Comment Rescue: Immigration Motivations

Related Post Roulette

16 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    The “nunya” attitude towards immigrants. I love it.

    However, I do have a handful of trepidations. While I am 100% in support of the Epcot version of any given culture coming here (bring your outfits, your recipes, your music, your festivals, and your drinking games!), I also know that there are cultures out there that are less than 100% down with certain things that we have come to terms with (or are seriously hammering out the terms for) such as gay marriage, female empowerment, abortion rights, inter-racial romance, etc.

    I’m pretty sure that I’d like some weak naturalization to go on for any given immigrant group to get them to see such things as, at worst, shrugworthy.

    I suppose we could argue that immigrants are entitled to hate homosexuals if they want because, after all, Matthew Shepard was killed but I’m not sure that that moves us in the direction we want to go on the vector we want to be on.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird says:

      Every liberal democracy struggles with what I call the illiberal problem. That is, what do you do with the people that don’t accept the precepts of liberal democracy. We have plenty of people born in the United States that are cery illiberal, I don’t see why illiberal immigrants would be worse.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Jaybird says:

      Seems to me we do weakly nationalize those who naturalize. They must pass a test demonstrating knowledge of our civics and history.Report

      • Avatar Michael M. in reply to Burt Likko says:

        I took such a test when I was naturalized as a 6-year-old. I can’t really remember much about it, though, except being really nervous in front of a judge and being in a courtroom for the first time. I can remember the judge asking me a few basic civics and history questions, and I have a distinct recollection of some kids’ study materials that I poured over, but that’s about it.

        All in all, it was scary, and I do remember wondering, ‘what if they say I have to leave?’Report

  2. “the reason Europeans all hate Americans is that they know that all of us came from over there and that means that their families didn’t have the guts to get up off their ass and come over here, to make a life in a new country.”

    It’s not just guts or the refusal to be lazy. It’s also resources and the “chains” of migration that get established. Now, resources gets caught up in the host country’s policy, so that the policy conditions who gets favored and who doesn’t. My point is that the immigrants are not always at the very bottom of the society they’re leaving from. Sometimes they are (such as the Jews from Russia in the early 1900s), but not always. I’m not sure if that means much of anything when it comes to policy, but it does challenge a certain narrative that only the dregs come over.Report

  3. Avatar Damon says:

    I find this quite interesting.

    Most people would agree that gov’t has the ability (not right, as gov’ts dont have rights) to tell people where they can live (immigration restrictions) and that’s consistent with their agreement that gov’t has the ability direct people’s lives in may other instances: healthcare, seat belts, speed limits, licenses for various things, drugs, etc.Report

  4. I hate my own opinion about immigration.

    The US has built an energy-intense society. Immigrants have little choice but to participate in that. Over the next 35 years, the US is looking at, in all probability: (a) having to replace its aging nuclear generators and (b) replacing or retrofitting its aging coal-fired generators. There’s not a chance of replacing all that with natural gas-fired generation. There’s no other technology in hand that’s suitable and that can be scaled to meet the needs of the country as a whole. It’s an enormous problem and immigration simply makes it worse.Report

    • The phrase “There’s no other technology in hand that’s suitable and that can be scaled…” should be qualified with “and is politically palatable.”Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Yes, that’s an important qualification. I’m hoping, if only tentatively, that SMRs located underground csn gain political acceptance.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Michael Cain says:

        But controlled fusion is only 25 years away, as it has been for the past 60.Report

      • I’ll be curious to see if the Republicans try very hard to restart Yucca Mountain next year. And whether such efforts will include the nuclear industry’s desire to vastly expand the capacity there, since the industry pretty much acknowledges that it’s unlikely a second repository will ever by approved.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Michael Cain says:

        If not in the next two years (if for no other reason than to piss on Harry Reid), then I’d say certainly after that, particularly if they get a GOP prez.

        The question is what Obama would do if they try to re-open it next year, since he’s got not great need for Reid anymore. Would he show loyalty to him anyway?

        Does Obama actually have strong personal beliefs on the issue? (I suspect not.)Report

      • (if for no other reason than to piss on Harry Reid)

        They’ve got to piss on some of their own, as well. The junior Senator from Nevada (R) opposes the opening. Of the current and incoming Congressional delegation from Nevada, only the new Rep whose district includes Nye County favors opening. We’ll have to wait and see what some of the Republicans from the major transit states think — I know that Nebraska started to have a bunch of second thoughts when they discovered that the transport plan includes offloading ~200 barges full of spent fuel casks in Omaha every year, loading them on UP trains, and sending them the length of the state. They’ll pick up a bunch of Dem votes, though. Washington State really wants Yucca Mountain open because they think they can get the rules bent enough so that the Hanford Reservation mess can go there. And there’s a bunch of East Coast Dems who really, really want the stuff out of their states.Report

      • Does Obama actually have strong personal beliefs on the issue? (I suspect not.)

        As a Senator, Obama pledged to keep Yucca Mountain from opening, despite the fact that Illinois has 11 operating power reactors (more than 10% of the total US fleet) and his position meant all that spent fuel would stay in Illinois. That actually seems like a coherent position to me: if putting all of the spent fuel in the country 80 miles upwind from Las Vegas (who doesn’t want it) is safe, then keeping it at the reactor sites for a decade or three while we find a long-term storage site in a state that’s willing to take it seems equally safe.Report