Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree with that.
Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences?
That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.
It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded.
Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem.
There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves!
Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
> but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff.
Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive.
Nobody is filtering out the undocumented, and yet here we are, still net gaining from their existence in the US.
Further, no one is asking you to make that tradeoff, it is not at the expense of lower runs of our society, because immigrants are the lower runs of our society, at least they are right now, due to how we treat them.
Also, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? You say it's not a tradeoff you're willing to make, but why not? People are people, regardless of where their birth town is.
Why do you value natives higher than non-natives, despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives?
You want to keep America small, its economy small, and its people worse off, all because you believe there's a false tradeoff. That's a problem.
To put this another way, if there "magically" were no tradeoff at all, if the "lower runs of American native society" weren't "negatively impacted", would you change your position?
> That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive.
The articles you cite are specific to legal immigrants.
> Finally, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life?
The nation-state exists in service of its citizens, not the wider world.
> despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives
I come from a family of legal immigrants. Not the long-winded "trace my family to the Mayflower" way, but in the "my family speaks another language" way. I have no argument against legal immigration that selects for what our society most needs. Open borders are a free for all that throws our lower rungs to fend for themselves.
...I don't think you understand what an open border means, and if you're getting hung up on the "legality" of it, an open border would literally make immigration legal. If you have no argument against legal immigration, then you have no argument against an open border, as it changes the policy, making immigration generally legal in its various forms.
Further, a nation-state's service to its people is a geographic and societal one. Once more people enter into the geographic area and participate in the society governed by the state, those people become its citizens, in every relevant sense. Additionally, you are admitting to agreeing with the idea that "Americans are more deserving humans to non-Americans" and that is xenophobic, literally the textbook definition.
It's funny to me that you think the Wikipedia article titled, "The Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration" is about legal immigrants.
Open borders is not a "free for all", and I hate to break this to you, but our lower rungs already do fend for themselves. Allowing more immigrants into this country would in no way further their dire straits, and in many ways it'd likely help them, as a larger poor population would increase votes for programs and infrastructure to support poor people.
> I don't think you understand what an open border means, and if you're getting hung up on the "legality" of it, an open border would literally make immigration legal.
You're conflating the societal value of legal immigrants, which is itself questionable at times (H1-B abuse) with those of illegal immigrants which further depress wages.
> "Americans are more deserving humans to non-Americans" and that is xenophobic
I never made a statement of who is deserving of anything. I've pointed out that nation-state exists to serve its present-day citizens, not hypothetical future citizens as you are saying.
> It's funny to me that you think the Wikipedia article titled, "The Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration" is about legal immigrants.
How could I forget the one article in your deluge.
It's a great article:
>> Immigrants, legal and illegal, are more likely to pay taxes than they are to use public services. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most public services and live in fear of revealing themselves to government authorities. Households headed by illegal immigrants use less than half the amount of federal services that households headed by documented immigrants or citizens make use of.
Illegal immigrants are a benefit because they cannot access services that they pay for. They're a net benefit because we allow their exploitation.
> but our lower rungs already do fend for themselves.
Exactly, so let's make it worse for them by further depressing wages! They're already suffering, what's a little more?
Poor Americans are not suffering because of immigration, undocumented or otherwise.
Undocumented immigration does not suppress wages.
Undocumented immigrants would be able to climb out of poverty if they weren't being persecuted by the federal government, so the fact that they can't use services they pay for is a problem, not a solution, as these services are intended to push people up and out of poverty (to the extent that they work, admittedly).
And yes, you did actually say you prefer American people over not Americans, and yes, the viewpoint you are expressing is not only xenophobic, but also not grounded in the many many facts I've provided.
What is it really? Do you fear things different from you? Do you think of "your team" as the one that hates immigration, so you feel the need to support that view? Do you think you and your kind are superior than the people who want to live here? What is the actual reason? Trying to cherry pick statistics won't get that true reason out there so maybe just say it.
Dang doesn't like it when these conversations get combative and protracted, so I'm going to stop replying. I do wish we could continue, and I think you should summarize your position in your final reply, because it's important to get this stuff out there, and honestly I think at this point the only really "wrong" thing you've done is not fully consider the consequences of your position.
Singapore's government is widely acknowledged to have one of the best track records in the world, when it comes to considering and then successfully implementing unpopular policies that nevertheless economically benefit the group. And immigration policy is one area they considered with fresh eyes; even the most radical open borders advocates were permitted to, and did, try to make their case in Singapore.
What did they conclude the facts actually were? What is their immigration policy today?
If one of you two is ignoring the facts, there's practically no question that it's you.
That research you're talking about (with fresh eyes) concluded they needed more immigrants, not fewer.
I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. Singapore's immigration laws are in what way relevant to the US? It's an "island city state" according to Wikipedia, not really at all comparable, but if one wanted to make a comparison, the government of Singapore suggested opening its own borders further, which supports what I was saying.
Did you think I was advocating for a more closed border?
Singapore treats high-skill and low-skill immigrants quite differently. That's the centerpiece of their policy, and entirely relevant to the West. Compare Canada/Australia/NZ's race-blind (and high-volume, especially relative to their population sizes!) but points-based immigration systems, and much lower severity of populist revolt in those countries, with the problems in the US and European countries that had been executing less selective policies against the wishes of their citizens.
Also, how is any of that relevant to a country that has so much more space and resources for people? The US is geographically and economically gigantic compared to Singapore, proportionally we can take on orders of magnitude more people than Singapore, so why would we try to apply the same policy?
At 35 people per km^2 vs 8,100 per km^2, how on Earth could you possibly try to compare?
To make the country as nice a place to live as possible.
Here is a concrete example. Look at the outmigration of California -- if there had been way less immigration, more people (that aren't descended from recent immigrants) would get to enjoy living in California, but instead it's too expensive and polluted, houses are really packed in together. Imagine how much nicer a place to live California would be if we had only admitted immigrants that can solve basic math problems.
California is not too expensive and polluted due to immigration, it's too expensive and polluted due to Americans. It's also neither polluted nor expensive, when you consider the entire state. Some of the most barren places in the US are in California, as are some very poor areas. It's a big state, which is my whole point, the US is huge.
But I get it, you want nice things and you don't want others to have them. Too bad.
The US has a far better track record than any other leading power in history when it comes to facilitating the development of other countries into nice places. See e.g. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-americans-spent-th... , or consider the motivation behind the Optional Practical Training student visa provision. As a US citizen, I personally spent three years working in China for a Chinese company, on salaries in line with those of local PhD staff, and nobody lifted a finger to stop me from developing cutting-edge technology for them; this may be slightly more restricted today in the specific case of China, but a younger analogue of me interested in applying what they learned from US grad school to problems in India/Indonesia/etc. faces few barriers from the US side, beyond unusual income tax and other financial considerations that only really kick in if you're already making enough to live like a king.
Yes, I want nice things. And I want as many other people as possible to have them as well, which is why I'll remain opposed to US-weakening policies until we have a #2 power that's even better at helping foreigners than the US.
You can be opposed, but that doesn't make your position correct. In fact, based on your steadfast commitment to your position despite the glaring evidence I've put directly in front of you, that... kind of makes you stubbornly closed minded.
The fact that you're not even talking about the things I mentioned in my earlier comments should be a red flag for you; why won't you talk about the facts related to immigration into the US? I wonder, maybe it's because the facts won't support your position?
1. How relevant is open space when a majority of prospective low-skilled immigrants want to live in already-heavily-populated areas, not North Dakota?
2. I already mentioned that the other countries most comparable to the US (Canada and Australia), including on the open space dimension, make the same hard distinction between high-skill and low-skill immigrants... and they are doing conspicuously better than other Western democracies at simultaneously maintaining high immigration volume and avoiding populist revolt. It is not my problem that you failed to parse this. New Zealand did see a political turn in favor of more restriction recently, but it was from the left. If anything, it's Singapore's lack of space that makes it practical for the Singaporean government to enforce the conditions under which they can keep so many guest workers around to mutual benefit, such as no pregnancies.
> Undocumented immigration does not suppress wages.
They can and do.
> And yes, you did actually say you prefer American people over not Americans
I would appreciate it if you did not place words in my mouth which I have not said.
> Trying to cherry pick statistics won't get that true reason out there so maybe just say it.
Because I've witnessed first hand the problems of illegal immigration. I grew up in a community filled with them. Went to school with them. Befriended them, and watched many of them achieve citizenship. Witnessed illegal workers being paid below-legal wages, living three to a room so they could save every penny to send as remittance. I've seen them out compete the local blue collar laborers.
Sorry I'm not willing to throw aside the working class so you can acquire cheaper goods and services.
> Dang doesn't like it when these conversations get combative and protracted, so I'm going to stop replying.
Ah yes, take the moral high-road after you've attempted to assassinate my character by calling me a xenophobe.
I'm seriously not trying to take any high ground, this is an entirely practical problem, he will literally ban me if I go too far, he's said as much a dozen times in my 10 years on this site.
Totally not a high ground thing, I just don't want to get banned is all!
> he will literally ban me if I go too far, he's said as much a dozen times in my 10 years on this site.
Regrettably, it would appear you haven't learned the lesson dang is trying to impart. I hope for the sake of your tenure that you one day find your inner peace.
Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences?
That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.