How big is immigration an issue on people's minds (USA and elsewhere)?

[Voidwalkin]

imo you can see the American influence on European thought despite clear distinctions in the two situations. In America, it is near certain that we are going to assimilate our mostly Latin American immigrants well, both economically and socially.

Europe? They look to us, our debates, use our rhetoric and extrapolate from our history that assimilation is near certain. However, the factor of religion isn't equivalent. Religion is a more effective transmitter of values and identity than just about anything else, and substantial percentages of immigrants to European countries have religious differences with the societies they're immigrating to. What is happening there doesn't really have clear parallel here.

When you add in that ethnicity seems to define whether somebody is or is not European identity group X, that these are both nationalities and ethnicities, more strongly linked than usually happens in the New World, social alienation and differences are gonna be more troubled than they are here, to the benefit of nobody.

These difficulties seem to be A#1 in propelling the European right to greater electoral showings. America isn't grappling to the same extent with Old World differences and I don't really know how Europe is gonna fare long term. It's destabilizing, I think could be fairly said, and therefore unpredictable.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are rational arguments for tempering immigration, but I suspect the motivation for most anti-immigration people is racist/xenophobic in origin, even if they don't want to admit it. Once you start citing ethnic percentages or leeches on the dole, you enter dog-whistle territory (or really air-raid-siren territory). The "foreign savage" take is globally common and somehow applied to anyone from anywhere. There should be a cognitive hint somewhere in this process where you realize that if you're seen as a foreign savage to people from one country, you might have an issue seeing them as a foreign savage in yours. It's intellectually uncurious to double down and insist the demographic you're targeting really is the Spoiled Criminal Element Hellbent On Wiping Us Out.

It makes it difficult to have a genuine conversation about immigration. The motives are just so wildly different. I'm of the mind that immigration should be slowed in Canada, but my reasoning extends strictly to a question of service load. The government is failing miserably at expanding infrastructure to support the current population, so accepting greater numbers adds stress to a system already beyond its limits. This is not an immigration problem but a government-for-the-people problem. Slowing immigration only "buys time," in the sense that the overwhelming stress load is a little less extreme so that the current population sees improvements faster and more effectively. This is also why I don't care for generic "fewer immigrants!" arguments, as they do nothing to address the core identified issue and only feed into xenophobic mindsets.

My personal preference is for immigration to become significantly easier and for borders to become less strict. But this requires a world that currently does not exist. In the meantime, I think there should be a lot of pressure put on governments to truly support their people, which entails massive expansions of public services. That takes time, so it makes sense to stem the flow of additional people for a while as that happens. A "give us 5 or 10 years to catch up a little" deal. If you add 20 doctors to address a shortage of 40 doctors, that 50% improvement becomes less endearing if you also added enough population to require an extra 10 doctors. You can ease some of that with specialization when accepting immigrants (though I fundamentally despise the idea that immigrants should only be specialists), but you still need the hospitals, the clinics, the expanded med school classes, the public transit, the community services, and so on. It's a little easier to address all this if you cool it a little on growth for a bit.

But no government seems interested in doing any of that. All you ever hear about are the Terrible Immigrants and how they're ruining our Fine (White) Society. It's obnoxious. It's also why I never participate in any anti-immigration thing or add public support to any kind of petition/effort toward that aim because I know that their motivation is not my motivation, and helping them does not get me what I want.

Yup. NZ and Canada need less immigration short term maybe Australia as well. All 3 have options.

Alot of Wwstern Europe needs vastly more immigration to the extent they couldn't absorb them and they ay not be there in enough numbers with an open door policy.

China, Japan, Korea same boat.

Illegal immigration isn't really a thing here people care about. It's mostly people overstaying their visas and your employment options are severely limited if you do that.

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps the xenophobes were right and we should have never gone down the slippery slope by letting the Irish in.

 

[Voidwalkin]

So, yes, maybe respondents are being bougie and woke (because that's a certifiably bougie thing, something the true salt of the earth would never be).

I'm inclined to believe that immigration is one of those issues which people's feelings might be negative about, but they can perhaps not rationally be too negative about. The negative feelings may be enough to drive people's behaviour, but they may not admit it, at least not openly.

Do you agree? How do you feel people's attitudes are towards immigration in your country, and are those reflected in what they say in polite company?

It's weird because if you see it in that context, it seems like such a small issue. "Illegal immigrants should have a clean record and a job" doesn't really match up with "I want mass deportations." Because who would be this "mass" being deported?

IDK how complex you wanna get with this, but I do think it is mistaken to view the immigration issue as isolated from a more general pushback against what is often thought to be run-away pro-social thought, generally.

You correctly identify that the bourgeois are more likely to be aware of their social positioning. In pretty much every social matter, they will routinely err on the side of caution, because to be uninclusive in the managerial or professional class is disastrous. In the eyes of rural America, this process has led to wild groupthink, weird evolutions, and they want nothing to do with it and yeah, I think that is not entirely void of merit.

The sense, here in rural America(or at least rural Ohio), afaict, is that Trump is not actually going to enact mass deportations. I'm unsure to what extent Trump voters even want that. Most of those I've spoken to are aware I don't judge for any position taken, so I doubt there's positioning at play, and they tell me, mostly, no, they don't want horror stories. They're not opposed to deportation of illegal immigrants, they just haven't thought the mechanics through enough to realize mass deportation will almost certainly be ugly beyond their tolerance.

What makes them gleeful? Why they vote for it? Yeah, mostly, they're happy to metaphorically tell the people who they believe hate them and think they're superior to **** off. Actual immigration policy afaict is secondary to most as far as I can tell.

 

[danjuno]

Borders are statist.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Borders are statist.

OOC, how would the...non-statist solution handle migration?

I have anarchist sympathies, but it's gonna get really unstable quickly without any control. I handle instability well, but I doubt no borders at all produces outcomes majorities think are ok.

 

[Birdjaguar]

OOC, how would the...non-statist solution handle migration?

I have anarchist sympathies, but it's gonna get really unstable quickly without any control. I handle instability well, but I doubt no borders at all produces outcomes majorities think are ok.

Imagine the white folks expansion migration into the American west. No border; might makes right. The same applies to the entire colonial expansion into the New world.

 

[danjuno]

OOC, how would the...non-statist solution handle migration?

If someone creates a problem, deal with them where they are.

Border control implies a problem exists before it has even happened.

 

[Farm Boy]

Imagine the white folks expansion migration into the American west. No border; might makes right. The same applies to the entire colonial expansion into the New world.

So anarchists are just stymied imperials?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

These days everything from high home prices to high egg prices to "nobody can find a job" to the worsening driving standards on our roads are being blamed on immigrants.

I've heard there are plenty of jobs. It's just that they don't pay enough to let a person rent a decent apartment in a non-drug infested part of whatever city they live in, and have enough left for utilities, food, transportation, and all the other things people need.

This is why there are a lot of people who say Trudeau is stark-raving nuts for letting so many people in when the housing situation is so bad. And we have a government that thinks housing means literal houses. They don't seem to care about apartments that are affordable and accessible.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So anarchists are just stymied imperials?

But I do no that there were no borders anywhere in the in the new world until the Europeans showed and and created them. The immigrants just moved where they wanted and took over (or not) depending upon the circumstances. I don't see how anarchy has anything to do with it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But I do no that there were no borders anywhere in the in the new world until the Europeans showed and and created them. The immigrants just moved where they wanted and took over (or not) depending upon the circumstances. I don't see how anarchy has anything to do with it.

There would have had to be some understanding of whose land was whose, or at least who had the right to live there. I don't remember anything from my cultural anthropology classes mentioning that people from the Pacific Northwest suddenly decided to move to the Aztecs' region, for example. After all, it's a myth that there were no wars or battles before the Europeans came.

 

[Voidwalkin]

If someone creates a problem, deal with them where they are.

Border control implies a problem exists before it has even happened.

That's still sorta statist, control simply enforced by a state a bit later, and only after a migrant has presumably trespassed a law, but a state is still involved. Stateless society would basically be mob justice, death or exile, because detainment and enforcement both basically depend on some form of state. It worked like that for most of the time humans were walking upright, but it wouldn't be popular.

Statelessness means the freedom to leave a society to redefine positions and rethink values somewhere new. There is value to that, I hope space colonization may one day renew that as a possibility, but it's too unpopular for the here and now, too many people, too little land.

 

[Tee Kay]

Australia is a bit unusual

1. Illegal immigration is cracked down upon severely, regardless of whether you intend to claim asylum. As in: if you're caught trying to sneak in by sea it's interception by warships and turned back at gunpoint if you're lucky, and years in legal limbo in prison followed by deportation if you're unlucky.

2. Legal immigration is sky high and has been for decades. If you're a young-ish worker with passable English in a profession in demand, it's relatively quick and easy, you don't even need employer sponsorship necessarily (bonus points if you've studied in an Australian university and/or willing to move to a regional area). Family migration (eg trying to bring your parents, spouse, etc into the country) seems to be the hardest category. But that's just permanent migration; there are multiple pathways for temporary worker visas as well.

3. The numbers for the humanitarian program (resettlement of registered refugees living overseas) is also high by Western/First World standards. The USA resettles the most refugees by far but Australia resettles 2.5x as many per capita.

This is the Howard Consensus that has been in place for over a quarter century: "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" but we're relatively generous with admissions provided you abide by our rules. There is bipartisan agreement on the broad strokes of this by both major parties. "Right-wing populist" anti-immigration parties either don't do well or don't get enough seats to meaningfully change this.

30% of Australians are born overseas and 50% have at least one parent born overseas, and the furthest back 96% of the population can trace our ancestral presence is 1788. We're well too aware that almost all of us are ~recent arrivals here, even those who don't want to admit it. That fact plus democratic control over immigration I believe are the main things that set Australia apart. Of course this is not easily replicated by most countries that are not Australia (for one thing, we don't have a land border, nor are we located near any major "source" countries for refugees)

Recently polls have shifted towards preferring lower immigration rates (a trend that began pre-Covid) but support for multiculturalism is still very high; given that Sydney house prices make San Francisco looks affordable I'm inclined to trust that it's cost of living that's driving the anti-immigration trend and not racism/xenophobia. The government has acted by cutting immigration rates for one of the most contentious and abused category of temporary visas, international students, so as to preserve support for the core of the immigration program.

 

[Arwon]

Also seemingly at the cost of torching our higher education sector and consequently our third largest export but hey, that's parliamentary politics for ya

 

[Tee Kay]

Also seemingly at the cost of torching our higher education sector and consequently our third largest export but hey, that's parliamentary politics for ya

The only state that this really impacts is Victoria and we've long come to expect the Federal Government to be unsympathetic and screw us over.

 

[Arwon]

It's hitting the ACT education sector fairly hard, lots of job losses. It's by far our largest export, well above the national per capita share, and ACT exports not much less than half what SA or WA do.

Feds never give a crap about Canberra, unfortunately. It's all safe seats and an annoyingly left wing local branch causing issues at caucus for one side, and the other mob have given up ever winning local seats or territory government, and always try to cause a local recession when they get in federally.

 

[aelf]

The sense, here in rural America(or at least rural Ohio), afaict, is that Trump is not actually going to enact mass deportations. I'm unsure to what extent Trump voters even want that. Most of those I've spoken to are aware I don't judge for any position taken, so I doubt there's positioning at play, and they tell me, mostly, no, they don't want horror stories. They're not opposed to deportation of illegal immigrants, they just haven't thought the mechanics through enough to realize mass deportation will almost certainly be ugly beyond their tolerance.

Reportedly, 56% of Americans support mass deportations. That figure is 88% for Trump supporters.

Like I said, this stands in contrast with the much more reasonable view that illegal immigrants can stay if they have a clean record and a job (up to 64% say this).

You probably just have to reconcile with the fact that people's opinions are unreliable, or at least that surveys and the words used can draw out very different responses from people (e.g. "Is killing someone in cold blood acceptable?"), especially as opposed to how they might really feel inside. You're right in that it might be a vibe thing. "I hate immigrants" is true for an individual when in the company of fellow xenophobes, less true for the same individual when asked by a pollster about who should be allowed to stay. It seems Trump running for election has the same effect as being in the company of xenophobes on this matter.

There isn't some kind of fundamental socialist truth to what motivates people to act this way. People may just be confused or 'vibing' without necessarily any regard to what is good or is in their class interest. It's the creators of these vibes that the so-called modern left attacks - because of this problem, not "rigid conformity" or whatever.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Reportedly, 56% of Americans support mass deportations. That figure is 88% for Trump supporters.

Like I said, this stands in contrast with the much more reasonable view that illegal immigrants can stay if they have a clean record and a job (up to 64% say this).

You probably just have to reconcile with the fact that people's opinions are unreliable, or at least that surveys and the words used can draw out very different responses from people (e.g. "Is killing someone in cold blood acceptable?"), especially as opposed to how they might really feel inside. You're right in that it might be a vibe thing. "I hate immigrants" is true for an individual when in the company of fellow xenophobes, less true for the same individual when asked by a pollster about who should be allowed to stay. It seems Trump running for election has the same effect as being in the company of xenophobes on this matter.

There isn't some kind of fundamental socialist truth to what motivates people to act this way. People may just be confused or 'vibing' without necessarily any regard to what is good or is in their class interest. It's the creators of these vibes that the so-called modern left attacks - because of this problem, not "rigid conformity" or whatever.

Idk if you quite understood, it is acknowledged that there is no opposition to deportation in principle in most Trump supporters. That they are harsher than they may let on is not something I dispute.

What's speculated is that they're softer than they probably know themselves. If the question polled were "do you support detaining 3 million illegal immigrants in camps with harsh conditions for 4 years" the answer, even among Trump supporters, I imagine it's no. Realistically, that's inevitable if he follows through, and nah, I don't think there'll be much support of it, though I wouldn't expect any mass protests, either.

Trump said it, they wanna own the libs, the prime directive, but when push comes to shove, we will see a lotta Trump supporters start wavering.

 

[Farm Boy]

But I do no that there were no borders anywhere in the in the new world until the Europeans showed and and created them. The immigrants just moved where they wanted and took over (or not) depending upon the circumstances. I don't see how anarchy has anything to do with it.

Strangers were mistrusted and dangerous at that phase. Bored men with enough time and food to build boats and go sailing seemed to have the habit of looking for slaves and loot. Or horses, those were likewise effective. Horses made the Commanche, before, the distances were too punishing.