Great discussion. Glad that someone finally compares the Canadian and American immigration systems. That seems to highlight a big difference in governing. In Canada our motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government" Just last week all the Premiers of the Provinces were complaining about the rise in violent crime on the streets and mass transit systems. The Federal government responded by tweaking the bail laws to make it harder for violent offenders to get bail. I'm not saying that what they did will work, but just that there is a real contrast here. The premiers complained to the Feds and the Feds responded by changing the law. In contrast in the United States the political system is in gridlock. On the Republican side it's all about performance and "rage farming". They have no incentive to actually solve the immigration problem since it works so well for them as a way of motivating their political base. This is why President George W. Bush was sabotaged by his own party when he tried to find a bi-partisan solution to immigration.
This is a great discussion. I am very perturbed by the GOP using the term "chain migration" to describe the US immigration system. It's a family based system and very restrictive in who it allows in. The GOPs attempt to frame this as links in a chain is purposely misleading, implying that people can invite their nieces, nephews, cousins to enter the US.
It's clear they invented this term because "family immigration" is hard to stand against politically. This, ultimately, belies the true intention with "merit based" immigration: to curtail or stop immigration altogether.
This dishonesty is also evident in the language used. "Mexico isn't sending us their best." Mexico doesn't send anything, the US picks and chooses who is allowed entry. Again, implying a nefarious motive.
A points based system is fine, perhaps marginally better than the current mess (hodgepodge of various systems) but if it undertaken from a position of dishonesty, as noted above, I can't trust legislators to do that right thing.
Superior still, I think, to a merit based system is a market based system. An immigration "tariff" is something I have toyed with. Instead of bureaucrats determining who is allowed entry, a few is paid instead.
I have sketched out a rough idea of how that might work here:
Very good discussion. Another aspect. People have always migrated. Life sustaining resources like water, foods, are ephemeral, have a finite capacity and are often more available in some locales rather than others. We live in an era of the increased ability to share and distribute these resources, through shared labor and media of exchange. But any region can experience a shortness of supply. An overpopulation relative to available resources can occur. And this also has to be a consideration in the wider talks of immigration. Political party divisions seem so narrow, so exclusionary, to allow greater understanding to work toward solutions. Looking at human history there are no instant, successful, permanent laws which work forever. But doing nothing is to endure the painful & dumbfounding mindless emotions caused by chaos. Maybe another example where the perfect is the enemy of the good. This discussion and action needs to be taken out of the hands of the mass media artists and political actors and put into the hands of people in local communities for ongoing resolutions. I like the Canadian model cited. Can this work from local first, from community ordering itself over the type of growth the community feels it needs?
My Trumper neighbor was willing to discuss immigration and we reached a reasonable stance on it. The key, to Justin's point, is that he and I both grew up in a border state (AZ) over the last 70 years and can discuss immigration without the specter of "defending our way of life." Without those experiences, apparently lacking for 70% of Americans, it is easy for people to believe whatever their favorite politician tells them to get their vote. We've got good immigrants; we need better politicians.
Are Black folks un-American? Are they included in the "minority" of "majority-minority"? I don't doubt that plenty of white folks are anxious about their displacement from cultural centrality.
There are no “legitimate concerns about immigration” that the GOP have. It’s ALL bad faith. You’re playing into their hands on CRT, #BLM, immigration, gay rights and trans rights if you concede that they have a point. They don’t. You cannot defuse nativism. It is irrational and horrific.
Great discussion. Glad that someone finally compares the Canadian and American immigration systems. That seems to highlight a big difference in governing. In Canada our motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government" Just last week all the Premiers of the Provinces were complaining about the rise in violent crime on the streets and mass transit systems. The Federal government responded by tweaking the bail laws to make it harder for violent offenders to get bail. I'm not saying that what they did will work, but just that there is a real contrast here. The premiers complained to the Feds and the Feds responded by changing the law. In contrast in the United States the political system is in gridlock. On the Republican side it's all about performance and "rage farming". They have no incentive to actually solve the immigration problem since it works so well for them as a way of motivating their political base. This is why President George W. Bush was sabotaged by his own party when he tried to find a bi-partisan solution to immigration.
A truly interesting piece on immigration, with very useful statistics that I had not known.
This is a great discussion. I am very perturbed by the GOP using the term "chain migration" to describe the US immigration system. It's a family based system and very restrictive in who it allows in. The GOPs attempt to frame this as links in a chain is purposely misleading, implying that people can invite their nieces, nephews, cousins to enter the US.
It's clear they invented this term because "family immigration" is hard to stand against politically. This, ultimately, belies the true intention with "merit based" immigration: to curtail or stop immigration altogether.
This dishonesty is also evident in the language used. "Mexico isn't sending us their best." Mexico doesn't send anything, the US picks and chooses who is allowed entry. Again, implying a nefarious motive.
A points based system is fine, perhaps marginally better than the current mess (hodgepodge of various systems) but if it undertaken from a position of dishonesty, as noted above, I can't trust legislators to do that right thing.
Superior still, I think, to a merit based system is a market based system. An immigration "tariff" is something I have toyed with. Instead of bureaucrats determining who is allowed entry, a few is paid instead.
I have sketched out a rough idea of how that might work here:
https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system
Very good discussion. Another aspect. People have always migrated. Life sustaining resources like water, foods, are ephemeral, have a finite capacity and are often more available in some locales rather than others. We live in an era of the increased ability to share and distribute these resources, through shared labor and media of exchange. But any region can experience a shortness of supply. An overpopulation relative to available resources can occur. And this also has to be a consideration in the wider talks of immigration. Political party divisions seem so narrow, so exclusionary, to allow greater understanding to work toward solutions. Looking at human history there are no instant, successful, permanent laws which work forever. But doing nothing is to endure the painful & dumbfounding mindless emotions caused by chaos. Maybe another example where the perfect is the enemy of the good. This discussion and action needs to be taken out of the hands of the mass media artists and political actors and put into the hands of people in local communities for ongoing resolutions. I like the Canadian model cited. Can this work from local first, from community ordering itself over the type of growth the community feels it needs?
My Trumper neighbor was willing to discuss immigration and we reached a reasonable stance on it. The key, to Justin's point, is that he and I both grew up in a border state (AZ) over the last 70 years and can discuss immigration without the specter of "defending our way of life." Without those experiences, apparently lacking for 70% of Americans, it is easy for people to believe whatever their favorite politician tells them to get their vote. We've got good immigrants; we need better politicians.
Are Black folks un-American? Are they included in the "minority" of "majority-minority"? I don't doubt that plenty of white folks are anxious about their displacement from cultural centrality.
There are no “legitimate concerns about immigration” that the GOP have. It’s ALL bad faith. You’re playing into their hands on CRT, #BLM, immigration, gay rights and trans rights if you concede that they have a point. They don’t. You cannot defuse nativism. It is irrational and horrific.