|
I'm not saying we should have unlimited immigration or open borders. Countries can and do have immigration rules. My problem is with using nationality as a stand-in for a person's personal/individual character, beliefs, or ability to live/assimilate in a society. Just because there are differences in public attitudes between groups or nations does not mean you can look at one applicant and assume they personally believe whatever the average person in that culture believes. Most immigrants are not a random sample of the country they come from, they may be educated, secular, religious minorities, political dissidents, LGBT themselves, liberal, etc. If you're worried about a particular belief or ideology then make that the standard for the applying individual and do background checks, interviews, security screening, civic knowledge, etc, rather than a blanket country of origin ban. It is inherently discriminatory to take group-level generalizations and turn them into blanket exclusions of individuals. As for the "destination country becomes like the origin country", that is far too simplistic and reductive of a take. Selection effects, institutions, education, intermarriage, generational change, laws/culture of the host country, all matter in shaping behaviors of immigrants in society. Immigrants affect a society but the society also affects immigrants. |