I have no issue with legal immigration, and I would be surprised if anyone on this forum does.

I have issues with it. Problems can be caused by legal immigration just as problems can be caused by internal migrations within a state.

There is an ideal level of migration, both for states, and also for potential migrants. Migrants impose congestion costs on each other, and as the share of migrants in an area increases assimilation tends to take longer and the risk of the emergence of isolated ghettos climbs up. They also tend to bid down each other's wages, undercut the ability of their workplaces to unionize, and bid up each other's rents. And finally, to the extent that they destabilize the world's largest economies and militaries they can actually have negative effects for other potential migrants who are unable to leave their states. There is also a crowding out effect such that economic migrants take the spots of future asylum seekers.

Then, probably the biggest issue is the effect on inequality. In America, most immigrants are from the developing world and come with low levels of education and low networth. Some are eventually very successful, but most tend to be low income at first and they tend to have lower incomes across their lifetimes. Of course, if you add millions of new citizens with lower earnings potential and a very low starting wealth you're necessarily going to increase inequality (particularly wealth inequality), at the very least in the short term (but likely for a generation or so). And if you add a lot of migrants to one region you will exacerbate the issue by bidding down wages in relevant fields those migrants tend to work in and driving up regional rents.

Very high levels of migration can also overwhelm local school districts, particularly because ESL and SPED students are much more expensive to educate properly (and immigrants tend to have a much higher rate of IEPs). Massachusetts, one of the best states at funding education, estimates SPED students cost about four times as much, and the English language learner supplement is about 40% of the entire tuition rate. Compressed poverty is also worse for educational outcomes, such that MA gives about 70% of total tuition in an additional supplement for the highest poverty districts. But migration tends to increase compressed poverty, at least in the short to medium term. MA does this better than most by using the income tax to redistribute aid to poorer districts, but it still has huge disparities, and there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that support for such redistribution can be hindered by high rates of migration (maybe people shouldn't shift their attitudes like this, but they do).

Which is all to say there are valid concerns about the ideal levels of migration. Political instability as Western Europe undergoes a demographic transformation that is more rapid than that seen in the Americas in the early modern period is another issue.

But these tend to get clouded over by:

A. Racist demagogues
B. The inverse, people claiming that any opposition to immigration is necessarily racist.

To complicate matters, the ideal level of migration for natives and immigrants already in a country is almost always going to be much lower than the ideal level for people who want to move to that country but haven't made it there yet. And ideal levels of migration will also vary by income level, with the poor benefiting least and the wealthy benefiting most from high levels of migration. There is a reason that immigration is a rare issue where the GOP dominated with independents and national polls (despite their vile rhetoric) and yet the GOP held zero votes on migration when they held the House, Senate, Court, and White House from 2017-2019—because policies that benefit the elite are very often put into place or kept in place regardless of popular opinion.


I made a thread on this a while back: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10332/pragmatism-and-the-ethics-of-migration

I'm curious if you'd take issue with hundreds of thousands of Europeans migrating to another continent en masse, perhaps entering countries illegally, and availing themselves of the cultures and systems built by the native populations. After all diversity is a good thing, and perhaps they could use a little.

I ask because the immigration question always seems to flow one way. But it is my belief that there is a fine line between mass migration, colonialism, and gentrification. Mexico city, for example, has been met with an influx of "digital nomads" from the United States, leading to a rise in housing costs for the native populations. Recall the Boer migrations throughout Africa, with the displacement of the original peoples and the bloody wars that resulted. In modern times we have Israeli settlers expanding into Palestine. Diversity is so good that original populations can no longer afford to live there, or worse, are met with violence.

All in all, displacement of the original population is one of the key issues, but whenever someone broaches the topic he is often belittled and dismissed for feeling that way.

What's wrong with a democratic nation deciding how much immigration it wants to let in? If you believe that a democratic nation can make a wrong choice in its immigration policy, what is it, why? If there is a problem, what would fix it? — Philosophim

You're implying (again), and here with respect to immigration policies, that "a democratic nation," in establishing its immigration policies, can do no wrong. If that's so, please so state. If on the other hand you believe there can be wrong immigration policies, then there can be a discussion. But not if you hold there cannot be, there being then nothing to discuss.

Or to be simpler, if you believe nations cannot do wrong or be wrong, then what is there to discuss?

What's wrong with a democratic nation deciding how much immigration it wants to let in? — Philosophim

I recall that Sweden allowed large numbers in, then several years later changed its mind.

Or to be simpler, if you believe nations cannot do wrong or be wrong, then what is there to discuss? — tim wood

No, I'm noting that a nation run largely by its people are free to decide their immigration policy. If they feel they don't have enough immigrants, they can open their doors. If they feel they have enough, they can close them. If there are mistakes for that nation in having too little and too much immigration, a nation is free to change it to fix these issues, and I see no broader moral issue here. In any case, I see no moral justification for illegal immigration.

I did ask if you had an example you wanted to cover. Since you don't, and I've stated my points, then I suppose the discussion has reached its end.

and I see no broader moral issue here. In any case, I see no moral justification for illegal immigration. — Philosophim

No moral issue? Another categorical statement? Well, maybe not for you. No moral justification for illegal immigration? What does that even mean? Think! If they're not here, they're not illegal immigrants. If they're here illegally, then they're here illegally. Assuming they have a good reason for being here, likely necessity, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim.

if a people or a nation elect not to try to meet a moral claim, that's a choice they an make. But the claim does not stop being a claim for being rejected, any more than a starving person stops being starving being refused sustenance.

Incumbent on immigrants, imo, is that they commit to becoming good citizens of their new country. In particular they commit to leaving their bad behind and adopting and adapting to the good of the new.