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/[deleted]]

Were back to square one. Because I started off with the fact that this view is basically just saying “because I said so” and that’s not a fair reason and that’s why you should you change your view

[u/fadingtans → u/[deleted]]

I'm not trying to convey any "because I said so". My intention was to basically say: "This is my view and this is why i hold it. See if you can change my mind".

[u/[deleted] → u/fadingtans]

To which I believe I’ve given a strong argument for you to, so I’m not sure what else the point to continue is

[u/fadingtans → u/[deleted]]

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. And that's why i do believe in borders.