6 ms·

> It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legall

> It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. So “making it easier to immigrate legally” misses the point completely. No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Somehow, these arguments only ever seem to rachet in favor of people who want less immigration, not more. I'd say the federal government of the United States is currently overriding my preferences about who to allow into the country and how many, actually, by aggressively enforcing immigration laws in ways they likely were not intended to be enforced, and in ways which are repeatedly being found to be illegal, actually. > And it’s equally clear that certain parts of the country are culturally better than other parts of the country. America would be much more orderly and well governed if more of it was like Minnesota and Utah and less like West Virginia or New Jersey. You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with. Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when?

yes_really 11mo ago
> > It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. > No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Then that's your preference, that's not society's determination! We theoretically live in a democracy. Policy should be determined by the Rule of Law determined democratically, not by @ivraatiems's preference.
rayiner 11mo ago
> What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Your view doesn't reflect the electorate. Cato, an extremely pro-immigration organization, did a study in 2021. They found that, after being informed about current immigration levels, the median respondent stated 500,000 immigrants should be admitted to the US annually: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_3x/public/2021-04/4_Chart.jpg?itok=0qwVlGAi https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_3x/pu.... A recent Pew study found that 11 million immigrants arrived from 2020-2025, or over 2 million per year. That's four times what the median American thinks the immigration influx should be. The New York Times did a great podcast about how Congress has been (falsely) promising since the 1960s that changes to immigration laws would not result in increased immigration: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... > You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with. It's not purely subjective. Communities in America settled by Puritans, Quakers, Dutch, Scandinavians, and Mormons simply do better on objective metrics. For example, a UCLA study found that Mormon men live 10 years longer than white men generally: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves.... The two states with the highest social mobility (Utah and Vermont: https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-50-states https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-5...) are polar opposites politically, but are similar in that both were settled by people from particular parts of Britain. But the subjective matters as well. Lee Kuan Yew visited London in the 1960s, and was amazed by an unattended news stand in Piccadilly Circus with an "honor system" cash box: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/1mn8moh/how_do_you_return_london_to_the_one_that_lee_kwan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/1mn8moh/how_do_you_.... As someone from Bangladesh, I fully concur. My preference is the opposite of Bangladesh, something like an orderly New England town full of high-social trust people who raise their kids with sayings like "there's no such thing as a free lunch." > Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when? Appalachia was settled by people from a culturally distinct region of northern Britain: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/four-folkways https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/four-folkways. Hundreds of years later, this group remains culturally and sociologically distinct from other British Americans.
- ivraatiems 11mo ago
  > My preference is the opposite of Bangladesh, something like an orderly New England town full of high-social trust people who raise their kids with sayings like "there's no such thing as a free lunch." How do you reconcile your preference for this with the fact that a lot of the other people who express this preference would prefer you hadn't come from Bangladesh to join them? It really seems to me, genuinely, like the rules you advocate for would exclude you if they were applied to you today. You can read elsewhere on my profile the story of my Indian roommate who had very similar views to you, and his illegal deportation. The system is not and has never been "let's see if you're the sort of Indian or Bangladeshi or whatever that we'd like", it's "you're from those backwaters? no thanks." Does it bother you that other people from Bangladesh - or anywhere - who wanted the sort of society you want will likely not be permitted to join it if you build it here? Frankly, my experience with a lot of non-immigrant folks with the views you espouse is that they wouldn't welcome you no matter what views you had.
  - jacquesm 11mo ago
    That's the problem with the views expressed by the GP. It's rights for me but not for thee right up until the moment that the knock on the door comes and then suddenly they're wondering why nobody stands up for them. In general kicking the door shut behind you is bad form but I can understand it, especially if you're financially successful, then you don't want to be associated with all of those really bad and embarrassingly poor people from $COUNTRY that you or your parents emigrated from. But ultimately it is an intellectually dishonest position, those illegal immigrants are no less people for trying to improve their lives and since they are not a drain on the system (healthcare, voting and other rights are closed off to them) their net positive effect is actually a massive economic boost for the country. But that is not something you'll be able to explain to someone who has set their mind on 'illegal immigrants bad'. It is interesting that this is now the 'conservative viewpoint' when actually it is just racism masquerading as enforcement of the law. If and when that difference manifests in the GPs life it will be too late.
    - rayiner 11mo ago

yes_really 11mo ago

> > It’s bad because it overrides society’s determinations about which foreigners to allow into the country and how many. > No it doesn't. What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Then that's your preference, that's not society's determination! We theoretically live in a democracy. Policy should be determined by the Rule of Law determined democratically, not by @ivraatiems's preference.

rayiner 11mo ago

> What if I want more foreigners? What if I want people to come here? Your view doesn't reflect the electorate. Cato, an extremely pro-immigration organization, did a study in 2021. They found that, after being informed about current immigration levels, the median respondent stated 500,000 immigrants should be admitted to the US annually: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_3x/public/2021-04/4_Chart.jpg?itok=0qwVlGAi https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_3x/pu.... A recent Pew study found that 11 million immigrants arrived from 2020-2025, or over 2 million per year. That's four times what the median American thinks the immigration influx should be. The New York Times did a great podcast about how Congress has been (falsely) promising since the 1960s that changes to immigration laws would not result in increased immigration: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... > You need to add a "to my preference" here when you talk about which parts of the country are "culturally better" than others. You clearly have strong ideas about what you'd like US culture to be, many of which I suspect I deeply disagree with. It's not purely subjective. Communities in America settled by Puritans, Quakers, Dutch, Scandinavians, and Mormons simply do better on objective metrics. For example, a UCLA study found that Mormon men live 10 years longer than white men generally: https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves-mormons-live-longer https://www.deseret.com/2010/4/13/20375744/ucla-study-proves.... The two states with the highest social mobility (Utah and Vermont: https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-50-states https://www.archbridgeinstitute.org/social-mobility-in-the-5...) are polar opposites politically, but are similar in that both were settled by people from particular parts of Britain. But the subjective matters as well. Lee Kuan Yew visited London in the 1960s, and was amazed by an unattended news stand in Piccadilly Circus with an "honor system" cash box: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/1mn8moh/how_do_you_return_london_to_the_one_that_lee_kwan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/1mn8moh/how_do_you_.... As someone from Bangladesh, I fully concur. My preference is the opposite of Bangladesh, something like an orderly New England town full of high-social trust people who raise their kids with sayings like "there's no such thing as a free lunch." > Is your argument that West Virginia is "disorderly" or "culturally inferior" because of immigrants? Which groups, and from when? Appalachia was settled by people from a culturally distinct region of northern Britain: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/four-folkways https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/four-folkways. Hundreds of years later, this group remains culturally and sociologically distinct from other British Americans.

ivraatiems 11mo ago
> My preference is the opposite of Bangladesh, something like an orderly New England town full of high-social trust people who raise their kids with sayings like "there's no such thing as a free lunch." How do you reconcile your preference for this with the fact that a lot of the other people who express this preference would prefer you hadn't come from Bangladesh to join them? It really seems to me, genuinely, like the rules you advocate for would exclude you if they were applied to you today. You can read elsewhere on my profile the story of my Indian roommate who had very similar views to you, and his illegal deportation. The system is not and has never been "let's see if you're the sort of Indian or Bangladeshi or whatever that we'd like", it's "you're from those backwaters? no thanks." Does it bother you that other people from Bangladesh - or anywhere - who wanted the sort of society you want will likely not be permitted to join it if you build it here? Frankly, my experience with a lot of non-immigrant folks with the views you espouse is that they wouldn't welcome you no matter what views you had.
- jacquesm 11mo ago
  That's the problem with the views expressed by the GP. It's rights for me but not for thee right up until the moment that the knock on the door comes and then suddenly they're wondering why nobody stands up for them. In general kicking the door shut behind you is bad form but I can understand it, especially if you're financially successful, then you don't want to be associated with all of those really bad and embarrassingly poor people from $COUNTRY that you or your parents emigrated from. But ultimately it is an intellectually dishonest position, those illegal immigrants are no less people for trying to improve their lives and since they are not a drain on the system (healthcare, voting and other rights are closed off to them) their net positive effect is actually a massive economic boost for the country. But that is not something you'll be able to explain to someone who has set their mind on 'illegal immigrants bad'. It is interesting that this is now the 'conservative viewpoint' when actually it is just racism masquerading as enforcement of the law. If and when that difference manifests in the GPs life it will be too late.
  - rayiner 11mo ago