"We don't want to" should be seen as a good enough reason for why Americans don't want mass immigration. The idea that we have to come up with a rational argument as to why any country's people should accept it kind of gives up the game. Why is the baseline 1 million legal immigrants and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of illegal ones per year? It's upper middle class people volunteering middle and working class American's neighborhoods and then feeling virtuous about it having sacrificed nothing.
Someone made this point effectively on a stage with glass tubes and marbles. Can't remember his name. His argument was to develop the places with more people than the USA.
that is only way..... china case it worked from 70s.... although they still wanna come to west. but developing economies all over world would mean there are more local "hubs" that people go to instead of west,europe. Still need to have borders as this model is same as with china, we buy their stuff manufactured in those hubs, but few jobs in west, just money which is taxed heavily.
Noah Carl really labours the point. The key fact is the UN Refugee agency estimates there are in excess of 80 million 'displaced people' in the world. They can't all come to the UK, France Germany or Scandinavia simply because they 'want a better life' or because their Uncle Mohammed got here first. The solution lies in developed countries focusing more on helping to develop those poorer countries through investment, education & training and challenging corruption. The second issue, is stopping the perverse incentives that draw these people to Europe, such as providing free accommodation, health care, education, and allowing extended family to join them etc.
It was immoral when our ancestors broke into other countries and we built railways, bridges, schools, hospitals and left them a language and their favourite team sports!
The weird part about all of this is that there are huge numbers of people, including some self-proclaimed libertarians, who think that this level of immigration is driven by the "market", when in fact it is laregley driven by direct and inidrect government (by way of NGOs and businesses) subsidies to immigrants.
There are people on the famed "far-right" who believe it would be acceptable for the British to be effectively wiped out by mass immigration. Only a few days ago Laurence Fox said he would be happy to see the UK being 95% African. Also in recent days Nigel Farage said he would not support remigration even as the British will become a minority in their own land. If even these people haven't moved beyond this position at this point in history, what would it take to persuade those on the centre and on the left?
Neither of these men are far right, dissident right or Neoreactionaries, they are at best centrist liberals. You would never hear "happy to see the UK being 95% African" out of the mouth of a DR person.
It still seems like a kind of small and not significant concession to get a liberal to make though. "ok we can't literally open the borders totally and let the 30% of africans who want to come to Europe come to Europe but let's just continue as we are or maybe double the rate of immigration because it's fine so far"
I don’t think anyone is FOR mass immigration. But it does feel racist to call immigration across the southern border a massive issue, when only 27% of illegal immigration comes from the southern border…. Like… what about the whopping other 73%?
Sure, might give pause to moderates, but the non-restrictionist rebuttal will be to show images of large swaths of open land to prove space isn't an issue and how high density housing can accommodate more immigrants. Of course, immIgration advocates aren't interested in the discomfort of natives, only that the lives of immigrants will be better. Not only better, but more importantly, that will they have ever increasing political power over the "colonizers". Any protests by the natives "proves" they're "fascists" whose power needs to be eliminated by noble immigrants. The other non-restrictionist fall-back is the argument that all immigration leads to economic growth. This half-truth has been pounded into the western mind ad nauseam. It's difficult to counter especially since we have to get into national IQ's (racist! Natzee!) and there are many examples of successful immigrants. I think moderates will hang onto this one (certainly the business class will) as it seems empirically true. After all, Tesla was from Croatia and Musk is from SA.
We just Don't Want Them ,Simples
"We don't want to" should be seen as a good enough reason for why Americans don't want mass immigration. The idea that we have to come up with a rational argument as to why any country's people should accept it kind of gives up the game. Why is the baseline 1 million legal immigrants and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of illegal ones per year? It's upper middle class people volunteering middle and working class American's neighborhoods and then feeling virtuous about it having sacrificed nothing.
Someone made this point effectively on a stage with glass tubes and marbles. Can't remember his name. His argument was to develop the places with more people than the USA.
Roy Beck - Immigration visualised with gumballs.
that is only way..... china case it worked from 70s.... although they still wanna come to west. but developing economies all over world would mean there are more local "hubs" that people go to instead of west,europe. Still need to have borders as this model is same as with china, we buy their stuff manufactured in those hubs, but few jobs in west, just money which is taxed heavily.
Noah Carl really labours the point. The key fact is the UN Refugee agency estimates there are in excess of 80 million 'displaced people' in the world. They can't all come to the UK, France Germany or Scandinavia simply because they 'want a better life' or because their Uncle Mohammed got here first. The solution lies in developed countries focusing more on helping to develop those poorer countries through investment, education & training and challenging corruption. The second issue, is stopping the perverse incentives that draw these people to Europe, such as providing free accommodation, health care, education, and allowing extended family to join them etc.
It was immoral when our ancestors broke into other countries and we built railways, bridges, schools, hospitals and left them a language and their favourite team sports!
The late economist Milton Friedman once said: "You can have open borders or the welfare state, but you can't have both."
The weird part about all of this is that there are huge numbers of people, including some self-proclaimed libertarians, who think that this level of immigration is driven by the "market", when in fact it is laregley driven by direct and inidrect government (by way of NGOs and businesses) subsidies to immigrants.
There are people on the famed "far-right" who believe it would be acceptable for the British to be effectively wiped out by mass immigration.
Only a few days ago Laurence Fox said he would be happy to see the UK being 95% African. Also in recent days Nigel Farage said he would not support remigration even as the British will become a minority in their own land.
If even these people haven't moved beyond this position at this point in history, what would it take to persuade those on the centre and on the left?
Where did Lawrence Fox say that?
Neither of these men are far right, dissident right or Neoreactionaries, they are at best centrist liberals. You would never hear "happy to see the UK being 95% African" out of the mouth of a DR person.
If u put everything aside, 70,000 refugees so far in 2024. 70,000 house's are not being built every year, where are they going to live
What’s wrong with economic prosperity? The biggest argument against it is if you want ur country to be primitive
huge W
Save the bees
Not refugees
It still seems like a kind of small and not significant concession to get a liberal to make though. "ok we can't literally open the borders totally and let the 30% of africans who want to come to Europe come to Europe but let's just continue as we are or maybe double the rate of immigration because it's fine so far"
I don’t think anyone is FOR mass immigration. But it does feel racist to call immigration across the southern border a massive issue, when only 27% of illegal immigration comes from the southern border…. Like… what about the whopping other 73%?
Sure, might give pause to moderates, but the non-restrictionist rebuttal will be to show images of large swaths of open land to prove space isn't an issue and how high density housing can accommodate more immigrants. Of course, immIgration advocates aren't interested in the discomfort of natives, only that the lives of immigrants will be better. Not only better, but more importantly, that will they have ever increasing political power over the "colonizers". Any protests by the natives "proves" they're "fascists" whose power needs to be eliminated by noble immigrants. The other non-restrictionist fall-back is the argument that all immigration leads to economic growth. This half-truth has been pounded into the western mind ad nauseam. It's difficult to counter especially since we have to get into national IQ's (racist! Natzee!) and there are many examples of successful immigrants. I think moderates will hang onto this one (certainly the business class will) as it seems empirically true. After all, Tesla was from Croatia and Musk is from SA.