I ended up replying a little further up in the thread to a related point you made, but to sort of restate:
Have you considered that under your own rubric, you're "bad for america" because you're from a "bad" culture? It sounds like by your rules you shouldn't have been allowed to come.
You say you don't view yourself as an exception, but clearly you are, so why are you special? If people like you and your dad can come from cultures like the one you left, how is it that culture is stagnant and unchanging as you say?
> Have you considered that under your own rubric, you're "bad for america" because you're from a "bad" culture? It sounds like by your rules you shouldn't have been allowed to come.
Correct, but so what? I think it's important to be objective and detached. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to color my thinking by trying to come to conclusions that would validate my own presence in the country.
> You say you don't view yourself as an exception, but clearly you are, so why are you special? If people like you and your dad can come from cultures like the one you left, how is it that culture is stagnant and unchanging as you say?
Societies aren't monoliths. Even Bangladesh has people like my dad, who arrive everywhere early, are horrified by corruption, and love waiting in line. But immigration isn't about individuals, it's about populations in the aggregate. And the evidence shows that populations have identifiable cultural averages that are durable over generations.
"Trust, for instance, is one of the more commonly studied attributes: economic cooperation relies upon it, yet it varies substantially from culture to culture. Mr. Jones, an associate professor of economics at George Mason University, notes that, even after four generations in the U.S., immigrants continue to hold attitudes toward trust that are significantly influenced by their home countries. On a host of other matters, such as family, abortion and the role of government, fourth-generation immigrants on average converge only about 60% of the way to the national norm." https://manhattan.institute/article/the-culture-transplant-r...
"Analyses using data from the World Values Survey and the cumulative General Social Surveys indicate that the civic attitudes of contemporary Americans bear a strong resemblance to the civic attitudes of the contemporary citizens of the European nations with whom they share common ancestors."
https://cis.org/Richwine/More-Evidence-Cultural-Persistence
> Correct, but so what? I think it's important to be objective and detached. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to color my thinking by trying to come to conclusions that would validate my own presence in the country.
But you and your family are by your own metrics evidence that your line of thinking - "people from culture X are not worth bringing to the US" - is false.
> Societies aren't monoliths. Even Bangladesh has people like my dad, who arrive everywhere early, are horrified by corruption, and love waiting in line. But immigration isn't about individuals, it's about populations in the aggregate. And the evidence shows that populations have identifiable cultural averages that are durable over generations.
If you believe the first sentence, the second sentence doesn't follow. Isn't the whole point of immigration laws to construct systems by which people whose traits are desirable are allowed to immigrate?
If your dad exists in Bangladesh, surely he's not the only one. If Bangladesh, with ~170 million people, has 500,000 of your dad (or whatever), surely it's to our benefit as a society to get as many of them as possible here?
But the people in control of policy on this issue, frankly, are people who are so bald-facedly hypernationalist that they see "Bangladeshi" and think "not American," and stop there. They do not care to implement a system that would work better. They don't want a system at all.
If you think societies aren't a monolith, whether they can change or not, then allowing movement between societies to help people find ones they fit into better is a good thing. If you think the US is better off with you in it, then "just reject everyone from country/culture X" is not the right approach. That is not the position current immigration policy espouses. My original point was that the US immigration system is designed to make it impossible to immigrate legally. Not just difficult or subject to scrutiny - effectively impossible.
Is that what you want, given your beliefs?
(To be clear, I still hold to my original point which is that I think your fundamental view of peoples and cultures is misguided and wrong, but we're not going to agree on that, so I don't see a point in arguing it. If it were up to me the system would be very very different, but as others have pointed out, it isn't currently up to me.)
> But you and your family are by your own metrics evidence that your line of thinking - "people from culture X are not worth bringing to the US" - is false.
I didn't say that, and I had no reason to say that because it's irrelevant to my point. You're talking about someone like Fazlur Kahn, the Bangladeshi who moved to Illinois on a Fulbright Scholarship in the 1950s and was the structural engineer who designed the Sears Tower. I'm talking about 100,000 Bangladeshis moving en masse to New York, and establishing a Bangladeshi enclave in Queens.
Your final caveat that you think culture doesn't actually matter is exactly why I think your "system that would work better" is a red herring. You'd never accept the immigration system we had back when Fazlur Kahn came here, because you believe in magic soil. If we implemented such a system, immigration proponents would immediately shift their focus to eliminating any bargained-for restrictions, which is exactly what they've been doing since 1965.
So in reality, the choice is binary. You either severely restrict immigration, or you have mass immigration and Bangladeshi enclaves in your city.
You ignored the things I was actually trying to ask you about and instead focused on a point where I specifically called out that we wouldn't agree - a point I specifically conceded for the purpose of this discussion because I didn't think arguing it was productive.
When you say:
> You'd never accept the immigration system we had back when Fazlur Kahn came here, because you believe in magic soil. If we implemented such a system, immigration proponents would immediately shift their focus to eliminating any bargained-for restrictions, which is exactly what they've been doing since 1965.
I am not talking about what I'd accept. I'm asking why you aren't advocating for it as something you would accept. The critical point is:
> the people in control of policy on this issue, frankly, are people who are so bald-facedly hypernationalist that they see "Bangladeshi" and think "not American," and stop there. They do not care to implement a system that would work better. They don't want a system at all.
> If you think societies aren't a monolith, whether they can change or not, then allowing movement between societies to help people find ones they fit into better is a good thing. If you think the US is better off with you in it, then "just reject everyone from country/culture X" is not the right approach. That is not the position current immigration policy espouses. My original point was that the US immigration system is designed to make it impossible to immigrate legally. Not just difficult or subject to scrutiny - effectively impossible.
> Is that what you want, given your beliefs?
You may say that you don't actually think "people from culture X are not worth bringing to the US," but given the above, that is what you are functionally advocating for. You are advocating that the ladder be pulled up behind you, and me, and everyone else in this country who is successful as the child of immigrants.
If you think that an immigration system that isn't just "disallow all foreign immigrants" is worth fighting for, even if the system you want at the end isn't the one I want, you should be fighting for it instead of arguing it's OK we don't have it.
> You ignored the things I was actually trying to ask you about and instead focused on a point where I specifically called out that we wouldn't agree - a point I specifically conceded for the purpose of this discussion because I didn't think arguing it was productive... .. I am not talking about what I'd accept. I'm asking why you aren't advocating for it as something you would accept.
I'm not trying to talk past you. My point is that, in formulating my own policy, I cannot overlook our ideological conflict. If we agreed on the premises that culture is a cause of societal prosperity, and that culture is durable in immigrants, and we only disagreed about degrees, then it would be possible to reach a nuanced compromise. But it's not possible to formulate a stable compromise with people who cannot, starting from their ideological axioms, rationally justify any restrictions on immigration. No compromise will be enforced, and we will have mass immigration by default. That's the history of immigration law dating back to the 1965 INA.
Given that, it's rational to simply pick which of the two maximalist approaches you prefer. When a Biden gets elected, the borders are opened and we have mass immigration. When a Trump gets elected, the reaction must be equal and opposite.
> You may say that you don't actually think "people from culture X are not worth bringing to the US," but given the above, that is what you are functionally advocating for.
No, that doesn't logically follow. Just because I think the costs outweigh the benefits--because any openings left open will be abused to enable mass immigration--doesn't mean I think the benefits are zero.
> If you think the US is better off with you in it, then "just reject everyone from country/culture X" is not the right approach.
I think my immigrating to the U.S. was a regression to the global mean. America is more like Bangladesh as a result of my coming here. (Ask my wife, who has to deal with the elaborate but inefficient rituals of being a Bangladeshi daughter in law.) All else being equal, American citizens would have been better off importing an orderly Dane or Norwegian or Japanese instead.
> You are advocating that the ladder be pulled up behind you, and me, and everyone else in this country who is successful as the child of immigrants.
Your "pulling the ladder up" analogy implies I should favor extending a benefit to an immigrant because I received that benefit myself. But, as a citizen, my duty runs to my fellow citizens, not to foreigners who share my immigrant background. In my analysis, only the benefit to existing U.S. citizens matters. And I don't think American citizens benefit from expanding Bangladeshi enclaves around the country.
Have you considered that under your own rubric, you're "bad for america" because you're from a "bad" culture? It sounds like by your rules you shouldn't have been allowed to come.
You say you don't view yourself as an exception, but clearly you are, so why are you special? If people like you and your dad can come from cultures like the one you left, how is it that culture is stagnant and unchanging as you say?