Immigration - What's the problem? What's the solution?

This topic keeps coming up, and is interesting to me, so I've decided to mount the soapbox and start a dedicated thread.

In my observation, when people talk about immigration as a political issue/problem, they actually might mean several different things. I think the problem is primarily about having control over our borders. There's legitimate reasons for a nation to want to have control over its borders - for instance, as a guard against human trafficking, or drug smuggling, or to prevent violent criminals from crossing into or out of its jurisdiction (eg wanting to keep violent people from abroad from entering and possibly committing violence here, or to stop people guilty of violent crime here from escaping beyond the reach of domestic law enforcement).

When you have mass crossings of an international border, those kinds of goals are hard to realize.

The solution is to make it easier to cross the border legally. The border problem is a classic example of a black market -- the costs of using the legitimate, legal channels are much higher than the costs of going outside of the legal routes.

This is pretty amazing when you think about just how high the costs of illegal border crossings are. People crossing this way quite literally risk their lives. Its expensive in monetary terms, and they put themselves at the mercy of harsh environmental conditions and dangerous people. People pay lots of money to smugglers for help crossing and might find themselves beaten, raped, held for ransom, or just dumped in the desert to die of exposure. And yet, people still take all these risks to make the crossing.

That should tell us something about the demand side of this economic equation, and about how truly mismatched the supply of legitimate border crossing options is for this market. It should make us question whether it really makes sense to try to make illegal crossings more expensive (eg more difficult) by doing things like building walls or adding more border guards or whathaveyou. Crossing the border outside the official checkpoints is already incredibly expensive; spending money to make it marginally more so is unlikely to have much practical effect.

Dramatically increasing the number of people we allow in legally, on the other hand, changes the equation. If nearly anyone who wants to enter can do so legally, the cost of illegal crossing becomes far higher than the cost of doing so legally. This means our border control methods can better target those people illegally crossing who genuinely pose risks. With the flow of illegal crossings dramatically cut, it might even make sense at that point to talk about things like a border wall, etc.

The majority of people who complain about lax border security would never go along with this, of course, because their concern isn't really the border, it's immigration. Plainly speaking, they are anti-immigrant. Oh sure, they'll try to claim otherwise and say they aren't anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal-immigrant. In politics, though, there's a lot of noise, and the easiest way to cut through that is to ignore what people say and pay attention to what they do. Someone who claims to be upset about illegal immigration, but supports a policy that caps legal immigration far below actual demand, is opposed to more legal immigration. They want fewer people to immigrate, not more. That's definitionally anti-immigrant.

In concrete terms, look at the proposals floated by border hawks, such as Trump. There's no provision there to increase legal immigration. If you are truly pro-immigrant, that's a fatal flaw. If you support policies like Trump's, you're anti-immigrant, regardless of what you claim. Or again, look at the backlash Rubio encountered on suggesting a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Look at the massive revolt Bush faced when he pushed a path to citizenship. Border hawks can say whatever they like, but their actions place them squarely in the anti-immigration camp, not the stronger border camp.

Now in addition to being in favor of a secure border, I also am in favor of greater immigration. I think it benefits the nation both economically and culturally. That's a separate (even if related) argument than the one over the border, though, so I'll post my argument for that on this thread later (not sure when, and it doesn't matter since no one actually reads on the internet anyway. I'm well aware of the fact that 90% of people posting on this thread just looked at the topic and posted, and aren't even reading this right now. Lorem ipsum....).

Proin laoreet est eget dapibus scelerisque. Which, IIRC, means I agree with your cogently argued point of view, as someone who went through the legal process to come here. I look forward to a more civilized discussion on immigration, but I'm seeing that the perspective-free ones are getting all the attention right now, so I wanted to make sure you knew that at least one person read your thread opener before you felt lonely and left the board.

ridski said:
Proin laoreet est eget dapibus scelerisque. Which, IIRC, means I agree with your cogently argued point of view, as someone who went through the legal process to come here. I look forward to a more civilized discussion on immigration, but I'm seeing that the perspective-free ones are getting all the attention right now, so I wanted to make sure you knew that at least one person read your thread opener before you felt lonely and left the board.

Funny. Google translates it as "Microwave Nam functional protein chocolate" Who knew there was a Latin word for microwave?

I'm generally in agreement with respect to immigration. My only real concern is regarding infrastructure. Individually, the impact of one immigrant on our infrastructure is minimal. But immigrants tend to group in certain areas, and the impact on the infrastructures of those areas can be significant. Infrastructure in terms of roads & other transportation, schools, healthcare, etc. Many areas of the country are already highly stressed with respect to these items. Adding large populations can have a dramatic impact.

That said, it's a fixable problem. If only there were the will to do so.

ridski said:
Proin laoreet est eget dapibus scelerisque. Which, IIRC, means I agree with your cogently argued point of view, as someone who went through the legal process to come here. I look forward to a more civilized discussion on immigration, but I'm seeing that the perspective-free ones are getting all the attention right now, so I wanted to make sure you knew that at least one person read your thread opener before you felt lonely and left the board.

ParticleMan said:

ridski said:
Proin laoreet est eget dapibus scelerisque. Which, IIRC, means I agree with your cogently argued point of view, as someone who went through the legal process to come here. I look forward to a more civilized discussion on immigration, but I'm seeing that the perspective-free ones are getting all the attention right now, so I wanted to make sure you knew that at least one person read your thread opener before you felt lonely and left the board.

Funny. Google translates it as "Microwave Nam functional protein chocolate" Who knew there was a Latin word for microwave?
I'm generally in agreement with respect to immigration. My only real concern is regarding infrastructure. Individually, the impact of one immigrant on our infrastructure is minimal. But immigrants tend to group in certain areas, and the impact on the infrastructures of those areas can be significant. Infrastructure in terms of roads & other transportation, schools, healthcare, etc. Many areas of the country are already highly stressed with respect to these items. Adding large populations can have a dramatic impact.
That said, it's a fixable problem. If only there were the will to do so.

Will adding large populations have an impact in other ares as well?

I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

For starters how about health care and low income jobs.

BCC said:

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

For starters how about health care and low income jobs.

Health care and low income jobs would be good, yes.

Ideally, borders IMO would be pretty open. These are man made constructs after all. I want the best people I can work with. I don't really care what side of what border they live on.

The problem is that with a large welfare state, this could become very expensive. Couple that with fears that immigrants are going to take jobs of red blooded Americans, and you have a political issue. I personally do not believe in birth rights.

ridski said:

BCC said:

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

For starters how about health care and low income jobs.

Health care and low income jobs would be good, yes.

Duly noted.

Now go sit in the corner and pay attention. An interesting discussion may evolve.

There is no problem. Then as now the most driven and willing to take risks come and create their own ecosystem that ends up enriching everyone. We are so prosperous because we continually renew our vitality with immigration. Contrast that with countries with no tradition of welcoming immigrants, most notably Japan, that is literally (and I mean literally) withering.

And no it is not different this time.

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

ParticleMan said:
I assume it would. Did you have something in mind?

For starters how about health care and low income jobs.

Health care and low income jobs would be good, yes.

Duly noted.
Now go sit in the corner and pay attention. An interesting discussion may evolve.

Yeah I'll admit I kind of misread your earlier post. Possibly because PM had already mentioned health care.

I'm open to immigrants who want to assimilate into the American way of life. Pluralistic, but tolerant and having common cultural touchpoints. Unfortunately, some regions send people who can't meet this baseline.

BubbaTerp said:
I'm open to immigrants who want to assimilate into the American way of life. Pluralistic, but tolerant and having common cultural touchpoints. Unfortunately, some regions send people who can't meet this baseline.

"Common cultural touchpoints," meaning, people like me.

What "common cultural touchpoints" do WASPs (not that you are one - I have no idea) have with Indians, Pakistani, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese? With Nigerians, Egyptians or Omani?

ParticleMan said:

BubbaTerp said:
I'm open to immigrants who want to assimilate into the American way of life. Pluralistic, but tolerant and having common cultural touchpoints. Unfortunately, some regions send people who can't meet this baseline.

"Common cultural touchpoints," meaning, people like me.
What "common cultural touchpoints" do WASPs (not that you are one - I have no idea) have with Indians, Pakistani, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese? With Nigerians, Egyptians or Omani?

Well, how about love for family, belief in and acceptance of a strong work ethic, knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, helpful and not helpful, decent and indecent, tolerant and intolerant. To name a few

I have a couple of experiences that strongly inform my view. First, I'm the first of my family born in the US, which naturally influences my thinking on this. Both my parents are from middle class backgrounds and went the full legal route, so I don't have any personal or even tangential (via immediate or extended family) familiarity with the plight of immigrants who are working class or who are undocumented. I pretty much live my life as a privileged white male, but I think what my background gives me is an awareness that a small twist in the way my genes interacted, or where my parents had decided to settle, would have given me a very different experience. In other words, a healthy appreciation for the role of chance in determining how people view you, an empathy for people who's luck ran another direction, and a view of the ridiculousness of people making sweeping assertions of character for entire nations and cultures

The second formative experience for my thinking on immigration is that, when I lived in the city, I lived in Queens. The rest of the world has wars based on abstruse theological quibbles, the rest of the country freaks out about people speaking different languages or wearing different clothes -- in Queens everyone just goes about their business, shopping and eating and paying rent, their children playing at the same playgrounds, their parents riding the same bus or train and working in the same offices, their mosques next door to their churches. So my lived actual experience really undermines the inchoate fears of nativist rhetoric.

This, pretty much sums it up. You don't have to be ANYTHING like me and you can have mostly opposing thoughts on matters, but tolerance of others, work ethic, interest in adopting aspects of a shared American lifestyle (democracy, civil engagement, etc.) and understanding that you can't recreate your past culture fully here because you're now in the US and that's Ok.

springgreen2 said:

ParticleMan said:

BubbaTerp said:
I'm open to immigrants who want to assimilate into the American way of life. Pluralistic, but tolerant and having common cultural touchpoints. Unfortunately, some regions send people who can't meet this baseline.

"Common cultural touchpoints," meaning, people like me.
What "common cultural touchpoints" do WASPs (not that you are one - I have no idea) have with Indians, Pakistani, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese? With Nigerians, Egyptians or Omani?

Well, how about love for family, belief in and acceptance of a strong work ethic, knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, helpful and not helpful, decent and indecent, tolerant and intolerant. To name a few

BubbaTerp said:
you can't recreate your past culture fully here

That's pretty intolerant of you.

Why is that intolerant? I think its very tolerant but also insisting on an American standard (a very loose standard). For instance, a Saudi immigrates to the US. That's wonderful, fantastic even, welcome to America! Just don't think you're going to create a mini Saudi Arabia here with Salafist/Sharia Law governing the way you interact with your new community. This doesn't mean you can't practice the lifestyle you choose to, it just means that lifestyle has to fit in to the American way of life. Most immigrant communities embody this perfectly.

RobB said:

BubbaTerp said:
you can't recreate your past culture fully here

That's pretty intolerant of you.

Sharia Law.

Drink.

There's plenty of muslims in Queens and, judging by their dress, a decent number of them seem pretty traditional/conservative. At no point did I ever feel there was any danger of Sharia law overthrowing the laws of New York City, New York State, or the United States. I just don't see any reasonable grounds for fearing the cultural impact of immigration, even from countries with very different cultures than the U.S.

You might not have read what I wrote my friend I don't have a problem at all with how immigrants dress, pray, eat, etc. Just that they absolutely respect the American Way of Life. This has been a major issue in Europe (not apples to apples, but that doesn't take away from how serious it is) in terms of assimilation to the local cultural mores.

PVW said:
There's plenty of muslims in Queens and, judging by their dress, a decent number of them seem pretty traditional/conservative. At no point did I ever feel there was any danger of Sharia law overthrowing the laws of New York City, New York State, or the United States. I just don't see any reasonable grounds for fearing the cultural impact of immigration, even from countries with very different cultures than the U.S.

What exactly is the "American Way of Life".

So you've got a problem with the Amish?

Or that shtetl Kiryas Joel?

I don't believe that KJ should follow any different set of laws from anyone else in NYS/US and that if the KJ governing bodies infringe on rights, the appropriate actions should be taken. tjohn, any reason you singled them out?

tjohn said:
Or that shtetl Kiryas Joel?

Let's be frank, assimilation in Europe of immigrant groups into the main body politic has been abysmal, due to numerous factors, on both the immigrants and in the accepting nations. Why would I want to see this repeated in the US? Immigrants need to accept the fact that the US in a pluralistic, diverse and (presumably) tolerant society. Why wouldn't an immigrant agree to this? No good reason. So it's fair to say I'm pro immigration.

BubbaTerp said:
I don't believe that KJ should follow any different set of laws from anyone else in NYS/US and that if the KJ governing bodies infringe on rights, the appropriate actions should be taken. tjohn, any reason you singled them out?

tjohn said:
Or that shtetl Kiryas Joel?

Why did you single out the Saudis? Why did I single out the Amish?

Maybe because that's what an example is?

BubbaTerp said:
Let's be frank, assimilation in Europe of immigrant groups into the main body politic has been abysmal, due to numerous factors, on both the immigrants and in the accepting nations. Why would I want to see this repeated in the US? Immigrants need to accept the fact that the US in a pluralistic, diverse and (presumably) tolerant society. Why wouldn't an immigrant agree to this? No good reason. So it's fair to say I'm pro immigration.

Why do you think it will be repeated in the United States.? Our national identity is much less dependent on a particular language and ethnicity than is the case is most European countries.

I find the European experience very instructive. Both here and in Europe, we have immigrants from conservative, patriarchal cultures (ie muslim-majority countries). Here, they assimilate just fine. In Europe, it causes a lot of distress. Why?

The lesson I draw is that the US version of national identity, which is not rooted in ideas of "blood and soil" (as I think I've heard it expressed), makes it much easier to absorb immigrants. I think nativist rhetoric -- like, for instance, Donald Trump's -- wishes that US national identity was more like Europe's.

I think the historical openness of the US to immigration really distinguishes us from Europe, and is a key reason why immigration works so much better here than it does there.

BubbaTerp said:
Let's be frank, assimilation in Europe of immigrant groups into the main body politic has been abysmal, due to numerous factors, on both the immigrants and in the accepting nations. Why would I want to see this repeated in the US? Immigrants need to accept the fact that the US in a pluralistic, diverse and (presumably) tolerant society. Why wouldn't an immigrant agree to this? No good reason. So it's fair to say I'm pro immigration.