[nielsbot]

Immigration is a net positive for social services, housing, childcare, healthcare, etc. over the long term. This country was built by immigrants.

There can be negative effects with large inflows locally, but that's a policy failure that can be addressed.

[rayiner]

The British who came to this land weren’t “immigrants.” They were settlers. They came to this land, and created a country based on British law, British civic institutions, British political philosophy, and British economics. The Germans and Scandinavians came here for the most part also developed towns and cities that weren’t there before. Immigrants are the people who then moved into those places.

[dwa3592]

you are just BS'ing!! native people lived here before that - they had their own version towns.

[throw-the-towel]

Just as one example, 13th century Cahokia was comparable in population to London and Paris.

[collingreen]

What? You make a distinction between settlers and immigrants?

Is "invaders" on that list to?

[rayiner]

The distinction between settlers and immigrants is extremely salient from a sociological standpoint.

In the U.S., we have a right to a jury trial. To decide whether a jury trial right exists in a particular case, we look to whether that case would have been tried to a jury in 1791 in a particular country. Which country is that? The people from that country were the settlers.

If you look at American legal theory and elide people’s names, you might not realize there was anyone here besides British people. There’s more influence in our legal system from ancient Rome than modern Italy.

[nielsbot]

surely this is sarcasm

[idiotsecant]

I notice isn't quite often that the people complaining about immigration are less than the most shining examples of American ingenuity and hustle. They are, very nearly to the one, small, terrified people who seem to think that their position in the social heirarchy is threatened by the relative concentration of melanin in the area (or they are pretending to hold that opinion to manipulate those people to their own ends)

America needs the vigor and drive that immigration brings. Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world. We reject that resource today at our own peril.

Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there

[joe_mamba]

>They are, very nearly to the one, small, terrified people who seem to think that their position in the social heirarchy is threatened by the relative concentration of melanin in the area

Literally nobody brought up skin color in this entire discussion but you and you're using it in bad faith to call other racists. The typical way of liberals and democrat arguments is always rejecting logic and statistics if they make immigration look bad, and focusing on identity politics and skin color to deflect your arguments as racist. Look in the mirror, the racist might be right there if skin color is the first thing you reach for in a discussion.

>Our countrymen have always been immigrants and we were greatest when we stole the most courageous, the smartest, the hardest working from everywhere in the world.

And tell me, what happened to the native American Indians when you "courageous, smartest and hardest working" immigrants(my ancestors) moved to America? Where are the descendant of the native Indians today and how many are they and what's their socio-economic situation at the moment in society relative to the immigrants that displaced them? Or look at what happened to Palestinians after they opened their doors to Jewish refugees from Europe since 1945. How are the descendents of those Palestinians faring today? Not so good, huh, barely trying to survive not being genocided by the guests they welcomed in 80 years ago. Every mass migration event in the world has led to violence and demographic displacement of the local population. If those invading your land in high numbers are "smart and hard working" it makes no difference to you if you're getting demographically displaced.

>We reject that resource today at our own peril.

As we should. Why would I want to happen to me what happened to native american Indians or to Palestinians when they accepted foreign invaders(now called migrants)? Just think about it for 3 seconds, why would anyone voluntarily want to bring in their own demise? Except this time around, I'm pretty sure once you're demographically and democratically displaced, you won't get your own minority rights, reservations and casinos by your invaders, because they'll see your suffering as just retribution for the conquest and past sins your ancestors have done over the natives back then. The overton window has already shifted to the point where democrats call and win election based on racist policies of taxing white people more. It'll be like what's happening to the descendents of European immigrants in South Africa and Zimbabwe today. Not pretty.

>Do we want to be the UK? Inward-focused ignorant navel gazing and xenophobia are how we get there

Except UK has had more migration per capita than the US especially since 2020, and their situation has only gotten worse. If you accept more migration then you're guaranteed to end be like the UK.

Why is it that when Americans travel abroad and say how amazing, clean it was and how safe they felt in X country, that country somehow has very low migration rates and draconical laws on visa entry and is hard on crime? Weird how they can't connect the dots on this one.

[idiotsecant]

Whew, touched a nerve there, sounds like. Quite a novel you took the time to write there. It's a shame nobody will ever read it

[joe_mamba]

I don't care about who reads it, upvotes or changing people's opinions, I care about being right. Darwin and all that will decide in the end.

[idiotsecant]

Lol darwin, ok himmler