[SamReidHughes]

I think most people that grew up in the Bay Area would prefer it if there was reduced traffic and lower rent that you'd get having had less high-skilled immigration. Then California wouldn't have such a large working class exodus. Santa Clara county is 38.07% immigrant. Without that immigrant population, working-class Californians would have more disposable income after rent, faster commutes, and more free time.

The locals seem to agree -- it has been Bay Area communities' policy to hinder international and interstate migration into the area by limiting new construction, on the grounds that more people makes the community a worse place to live.

[russellbeattie]

Literally everyone who lives in California came from somewhere else. Who gets to decide when the music stops forever, and everyone who found a seat gets to stay, and everyone else has to find somewhere else to live?

I've been here 25 years now... Do I count? My son grew up here, does he count even though he's my son? I'm sure the Native Americans or the Spanish after them would love to chat about your ideas on immigration. This state would be a pristine garden without all the northern European descendents mucking up the place.

How far back do we need to go? Talk about no commute and lots of free time! Get rid of all the immigrants and this place would be heaven. Sadly, all the people who consider themselves "local" would have to go as well.

[SamReidHughes]

In your first post, you were arguing that immigration improves the place. Now you're arguing that we should allow immigration even if it doesn't.

Huh.

If the population is really sparse, immigration really does improve the society -- it allows for specialization, with supermarkets, karate studios, and the like. Then, as the population gets more dense, the marginal benefit of population growth, assuming random average people, decreases. Eventually, it goes negative. At that point, you need to raise the bar -- e.g. only admit high quality immigrants, or family reunification (which benefits citizen family members). The higher the population, the higher the bar needs to get raised.

The problem with your analysis is that it doesn't take into account the total population number. Any advocacy for immigration that doesn't differentiate between a national population of 100 million, 350 million, and 900 million, if that advocacy argues that it benefits the country, is intrinsically defective,

[russellbeattie]

There was zero "analysis" in that comment, it was 100% pure sarcasm, which sadly, went zipping by you apparently.