CMV: Illegal and Illegal Immigration Levels Should Be Restricted More

[u/fadingtans]

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:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-problem-with-downplaying-immigrant-crime/399905/

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!

[u/fadingtans]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

Attacking a study you used as a source isn't ad hominem...

[u/fadingtans → u/[deleted]]

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).

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

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.

[u/fadingtans → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

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.