Legal Immigration Decreases Because Of Trump's New Rules
We should have an open, objective, rational discussion about what level of immigration we should have. Of course the NYT is disapproving of any decrease in immigration, legal or illegal. Given the excesses of the past few decades, it seems like some decrease would be the natural thing. I tend to favor more slots for refugees, but there seems to be a certain amount of system-gaming--I've got to read more about that. Maybe it's fictional or minimal. If real, it should be stopped. Which seems to ve what's happening now.
Of course what we're asking is: will we have lots of immigration or ginormous amounts of immigration? Trump seems to favor the former, which seems reasonable.
The public charge rule seems good. The progressive tendency to allow unrestricted illegal entry, to give illegals public money, etc. is largely what has made many of us go in the other direction. Contra Bernie, non-Americans and non-citizens don't have the same rights nor deserve the same benefits as Americans/citizens. "Restrictionism" in the new lingo...which seems to mean: having some immigration laws and at least kinda enforcing them. It's a way of making opposition to open borders seem sinister...
Anyway, few of us really understand any of this. We've got to be able to have a public discussion in which the other side does more than merely scream "racism!" As far as I can tell, all options should be considered--maybe legal immigration should go down, maybe it should stay the same, maybe it should go up. Without an open and rational public discussion, how are we to form reasoned opinions? There actually seem to be some reasons to keep immigration up currently.
I tend to think that the more the left aims to fragment and multiculturalize the country, the less immigration we should have. The more cohesive we are, and the better people assimilate, the more we can accommodate. But massive amounts of immigration + the ruling faction ceaselessly promoting anti-assimilationism seems like a blueprint for disaster.
But, again: we need rational public discussion.
Of course what we're asking is: will we have lots of immigration or ginormous amounts of immigration? Trump seems to favor the former, which seems reasonable.
The public charge rule seems good. The progressive tendency to allow unrestricted illegal entry, to give illegals public money, etc. is largely what has made many of us go in the other direction. Contra Bernie, non-Americans and non-citizens don't have the same rights nor deserve the same benefits as Americans/citizens. "Restrictionism" in the new lingo...which seems to mean: having some immigration laws and at least kinda enforcing them. It's a way of making opposition to open borders seem sinister...
Anyway, few of us really understand any of this. We've got to be able to have a public discussion in which the other side does more than merely scream "racism!" As far as I can tell, all options should be considered--maybe legal immigration should go down, maybe it should stay the same, maybe it should go up. Without an open and rational public discussion, how are we to form reasoned opinions? There actually seem to be some reasons to keep immigration up currently.
I tend to think that the more the left aims to fragment and multiculturalize the country, the less immigration we should have. The more cohesive we are, and the better people assimilate, the more we can accommodate. But massive amounts of immigration + the ruling faction ceaselessly promoting anti-assimilationism seems like a blueprint for disaster.
But, again: we need rational public discussion.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home