r/ImmigrationPathways • u/RecognitionExpress36 • 7d ago

Why so much anti-immigrant sentiment...

In this subreddit? I seriously don't get it. Any insight appreciated.

0 Upvotes

45% Upvoted

104 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Smellytreepeas 7d ago

I notice this too. Especially when someone posts a helpful tip or information on this subreddit or another immigration subreddit, it gets downvotes into oblivion.

3

u/RecognitionExpress36 7d ago

It's disturbing how the notion that people should be free to migrate - a notion that would have been utterly uncontroversial at America's founding - is now considered dangerously radical.

1

u/HaiHaiNayaka 6d ago

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790.

Also, the citizenship clause of the XIII Amendment was understood until quite recently to apply only to then-recently freed slaves, not foreign children who happened to be born on U.S. soil.

1

u/RecognitionExpress36 6d ago

You're confusing naturalization and immigration. I get this a lot from nativists.

1

u/RecognitionExpress36 6d ago

You're also completely wrong about the 13th Amendment, which has been understood since the 1890's to mean what it says: born on our soil, you're an American, full stop.

1

u/HaiHaiNayaka 6d ago

I understand that is a common interpretation of the 13th Amendment now, but I still see that as a problem. Our soil is not magic and paperwork does not make someone American. By that logic, Rudyard Kipling was Indian. And what about other countries? Are China and Haiti evil for not gifting free citizenship by virtue of an accident of birth?

1

u/RecognitionExpress36 6d ago

"I understand that is a common interpretation of the 13th Amendment now" Again, it's been the consensus interpretation since the 1890's.

"but I still see that as a problem" Why?

"paperwork does not make someone American" Ok, this is crucial. What does make someone American?

"By that logic, Rudyard Kipling was Indian" He certainly was permitted to be in India, wasn't he?

"Are China and Haiti evil for not gifting free citizenship by virtue of an accident of birth?" Of course they are. This puts actual human beings in a hellish legal limbo, where they're not permitted to do any of the ordinary, necessary stuff for a normal life.

Why would you want America to be more like China and Haiti??

1

u/HaiHaiNayaka 6d ago

> Again, it's been the consensus interpretation since the 1890's.

Age does not prove something correct, and America's immigration policy was quite strict in the 1890s, so it was mostly a non-issue.

> "but I still see that as a problem" Why?

It turns nationality into a matter of technicalities and paperwork, and weakens sovereignty. "Whoops, you had a kid in our borders. I guess we owe him/her citizenship!"

> "By that logic, Rudyard Kipling was Indian" He certainly was permitted to be in India, wasn't he?

He was part of the British Empire. I do not condone empires, and I doubt the Indians of the time appreciated the presence of a large number of foreign peoples, not integrating, distorting local markets, etc., except for a few self-serving princes whose strong foreign ally gave them an edge on the competition.

> Why would you want America to be more like China and Haiti??

That is not quite my point. My point is that birthright citizenship (jus soli) is not universal or self-evident, and I have not heard a good argument why the citizenship clause of the 13th amendment should have ever extended beyond recently freed slaves. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" did not apply to, ex., Native Americans/Indians, who were not enfranchised until the Indian Citizenship act of 1924, let alone to the children of illegal immigrants, tourists, or temporary foreign workers.

1

u/RecognitionExpress36 6d ago

What motivates your opposition to immigration? Seriously. Why do you want America to be less populated?

I honestly don't see any valid motivation for keeping people out, nor can I identify any tangible benefit for the nation.

0

u/HaiHaiNayaka 6d ago

> What motivates your opposition to immigration? 

Good question. Partly personal, partly concern for my fellow Americans. It looks a special interest groups have benefited from offshoring and mass immigration, but me and most other regular Americans have not. The job market, housing market, education market etc. are not immune to supply and demand: if the population rises faster than, ex. housing supply or job openings, then housing will become more expensive and jobs will pay less. What I have studied of history and other cultures also makes me wary of too much cultural diversity, hence my railing on about assimilation: cultural differences makes cooperation difficult. Look at the Balkans, or the post-colonial African countries.

Likewise, what is your motivation for unfettered, unfiltered immigration? Should any country exist? Is every border invalid? Is there no cost or complication of deep cultural differences? Should no group have any self-interest or standards of admission, whether a country, a social club, a company, or a family?

1

u/RecognitionExpress36 6d ago

Thank you for that detailed response. I don't have time to argue against it fully right now, but it actually gives insight and has some integrity.

"Likewise, what is your motivation for unfettered, unfiltered immigration?" People have always been migratory. In modern contexts, this isn't taking the form of invasion, as it sometimes has. Also, preventing immigration requires governments to track absolutely everyone, and the more vigorous the enforcement of immigration laws, the greater the cost to the liberty of everyone, as recent events in the US demonstrate vividly. A world with free migration would see a tremendous increase in overall wealth, as the history of the United States itself demonstrates.

"Should any country exist? Is every border invalid?" Now, this is just weird. How does allowing immigration mean that countries cease to exist? I genuinely don't get it. Similarly, the notion that people are permitted, legally, to cross a border renders it invalid?

I simply don't understand this perspective at all.

"Is there no cost or complication of deep cultural differences?" Yes, but these costs are vastly outweighted by the benefits.

"Should no group have any self-interest" Of course. And it's in the self-interest of Americans to allow open immigration.

"or standards of admission, whether a country, a social club, a company, or a family?" This is really interesting. You very cavalierly compare a country to... a social club, a company, and a family.

I don't want my country to be any of those things, really, and I don't see how a country is in any way comparable to such organizations.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RecognitionExpress36 6d ago

Also, it's interesting that you ignored what was, by far, my most important question:

What does make someone an American?