Enforcing current immigration law, which would leave legal immigration into the US at the near-record 1.1 million per year, is now (presumably anti-immigrant) extremism? In almost any other country, this would be pro-immigrant extremism!
To give a sense of comparison, 15.1% of the US population is foreign born, compared to 1.7% for Japan, and 0.1% for China.
Frankly 15% is about average for Western Countries
I don't think USA/EU is at 15% yet. Europe trends just a little less than the USA (at least from 2016). I was just skimming this article today (below). I may have misinterpreted it so feel free to set the record straight. See Fig 1.
Peri, G. 2016. Immigrants, Productivity, and Labor Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(4): 3–30.
Canada and Australia have had very high rates for a long time. Australia's is higher though. I'm not sure why Peri chose to combine the series because they are quite different but higher than the US.
The AU/NZ (and Canada too I suppose) cases are interesting because they all have very overheated housing markets and prices are historically high relative to average wages. The USA went through a market correction and let the housing bubble burst but these markets did not. I've heard it argued that increased immigration to major housing markets is considered to be one way to keep the construction industry and house/rent prices sustainable. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts or insight into this.
Before Trump the US was proud to describe itself as a nation of immigrants (I was one for 20 years) but Americans have this myth that they take in far more immigrants than anywhere else, it's just not true
The USA is larger than all Canada, Australia, UK and NZ combined. So, let's not pretend that the US is not taking new comers at all. We're still in the ballpark of close to 50 million people. This compares to about 7 million in Canada.
And Australia isn't necessarily a target; Australia is basically importing a new population every century - ignoring natural population growth. That sort of growth requires a bit of thinking to justify; it isn't going to be for everyone. And if it is even achievable off a high starting population (without overwhelming infrastructure, etc) is questionable.
These numbers don't reflect the complex reality in France. Most of the population descends from immigration (although only 9% directly from their parents).
It's very rare especially in big cities to meet people with only "French" origins (except in the bourgeoisie). And even those "French" origins are ethnically/culturally varied (bretagne/ch'nord/occitanie/martinique/corse...) even though many people from these places will tell you they've been colonized by France and they want to get rid of the imperialist invader.
What i just said is probably true of other countries. I just know more about France.
Japan has a long history of allowing a mass of low wage workers to come in with very bounded conditions (work limited to elderly care for instance) and it rarely translates to the worker staying in Japan ore than a few years. I don’t know if it’s what you were thinking about ?
There's always cool folks to befriend, unless the insinuation here is no foreigner should move to Japan until a hundred million people change their ways?
My opinion is _we_ all should change, and waiting for that to happen may take a while.
This is the real problem. It doesn't matter if your ideas are good or even popular, if they're controversial enough the news media will magnify them for you.
It's not 'my' democracy - I and my ancestors remained in Europe. And lets not engage in revisionist history - that founding principle was explicitly limited to "free White persons of good character" . While the at once ineffective and cruel manner the US enforces its borders leaves much to be desired, that doesn't make the very concept of controlling immigration unjust. There are countries other besides the US to immigrate to.
As for your comparison with Nazi Germany, perhaps it would have more weight if the US was incredibly restrictive with immigration (and, as always in these matters, ignoring that people weren't scrambling to get into Nazi Germany..) But as it stands, not only does the US have the largest rate of immigration in the world  (though not per-capita), but it also grants citizenship to anyone born there - a practice almost exclusive to the Americas .
I'm sorry if this reply seems harsh, but I find it utterly mind-boggling how you could compare the Nazi ethno-state, to a country where the majority ethnicity is voluntarily becoming a minority. They are going from 87% white in 1970 , to minority-white in 2044 . That's in 74 years, a single lifespan, from overwhelming majority, to minority. Literally the opposite of what Nazi Germany was doing. But if this is comparable to ethnic cleansing, then what does that make almost all other countries? Some sort of ultra-nazis?
> if the US was incredibly restrictive with immigration
This is the case! Take a look at ICE raids on workplaces/housing. Look at police and fascist militias preventing migrants passing the southern border from getting help (eg. destroying survival necessities such as water buckets left by humanitarian non-profits). Look at the for-profit business of locking up people (the prison industrial complex) making shit-tons of money on migrant retention centers.
I mean if millions of people are demanding now to #AbolishICE, it's precisely because the US has a very harsh policy against immigrants.
> But if this is comparable to ethnic cleansing, then what does that make almost all other countries? Some sort of ultra-nazis?
Did i say the US government was currently doing ethnic cleansing on its own soil? Sorry that was not my intention. There's plenty subtler ways to destroy people's lives than outright genocide.
For example, if they allowed everyone in the world to immigrate, except for 10 guys, but they enforced the border using flamethrowers against those 10 guys, then they would be cruel, but not restrictive.
As for implying that you said the US was engaged in anything similar to genocide, that was not my intention either, sorry. The sentiment was more that, if you were to compare the US to Nazi Germany, then almost every other country would compare even closer (on the topic of immigration, at least).
Science is better paired with idealists who can imagine a better world using science than with rationalists who are simply exploited by business interest and the state for more power and profit... solving trivial issues like how to get more eyeballs for ad dollars.
Give me a break.
FWIW, the environment really is the ultimate non-partisan issue and I think we are about one or two heat waves or water shortages away from finding that out.
This made me think we'll see unilateral geoengineering by e.g Bangladesh before it gets too hot: https://spaswell.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/dr-gwynne-dyer-geo...
I don't think there's anything intrinsically authoritarian in ecology, if anything evolution is anarchy, but I can entertain (and be dismayed by) the thought that e.g. Chinese Communism may turn out to be the successful system in a hundred years. Recall "How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20537409 that describes regenerative ecological farm systems.
A lot of these environmental decisions have winners and losers. That makes them political and partisan. But politicians often don't want to deal with that. They want to delegate authority to a bunch of experts and independent organisations who can make objective decisions. Except there are still loosers who will be angry. And they just see a faceless beurocracy that doesn't care what they think.
We should accept that the environment is political and try and win the argument. Stop relying on science and actually pursuade people on an emotional and moral level.
I think we will either reach a crisis and transform (in a biologically-rooted variant of the Singularity, IRL not cyberspace) or we will crash and burn.
Of course, there's a third possibility: we scrape by without crashing and without spiritual renaissance, e.g. some combination of geo-engineering and ecological agriculture lets us off the climate-apocalypse hook. In the first two scenarios we don't need politics anymore, but in the third it still exists and is caught up in the strange loops of modern space-age-a-go-go life.
“Do what you can to raise the standard in Africa while making that investment help their economies and help the planet by absorbing CO2. A raised living standard reduces birth rates and migration while at the same time it could help the environment if done right.”
There are ideas like solar farms in africa that produce hydrogen which is in turn beeing shipped and used for electricity etc.
So to say they don’t have concepts says more about you than about those who you try to criticise here..
The extinct elephant in the room is the fact that those cows are going to be slaughtered for food anyway.
Also, destroying calorie production at gunpoint is historically a great way to start mass death human famines.
The only arguments against it are capitalist.
In the meantime, I'll keep eating beef in an effort to get rid of the 1.4B cows you want dead.