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

[Lexicus]

When 30% or close enough of the population are immigrants guess what happens to house prices(Australia, Canada, NZ)?

That whole cost of living thing which is the big issue everywhere?

This is really really sick stuff, you are doing Nazi rhetoric here and it's disgusting. Imagine someone saying this about any other group of people, "oh if we got rid of them housing prices would go down" - this is deeply, deeply concerning.

 

[NovaKart]

Putting any sort of limit on immigration makes you a Nazi who’s into “skull science” and the only reason one might be opposed to mass immigration has to do with skin color.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Putting any sort of limit on immigration makes you a Nazi who’s into “skull science” and the only reason one might be opposed to mass immigration has to do with skin color.

Weird, i don't see much opposition to white immigration, can you point out where that is

 

[danjuno]

mass immigration

Kinda off topic, but this phrase kinda irks me. Like, immigration is something lots of people are doing all the time, it's like the old "Department of Redundancy Department".

 

[NovaKart]

Weird, i don't see much opposition to white immigration, can you point out where that is

This thread is pretty long so I might have missed it. Who here has talked about immigration in terms of skin color?

Kinda off topic, but this phrase kinda irks me. Like, immigration is something lots of people are doing all the time, it's like the old "Department of Redundancy Department".

Is there no way to talk about small-scale immigration compared to very large-scale immigration resulting in immigrants constituting 30% of the population?

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm having difficulty reconciling my position on immigration with the labels of “racism”, “Nazism”, or “fascism.” My goal is to find a system that balances humanitarian values with national security using the framework of Social Democracy.

I myself don’t want unfettered immigration where we let every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the country. But alas, even if I hold a position that would make it easier to immigrate by way of less red tape and less wait time during the vetting process while ensuring people who would do more harm than good (terrorists infiltrators) don’t enter into the country in bad faith. I’m labeled as a “racist” , “fascist” or a “Nazi” when my standards are applied to anyone coming into the US from other parts of the world including good faith, including European Countries. In a nutshell, mine’s is more close to a SocDem position that seeks a balance between humanitarian values, robust border management, economic needs, and the preservation of social welfare systems. I’ve done some poking around in seeking a balance approach with research from the Cato institute and the various articles from the National Immigration Forum that shows a balanced enforcement and efficient legal pathways that would lead to better economic and security outcomes for the nation as a whole.

Not only do I find the equivocation of wanting a vetting process of immigration to ensure people move into the country in good faith, irregardless of their race, religion, etc. to the same level as “fascist”, “Nazi”, and “racist”; disingenuous, but also down right insulting.

 

[Lexicus]

Not only do I find the equivocation of wanting a vetting process of immigration to ensure people move into the country in good faith, irregardless of their race, religion, etc. to the same level as “fascist”, “Nazi”, and “racist”; disingenuous, but also down right insulting.

The specific post I was responding to was blaming the presence of immigrants for the high cost of living, not arguing in good faith for some kind of vetting process (which already exists btw, so anyone claiming that immigrants are not already "vetted" is either arguing in bad faith or in ignorance).

 

[EnglishEdward]

I claim that the immigrants coming across the channel from France to Britain in small boats are not vetted.

 

[danjuno]

I claim that the immigrants coming across the channel from France to Britain in small boats are not vetted.

Go on then, provide a source.

 

[danjuno]

Putting any sort of limit on immigration makes you a Nazi who’s into “skull science” and the only reason one might be opposed to mass immigration has to do with skin color.

I'm having difficulty reconciling my position on immigration with the labels of “racism”, “Nazism”, or “fascism.” My goal is to find a system that balances humanitarian values with national security using the framework of Social Democracy.

I myself don’t want unfettered immigration where we let every Tom, Dick, and Harry into the country. But alas, even if I hold a position that would make it easier to immigrate by way of less red tape and less wait time during the vetting process while ensuring people who would do more harm than good (terrorists infiltrators) don’t enter into the country in bad faith. I’m labeled as a “racist” , “fascist” or a “Nazi” when my standards are applied to anyone coming into the US from other parts of the world including good faith, including European Countries. In a nutshell, mine’s is more close to a SocDem position that seeks a balance between humanitarian values, robust border management, economic needs, and the preservation of social welfare systems. I’ve done some poking around in seeking a balance approach with research from the Cato institute and the various articles from the National Immigration Forum that shows a balanced enforcement and efficient legal pathways that would lead to better economic and security outcomes for the nation as a whole.

Not only do I find the equivocation of wanting a vetting process of immigration to ensure people move into the country in good faith, irregardless of their race, religion, etc. to the same level as “fascist”, “Nazi”, and “racist”; disingenuous, but also down right insulting.

The specific post I was responding to was blaming the presence of immigrants for the high cost of living, not arguing in good faith for some kind of vetting process (which already exists btw, so anyone claiming that immigrants are not already "vetted" is either arguing in bad faith or in ignorance).

Very weird that y'all act like it's a personal attack on you that Lexi says to Zard that hypothetically deleting 30% of the population is Nazi rhetoric.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Strange, I can not find the post where Zardnaar proposed deleting 30% of the population.

 

[Zardnaar]

This is really really sick stuff, you are doing Nazi rhetoric here and it's disgusting. Imagine someone saying this about any other group of people, "oh if we got rid of them housing prices would go down" - this is deeply, deeply concerning.

Did you even glance at the pdf I linked?

People gotta live somewhere. High demand lack of supply prices go up.

Few years back the housing industry was at capacity. They couldn't build any more houses.

When housing was cheap say 2990s immigration was minimal.

Try listening and stop gaslighting. If half a million people moved to Australia (theyre legally allowed to) house prices would go down right?

In UK terms if 17 million people moved there next decade and a half would house prices go up or down? USA 80 million people move there.

That's how you get 25% population growth in 17 years, 27-30% population foreign born.

No one in any significant numbers is saying deport them. More like cut visa for a bit. 50% cut is still more immigration than Europe/USA.

No visa youre looking at deportation if caught. Illegal immigrants are not a problem though. 20k for 5.3 million iirc. Youre probably excluding yourself and family from key services and eventually it will catch up to you. Eg kids want to go to university.

 

[danjuno]

Strange, I can not find the post where Zardnaar proposed deleting 30% of the population.

Not surprising, given your habit of ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

Did you even glance at the pdf I linked?

People gotta live somewhere. High demand lack of supply prices go up.

Few years back the housing industry was at capacity. They couldn't build any more houses.

When housing was cheap say 2990s immigration was minimal.

Try listening and stop gaslighting. If half a million people moved to Australia (theyre legally allowed to) house prices would go down right?

In UK terms if 17 million people moved there next decade and a half would house prices go up or down? USA 80 million people move there.

That's how you get 25% population growth in 17 years, 27-30% population foreign born and sone of the most expensive real estate in the world.

What part of restricting immigration does not change that housing is hoarded as a commodity by the rich do you NOT understand?

 

[Zardnaar]

Average house prices. Australia

Sydney 1.269 million
Melbourne

Not surprising, given your habit of ignoring anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

What part of restricting immigration does not change that housing is hoarded as a commodity by the rich do you NOT understand?

Emigration has increased house prices are now stable.

Also old enough to remember when we had very high emigration prices were very low.

Rich can hoard all they like but if supply outstrip demand prices will go down. No point buying off the rich if you can just build a new house.

You still need bodies to fill the houses.

And I assume you didnt read the pdf? Cheap credit, high immigration, investment rules= exploding prices. The demand side is mostly immigration as population keeps increasing. Per capital its vastly greater scale than most countries. Think X2-X4 your country (depending where you live).

Immigration isnt some cause but its definitely the main driver on demand. We woukd have negative population growth with 0 immigrants.

We need some obviously but they could have cut it 75% and still averaged 6% growth vs 25%

 

[GenMarshall]

The specific post I was responding to was blaming the presence of immigrants for the high cost of living, not arguing in good faith for some kind of vetting process (which already exists btw, so anyone claiming that immigrants are not already "vetted" is either arguing in bad faith or in ignorance).

Very weird that y'all act like it's a personal attack on you that Lexi says to Zard that hypothetically deleting 30% of the population is Nazi rhetoric.

I'm less focused on Zardnaar's arguments (I don't have time for red harrings) since his arguments are more on the lines of high cost of living (I don't know how it managed to get straw manned to Nazi-like rhetoric given how scattered his posts and thoughts are and Angsts trying his best to engage with him) and more in line with the lack of nuances in this political climate that doesn't devolve into the use of thought terminating insults like "racist", "fascists", or "Nazi". The Arguments Akka has touched upon earlier in the thread with the labels being used as thought-terminating cliches and insults. Deployed to not engage with an argument but to shut down the speaker, signal moral superiority, and avoid actually arguing the policy specifics that the speaker puts forwards. Thus, I resonate most with Akka's arguments he made earlier in the thread.

My actual frustration is with the routine, casual application of terms like 'racist,' 'fascist,' and 'Nazi' in everyday policy debates, especially to people like myself who advocate for balanced, nuanced policy reform within a social democratic framework. It trivializes the actual horrors of Nazism and fascism when you (the general "you") use those terms to shut down any nuance debate, especially regarding immigration. That's why I find it insulting, disingenuous, and unconstructive in civil discorse. It's why I describe Trump's policy on cracking down on immigration and his use of ICE more on the lines of authoritarianism than "fascism" and "Nazism". It's less of a perception of a "personal attack" (I'm used to Tankies calling me and other SocDems a "social fascist" and I lurk in SocDem subreddits and they express the same frustrations as well) and more on the lines of exasperated frustration seeing it in public discorse.

I'm fully aware that the vetting process already exist. The point of my argument from a SocDem framework is that the current process is inefficient and needs practical reforms to reduce the timeline, expanding legal pathways, and streamlining the process to reduce the backlog of immigrants to be processed and vetted as well as a fair and efficient naturalization process. Without regards to a country of origin, race, religion, as long as the individual wishes to enter into the country (and becomes a citizen if they wish) in good faith. I've read experiences (and sympathize with) users within SocDem subreddits on how it's frustrating to have a conversation with other leftists and their views are dismissed as "social fascist", "racist", and upholding the status-quo. I'm very much more interested on the "hows" of reforming our current vetting process to be more efficient and fair than the low hanging fruits of calling a person or an idea "fascist", "racist", or "Nazi".

 

[Angst]

Angsts trying his best to engage with him

from me to me

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm less focused on Zardnaar's arguments (I don't have time for red harrings) since his arguments are more on the lines of high cost of living (I don't know how it managed to get straw manned to Nazi-like rhetoric given how scattered his posts and thoughts are and Angsts trying his best to engage with him) and more in line with the lack of nuances in this political climate that doesn't devolve into the use of thought terminating insults like "racist", "fascists", or "Nazi". The Arguments Akka has touched upon earlier in the thread with the labels being used as thought-terminating cliches and insults. Deployed to not engage with an argument but to shut down the speaker, signal moral superiority, and avoid actually arguing the policy specifics that the speaker puts forwards. Thus, I resonate most with Akka's arguments he made earlier in the thread.

My actual frustration is with the routine, casual application of terms like 'racist,' 'fascist,' and 'Nazi' in everyday policy debates, especially to people like myself who advocate for balanced, nuanced policy reform within a social democratic framework. It trivializes the actual horrors of Nazism and fascism when you (the general "you") use those terms to shut down any nuance debate, especially regarding immigration. That's why I find it insulting, disingenuous, and unconstructive in civil discorse. It's why I describe Trump's policy on cracking down on immigration and his use of ICE more on the lines of authoritarianism than "fascism" and "Nazism". It's less of a perception of a "personal attack" (I'm used to Tankies calling me and other SocDems a "social fascist" and I lurk in SocDem subreddits and they express the same frustrations as well) and more on the lines of exasperated frustration seeing it in public discorse.

I'm fully aware that the vetting process already exist. The point of my argument from a SocDem framework is that the current process is inefficient and needs practical reforms to reduce the timeline, expanding legal pathways, and streamlining the process to reduce the backlog of immigrants to be processed and vetted as well as a fair and efficient naturalization process. Without regards to a country of origin, race, religion, as long as the individual wishes to enter into the country (and becomes a citizen if they wish) in good faith. I've read experiences (and sympathize with) users within SocDem subreddits on how it's frustrating to have a conversation with other leftists and their views are dismissed as "social fascist", "racist", and upholding the status-quo. I'm very much more interested on the "hows" of reforming our current vetting process to be more efficient and fair than the low hanging fruits of calling a person or an idea "fascist", "racist", or "Nazi".

Oh BTW if you go far enough left everyone Soc Dem and right of them is facist. And they're the only left.

They're basically left wing incels. Theres around 20k in the CPUSA.

Trolling online is about the best the revolution can do.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...) My actual frustration is with the routine, casual application of terms like 'racist,' 'fascist,' and 'Nazi' in everyday policy debates, especially to people like myself who advocate for balanced, nuanced policy reform within a social democratic framework. It trivializes the actual horrors of Nazism and fascism when you (the general "you") use those terms to shut down any nuance debate, especially regarding immigration. That's why I find it insulting, disingenuous, and unconstructive …

That’s a US American thing I’m afraid, the obsession of your countryfolk with the “Nazis” is remarkable.

Could be lack of historical perspective, WW II figures prominently in your collective subconcious memory apparently.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

There are literal neo nazis in charge of the us government, you want us to pretend otherwise?

 

[Akka]

My faith in the equality of men has today been defeated by your skull science and the natural philosophy you employ to support it; good day sir!

Except the point was precisely that you claimed specifically "there is something bad OUTSIDE of considering people not equal/worth the same" and when asked "okay, what is ?" you circle back to "not considering people not equal/worth the same", but with a snarky tone so as to imply that it's the other guy who made that claim rather than you.
Also you avoided answering the important question about "who decides on the criteria to accept people in the legal framework of the government ?".

And it's not the first time you've done it :

Funnily, it's basically exactly :

Yet, the entire reason why words like "racism" and "ethno-chauvinism" are negative is because they mean that someone consider a person "less human" than another due to its ethnicity.

And when I pointed this, you said that the specific manifestation of racism that is consciously considering others to be subhuman is not the only reason that racism is harmful. To which I asked you to then tell what is actually harmful outside of considering someone "worth less" due to his ethnicity (twice), and I can't help but notice you haven't answered this, but you went immediately back to the previous "it's bad because it considers someone worth less than another" (that you, yourself, just said wasn't the only bad thing). That's running in circle while avoiding the point.
Care to actually answer the question ?

We're still here. At some point, I can't help but ask : if you feel the need to constantly run away and switch the goalposts to never have to give an answer/use strawmen to misrepresent what the other is saying, does it mean you know yourself you're wrong, but are just unwilling to admit it ?

Oh, also, as a bonus :

Saying something is racist doesn't prevent discussion unless the person whose argument is being called racist has a meltdown about the other person "trying to silence me!"

Your own words. Don't seem to hold very well right now.

---

@Akka: I’m not really sure I understand what you mean exactly when you say your identity is threatened. I acknowledge that this is something you experience, but I don’t know what concrete things make you conclude that way, and that’s what bothers me.

I spent a significant amount of the thread explaining it, so I'm going for a short summary :
There is a group of people with a culture - a set of values and habits and common background, and a feeling of belonging and continuity, built over the centuries. People from this group identify with this whole set.
If you add people with a different culture and heritage, obviously they bring with them a different set of value and habits, don't share this common background nor the continuity. This, by essence, alters the "average" of the group (obviously, the larger the group and the more different it is, the stronger the effect). The original people as such, see the identity of the whole group changing compared with what it was before the addition of the new people. They tend to not like it and opposite it.
That's the gist of it.

I just want to underline that different people in the same country can have different experiences.

Very obviously. And even if having the same experiences, they won't necessarily feel the same.

Now, there are frankly two very different ways to look at the idea that immigration should be better controlled:

An important point though, is that to even get to the "control of immigration" concept, one has to actually recognize that a group of people has a legitimate ownership of a territory, and the right to chose who can enter and who can not.
One of the main problems is that this very mandate isn't accepted by a number of posters, who consider that there is a universal right for everyone to settle wherever they want, and no right for groups to chose who can be part of them.

An identity-based angle: opposing immigration as a matter of principle because it threatens cultural identity. This is much harder for me to grasp. Why would I want to prevent a hard-working Vietnamese, Pole or Egyptian from coming to France if their intent is to contribute economically and integrate socially? In what way are they a “threat” to my identity? That’s really what I’m struggling to understand.

Few would argue against having A hard-working person from whatever background coming into the country with the intent of contribute and integrate.
The opposition comes, as implied above, with the magnitude of the change. A single person is not a problem and will have little to no effect on the identity of the whole group. 15 % of the population will definitely alter the "average" of the whole group.

---

Very weird that y'all act like it's a personal attack on you that Lexi says to Zard that hypothetically deleting 30% of the population is Nazi rhetoric.

He said that increasing the population by 30 % causes an increase in house price.
Care to explain how you jump from that to "let's kill 30 % of the population" ?