| > However, in any ethnicity of people, there will be some who are good and some who are bad. This is a strawman interpretation of anti-immigration arguments. Non-strawman anti-immigration positions are that immigrants are a problem even if they are all "good". If you care about getting rid of "bad" people, then you have to evenhandedly apply the rule, even to those who have ethnic roots in the country going back a hundred generation: take those "bad" people too and strip them of citizenship. Where in the world is immigration driven by "good" or "bad"; I mean, where do documents like visitor visas and residency permits lapse due to badness rather than the mere passage of time, whereby the individual not able to extent has to go, whether they are "good" or "bad"? What is "bad"? Does "bad" have to be armed robbery? Or is someone also "bad" if they settle in Japan, and then demand that schools remove pork from school lunch? Unwanted immigration can simply be the raw numbers: 500 immigrants not being a problem, but 500,000 being a problem, all else being held equal, including "goodness". You can be deemed undesirable not because who you are but entirely because you're part of a group with 499,999 others. From the individual's point of view, it is unfair; that is true, and it isn't meant to be. |