Serious Is there such thing as legitimate immigration control?

[Chou Toshio]

Simple, open-ended question: Is there such a thing as justifiable immigration control? Or, should all countries have completely permeable borders?

Alternatively: Should all documentable immigration be seen as legitimate?

Sorry to make the OP so open ended-- but this thread is touching the core of this debate.

 

[Ash Borer]

Isn't a nation's culture just completely eventually eroded to dust if it has uncontrolled immigration? Which kind of defeats the purpose of having a nation at all?

You've kind of made my brain start racing at the thought of every nation in the world allowing anyone to live in it, and take part in its political system. Unless there's some kind of grand unifying culture of the people within the borders so that they all have a value system that shares the same laws, then eventually there would be borders drawn right? and there are so many reasons to change nations, not just what one country's laws are, so it's not as if you would just choose whatever country's laws suited you best.

 

[GotR]

I can see us as a species working towards this in the future, but if we just did it right now it'd be a political and socio-economic mess due to problems with unemployment and government elections in first world countries and a mass exodus of everyone who'd be able to afford a way out of third world countries.

 

[Chou Toshio]

On one hand, I think that it's inarguable that in the short term there are some social costs associated with immigrants non-assimilated to local norms, but it's also true (as seen in melting pot countries) that given time and mutual adaptation, different peoples can bridge those gaps-- and that immigration can definitely have positive effects on an economy.

But really getting at the guts at it, what are, if there are any, legitimate rationales for limiting or preventing documentable immigration to your country?

 

[Pyritie]

Isn't a nation's culture just completely eventually eroded to dust if it has uncontrolled immigration? Which kind of defeats the purpose of having a nation at all?

You've kind of made my brain start racing at the thought of every nation in the world allowing anyone to live in it, and take part in its political system. Unless there's some kind of grand unifying culture of the people within the borders so that they all have a value system that shares the same laws, then eventually there would be borders drawn right? and there are so many reasons to change nations, not just what one country's laws are, so it's not as if you would just choose whatever country's laws suited you best.

This is basically one of the reasons why I dislike globalisation. It erases culture.

The other reason is that it just makes rich countries richer and poor countries poorer.

 

[Bughouse]

The world at large is better off with open borders. Free migration has brought millions out of poverty. It also has saved millions of people from conflict. And it is in fact beneficial for most recipient countries as well.

I wish it were just that simple sometimes. I don't know if I'm a full on open borders guy, but I'm pretty close.

 

[Blazade]

Ok I'm just going to come out and say it. Are culture and cultural boundaries really worth protecting? We're far more exposed to new ideas and traditions than we've ever been, and that's nothing but good in my opinion. I feel like discrimination against people of different cultures because they aren't raised the same way or think the same way is nontrivailly prevalent and more politically correct than it should be.

Cuture at it's best is something to share and receive, it can be a part of someone's identity and foster common ground and understanding. But at it's worst it's exclusive in the sense that people are afraid of individuals or subcommunities threatening their culture or lowering the influence of their group's identity and values.

There are obviously limitations to completely open borders, but I feel the backbone ideology many share in feeling threatened culturally is not valid justification for stricter border control.

 

[OLD GREGG (im back baby)]

I think that the human mind is an enigma, that we have yet come to accept as a species. You can say let's share our land all day and yes it sounds good. When the time comes for you to shelter and take care of strangers don't be surprised to find yourself singing the tune of MINE. It's human nature.


I'm not against immigration I just think the amazing and understanding people of the world aren't ready for this sort of thing quite yet.

 

[Ash Borer]

On one hand, I think that it's inarguable that in the short term there are some social costs associated with immigrants non-assimilated to local norms, but it's also true (as seen in melting pot countries) that given time and mutual adaptation, different peoples can bridge those gaps-- and that immigration can definitely have positive effects on an economy.

But really getting at the guts at it, what are, if there are any, legitimate rationales for limiting or preventing documentable immigration to your country?

When people immigrate they bring their culture. If their culture is opposite, then bringing in an overwhelming number of them is going to change the culture of the nation. The current inhabitants probably would not like that.

 

[JTD783]

I don't really care about cultural aspects since culture is not a fixed thing. It changes over time.

Consider Ancient and Modern Greece, or UK in the industrial revolution and in the 80s, or America in the 1850s and 1950s. Culture constantly evolves, and if you want to preserve them, try art/museums/books/etc. That's a big part of why they exist.

As long as nations have different styles of government, borders are in the best interest of both. They promote stability by having two regions compete for the others' votes, jobs, and other social factors. For example, if Country A is having an election and one politician promises increased social welfare, then it is likely that many people from Country B will flock to Country A so that they can reap the benefits. This shifting isn't necessarily wrong, but allowing massive amounts of people to jump from one government's system to the next in short periods of time makes for volatility in job markets and society.

It must also be considered that allowing open borders increases the risk that criminals will enter. It is simply in the best interest of Country A to block the entry of criminals from Country B.

Some would argue that immigration is a right, but I believe that it is a privilege that not everyone can enjoy, at least not immediately. Legal immigration is a good thing, but promoting a country's stability is more important than helping those elsewhere (a government should be obligated to help its own people before helping those abroad), even if migrants face abhorrent conditions at home. Limiting the amount of immigrants from X country to X amount for X period of time is not morally wrong and benefits the country that accepts them. Even preventing all immigration from a country, for a temporary time frame, is a good thing.

I for one am a supporter of borders and legal immigration, but careful background checks and controlling the flow of migrants is absolutely necessary.

Of course if two governments and their people are extremely similar then they can opt for open borders between them if they so choose. This is because a government has the right to determine its stance on immigration, whatever it may be. At this point I honestly question why the governments and countries wouldn't merge together, except for obvious challenges in infrastructure and forming a new, fully-functional government.

 

[Deck Knight]

Let us say there are two distinct populations. One is relatively sparce but supports Western liberalized values, including majority rule. Additionally that society has an advanced military because of the freedoms it allots its population. The other is relatively fecund but supports immense barbarity against human rights, and the people of that nation actively support those policies. That society has a relatively poor military force however because new ideas are supressed and manpower substitutes for technology.

With immigration control, the former can always push back the latter because the former will always win in a scenario where militaries are invoked.
Without immigration control, the latter will always conquer the former because it can invade and take over culturally without firing a single shot, because the former country's greatest weakness is it decides its policies through majority rule.

The history of the world is that the barbarians outnumber the civilized. Immigration Control is not only legitimate, it is necessary to form the kind of society that can even develop the means of discussing this question.

 

[Tasellus]

This is a massive issue in Australia right now, particularly when you hone in on the specific border control issues associated with asylum seekers. For years now, both major parties in Australian politics have taken a deterrence-based position on border control and immigration - we process all asylum seekers who arrive by boat off-shore and keep them in detention until their asylum claims are investigated and verified. They then have to be found to be a legitimate refugee, and even then, if they arrived by boat, they will not be settled in Australia. It's a very controversial policy and I still don't really know where I stand on it. It doesn't seem to accord with values of compassion and generosity that I would like my country to promote; but at the same time, I don't know if I could put forward a viable alternative solution to the problem of thousands of people arriving by boat that we had before the policy was put in place. Just accept them all? Help them into a home and a job regardless of why they fled their country? From a resourcing perspective, that doesn't really seem sustainable?

On immigration generally, I think in theory I want my country to be less restrictive and more welcoming - immigration saved Australia after WWII, and as Blazade said immigration has only ever had a good impact on culture - once you overcome the initial resistance of conservatism and xenophobia, the benefits and contributions of cultural diversity are astonishing. But I think a huge amount rests on the attitude of the immigrants themselves. I think, to immigrate, you need to accept the basic principles and values of the country you want to migrate to. This isn't to say that you need to 'assimilate' in the strongest sense of the world - ie surrender your own culture to fit in - but you do need to be willing to contribute meaningfully and cohesively to the society you are joining. Obviously from a policy standpoint, the attitude of immigrants is difficult to regulate!

 

[Cresselia~~]

Ok I'm just going to come out and say it. Are culture and cultural boundaries really worth protecting? We're far more exposed to new ideas and traditions than we've ever been, and that's nothing but good in my opinion. I feel like discrimination against people of different cultures because they aren't raised the same way or think the same way is nontrivailly prevalent and more politically correct than it should be.

Cuture at it's best is something to share and receive, it can be a part of someone's identity and foster common ground and understanding. But at it's worst it's exclusive in the sense that people are afraid of individuals or subcommunities threatening their culture or lowering the influence of their group's identity and values.

There are obviously limitations to completely open borders, but I feel the backbone ideology many share in feeling threatened culturally is not valid justification for stricter border control.

The fact that this post exists and gets so many likes is making me really sad.

As someone from Asia, I personally view culture even more important than history is.
Culture is more than just personal identity- it's a way to remember your ancestors too.
Erasing culture is just like saying you have nothing to do with your ancestors.


But in closing, I don't think globalization hurts culture at all.
Culture can still be preserved in very Westernized places. Even in places like Singapore, a lot of traditions are recorded, preserved and practiced.

 

[Flare]

In my opinion, the more Cultural variety a country has, the more attractive it looks. As long as those cultures don't clash into each other, but rather respect each other, I think it benefits everyone equally. The problem is when one culture tries to impose over any other, thus creating the typical belief that letting other cultures get into a country makes things worse.

 

[Cresselia~~]

In my opinion, the more Cultural variety a country has, the more attractive it looks. As long as those cultures don't clash into each other, but rather respect each other, I think it benefits everyone equally. The problem is when one culture tries to impose over any other, thus creating the typical belief that letting other cultures get into a country makes things worse.

I actually think that globalization can help promoting cultures, ie: it can turn out to be a good thing.
Via globalization, more people can get to know more about each other's culture, and cultural exchange can be a good topic to discuss.

Cultural exchange is really big in the UK, Japan, France and Germany, and I think I learnt a lot by just talking to people from different countries about culture.

Well, of course, some parts of a culture would die after globalization, such as Victorian etiquettes that are quite useless nowadays.
But maybe those parts of a culture aren't important anyway.

 

[Rugi]

Ummm yeah I guess.
As a child of immigrants who are children of immigrants who are children of immigrants, immigration is pretty much the only reason I exist. for like 8 generations now every 2nd generation of my family has immigrated. Sometimes because if they didn't they would've been killed, but other times simply in search for a better life and in every place where you can find relatives of mine they have assimilated into the culture of the place whilst keeping their own, speaking Spanish and whatever the native tongue of the place is while holding on to Jewish values.

I think as long as immigrants are willing to play by the rules of the land, and the land itself is willing to teach them how, anything goes. If a country declares that hijabs are banned and you immigrate there well guess what, you follow that rule. If a country says you must know the native tongue to get a job then get learning.

I do not believe that immigration is a right. I believe it is a privilege. My ancestors fled from Karelia/Finland and Poland to Argentina. The first thing they did was make sure they could speak Spanish and get a job. My parents worked hard to get to Australia, mastering English and immediately trying to settle in. (They actually bought a copy of Australian folk songs and an Aussie joke book)

When I see a family of immigrants who complain about something sucking in the country they have come to I get a little bit pissy. This country took you in. It let you have a home better than your previous one or perhaps you didn't have one at all. It is your moral obligation to pay it back by being a model citizen and obeying its rules. You can of course keep your own culture alive and teach it to your kids but you must obey the legal, religious and cultural rules and ideologies of your new country above else.

EDIT: I mean about culture and language and religion. Politics and Public opinion and those sorts of thing though tied into culture are more fair game for criticism.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Ummm yeah I guess.
As a child of immigrants who are children of immigrants who are children of immigrants, immigration is pretty much the only reason I exist. for like 8 generations now every 2nd generation of my family has immigrated. Sometimes because if they didn't they would've been killed, but other times simply in search for a better life and in every place where you can find relatives of mine they have assimilated into the culture of the place whilst keeping their own, speaking Spanish and whatever the native tongue of the place is while holding on to Jewish values.

I think as long as immigrants are willing to play by the rules of the land, and the land itself is willing to teach them how, anything goes. If a country declares that hijabs are banned and you immigrate there well guess what, you follow that rule. If a country says you must know the native tongue to get a job then get learning.

I do not believe that immigration is a right. I believe it is a privilege. My ancestors fled from Karelia/Finland and Poland to Argentina. The first thing they did was make sure they could speak Spanish and get a job. My parents worked hard to get to Australia, mastering English and immediately trying to settle in. (They actually bought a copy of Australian folk songs and an Aussie joke book)

When I see a family of immigrants who complain about something sucking in the country they have come to I get a little bit pissy. This country took you in. It let you have a home better than your previous one or perhaps you didn't have one at all. It is your moral obligation to pay it back by being a model citizen and obeying its rules. You can of course keep your own culture alive and teach it to your kids but you must obey the legal, religious and cultural rules and ideologies of your new country above else.

EDIT: I mean about culture and language and religion. Politics and Public opinion and those sorts of thing though tied into culture are more fair game for criticism.

I agree with learning about the language and culture bit.
Immigration is something you choose-- you chose to be in this country, so why moan about this country?
If you moan after choosing this country, then why don't you just go back to your original country then?
If you don't even learn the language, why did you choose this country in the first place?
It's like you have no respect to this country in the first place, like... you didn't even like it or something.

 

[verbatim]

The history of the world is that the barbarians outnumber the civilized. Immigration Control is not only legitimate, it is necessary to form the kind of society that can even develop the means of discussing this question.

How do you feel about H-1B visas?

 

[Chou Toshio]

The world at large is better off with open borders. Free migration has brought millions out of poverty. It also has saved millions of people from conflict. And it is in fact beneficial for most recipient countries as well.

I wish it were just that simple sometimes. I don't know if I'm a full on open borders guy, but I'm pretty close.

This is a good summation of my view as well. Immigration is generally a force that does a lot of good and enriches countries and peoples.

That said, the reason why I started this thread is because it disturbs me when people people denounce the legitimacy of practicing immigration control at all-- and it seems that many of Trump's would-be-well-meaning-detractors too easily act as if it is a given that denouncing that practice all together is fine and correct. While I'm in favor of more liberal policies for immigration (in the US), voices that denounce the legitimacy of a country's right to practice control of its borders and immigration, and choose its own path as a country, are not helping. Immigration control is one more power of a sovereign state, and we should be able to respect an individual country's rights to make decisions about it.

For instance, I wouldn't take the same stance on immigration for Japan as the US, and I wouldn't disdain the Japanese for having a more conservative policy that respects the needs of their people. A country with thousands of years in relative isolation (for its unique culture to evolve), half the population of the US living in a space equal to California (and only 1/4th habitable), and a resulting rigid set of traditions, decor and hierarchy that highly govern people's expectations and daily interactions in order to avoid conflict should not have the same stance on immigration as a melting-pot country. That is a choice that should be respected.


In regards to accepting refugees for either Japan or the United States, my opinion is that being prudent, skeptical, and realistic is not being evil.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/terror-in-europe/

In my opinion, the more Cultural variety a country has, the more attractive it looks. As long as those cultures don't clash into each other, but rather respect each other, I think it benefits everyone equally. The problem is when one culture tries to impose over any other, thus creating the typical belief that letting other cultures get into a country makes things worse.

Cultures can potentially "[avoid clashing] and respect each other" when there is common ground-- often in the form of a 3rd, shared culture. Common ground and the ability to co-exist is not a given-- in the history of humanity, it's a happy coincidence most of the time.

And culture is far more rigid than a lot of people give it credit for. Being culturally aware means acknowledging that while individuals can change, culture is often as core to them as the color of their skin. It means knowing that while we have to work towards common ground, any change can be slow, and change for good is an accomplishment, not inevitability.

Being sensitive and respectful, but also realistic and objective would be my creed. For instance, the ideal policy maker on the Middle East for me would be someone who has studied and appreciated the history of Islam and the Arab world, who has a knowledge and appreciation for the people, communities and their history-- but is also not blind to real problems with the Koran itself, and how that influences Muslim communities; aware that Islam needs to change, it needs a secular awakening to modernize, but the process will be slow and sensitive and needs Western support.

Obviously, Trump is none of the above...