good thing. Who else is going to staff those nursing home full of debilitated nonagenarians?
- rayiner 1y ago
  I care very little about nursing homes. I care a lot more about the deep culture (https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising-the-iceberg-model-of-culture https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising...) of future citizens and voters.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > I care very little about nursing homes. ok. > I care a lot more about the deep culture of future citizens and voters. Yes. The native Americans had some ideas about that too. I find it supremely hypocritical of you, child of immigrants, to start telling a good chunk of the country that you immigrated into (regardless of how they got there) that 'their culture' is not welcome. > https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising-the-iceberg-model-of-culture https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising... Did you even read that link or any of the associated texts? It seems to argue strongly against the thing you care about in isolation. It is all about interaction. And of course culture is more than just the surface. That's what makes it so beautiful. It is a whole interlocking complex of concepts and various cultures interacting and learning/borrowing/stealing bits of culture from each other is how we progress. If not for that you would not be where you are today, and I would be speaking Latin. Immigrants (illegal and otherwise) are not just a part of the United States, they are the United States.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      I linked that page because the iceberg metaphor is extremely useful. The rest of the page is feeler slop. It recognizes that cultural differences are substantive (e.g. concepts of fairness) and not only superficial (e.g. food). But it takes it as axiomatic that mixing those differences necessarily is a good thing. Of course we don't have to take it on faith that mixing cultures is a good thing, we can look at actual results. For example, more than 200 years after they immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers, Dutch Americans are still more successful and orderly along many dimensions even compared to neighboring German Americans. For example, Dutch Americans, along with Mormons, were the two groups of Republicans to vote strongly against Trump in the 2016 primary: https://michaeljdouma.com/2019/05/19/dutch-americans-in-alienated-america https://michaeljdouma.com/2019/05/19/dutch-americans-in-alie.... If you don't care about superficial elements of culture (food, movies), cultural influence from immigrants has made almost no positive impact on American culture. The most functional and orderly communities in the country in 1725 were New England Purtians, and the places populated by their descendants remain so in 2025.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
  - ericfr11 1y ago
    The culture of the future will be built by the people of the present. If not, then, America should go back to being great again with the Apache and the Navajo leading the country!
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > The culture of the future will be built by the people of the present That’s the problem! I am unpersuaded that the people of the present could recreate the America at which Alexander de Tocqueville marveled: http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-To.... American democracy is highly unusual in the world. Indians, for example, have figured out mass voting—within a society where people see government as a parental figure—but they don’t have anything resembling the bottom-up participatory democracy of something like the Iowa Caucuses. I think it’s inevitable (and baked in) that democracy in America will degrade to what it is in most third world countries: masses of low information citizens with little sense of ownership and participation voting for daddy government to care for them.
      - jacquesm 1y ago
        > American democracy is highly unusual in the world. Indeed it is. That's not necessarily a bad thing. There are other countries that show much better what democracy could look like than what the USA is going through. > Indians, for example, have figured out mass voting—within a society where people see government as a parental figure—but they don’t have anything resembling the bottom-up participatory democracy of something like the Iowa Caucuses. Nor do they have gerrymandering. But such singular characteristics are not defining either. Both India, the USA and in fact much of the planet have issues in terms of government, participation and representation. It is however pretty rare to see a nominal democracy turn into an autocracy overnight. Rarer still that this is being cheered on by those that stand the least to gain from the change. > I think it’s inevitable (and baked in) that democracy in America will degrade to what it is in most third world countries: masses of low information citizens with little sense of ownership and participation voting for daddy government to care for them. That is one possible outcome. There are many others and quite a few of them a lot worse than that. Currently, based on how things are going we are not on a worldline (to use a popular term) where the outcome that you sketch is inevitable at all.
ericfr11 1y ago
Which proves that immigration is a good thing
- rayiner 1y ago
  The orderliness of American and society has been in consistent decline since 1965. Our ability to organize and follow the law peaked around that time.
- cmxch 1y ago
  …for everyone but the citizens it displaces. You want people to believe it’s good? Cut huge checks from the companies that won’t hire citizens, to the citizens.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > …for everyone but the citizens it displaces. That never happened. Except in the former USSR where whole areas were depopulated to be restocked with Russians. > You want people to believe it’s good? Cut huge checks from the companies that won’t hire citizens, to the citizens. Yes, that's called a social security system and it is being done in plenty of countries in the world.
    - cmxch 1y ago
      Social Security doesn’t have the company issue the payment. At least directly. The idea is to give the displacing firm or firms an understanding of just whom they’re affecting.

acdha 1y ago

> the foreign-born population has grown from a low of 4.7% in 1970 to 15.6% in 2024--higher than it ever was in the 20th century. This is going to be exaggerated by the decline in the domestic birth rate over that same period. It’s widely recognized that the U.S. has avoided the aging population effect seen throughout the advanced economies solely due to allowing more working-age immigrants.

jacquesm 1y ago

And that's a good thing. Who else is going to staff those nursing home full of debilitated nonagenarians?

rayiner 1y ago
I care very little about nursing homes. I care a lot more about the deep culture (https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising-the-iceberg-model-of-culture https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising...) of future citizens and voters.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > I care very little about nursing homes. ok. > I care a lot more about the deep culture of future citizens and voters. Yes. The native Americans had some ideas about that too. I find it supremely hypocritical of you, child of immigrants, to start telling a good chunk of the country that you immigrated into (regardless of how they got there) that 'their culture' is not welcome. > https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising-the-iceberg-model-of-culture https://opengecko.com/geckoview/interculturalism/visualising... Did you even read that link or any of the associated texts? It seems to argue strongly against the thing you care about in isolation. It is all about interaction. And of course culture is more than just the surface. That's what makes it so beautiful. It is a whole interlocking complex of concepts and various cultures interacting and learning/borrowing/stealing bits of culture from each other is how we progress. If not for that you would not be where you are today, and I would be speaking Latin. Immigrants (illegal and otherwise) are not just a part of the United States, they are the United States.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    I linked that page because the iceberg metaphor is extremely useful. The rest of the page is feeler slop. It recognizes that cultural differences are substantive (e.g. concepts of fairness) and not only superficial (e.g. food). But it takes it as axiomatic that mixing those differences necessarily is a good thing. Of course we don't have to take it on faith that mixing cultures is a good thing, we can look at actual results. For example, more than 200 years after they immigrated to the U.S. in large numbers, Dutch Americans are still more successful and orderly along many dimensions even compared to neighboring German Americans. For example, Dutch Americans, along with Mormons, were the two groups of Republicans to vote strongly against Trump in the 2016 primary: https://michaeljdouma.com/2019/05/19/dutch-americans-in-alienated-america https://michaeljdouma.com/2019/05/19/dutch-americans-in-alie.... If you don't care about superficial elements of culture (food, movies), cultural influence from immigrants has made almost no positive impact on American culture. The most functional and orderly communities in the country in 1725 were New England Purtians, and the places populated by their descendants remain so in 2025.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
- ericfr11 1y ago
  The culture of the future will be built by the people of the present. If not, then, America should go back to being great again with the Apache and the Navajo leading the country!
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > The culture of the future will be built by the people of the present That’s the problem! I am unpersuaded that the people of the present could recreate the America at which Alexander de Tocqueville marveled: http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf http://seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/LojkoMiklos/Alexis-de-To.... American democracy is highly unusual in the world. Indians, for example, have figured out mass voting—within a society where people see government as a parental figure—but they don’t have anything resembling the bottom-up participatory democracy of something like the Iowa Caucuses. I think it’s inevitable (and baked in) that democracy in America will degrade to what it is in most third world countries: masses of low information citizens with little sense of ownership and participation voting for daddy government to care for them.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      > American democracy is highly unusual in the world. Indeed it is. That's not necessarily a bad thing. There are other countries that show much better what democracy could look like than what the USA is going through. > Indians, for example, have figured out mass voting—within a society where people see government as a parental figure—but they don’t have anything resembling the bottom-up participatory democracy of something like the Iowa Caucuses. Nor do they have gerrymandering. But such singular characteristics are not defining either. Both India, the USA and in fact much of the planet have issues in terms of government, participation and representation. It is however pretty rare to see a nominal democracy turn into an autocracy overnight. Rarer still that this is being cheered on by those that stand the least to gain from the change. > I think it’s inevitable (and baked in) that democracy in America will degrade to what it is in most third world countries: masses of low information citizens with little sense of ownership and participation voting for daddy government to care for them. That is one possible outcome. There are many others and quite a few of them a lot worse than that. Currently, based on how things are going we are not on a worldline (to use a popular term) where the outcome that you sketch is inevitable at all.

ericfr11 1y ago

Which proves that immigration is a good thing

rayiner 1y ago
The orderliness of American and society has been in consistent decline since 1965. Our ability to organize and follow the law peaked around that time.
cmxch 1y ago
…for everyone but the citizens it displaces. You want people to believe it’s good? Cut huge checks from the companies that won’t hire citizens, to the citizens.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  > …for everyone but the citizens it displaces. That never happened. Except in the former USSR where whole areas were depopulated to be restocked with Russians. > You want people to believe it’s good? Cut huge checks from the companies that won’t hire citizens, to the citizens. Yes, that's called a social security system and it is being done in plenty of countries in the world.
  - cmxch 1y ago
    Social Security doesn’t have the company issue the payment. At least directly. The idea is to give the displacing firm or firms an understanding of just whom they’re affecting.