| I think the argument against can be boiled down to this hypothetical analogy: A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms. Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite. Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept? Who has the power to make that determination? After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in? --- Personally, I can see the argument for both sides. |
It's got all sorts of baggage and expectations pertaining to homeownership that don't carry over into migration. I feel it'd just be better to address the problem space directly and ask what specific problems you observe/predict with immigration.
The problem I'm inferring from your comment here would also seem to apply to families moving from Chicago to Boston. And what's funny is that people actually do complain about this (our mayor is from Chicago), but it's for nonsensical reasons in my experience.