[m0zg]

Because immigration is not a "right". It's a privilege. And if this privilege is afforded at all, it should be afforded in such a way as to not screw the citizens whom the government represents, through social contract and otherwise. Otherwise the citizens should elect the government that will represent their interests. I mean it's not rocket science, it's civics 101.

[maksimum]

Based on the US's history, relatively free immigration has made the country as a whole very successful. It's not obvious that citizens should want protectionist immigration policy.

[raverbashing]

"Free"

Yeah not really. This is a bit of a myth (a little bit like the "90% income tax rate" magic that people seem to believe)

1 - Immigration was severely limited by the technology (and let's say societal limitations) of the time. Getting a ticket on a ship was expensive, even for 3rd class. 2 Million Irish went to the US around the Famine time (time frame of 40yrs +/-). Compare that with the number of people from Latin America in the US (though % the number of Irish is higher)

2 - About 'societal limitations' going was nothing but a gamble. There was no expectations of government aid, of non-prejudice. No credit cards, no easy way to take money unless you actually took your money with you. Getting a ticket back was not an option.

3 - Even on Ellis Island people did get rejected and sent back on the basis of health https://www.history.com/news/immigrants-ellis-island-short-p...

The real tightening of immigration seems to have happened around the 60s (though some other acts are from the 19th century like the one that limited Chinese immigration)

So it was certainly "freer", in the same way that immigration for the ultra-rich today is almost free as well.

Note that I'm not arguing against immigration (within some limits), but once a country's population increases I guess there are more people against it, and less of a practical interest in it.

[hrktb]

To push the idea furter, a lot of things we call “rights” are privileges in that sense.

The basis of most of them is citizenship, which is basically people born in the right place or from the right parents. If you are born in Germany you have the ‘right’ to move anywhere in the EU. If you have Japanese parents you have the ‘right’ to work in Japan.

The same way wealthy foreigner will have the means to buy these ‘rights’ and become citizen.

[mehrdadn]

I'm on my phone and can't check right now but I'm fairly confident there is global consensus (Geneva convention? or UN or similar) on when/how citizenship is a human right and that there is no such consensus on immigration being a right (modulo refugees), so no, these are not comparable.

[hrktb]

Looking around I only found this, which seems to go more in the “open citizenship to everyone” direction:

https://worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/equal-citizenship-rig...

Or this kind of thinkpiece going basically in the same direction.

https://forestshakespeare.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/citizensh...

I’d be really interested if you could point me to what you were refering to.

[mehrdadn]

I'm not sure what you searched for but you shouldn't need obscure sources like that for this... a bit of quick searching re: citizenship rights found [1] for me from the UN. Whereas for migration there's [2] which makes it clear there is no universal agreement on migration rights. [3] seems to make it even more clear that it's up to countries to decide migration policy. I'm sure more can be found via some more searching.

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/Nationality.aspx

> The right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.

> States shall introduce safeguards to prevent statelessness by granting their nationality to persons who would otherwise be stateless and are either born in their territory or are born abroad to one of their nationals.

> States shall also prevent statelessness upon loss or deprivation of nationality.

[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/migration/pages/migrationand...

> It is increasingly clear that a lack of human rights-based migration governance at the global, regional and national levels is leading to the routine violation of migrants’ rights in transit, at international borders, and in the countries they migrate to.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration

> The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. [...]

[hrktb]

Thanks, this was in a very good read. I didn’t look it ip from the right angle I think.

It is very interesting that it’s a right to have _a_ nationality, with nothing more really.

It makes sense for all the issues described in the doc , and it also anchors the notion that except some specific cases that can trigger violations of human rights, a state basically does what it wants regarding who get nationality and who doesn’t, or how it deals with migration.

It reminds me a lot about rules in EU countries forbiding from evicting people from their home during the winter, or more broadly rules requiring to provide help to someone in situation of danger.

[mehrdadn]

It seems a pretty bad mischaracterization of what I posted above to say "except some specific cases that can trigger violations of human rights, a state basically does what it wants regarding who get nationality". It's the exact opposite. The whole point was that in general states cannot strip away your nationality except for the specific minority of people who have another one.

[an_cap]

At the risk of cementing your conviction of my troll status, I have some civics 101 questions for you. (I also have rocket science questions, but I'll leave that for another day.)

1. At a time when blacks were not citizens of the United States, many people argued that giving blacks basic freedoms would screw the whites that the government represented. I hope we all agree that according to basic human decency 101 that was not a compelling argument.

2. This is true even if it would indeed screw over whites by say pushing down their wages from, oh I don't know, absurdly high to only moderately high.

3. Which freedoms are privileges and which are rights? The freedom to not be a slave, a component of which was working for whomever you wanted, seems to be a right. The freedom to rent an apartment from a willing landlord irrespective of your skin color seems to be a right. But the freedom to work for Oracle for less money than you'd like if I was born in the wrong country seems not to be one. I'd appreciate a civics 101 lesson on why.

[rbanffy]

Well... This "immigration as a right" certainly didn't work well for native Americans, did it?

Now, seriously, don't you think America (as it is currently) gains a lot from its diversity? Since when did it abandon its "melting pot" culture?

[umanwizard]

I'm not taking a position either way -- I'm confused why you think the contrary opinion is so horrible that it merits the admins of the site getting involved and shutting down the discussion.

[dennisgorelik]

Do you imply that working immigrants "screw the citizens"?

[m0zg]

As an immigrant it'd be disingenuous for me to suggest that. But the real answer is, it depends. I pay six figures in taxes. I can tolerate a little bit of screwage if my wage gets depressed by increased supply of my skill. Now consider the working poor, who are aiming to get that sweet, sweet $15/hr minimum wage (with benefits!). They're currently objectively screwed because there are hundreds of thousands of people coming over the border willing to work for half that, with no benefits, and tolerate abuse. Or consider a student who has just got her degree and has $100k+ student loan to pay back. Their tolerance for wage depression is a lot lower than mine. So I argue it is not correct to consider "citizens" as a uniform, average mass. Some strata within this mass will do just fine if they are paid a little less, some most definitely will not.