[ErikVandeWater]

Whether something is disturbing or not doesn't say much about whether it's a good idea, just that it is different from the conventional.

Around the world, governments act like abusive parents. If people could migrate freely (creating a competition for residents), much more people would live without the abuse of authoritarian governments.

[nhchris]

Governments don't come from the geography, but the people. Living in a small country myself, a place such as China, India, Indonesia, or Nigeria could send (and they would gladly come) enough people to outvote us on any issue 3x over, without even noticing they're missing anyone. We would simply cease to exist first as a sovereign people, and soon after as a distinct people at all, without any territory to call our own.

[tap-snap-or-nap]

Initially, immigration served as a means to address specific shortages, but nowadays it appears to be utilized as a strategy to reduce wages. Unfortunately, the political discourse surrounding immigration has become increasingly hostile. This suggests that politicians may be prioritizing corporate interests and a select few economic beneficiaries over the well-being of the general public.

[908B64B197]

> but nowadays it appears to be utilized as a strategy to reduce wages.

And to swing elections. Notice the completely different treatment of "Dreamers" (illegal immigrants) to that of legal children of immigrants (especially Indians). The former are given special status and can stay in America forever, the later are to be deported on their 21st birthday unless they manage to secure a visa. So much for following the rules...

[908B64B197]

> Governments don't come from the geography, but the people.

I think that's something the left is increasingly uncomfortable with; the idea that some countries aren't as developed as others because of its people and that simply transplanting people across countries won't change anything to it.

[lolinder]

This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA. However, in the context of a true nation state, the exact same words can mean something very different.

When we in the United States try to claim that immigration would hurt our sovereignty as a people, we're referring to an almost fictional nation that's supposedly being overrun—we have always been an eclectic group of immigrants from many places, and the people who have deep ancestral ties to the land are generally marginalized already.

But when people in a true nation state express the same concerns, we in the US should understand that the context is very different. This isn't the case of third generation Americans trying to claim that this land is theirs and no one else should be able to come here—instead we're talking about people whose families have been there literally since time immemorial.

I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context.

A good article on this topic: https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-...

[tracker1]

For me, the biggest concern with unchecked immigration is logistics. But I'd just assume having work Visa applications mostly based on having a job and place to live worked out before being able to come in. I'd also like to see pay floors as a scale from minimum wage for Visa employers to favor existing citizens first. Along with SSI style tax that doesn't go to the Visa worker.

[indigochill]

There are a couple interesting assumptions here:

1. There's such a thing as a true nation 2. That how long a person's family has lived in a region should entitle them to keep others out

The first one is bound to wander into circuitous philosophical debate, but I'm curious what the rationale is for the second.

[lolinder]

I'm not making the second assumption at all, I explicitly disclaimed any opinion on the merits of particular stances on immigration in countries that are not my own:

> I'm not writing this to take a stand on immigration in Europe or anywhere else, but it's important for us in the US to not project our own sensibilities into a completely different context.

As for the first assumption, I'll grant you I was making that. Whether or not the concept of a nation exists in reality, it undeniably exists in people's heads, and it's less obviously artificial in Europe and elsewhere than it is in the United States.

EDIT: Although, note that I didn't actually use the phrase "true nation", I said "true nation state", and I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation.

[jacobr1]

> I think the existence of a nation state is less up for debate than the existence of a nation.

That seems muddled. A nation-state is a state whose population are dominantly formed out of a single "nation." Generally the nation implies some kind ethnic or ancestral ties (and granted the definition can be fuzzy) - but if concept of a nation is in doubt ... then so in the concept of a nation state. They are necessarily coupled.

I think the key thing is that for a nation state, anything that can significantly impact the composition of the citizenry to change the scope of what the nation means is effectively an existential consideration. The US is explicitly not a nation-state, though americans have mixed opinion on the matter. Europe is comprised of nation states, but may of them these days seem to consider that a bit of an historical embarrassment and want to transition to be some form of multicultural state, especially as part of the multinational confederation of the EU.

[lolinder]

To an extent you're right, but I think it's actually the existence of the nation state that proves the existence of the nation. A nation without a state is a fuzzier concept because there's no clearly delineated boundaries (neither ethnic nor geographical), but a nation with a state can prove its existence more readily.

[rayiner]

If you believe that people and cultures are different (which almost everyone outside America believes) then it follows that a region reflects the people who developed it. Countries are, of course, not just land, but they are built of infrastructure, governments, institutions, culture, customs, rules, norms, and values. If Iowa is polite, flat, and egalitarian it’s because Iowans made it that way. By contrast India or China are the way the Indians and Chinese made those places. It stands to reason that if Iowans like Iowa, they might be resistant to immigration from people who are different who will change the place.

[kevviiinn]

You seem to think that people are never influenced by outside sources such as wealthy capital owners spreading propaganda in Iowa in order to make it the way the capital owner wants. I know you'll say "oh people can make choices for themselves" but that's not how behavior works especially when avenues of information are so highly controlled

[rayiner]

You mean wealthy capital owners who want to erase people’s natural affection for their own culture and communities so they can freely sourcing fungible labor from anywhere in the world? Yeah, there is a propaganda effort on that front.

That said, I think in the long run people see through propaganda and correctly perceive their own self interest. Knowledge workers in NYC and SV are following their own self interest in aligning themselves with global capital on the immigration issue—they benefit from a globalized economy with free movement of labor—while plumbers in Iowa are acting in their self interest to opposite it.

[nhchris]

I don't think it's fair to characterize the belief that the people living in a country have a large influence on how that country turns out, as thinking that outside forces have no effect.

[ticviking]

I think the second one comes from the idea that we inherit the residence and customs as something akin to property. The 'right' to inhabit a particular region in the same way of life, could be defended if people coming to a place disrupted those rights.

[rayiner]

> This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA.

It’s hard for a minority of Americans, who happen to control the media and institutions, to understand. That minority is freaking out because Trump voters in Idaho have a similar understanding of nation and nationality to ordinary people in Bangladesh or India or China.

You’re correct that it’s important for Americans not to project their sensibilities onto others. But it’s also important for cosmopolitan urban Americans not to project their sensibilities onto other Americans. A significant chunk of America is populated by the immigrant groups that developed the region in the first place. The Midwest is very much still a product of the German, Dutch, and Scandinavian settlers who immigrated there 200 years ago. My wife’s family were among the first white settlers in Oregon. Maybe the native Americans have a legitimate beef against them, but the Oregon that exists today is the product of her people and it’s entirely legitimate for them to think of their society as theirs in the same way as my family in Bangladesh thinks of our country as theirs.

[lolinder]

> You’re correct that it’s important for Americans not to project their sensibilities onto others. But it’s also important for cosmopolitan urban Americans not to project their sensibilities onto other Americans. A significant chunk of America is populated by the immigrant groups that developed the region in the first place.

For the record, I'm not a cosmopolitan urban American. I'm in a deep red state in flyover country. My ancestors (and my wife's) were the first settlers here. I'm proud of my ancestry, and I feel a deep connection with that past. I know exactly what it's like to be living in a place that your ancestors settled and to feel like it's changing.

However, I also take great issue with the Republican rhetoric surrounding immigration. I'm not talking about stereotyped rhetoric imagined in the left-wing media, I'm talking about conversations I regularly have over dinner or around the water cooler. I'm talking about growing up under the impression that Hispanic people were either lazy or drug dealers and that if we let too many of them in they'd ruin the country for "real" Americans.

I'm opposed to American nationalism because when I finally had the chance to interact with large numbers of immigrants, they not only didn't match the stereotypes, they were exactly the opposite in every way. I'm opposed to American nationalism because my ancestors left their homes and moved out West looking to get away from prejudice and hate—because they built a new world out here in collaboration with a lot of people who were very different than they were—and I owe it to their memories to be willing to do the same. They were no strangers to change, so I don't know why I should expect to be.

[selimthegrim]

This is essentializing. Do you think my ex boss who voted BNP, thinks Pakistan was a great country and used to call Prothom Alo communists and complain about Chhatra league has the same idea as your family about Bangladesh?

[rayiner]

Doubtful, but Trump voters in the Midwest aren’t a monolith either. Gov. Reynolds in Iowa was immediately on board with Afghanistan refugee resettlement. My point is that it’s a widespread (if not universal) sentiment in Bangladesh, so why should I be surprised to see the same widespread sentiment in Ohio?