Why limit immigration?

https://lemmy.world/post/19716063

Why limit immigration? - Lemmy.World

Aside from racism. I mean economically/socially, what issues does too much immigration cause?

Immigration only really causes economic issues with bullshit employee specific visas like H1Bs - those visas trap immigrants in powerless positions where they’re unable to advocate for fair compensation and drive down overall wages.

Everything else is fucking bullshit xenophobia.

Would more supply of workers (even naturalized ones) not drive down wages too?
Eh, it doesn’t really seem like that tends to happen… economies are weird and if you keep adding people you tend to just get more and more service jobs.
Doesn’t sound that weird. More people means more people to serve, so more service jobs are needed.

But where does the extra money and infrastructure come from to provide everything they need?

More people means more mouths to feed, more strain on the limited housing market driving prices and inaccessibility up, more capacity required at hospitals, doctor’s surgeries, schools, all public services (meaning everything from more doctors, nurses, consumables, locations, etc needed), and so on.

Where does the money come from to provide for the net influx of 500,000+~ people a year, a population increase of some 0.75%?

I’m not against immigration, welcoming people from other cultures with fresh ideas and outlooks on life is great and I love it, but the strain it places immediately on our already failing societal systems, such as healthcare, education, housing availability, job availability, etc, is very real, and needs to be addressed.

more capacity required at hospitals, doctor’s surgeries, schools, all public services (meaning everything from more doctors, nurses, consumables, locations, etc needed)

So, skilled, high paying jobs? More architects, more plumbers, more software developers, more of all kinds of jobs

But where does the extra money and infrastructure come from to provide everything they need?

What is money in the first place? It represents labour and resources. So when a new person shows up, they themselves provide the money in the form of their labour. They are the money.

That money comes from taxes that rise with increased economic activity that rise with the population.

and now you need houses for people to live in and people to make the houses, and now there’s more people and they invent things, which makes things better and more people come and there’s more farming and more people to make more things for more people and now there’s business, money, writing, laws, power

An increase in supply would reduce wages, unless it also increases demand. If you think about wages in cities vs rural areas, you’ll see that most of the time more people = more economic activity = higher wages.

Where this breaks down, is if there’s barriers of entry that prevent immigrants from participating in the economy fully. If immigrants aren’t allowed to legally work or start business (as happens with some asylum seekers or ‘illegal’ immigrants) then they are forced to compete over a small pool of off-book / cash-in-hand jobs, which could see a reduction in wages without a significant increase in overall economic activity.

Sounds like an argument for amnesty for illegals honestly. And more relaxed legal immigration pathways.

Infrastructure is a large issue. Border towns can become saturated, which will reduce living conditions, and when immigrants move to larger cities, they can often have trouble finding places to live. A lot of this can be because of a communication barrier. Sometimes that is because there are too few to translate, but there can also be educational issues. As much maligned as the US education system is, it is better than some others, and when your culture eschews school for an early start at earning a paycheck, communication in any language becomes a challenge.

Many issues can be overcome, or at least minimized, by compassionate workers, which many that work with immigrants are, but there isn’t enough funding to get compassionate people where they are most needed. Supporting increased budgets at the border isn’t always about putting guns on the border, it can be about improving the infrastructure that helps get people where they need to be in more efficient ways. I’m starting to ramble, though, and I think I’ve given a partial answer to your question.

From an economical standpoint, immigrants bring in more taxes and labor, which can go towards infrastructure and social infrastructure like education and housing
Just gotta make sure those taxes are going to the right place.

If immigration leads to more unemployment, then that is an economic problem, especially in the hypothetical case where the social benefits system is getting more and more strained by an influx of unemployed people. But generally, I think that you can expect that the immigrants will soon find employment. Besides that, there’s the cultural aspect that @[email protected] mentioned. You could also make the point that the country’s infrastructure is more and more stressed as the population grows, but that is fixable and potentially counteracted by the labour potential of the immigrants themselves (i.e., qualified immigrant work forces can make a large-scale infrastructure overhaul possible that will lead to greater national capacities and a net benefit for the entire population).

Aside from these things, I would argue that most of the other reasons boil down to xenophobia or racism.

but that is fixable and potentially counteracted by the labour potential of the immigrants themselves

That’s how I would deal with immigration in my power fantasies. I’m sure in reality it’s much more complicated than that, but the basic idea of bringing in immigrants and using their labor to build more infrastructure (and paying them a fair wage for it) seems sound. Coupled with pro-housing policies and free education - not necessarily college but trade school and language classes.

Immigration in excess and esspecially in combination with exploititive or unenforced labour laws and mismanagement of other resources and infrastructure, can decrease wages, and cause shortage of key resources. For example, if there is no new housing being built, but there is very high immigration levels, housing prices will rise, and availability will be limited.
Well sure, but then why not build more houses?
Usually because those responsible for regulating housing are heavily invested in it, and like the fact that high immigration is pushing prices up. As usual, most things lead back to corrupt governments and capitalism.
Fair point. I say “why not just build houses” as if it’s easy, but it’s really not. If I were King of America I could force simultaneous policy changes (more immigration + more housing) but that’s unlikely to happen in reality.
It is probably impossible to happen because the United States does not have a king.
Thanks for pointing that out
Typically these quickly built housing is of such crappy quality that only immigrants will want to live there (because they can’t afford anything else anyway). This leads to the development of ghettos, with leads to the typical problems from crappy schools (that traps the kids in the lowest social class) to no cultural assimilation.
So have and enforce building codes. Sounds like a simple problem with a simple solution.
You mean building codes that would hike the price to levels immigrants can’t afford? You could of course build social housing like a developed country but good luck doing that while republicans hold any kind of power. And even if you manage to get that done the amount of housing you can build is limited by the amount of money you are willing to invest into social housing.
Building codes bring price up, more supply brings prices down, sounds like a wash.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. No amount of supply will bring down raw material and labour costs.
It’s cute you think scarcity has no effect on prices.

What the fuck are you talking about? No one in here said scarcity has no effect.

But no amount of abundance will bring the price below whatever material + labour cost. But arguing with you is pointless, you seem to be intent on missing the point.

But no amount of abundance will bring the price below whatever material + labour cost.

Ok, so? Prices still have a long way to go before hitting that floor.

Sounds like an awful slippery slope 🙄

Historically, US actually was quite welcoming of immigration, including from Mexico. It tends to ebb and flow. I was taught by an economist that typically you open the flood gates when you want the labor, while restricting it when you don’t. To him, labor works just like goods in supply/demand curves. Flooding a market can drive down value of labor, etc., which can be bad for local workers. Obviously it’s a little more complex, but that’s the jist.

The trouble is, with globalization, one must wonder if that S/D curve is still valid. I imagine it is in some sectors, but in others, those jobs have been outsourced. If this is a bigger strain on demand, then it’s better to keep immigration on lock. That would at least help explain why it’s so hostile currently, but I’m just thinking out loud. I don’t necessarily agree with the economist approach.

Flooding a market can drive down value of labor, etc., which can be bad for local workers.

That makes sense, but in the long run/bigger picture, having a bigger employable workforce results in more consumers, which means a growing economy.

I’m not well versed enough in macroeconomics to explain how to promote the economy without lowering wages, but surely it can be done. “They’re taking our jobs” just sounds way too reductive.

It actually has more to do with training and education. In developed nations, people get more education and the result is a larger void in the low skill labor force who are employed by them. Ironically, more education results in lower wages for white collar work and higher wages for blue collar work, haha. Unfortunately we rarely talk about education, economics and immigration in the same breath, so it’s rarely addressed in politics.

Automation also adds a wrinkle, as low skill labor has been automated with technology. It’s credited as one of the major contributions to the wage gap, as efficiency is a boon to the owning class, not the working class. But I digress…

There’s also the carrying capacity of the area they’re emigrating to. Housing in particular is one aspect of it that’s already very very tight in most of the Western world. Even without immigration per se, this problem plays out every time a major company moves headquarters to a new city/state. Lots of new people, and a very slow to respond housing stock means surging prices. Schools and other social services also get stretched - but they’re much quicker to respond to the demand.
This might be me projecting, but I think lack of housing stock is driven by NIMBY policies intentionally restricting stock, and not by some unchangeable market force. It doesn’t have to be a limiting factor, at least not as much as at present.
When i was a kid even poor people had a 3 bedroom house on a quarter acre block. I know someone who rents the balcony of a 2 bedroom flat and shares with 7 other people., all of them are migrants or international students. Oddly enough, i live in a house that was built in a backyard. A cheap, crappy new investment property made to capitalise on the housing crisis. We’ve had more than two dozen tradesmen visit in a couple of years so i wonder how that investment’s working out. This is not progress.
In the long-term yes, but in the short-term, housing takes time to build, so there’s going to be a lag. During that lag, it can cause problems.

It depends a bit on how you define immigration. Is what the Spaniards and English did to the Americas immigration or something else?

If the influx of a different culture is so big that it displaces you and your children like it did to the Native Americans, then I understand that you'd want to stop it.

Is what the Spaniards and English did to the Americas immigration

Uhh

No.

Weird place for your mind to even go.

What would you call it instead?
Colonialism? Invasion?
I could be wrong, but to me those words describe the initial phase. Once established as a society, the rest involves people moving into this society, which I would call immigration.
More Englishmen moving to the 13 colonies, I would call immigration. More Americans pushing into Native land is imo more accurately an invasion.
That’s how I think about it too. I guess the original description was a bit vague, what they did to the americas. It includes both. First invasion, then immigration.
The thing is, invasion without immigration following it might kill a lot of the original people but doesn't displace them as a whole.

Housing, job availability and potential erasure of culture. I think it depends on what migrants you let in though. Also some groups forming bubbles and refusing to integrate as well.

Personally though, I think kids watching american media on their mum’s ipads is a greater risk to our culture than Mohammed and his family down the street

Also, some immigrants are more racist than white people. Which is sometimes kind of funny. Although my white friend got beat up in Bradford, so sometimes it isn’t.

Regarding potential societal issues:

When multiple cultures mix together, one of two things can happen:

  • The cultures mesh well and either coexist or mutually mix into something new

  • The cultures do not mesh well and this leads to all sorts of problems, especially increased crime

  • The second usually happens when both cultures place opposite value in something. For example, one culture places a high value on self and the other places a high value on being in a group, this can lead to a divide between cultures. Eventually, the resentment each group has for each other will lead to violence and other sorts of crime. One culture may think “I made the money for myself,” while the other thinks ,“we should all share the money.” If people don’t learn how to get along, you can probably see how that would increase criminal activity. In most cases, it is usually the expectation that the immigrant adapt to the culture of the new place they have moved to, rather than the new place’s home residents being expected to adapt to every immigrants different country cultures.

    It also isn’t good when immigrants enter a new country and do not know the laws of the country they have entered. They may commit crimes that could have been legal wherever they came from, but now someone may be a victim to a crime and the immigrant did not know. Now, usually immigrants that legally enter a country do learn about the basic laws of the country and the basic culture, but ones that enter a country illegally may know nothing about the place they are in. They may continue to act the same as they did in their previous home, which may have very different laws, leading to further divide.

    In most cases, it is usually the expectation that the immigrant adapt to the culture of the new place they have moved to, rather than the new place’s home residents being expected to adapt to every immigrants different country cultures.

    Yeah this topic is really showing my American bias. Or rather Californian. I’m used to a fluid, adaptable culture.

    I would be really hesitant to trust the answers here. How many people responding on Lemmy actually have an educated position on how these systems work? Because I can tell you that there are some fields where Lemmy users are just plain ignorant, while displaying all the confidence of certainty. Especially when you include Europeans on the topic of race… what a shitshow.

    The safe reading of this thread is to assume every response is an ignorant, bitter xenophobe who gets all their info from a Fox news equivalent. You can still hear their point, but don’t be fooled into thinking they aren’t missing something that completely flips the story.

    In general, I assume everyone on lemmy is some form of absolute moron, and I’m more often right than wrong.

    It’s a racist lie that increased immigration leads to increased crime.

    The mythical tie between immigration and crime - a Stanford Study

    The mythical tie between immigration and crime

    Research by Stanford’s Ran Abramitzky and co-authors uncovers the most extensive evidence to date that immigrants are less likely to be imprisoned than U.S.-born individuals.

    Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR)
    If you provide real social security for anyone in the country and don’t limit immigration at all, you attract people who aren’t willing or able to work and want to live off social security.

    Poppycock.

    It’s the same argument than if you provide social security people don’t want to work anymore. Its classist and racist.

    Congrats. You hit two right wing propaganda points with one scentence.

    Feel free to prove me wrong with reliable sources and real numbers.

    I’d love to see data on that.
    You won’t, cause there isn’t a single country in the world which doesn’t limit immigration, and also not a single country in the world which provides solid social security to all its inhabitants (and not only its citizens).
    It was just a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question, and for the record, I’m very much in favor of lenient immigration laws.
    Well due to lack of data, I’m inclined to say that line of reasoning is bullshit.
    Housing is already unsustainable, more people means more demand for it