Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[TheHumanHydra]

I'm an ignorant outsider. I'm sure there are reasons, but can someone explain the opposition to immigration to me? I can see three reasons to open the floodgates as widely as possible.

1. Population growth tends to bolster economies.
2. In 50 years, American will require population to fight compete with China.
3. It is more morally laudable and this feels good.

I gather that the opposition is (considered to be)

1. The belief that immigrants will deprive Americans of jobs (possibly true -- people with economics knowledge, how does this measure against the typical economic growth from immigration?).
2. Racist or simply callous disregard for others.

[ipecac]

I gather that the opposition is (considered to be)

1. The belief that immigrants will deprive Americans of jobs (possibly true -- people with economics knowledge, how does this measure against the typical economic growth from immigration?).

2. Racist or simply callous disregard for others.

I'll try to do it using arguments you will be familiar with:

1. (Insert typical left-wing argument against 'trickle-down' ideas, there is some truth to that): the increased wealth from economic growth doesn't trickle down to those at the bottom who lose their jobs (and don't want to hop on unemployed-lifelong-welfare train). Who gets all the increased wealth from immigrants? The immigrants themselves, and the people near the top.

2. Aversion to outsiders and/or favouring insiders is often a healthy thing (insert evolutionary psychology argument), it maintains the integrity and health of the group. Having too fast a rate of immigration without the appropriate assimilation only divides the people in the society, creates social conflict and ends up in that "callous disregard for others" that no one really wants. Diversity increases social friction.

Historically, you can see cycles where the USA opened up immigration too wide for some time then shut it down because of the economic harm and social friction it was causing. It's clearly heading towards another 'shut it down' phase.

[ipecac]

I'm an ignorant outsider. I'm sure there are reasons, but can someone explain the opposition to immigration to me? I can see three reasons to open the floodgates as widely as possible.

1. Population growth tends to bolster economies.
2. In 50 years, American will require population to fight compete with China.
3. It is more morally laudable and this feels good.

1. That's first-order thinking in terms of 'GDP improves, so that's good'. Do they improve them though, in terms of productivity? What are the higher-order effects?
2. Possible but not convincing in itself. Numbers in and of themselves are not everything (as China, India and Africa know).
3. Encouraging immigration is a form of 'beggar thy neighbour' by causing a braindrain of their talent. It is not a laudable thing to take the best talent of the second and third-world because it slows down their development. In fact you're actually harming the poorer countries. (Taking in actual refugees is a different matter.)

Taken to the extreme, what you get from mass immigration extreme welfare at home (because of all the unemployment in the poor black and white communities) as well as extreme welfare to other nations (because you've taken all their best talent and they're struggling to improve).

In real life, we're not at the extreme yet. There's already been revolts all over: Brexit, the election of Trump, Italy, Merkel's ever-shakier position, Denmark, the Visegrad.

[TheHumanHydra]

3. Encouraging immigration is a form of 'beggar thy neighbour' by causing a braindrain of their talent. It is not a laudable thing to take the best talent of the second and third-world because it slows down their development. In fact you're actually harming the poorer countries. (Taking in actual refugees is a different matter.)

Thanks for your responses. Just to clarify, in that particular post I wasn't talking about merit-based immigration but about your poor, huddled masses.

[ipecac]

3. Encouraging immigration is a form of 'beggar thy neighbour' by causing a braindrain of their talent. It is not a laudable thing to take the best talent of the second and third-world because it slows down their development. In fact you're actually harming the poorer countries. (Taking in actual refugees is a different matter.)

Thanks for your responses. Just to clarify, in that particular post I wasn't talking about merit-based immigration but about your poor, huddled masses.

That's even worse.

There's billions of poor, huddled masses out there. To make a dent, you need to take in quite a number, but just a fraction of that is enough to destroy social cohesion and kill the employment of the lower classes.

The 'feel good' part comes at the expense of the lower classes. Past professed caring for them becomes indifference, then eventually despising: 'how dare they vote for Brexit? Or Trump?!'

As an illustration, despite decades of going on about how Thatcher was indifferent to the coal workers etc. etc. the elite of the British left now despise that class because they brought about Brexit. "How dare they?! Alright, **** them!'

[ipecac]

The USA is perhaps the most immigration-friendly society that ever existed. Despite that, after periods of allowing very open immigration it has periods of extreme reaction to it: shut down, severe limits, even mass deportation. Read the history, and you'll see it's a cycle.

And as night follows day, they are entering into another 'shut it down' phase.

[TheHumanHydra]

Well, this is not my area of history, but Canada is perhaps even more built on immigration and as far as I can tell has not but benefitted from it.

[ipecac]

Well, this is not my area of history, but Canada is perhaps even more built on immigration

That has come with its own history of exclusions and deportations too.

and as far as I can tell has not but benefitted from it.

Prepare for a shock then. I can't say what it'll be like, but it'll happen (see Brexit, Trump in the US, Denmark, Italy, and Germany to come at any time).

[AdrienIer]

Ipecac the American lower class didn't elect Trump. "<50k" is the demographic group that voted for Clinton. ">50k" voted for Trump. The white poor voted for Trump in larger numbers than usual, but they're only a subset of that group

[ipecac]

Ipecac the American lower class didn't elect Trump. "<50k" is the demographic group that voted for Clinton. ">50k" voted for Trump. The white poor voted for Trump in larger numbers than usual, but they're only a subset of that group

You have the usual voting blocs behind the two parties, and the decisive factor was the white poor that flipped to Trump.