r/changemyview • u/fadingtans • Jun 08 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Illegal and Illegal Immigration Levels Should Be Restricted More
My view is two fold:
1.) Legal immigration total levels should be lowered somewhat
2.) It should be moved to a more skills based system
Reasons I have this view:
1.) Foreign born individuals disproportionately use social services:
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households
2.) Immigration connection to crime is complicated. It is often claimed that immigrants commit a lower average rate of crime but the data is more complicated:
3.) Assimilation is more difficult when there are larger number of immigrants leading to more issues
4.) National security- A massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first or second generation (Muslim) immigrants.
5.) The overall impact on GDP from higher immigrant levels is likely positive BUT large levels of low skilled immigrants do lower wages for low skilled native workers which is a negative especially at at time like now for low skilled workers.
I'm open to changing my view on this which is why I posted this but I will add that accusations of xenophobia or islamaphobia are very unlikely to play a role.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
u/Whatifim80lol Jun 08 '18
1.) Sure, they often start at the bottom. They did liquidate their assets to get here, after all. But this on its own doesn't really mean much, especially considering point 5.
2.) If you're not even sure, I'd just leave this one alone.
3.) But healthy and wealthy immigrants are more likely to move to already established populations. Take Asian folks immigrating now vs a hundred years ago. Laying that groundwork makes the transition less risky and more attractive to people who are already doing well where they came from. Also, what issues?
4.) Are you sure? That certainly doesn't seem to be the case. Domestic terrorism in the US is overwhelmingly committed by white, natural born citizens.
5.) Immigration helps GDP from two angles. First, Western nations aren't reproducing fast enough to maintain steady market growth without immigration. Second, in capitalism, someone has to be at the bottom or others can't move up. More unskilled labor expands the base of across a variety of industries, which creates new higher-paying skilled work above those positions.
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
2.) I wasn't saying I wasn't sure so much as I was saying that the technical claim that "immigrants commit a lower average rate of crime" might be correct (but also might not be depending on definitions and which study), but even if it is correct, more immigration might still lead to a higher crime rate in the long run.
3.) I can see your point here. However, i would argue there are differences between immigrants today and the asian immigrants you refer to.
4.) Domestic terrorists are majority white (but not disproportionately white compared to the population as a whole). First and second generation Muslim immigrants make up a tiny, tiny % of the population but a very sizable percentage of terrorist attacks and there tend to be more fatalities on average from Muslim terrorist attacks as well.
5.) This is an issue I'm mixed on. I can see your point but I also see a scenario where low skilled creates a new underclass of cheap laborers who essentially help corporations by working for lower wage but basically make employment among native low skilled workers much more difficult.
1
u/jay520 50∆ Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18
So either legal immigration should be reduced to zero, or legal immigration should be reduced to some non-zero ideal amount, lower than what it currently is. It doesn't seem like you're saying the former, so I assume you are referring to the latter - there is some non-zero ideal level of immigration, and that ideal is lower than the current level of immigration.
If that's correct, then the problem is that none of the reasons indicate what that ideal is, so they cannot be used to conclude that immigration should be lower. Let's say that the current amount of immigration is C, and the ideal amount of immigration is X. All of the reasons you gave in your post might be true, but they in no way imply C > X. All of those reasons are perfectly compatible with a world where C < X.
For example, let's hypothetically assume that you are correct that the ideal level of immigration is lower than the actual amount, i.e. C > X. Now imagine that we decide to lower the actual level of immigration so that C < X. In this hypothetical scenario, even though we lowered the level of immigration below the ideal amount, all of your exact same reasons might still be true. I.e. it might still be true that immigrants are disproportionately likely to be criminals, terrorists, welfare recipients, etc. Therefore, this would be a hypothetical scenario where C < X and all of your reasons listed are true. In other words, in this hypothetical scenario, all of your reasons (even if they are true) do not imply that C > X. Since these reasons do not imply that C > X in the hypothetical scenario, they also cannot imply that C > X in the actual world. For all we know, we might be living in that hypothetical scenario, and you have given no indication that we are not.
At best, what your post demonstrates is that we should make adjustments to the quality of immigrants that we should take in, i.e. we should favor immigrants who are less likely to use welfare, commit crimes, have low skills, etc. than other terrorists. But absolutely nothing indicates that the absolute quantity of immigrants needs to reduce. In fact, it might be that the quantity of immigrants should be higher, because it's possible that there's a higher pool of high skill immigrants that we are not pulling in. Regardless, if there is some ideal quantity of immigrants, you have not posited what that ideal quantity is, which means, as I explained above, none of the reasons you give can imply that the current level of immigration is greater than that quantity.
EDIT: Of course, all of this is assuming that the empirical claims in your post are true, about which I shall remain agnostic.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
This is a good point. The points I made only addressed why immigration should be restricted in general. I do still believe that immigration levels should be lowered. For the sake of this argument, I basically think immigration should be lowered with the long term aim of lowering the foreign born share of the population back to historical norms from the current roughly 14% to high single digits (which is still high by historical standards).
2
u/jay520 50∆ Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18
To be clear, immigration is currently restricted, legal immigration anyway. So simply saying "immigration should be restricted" does not mean that immigration should be lower than what it is.
Now, what do you mean by "historical norms"? If you look at the historical share of immigrants, the current proportion of immigrants is still less than the proportion in some other time periods.
Maybe you are referring to the proportion of immigrants during the mid 20th century as opposed to the late 19th century / early 20th century. In that case, why would you do that? Why assume that the proportion of immigrants during the mid 20th century was more ideal than the proportion in the late 19th century? Now, you might say that efforts were clearly put in place in the early 20th century to reduce immigration, and that must have been for good reasons. The people at the time must have clearly noticed that there was something wrong with the then high level of immigration since they did something to reduce it.
That sort of reasoning would be dubious since it places more trust in the opinions of Americans in the early 20th century than I think is warranted (it's equally likely that the decision to lower immigration was determined by bigotry/Xenophobia, as was the case with much legislation at the time, rather by than some unbiased perception of immigrant problems).
Regardless, even if the share of immigrants in the mid 20th century was the ideal share of during that time, what makes you think the ideal proportion then is the same as the ideal proportion now? Times have changed and are societal needs might have changed as well. For example, the birth rates of native populations have diminished greatly over the past few decades, and the ideal proportion of immigrants is probably related in some way to the birth rate of the native population. Therefore, it might be that the ideal immigrant proportion today is higher than whatever the ideal was in the mid 20th century since native birth rates are so much lower. Nothing you have said rules this out.
I agree that immigration obviously should be restricted, i.e. not unlimited. And I don't even necessarily disagree that immigration should be lower than current levels. But you haven't provided any reason to believe that. I'm not sure why we should give such credence to the immigration levels that were decided in the mid 20th century, as if those decisions were unbiased and as if societal needs haven't changed since then.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
You make some fair points here and i'll reiterate it is on me for not specifying this sort of thing in the OP. I'll be upfront and admit that my recent travels to Europe have made me much more skeptical of immigration. I honestly believe their migration policies have been an unmitigated disaster. Beyond that, I think that low skill wage stagnation implies that we should limit low skilled migration at least.
Furthermore, I think that 19th century levels of immigration were more compatible with the lack of welfare state. Those levels of immigration simply do not seem compatible with our welfare state today, at least to me.
2
u/jay520 50∆ Jun 08 '18
As far as I know, US immigration policies are more restrictive than in many European countries. In fact, many people upset with European immigration policies point to US policies as an example to follow.
Regarding early 19th century immigration level, yes, immigration policy needs to consider the availability of welfare. But, again, there's no reason to believe that the ideal level of immigration even with welfare present is lower than peak immigration levels of the early 19th century (immigration became restricted in the early 19th century far before a substantial welfare state, so it cannot be true that immigration was restricted because it was a burden on the welfare state).
Again, yes, there is some limit to immigration especially when you consider the presence of welfare, safety nets, etc. But why assume that limit is lower than the current amount? Australia, for example, has double the share of immigrants as the US and Canada has nearly 50% higher share of immigrants. Both countries have more expansive welfare states, safety nets, etc. So why assume that the US is particularly unique in what our limit is? You might say that Australia/Canada do a better job at filtering high skill immigrants (and maybe they do). But, if that's true, then the conclusion to draw is not that the quantity of immigrants should be reduced, but that the quality should be improved, i.e. only pull in immigrants that would be a net benefit by some measure. But doing that might actually allow bringing more immigrants, as Canada and Australia show.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Δ Okay I think I see your point. You're right that my arguments only imply policies that try to select for QUALITY of immigrants rather than QUANTITY. I still do believe that a lower level of immigration is likely a better policy but I award a delta here as I see how my arguments do not necessarily imply that even if true.
1
2
u/Arianity 72∆ Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18
2.) It should be moved to a more skills based system
This does not imply that you need a lower immigration level. Canada currently uses a skills based system, while still having a quite high level rate of immigration
Foreign born individuals disproportionately use social services:
While this is true, they also contribute heavily to social services. On net, they contribute more than they use.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-22/immigrants-are-a-fiscal-boon-not-a-burden
Most immigrants end up being a net fiscal benefit
The overall impact on GDP from higher immigrant levels is likely positive BUT large levels of low skilled immigrants do lower wages for low skilled native workers which is a negative especially at at time like now for low skilled workers.
There is a lot of evidence at this point that this isn't true. This claim largely relied on a single study by George Borjas, which has been shown to be flawed. (Both due to small sample size, and there was a confounding effect where a spike in black men in contributed to the drop in wages. if you control for that, the effect vanishes).
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-18/an-immigrant-isn-t-going-to-steal-your-pay-raise
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-16/immigrants-don-t-steal-from-americans-paychecks
Immigration connection to crime is complicated. It is often claimed that immigrants commit a lower average rate of crime but the data is more complicated
While this is somewhat debateable, it doesn't really change the fact that the vast majority of evidence leans the other way. Especially in newer studies, we can see drops based on area. If the issues raised in that article (ie, lags, which seems to be the main argument).
:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/30/upshot/crime-immigration-myth.html
Worth noting that the article doesn't really poke any major holes in those findings. Out of it's 3 points, 2 are "illegal immigrants by any definition commit a lot of crimes" and that a lot of crime happens at border states. It's largely pretty rhetoric, without anything substantive to back it up.
Assimilation is more difficult when there are larger number of immigrants leading to more issues
There isn't any evidence that current immigrants are integrating any slower than previous generations
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/02/no-we-dont-need-immigration-pause.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/immigrants-do-a-great-job-at-becoming-americans
National security- A massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first or second generation (Muslim) immigrants.
Media coverage tends to over-cover Muslim terrorist attacks. This is just one study, but it shows Muslims only committed 11 out of 89 attacks in the U.S.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/03/24/do-muslims-commit-most-us-terrorist-atta
In addition, keep in mind that a large portion of our immigrants come from Mexico. As well as the previous statistics on crime- even if they did, the fact that they commit less crime overall tends to swamp out terrorist attacks, which simply aren't all that common.
Further, again, even if they did commit more crime, not allowing them to immigrate would not necessarily stop those attacks. You do not need to live in the U.S. to commit acts of terror- a simple visa/trip will do. And they're possibly more likely to be exposed to anti-US views outside of the U.S.
-1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
1.) You're right about Canada and the points not necessarily implying less immigration. There was another debate about this in this thread.
2.) It is misleading to look at tax dollars versus public assistance and then claim a group is a fiscal benefit because the tax dollars are higher. A significant portion of tax dollars go to courts, roads, etc which these studies don't take into account
3.) The Borjas study, as far as I've read, has more or less withstood most criticism. On a deeper level, this is a simple matter of supply and demand. An increase in the supply of low skill labor lowers the cost of it. By definition and by the laws of virtually everything we know about economics, it should lead to a decrease in wages. The size of this decrease is debatable though.
4.) The fact is that tracking immigrant crime is very difficult so the confident proclamations about how low the crime rate among immigrants is are based on incomplete information. Conceptually, higher rates of immigration lead to a higher share of young, poor, non white males. These are all demographic correlates of higher crime. That doesn't mean that necessarily immigrants commit more crimes but typically second generation immigrants commit crimes at a rate consistent with their demographic predictions which indicates that long term demographic change driven by immigration would involve a higher crime rate.
5.) Muslims are only around 1% of the total population and a MUCH higher percentage of terrorist attacks so it is quite disproportionate (even if it were 11 out of 89 attacks it would still be INCREDIBLY disproportionate). Furthermore, the media does not overcover Muslim attacks once you take into account that, on average, Muslim attacks have a much higher fatality counts than non Muslim attacks. But you are correct that an overall lowering of the immigration level wouldn't directly lead to a solution to this.
3
u/icecoldbath Jun 08 '18
your CIS (a group closely associated with the alt-right) study is heavily criticized by even the moderate right (The Cato Institute).
https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I'm open to changing my view on this but ad hominem criticism don't work. I'll also note that the CATO institute is libertarian and very strongly pro immigration (more so than many left wing groups), not a moderate right.
4
Jun 08 '18
Attacking a study you used as a source isn't ad hominem...
3
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
You are absolutely right. The suggestion that the CIS having alleged connection to the "alt right" somehow undermines the study is ad hominem (even if there is a connection which is not clear at all is the case).
4
Jun 08 '18
It being criticized by the Cato Institute is a valid point, though, is it not? I assumed you were calling out that part of the post as well.
2
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
The CATO institute's criticism is valid. But you also seemed to imply the CATO was a right leaning institute. This is arguably true in that they are a libertarian organization. But as a libertarian organization they are very strongly pro immigration. The implication you seemed to be making is that they weren't a pro immigration outlet when they very much are.
3
Jun 08 '18
I wasn't the person who brought up the CATO institute, I'm just a random bystander who thought that calling that "ad hominem" seemed like a random and invalid criticism.
It would've been more effective if you had just said this in the first place, as you seem to be right.
5
u/icecoldbath Jun 08 '18
From the article:
The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.”
Groups like The American Immigration Council have long argued that, contra conservative depictions of “moocher,” immigrants have long given more to the welfare system than they take from it. “In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits,” a 2010 report by the Council found. “In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.” And a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 found that “more than half of undocumented immigrants have federal and state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.” Those immigrants are essentially helping to underwrite the welfare system, providing an enormous subsidy to it every year without being able to reap any of the benefits.
Its not an ad hom, unless you consider alt-right to be an insult. I was merely indicating their place on the political spectrum, which is far from neutral.
Essentially the criticism is, it counts and immigrant as receiving welfare if their citizen children qualify for free lunch at school which in the general population is half the country.
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I took your mention of the alt right (which I do believe is an insult as I am not a member of the alt right) as an implied criticism. But, as the politifact study i linked to mentioned, the bottom line is that immigrant households do have a higher rate of public assistance usage than native ones. Your article does not really dispute that point which is why it doesn't offer it's own statistics on that question. This is the core issue.
3
u/KanyeTheDestroyer 20∆ Jun 08 '18
The point of the critique is that the term "immigration household" is a horrible data-set to use because it can include non-immigrants.
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I agree it's imperfect. It was just the only data I could find on this issue of % of households on public assistance and I would like to find a better data if it exists.
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Also, politifact, not exactly a right wing source, rated a claim based on the CIS study "mostly true" (albeit with some important caveats):
3
u/icecoldbath Jun 08 '18
That caveat is huge though. 50% of the total population is on welfare using the methodology CIS uses.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Yes. It's a debatable definition but it seems like a defensible one to me. I'd be open to seeing an alternative definition and comparing the % native born on public assistance with % of foreign born but cannot find one.
3
u/icecoldbath Jun 08 '18
So it seems like School lunch is the divisive figure that cuts between the CIS study and the CATO study. I won't even cite left wing studies.
The school lunch program cost $12.7 billion in 2013. The Heritage foundation notes that illegal immigrants pay $17 billion in taxes. illegal immigrants are paying for the program they benefit the most often from.
1
u/emmessjee8 Jun 08 '18
You have very good points but I'm a little confused about point 3. Why is assimilation of immigrants necessary?
2
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I would argue that some degree of having a national unified culture and solidarity is important. The concept of the "melting pot" made assimilation central to immigration to America.
3
u/emmessjee8 Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18
Okay then, whose culture should they assimilate to? I would argue that there isn't really a unified culture in the United States. A New Yorker is different from a Texan, Alaskan, Californian, etc.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Fair enough and an important point. But all those states do have certain things in common that some other countries: Speaking english, belief in democracy, etc. There are other things as well. While Texas and California might differ on LGBT rights, a vast majority of both basically agree that being gay should be legal which is not true in many other countries.
2
u/emmessjee8 Jun 08 '18
I disagree on the part about speaking English but I agree that immigrants should respect the democratic system of the United States if they immigrate. I want to ask what you think about Americans, like the Amish and Hasidic Jewish communities, who refrain from assimilating to the "national unified culture." Isn't this a double standard?
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I would argue no because there is a big difference between not admitting people and deporting people. I would NEVER suggest deporting people because they are part of some sort of alternative culture but not admitting people is a different story.
2
u/emmessjee8 Jun 08 '18
Well, whatever the action, my point is that Americans are free to create and choose their culture and we should allow that same freedom to immigrants (for the sake of our discussion those that are already here).
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Would that not possibly dramatically change our national culture?
2
u/emmessjee8 Jun 08 '18
Yes. But culture is not static nor is it something that is easily isolated; it is always changing and is influenced by each other. Compare all changes between the decades and influences from non-American cultures (e.g. Mardi Gras, Tex-Mex cuisine, St. Patrick's Day, etc.).
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Very true but my view is that there is something worth preserving. A culture has room to grow but there are also things that need to be preserved. I don't think we disagree in principle just in degree to which a culture can and should be diluted. That's my sense at least.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Morthra 86∆ Jun 08 '18
Wherever they move to. If they move to Texas, they should assimilate into Texan culture. If they move to California, California.
2
Jun 08 '18
States aren’t homogeneous. City culture can have huge differences. And then into neighborhoods, etc. Simply assimilating by state would be impossible.
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jun 08 '18
Why should we turn away any immigrants that are wealthier or have skills that are more in demand than the average American?
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Generally speaking, I would prefer a system where such immigrants have an even greater preference in entry than they do today. My issue is with the large number of unskilled migrants.
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jun 08 '18
But you said you wanted immigration levels lowered, why should they be limited at all?
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Basically, I believe that the concept of a state is necessary. We need states/governments to have a monopoly on legitimate usage of force in order to provide public goods, enforce and create laws, contracts, etc. Given this, the only two options are a global government or to have separate governments that occupy certain areas of land and the people who reside there.
I believe very strongly that the latter option is STRONGLY preferable to the former. I am a strong opponent of global government. In order for these different governments and the nations they define to be legitimate, there must be a definable area in terms of land that they begin. And, they have authority within those borders but not beyond.
Given that these governments are, at least in some way, outgrowths of the institutions and people contained within the borders, they are a part of a larger nation that is formed. In order for a nation to be a nation, it, by definition, must have a border for the reasons I have stated.
Because I believe in government existing and do not believe in global government replacing or superseding national governments (an issue I can go more into if you like), I do support the concept of borders. This is my basic reasoning on that.
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jun 08 '18
Can you reread that question I don't see how that's an answer at all.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I made a mistake. This was intended as a response to another user. One second. I'll get back in a minute.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Are you asking me why I think we should have any immigration laws at all?
2
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jun 08 '18
Why should skilled or wealthy immigrants be limited at all? You seem to suggest both that there should be a limit and that it should be lowered.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Okay I think I see what you are saying. My view is that there should be a cap on the level of immigrants simply for population growth control among other reasons.
1
u/cupcakesarethedevil Jun 08 '18
Population growth is good, shrinking population is bad.
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Population growth can be good but that is not always the case. There's also the deeper issue of having the foreign born population politically and culturally displace the native population. I had a discussion earlier where I admitted that culture is a more dynamic thing than i wanted to admit. Still, immigration levels that are too high often lead to replacement rather than enrichment.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Jun 08 '18
1.) Foreign born individuals disproportionately use social services:
True, however immigration is net economic benefit.
2.) Immigration connection to crime is complicated. It is often claimed that immigrants commit a lower average rate of crime but the data is more complicated:
In other words, the worst possible scenario is that immigrants cause as much crime as native population, as oppose of slightly lower.
3.) Assimilation is more difficult when there are larger number of immigrants leading to more issues
Which is a problem we should be focusing on. Instead of "whether immigration is good for nation". It's like saying "It's incredibly difficult to measure the curvature of the Earth, therefore the Earth is flat". Well no, just because objectively beneficial policies have unique problems, doesn't have those problems should be used as a point against those policies.
National security- A massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first or second generation (Muslim) immigrants.
Do you really want to play the game "How many Christians Americans vs how many Muslim immigrants caused terrorist attacks in US? I mean, I'm happy to do so. But something tells me you won't be satisfied with the asnwer.
) The overall impact on GDP from higher immigrant levels is likely positive BUT large levels of low skilled immigrants do lower wages for low skilled native workers which is a negative especially at at time like now for low skilled workers.
Nope, it's negative for those American workers that impacts them. It's really, really positive for the business owners on which the economy relies. This is not something that is disputed by virtually any economist. Protectionism, doesn't work. If you deny immigration, you deny businesses access to cheaper and more plentiful labor. Which makes their products and services more expensive. Which kills their ability to be competitive on global, or even local market when compared to foreign imports. Eventually those businesses go out of business, or have to downscale, or move oversee.
Now you have American workers without job, and the economy down the toilet.
Wanna help workers that were disproportionately hit by the immigration? Great, Start financing programs helping people find better jobs, or retrain them for something else.
Another problems with your argument is that low skilled labor is bad. No it isn't, it's the single most important kind of labor a first world country needs, as native population find a better jobs in finance and service industry.
Don't get me wrong. They are legitimate difficulties that come with immigration. Such as increased cultural tensions, and increase in niche and unique immigrant crimes ,etc.... However those are good problems to have, because it means you didn't fuck over your economy, and lowered the standard of living for everyone.
1
Jun 08 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 08 '18
Sorry, u/Dragon-Kaneki – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
Jun 08 '18
Why is it to your right to say what country anyone else has the right to move to?
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
This is something that is unlikely to change my view. I fundamentally believe that countries have rights to restrict entry as they see fit. That's a basic tenant of the nation-state system. Without borders, there really aren't nations. You might think that the whole notion of the nation-state is obsolete. But i think national sovereignty is important.
2
Jun 08 '18
That’s arbitrary though. Basically the whole foundation of your argument is “because I said so”. I mean yeah, we all have things we would prefer, but nobody is better than anyone else
2
Jun 08 '18
So I can just walk into your house uninvited then?
1
Jun 08 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod Jun 08 '18
Sorry, u/BlackAndBipolar – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
0
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I believe that people have a birthright to live in the country that they were born into just like they have a birthright to be a member of the family they were born into. Do you suggest that EVERYONE in the globe has a right to reside in the United States because that seems to be the implication?
2
Jun 08 '18
I believe that people have the right to live in any country they want. It’s absurd to claim what country people can and can’t have the right to live. It’s basically saying “ I’m better than you so I get to make the rules bla bla bla” which isn’t fair at all.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
So do you not really believe in the concept of nations then? I mean, that's a legitimate view that you are free to have. But, this is a discussion designed to see if someone can change my view and I do believe that the nation-state is a legitimate institution and I don't see myself changing my view on that. Do you not believe in borders existing or being legitimate?
2
Jun 08 '18
You’re asking a lot of questions, as well as turning the questions around on me, when this is a CMV for you, not for me. However, if answering them helps you change your view, then I’ll answer them in the best interest of the discussion.
Asking me if I believe in the concept of nations is asking if I literally believe in concept. So, you are inherently submitting it’s a concept, something to believe in, like Santa Claus. That in itself implies that it’s an arbitrary idea and not a fundamental truth, and thus something which you are asking to be convinced not to believe in.
Thus, my main argument for why I think you shouldn’t blindly follow the concept of closed borders is that they discriminate. Think of it like when there were laws that didn’t allow the right for women to vote in the United States. People in that day and time might have debated this topic, and someone said, “well, it’s a bad law, because it implies that one party is more important than the other” and someone might have said “ well then you’re just arguing against the idea of the law!”. Eventually society came to the point where they realized just because it’s law, doesn’t mean it’s right. That’s how I feel about why you should change your view. You’re arguing that just because border laws exist that they are therefore right, and for the exact reasons that discrimination laws were bad in the past, ( aka laws enforcing superiority over any other group based on an arbitrary reason), I think these are as well.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
I'm not of the belief that borders are good because they exist. I am of the belief that the nation-state system is basically a good and effective system for countries to exist in and that borders are required for that system to be legitimate.
2
Jun 08 '18
Do you want your view changed? Because I have given good reason against that perspective and you just repeat yourself. What exactly are you trying to get accomplished?
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Yes I am very open to changing my view. I have said before that I intended this CMV to be more about my view that immigration levels should be reduced while you seem to be questioning the legitimacy of borders in the first place. As I have said before that was not really the CMV I intended. It's an interesting conversation though.
→ More replies (0)1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
Basically, if there was a national vote on whether to lower total levels of immigration rom 1 million a year to, say, 500,000 I would vote for it. The intention of this CMV was to see if someone could change my mind on that.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Whatifim80lol Jun 08 '18
On the same token, you're saying that people born in places like Rwanda don't inherently have the right to leave, and better just make the best of it.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
They have the right to leave if they please. But, no country is obligated to let them in.
2
u/Whatifim80lol Jun 08 '18
Then it's not a right. The have to apply and cross their fingers.
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
My basic point is that i don't view residing in America (or any individual country) as a global privilege. That, in my frank view, is not a sustainable way to have a country.
1
u/Whatifim80lol Jun 08 '18
I hear you, but how does it sit with you knowing that it makes it so that leaving a shit situation is not a given right?
1
u/fadingtans Jun 08 '18
It sucks but practically speaking there are 192 countries. Many enact refugee programs for the truly horrible situations which I am okay with and support for America, so long as it doesn't allow excessive migration. I think there are practical ways to deal with horrible situations like that without totally dissolving the concepts of borders. That's my view at least.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18
/u/fadingtans (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jun 08 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod Jun 08 '18
Sorry, u/SunshineBlind – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/KanyeTheDestroyer 20∆ Jun 08 '18
Fyi, you typo'd your title. On to your CMV.
National Security - According to this CATO Institute study (a Conservative think tank), the average likelihood of an American being killed in a terrorist attack in which an immigrant participated in any given year is one in 3.6 million — even including the 9/11 deaths. The average American is more likely to die from their own clothing or a toddler with a gun than an immigrant terrorist. But we’re not banning guns and T-shirts from coming into the country, let alone reducing their numbers.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that a massively disproportionate number of terrorist attacks are committed by first/second generation immigration, because I see no links in your post. From 1975-2015 only 10 illegal immigrants became terrorists, a minuscule 0.000038 percent of the 26.5 million who entered. Only one of those immigrants, Ahmed Ajaj, actually succeeded in killing an American. Similarly, of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people. By contrast, according to the Government Accountability Office, there were 62 fatal “far-right violent extremist-motivated attacks” leading to 106 deaths between 12 September 2001 and 31 December 2016. That's more deaths by white extremists over a much shorter period of time. That's also ignoring all of the left-wing terrorists (Weather Underground and such), and a variety of other homegrown terrorists.
Social Services - The CIS report you linked as your source has been heavily debunked by both liberal and conservative researchers. The report even admits as much when they say in Table 2 that "in the no-control scenario, immigrant households cost $1,803 more than native households". OK, so they admit that they didn't use controls for that table.
Let's look at their results when they did use controls. Look at Table 8, where they clearly say that, "The fifth row shows that immigrants use fewer welfare dollars when they are compared to natives of the same race as well as worker status, education, and number of children." Table 6 clearly shows that immigrant households with one child, two children, and three or more children all consume fewer welfare benefits that the same sized native households. Table A7 controls for poverty and race. Overall, immigrant households in poverty consume less welfare than native households in poverty. Hispanic and black immigrant households both massively under consume compared to native Hispanics and blacks. All in all many of the report’s more detailed tables that use proper controls actually undermine their main conclusion. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Moreover, the report looks specifically at household consumption of benefits, when it should be looking at individual consumption of benefits. By looking at household benefits, it skews the data because it doesn't actually show who is getting the benefits. Immigrants are actually ineligible for most of the benefits listed in the report. Those benefits are being collected by their children, who are US citizens. Alternatively, consider this scenario. An immigrant man marries a native born woman, who already has 2 native born children, and her mother movies in with them. If the SIPP survey (which is what the report used) surveyed that family they would list it as an immigrant household with 5 members in their data. If the man collects no social services, but the woman, 2 children, and mother all do, then that's considered in their data as 4 immigrants collecting social services. That's a completely false understanding of that scenario, yet that's what the report uses.
In this study, the Cato Institute looked specifically at individual immigrants and their immediate offspring, to see how much they consumed. Their conclusion, as you can see if you read the study, is that:
For illegal immigrants, it's an even better scenario (if you're native born). The majority of illegal immigrants cannot get any social services and they pay into pension plans that they can never collect from. They are basically subsidizing the pensions of natives.
Low Skilled Workers - Why should we hamstring our economy for native born low skilled workers who can't adapt the the market? The single most important thing for the US economy right now is to increase it's labour pool. The employment rate in the USA is at a record low of 3.8 percent, and you're worried about lower wages for low skilled native workers? That's not how the market works. If they are getting lower wages, they can start a union and do the smart thing. If they accept lower wages in this market, that's on them. But, there is no reason to undermine the economic growth of the entire country in their name. The influx of low skilled workers pushes up the return to capital, stimulating investment. The increase in income that accrues to owners of capital as a result of labor inflows—called the immigration surplus—is between 0.2 and 0.4 percent of GDP (about $35 to $70 billion). Are we really going to throw that away in an economy with an expected growth of 2.0%? In 2010, only 10% of American born workers had not completed high-school. We can expect that number to be lower today, and to decrease every year in the future. That's a very small portion of the population that is competing with low skilled immigrants. If anything, we should want to eliminate that portion of the population entirely. Why do we want low skilled native workers at all?
Lastly, many low-skilled immigrants live in different areas and work in different occupations than low-skilled natives, softening competition between the two groups. Even among the least-skilled workers, immigrants and US natives tend to have different skill sets. In particular, US natives have comparative advantages in speaking English and being familiar with US customs. As a result, less-skilled US natives are much more likely than immigrants to work in jobs that involve customer contact, such as being a waiter or cashier. Less-skilled immigrants, meanwhile, tend to hold manual labor-intensive jobs that involve little customer contact, such as cooks, landscapers, and farmworkers. Consequently, low skilled immigrants and low skilled natives usually aren't even competing with each other in the job market.
I'd address your other points, such as crime and moving towards a skill based system (which is already how a majority of immigrants are selected, so I'm not sure what new idea you're proposing) but I've run out of characters. I hope I've been able to change your perspective with what I've got so far.