I think the strongest argument against too much immigration is simpler. People don't want it, and as a result, it's greatly destabilized our politics. Trump capably used the immigration issue as a cudgel against Democrats, and without it, it's almost impossible to imagine him being elected.
Nothing in the Constitution says we have to admit people into the country for the reasons you mention. (And this isn't a situation resembling, for instance, Jim Crow, insofar as no one's human rights are affronted if they don't get to come here.) We may wish to change people's minds -- and you've made some good arguments about why we should -- but for now the people have spoken.
Democrats didn't take the immigration seriously. Some of them arrogantly called immigration opponents like myself hateful bigots (and told us to go read a book). This is the result.
Thanks John! We do disagree. I take your first paragraph to offer a purely political point: without immigration we wouldn’t have Trump. Maybe that’s right, but it’s not clearly right. Even if it is, it reads to me as more of a statement about the sad state of our culture than anything else. It’s sad that people don’t appreciate all we get from having many immigrants.
Your second paragraph is more interesting to me. You think it’s not a human rights issue. Consider, though, this possibility: you see Kevin going to apply for a job (or to his wedding or…) and you step in front of him and tell him he can’t go; he tries and you beat him up, leaving him unable to get there in time. Of course, he doesn’t get the job. Didn’t you violate his rights—not only because of the physical aggression, but also because you interfered with his right to apply for a job. You are responsible for his not being able to support himself. That, it seems to me, is the situation border guards are in every day—they violate people’s rights (under the auspices of the US Federal Gov’t) by stopping them from even applying for jobs (and from marrying people, etc.). Those people are left unable to support themselves and the US Federal Govt is responsible. (For the record, I don’t much care about what is or is not in the Constitution; I care about doing the right thing. Still, nothing in the Constitution prohibits immigration.)
What should Dems have done? So much, but with regard to immigration, they should have been more consistent and they should have pushed the line that immigration is good for all of us. Because it is and because has Reagan and Bush showed, it can be a winning line.
Great article as always Andrew; I agree that artificially or forcibly attempting to prevent natural changes in social attitudes is neither desirable nor effective.
I am curious about one paragraph, “Given that, I have always been a fan of open immigration, believing the only justified limits were those designed to keep out known criminals—those known to do actual harm, actively violating the legitimate rights of others (not merely breaking the law by entering the country). Still, there are arguments against allowing immigration.” - I agree that criminals should face additional scrutiny and barred entry whenever they pose a risk to the host nation. But do you really believe that is the only justifiable limit to immigration? I’m thinking here about managing population growth rates, housing capacity, infrastructure considerations etc. I see those as legitimate and justifiable reasons to manage immigration or even limit it when required. Especially for countries with small populations and economies
Thanks for the considered response Andrew. I appreciate that we can chat about points of disagreement.
Do you believe Israel is a representative example that could be applied to a country like Canada?
We have always recognized the importance of immigration here but in recent years the level of immigration has been met with major opposition to the point that for the first time in a long time a large number of Canadians have a less favourable view of immigration and are demanding claw backs.
I think a second factor worth a discussion is the impact that has on new immigrants themselves. I see here in Canada new immigrants being made the scapegoats for problems that were a long time in the making. With public sentiment working against them it is sad to see the vitriolic hate many are facing.
Even if I concede that it may work out in the long run, is it not a reasonable assertion that government has some responsibility to ensure a reasonable quality of life for those who arrive? Leaving people to fend for themselves could exacerbate underemployment for new immigrants and other social integration challenges
Thanks for the response. Even if we don’t align on these points I’m definitely interested in hearing your perspective.
Neil-Canada is much larger and there are other differences, but I do think the general point is likely to hold. Your larger point is the problem that in many developed countries the cultures have become broadly anti-immigrant. This is a real problem, but one that needs to be addressed by better… let’s say “marketing.” That is, we need to better educate the populations so that they appreciate the benefits immigrants bring and realize that arbitrary borders do not say anything at all about a person’s value. That can’t and shouldn’t be done (or only done) in schools—it’s got to be broader. But that points to another issue: *would our societies become this way (anti-immigrant) if our governments didn’t take so many powers for themselves in the first place? Part of how they maintain that power is with borders after all. That’s too quick, I know, and I may try to flesh it out an another time, but it’s part of a final reply: I do not think government should try to “ensure a reasonable quality of life for those who arrive”—or anyone. I think government should protect people and nothing else. Giving it the power to do more—including ensuring people have good lives—is giving it the power to do a lot AND sending a message to everyone that it is responsible for such things. That, in turn, allows people to think “immigrants are taking jobs here so I want government to keep out immigrants.” Now go back to my asterisked point. Giving the government power promotes a way of thinking such that it is thought capable of fixing things, and sometimes that includes restricting immigration. So people start to think about it instead of thinking “oh more people! Cool! Now I can sell more of my product or service! Maybe I can try to sell them this thing no one here wants! Maybe they’ll sell me cool stuff no one here has! Maybe I can hire some of them to do… or maybe one of them will be my soulmate” (or not thinking about it at all!).
Thanks Neil! We do disagree about this. I don’t think any government should try to manage those things at all. Left to their own, these things work themselves ought. Consider Israel when the Iron Curtain came down. The country was inundated with immigrants—there were tent cities all over and no jobs available. Over time, it all worked out. First, the immigrants sent word back to their home countries that people shouldn’t come. Second, the economy grew—and the infrastructure with it.
RE "unchecked immigration could lead to illiberal authoritarianism" - one reason not to take that argument too seriously is that we have severe restrictions on immigration, and yet managed to arrive at illiberal authoritarianism anyway.
I think the strongest argument against too much immigration is simpler. People don't want it, and as a result, it's greatly destabilized our politics. Trump capably used the immigration issue as a cudgel against Democrats, and without it, it's almost impossible to imagine him being elected.
Nothing in the Constitution says we have to admit people into the country for the reasons you mention. (And this isn't a situation resembling, for instance, Jim Crow, insofar as no one's human rights are affronted if they don't get to come here.) We may wish to change people's minds -- and you've made some good arguments about why we should -- but for now the people have spoken.
Democrats didn't take the immigration seriously. Some of them arrogantly called immigration opponents like myself hateful bigots (and told us to go read a book). This is the result.
Thanks John! We do disagree. I take your first paragraph to offer a purely political point: without immigration we wouldn’t have Trump. Maybe that’s right, but it’s not clearly right. Even if it is, it reads to me as more of a statement about the sad state of our culture than anything else. It’s sad that people don’t appreciate all we get from having many immigrants.
Your second paragraph is more interesting to me. You think it’s not a human rights issue. Consider, though, this possibility: you see Kevin going to apply for a job (or to his wedding or…) and you step in front of him and tell him he can’t go; he tries and you beat him up, leaving him unable to get there in time. Of course, he doesn’t get the job. Didn’t you violate his rights—not only because of the physical aggression, but also because you interfered with his right to apply for a job. You are responsible for his not being able to support himself. That, it seems to me, is the situation border guards are in every day—they violate people’s rights (under the auspices of the US Federal Gov’t) by stopping them from even applying for jobs (and from marrying people, etc.). Those people are left unable to support themselves and the US Federal Govt is responsible. (For the record, I don’t much care about what is or is not in the Constitution; I care about doing the right thing. Still, nothing in the Constitution prohibits immigration.)
What should Dems have done? So much, but with regard to immigration, they should have been more consistent and they should have pushed the line that immigration is good for all of us. Because it is and because has Reagan and Bush showed, it can be a winning line.
Great article as always Andrew; I agree that artificially or forcibly attempting to prevent natural changes in social attitudes is neither desirable nor effective.
I am curious about one paragraph, “Given that, I have always been a fan of open immigration, believing the only justified limits were those designed to keep out known criminals—those known to do actual harm, actively violating the legitimate rights of others (not merely breaking the law by entering the country). Still, there are arguments against allowing immigration.” - I agree that criminals should face additional scrutiny and barred entry whenever they pose a risk to the host nation. But do you really believe that is the only justifiable limit to immigration? I’m thinking here about managing population growth rates, housing capacity, infrastructure considerations etc. I see those as legitimate and justifiable reasons to manage immigration or even limit it when required. Especially for countries with small populations and economies
Thoughts?
Thanks for the considered response Andrew. I appreciate that we can chat about points of disagreement.
Do you believe Israel is a representative example that could be applied to a country like Canada?
We have always recognized the importance of immigration here but in recent years the level of immigration has been met with major opposition to the point that for the first time in a long time a large number of Canadians have a less favourable view of immigration and are demanding claw backs.
I think a second factor worth a discussion is the impact that has on new immigrants themselves. I see here in Canada new immigrants being made the scapegoats for problems that were a long time in the making. With public sentiment working against them it is sad to see the vitriolic hate many are facing.
Even if I concede that it may work out in the long run, is it not a reasonable assertion that government has some responsibility to ensure a reasonable quality of life for those who arrive? Leaving people to fend for themselves could exacerbate underemployment for new immigrants and other social integration challenges
Thanks for the response. Even if we don’t align on these points I’m definitely interested in hearing your perspective.
Neil-Canada is much larger and there are other differences, but I do think the general point is likely to hold. Your larger point is the problem that in many developed countries the cultures have become broadly anti-immigrant. This is a real problem, but one that needs to be addressed by better… let’s say “marketing.” That is, we need to better educate the populations so that they appreciate the benefits immigrants bring and realize that arbitrary borders do not say anything at all about a person’s value. That can’t and shouldn’t be done (or only done) in schools—it’s got to be broader. But that points to another issue: *would our societies become this way (anti-immigrant) if our governments didn’t take so many powers for themselves in the first place? Part of how they maintain that power is with borders after all. That’s too quick, I know, and I may try to flesh it out an another time, but it’s part of a final reply: I do not think government should try to “ensure a reasonable quality of life for those who arrive”—or anyone. I think government should protect people and nothing else. Giving it the power to do more—including ensuring people have good lives—is giving it the power to do a lot AND sending a message to everyone that it is responsible for such things. That, in turn, allows people to think “immigrants are taking jobs here so I want government to keep out immigrants.” Now go back to my asterisked point. Giving the government power promotes a way of thinking such that it is thought capable of fixing things, and sometimes that includes restricting immigration. So people start to think about it instead of thinking “oh more people! Cool! Now I can sell more of my product or service! Maybe I can try to sell them this thing no one here wants! Maybe they’ll sell me cool stuff no one here has! Maybe I can hire some of them to do… or maybe one of them will be my soulmate” (or not thinking about it at all!).
Interesting points Andrew. Thanks for the dialogue. Much to ponder here on the subject from your response so I’ll chew on that for a while…
until next time my friend! Be well, talk again soon.
Thanks Neil! We do disagree about this. I don’t think any government should try to manage those things at all. Left to their own, these things work themselves ought. Consider Israel when the Iron Curtain came down. The country was inundated with immigrants—there were tent cities all over and no jobs available. Over time, it all worked out. First, the immigrants sent word back to their home countries that people shouldn’t come. Second, the economy grew—and the infrastructure with it.
RE "unchecked immigration could lead to illiberal authoritarianism" - one reason not to take that argument too seriously is that we have severe restrictions on immigration, and yet managed to arrive at illiberal authoritarianism anyway.
Yep. That's part of what I intended in the last paragraph.