Requiring proficiency in the language is reasonable, but requiring everyone to be richer than the average member of the population and have enough money banked to live off of for 30 years seems insane. That goes well beyond simply making sure that people are able to care for themselves.
The US has something like this, but the income threshold is lower.[1] US immigrants in most categories have to show that they will not become a "public charge", that is, need US welfare benefits.
That's reasonable too. People who move to a new country should be able to support themselves there and have a good chance to thrive in their new home. If the average income of the population isn't enough for that to be possible, your country has bigger problems than immigrants
Manu tings are reasonable but not done. For example, it seems unreasonable that one country can print any amount of money due to being called the reserve currency and use it to influence countries around the world.
If you want fairness, start from the top and don’t punch down. I’m not against any definitions of immigration but generally most definitions aren’t reasonable. They are just downstream and issues of an upstream systems problem.
If there aren’t any immigrants to work them, either the pay will increase or the product/service will disappear. Essential services and products won’t disappear, so this seems okay?
If we look at it from the other direction, we are artificially increasing quality of life by taking advantage of foreigners who have no better option than to work for little pay. Getting rid of this seems positive?
Essential services disappear all the time. Look at the increasing rarity of teachers and the effect that has on student/teacher ratios or quality. Same with medical staff, farm labor, and dozens of other industries.
I'm not saying that exploiting immigrants for labor is necessarily good, but the free hand of the labor market doesn't usually achieve policy goals.
Teaching and medicine are both highly regulated, so not great examples of market behavior producing poor results. Quite the opposite!
Farm labor is not very regulated, but until about 10 minutes ago it was flooded with cheap foreign labor which seriously distorted the pricing mechanism for labor. And, that distortion helped to paper over some serious money supply expansion, i.e. the foreign labor helped food not get as much more expensive over time as it otherwise would have. If we keep things steady for several years we will see the market stabilize and rebalance, albeit now at a higher level (due to money supply expansion).
*Note that I don’t really support the haphazard way this has been done, and I’m not confident that things actually will be held steady given the political environment, I’m just stating what theoretically would happen if they were.
Exactly. Any business that depends on a large easily exploited underclass who doesn't have the rights, protections, or freedoms of the rest of the population is either a failed business or one that's exploiting people to line their own pockets. In either case, there's no reason why we should allow them to do it.
Every single person who came through Ellis Island <<a href="https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-precautions-tak/20781025/" rel="nofollow">https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-...>
* was a legal immigrant
* had passed a medical inspection
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
Something like two thirds of the US federal budget is spent on some form of welfare. Assuming you want to keep that ratio you could spend more per person with fewer people withdrawing from that system.
I'd love to see some source for this, because from what I've seen, 59% of undocumented immigrants receive some form of welfare (the state of California spends roughly $10 billion a year alone on this) and documented migrants are at roughly the same rate, double the native born population's rate of 28%.
The vast majority of the difference, according to the article, is social security benefits and Medicare. The non-retirement difference is very small.
> Native-born Americans use an average of ... $3,638 in means-tested benefits in 2023. By comparison, immigrants used ... $3,370 in means-tested benefits.
The article also ignores state provided benefits, and thus the disparity between documented and undocumented migrant populations. The article 's "much less" headline is not really supported by the evidence provided.
> I'd love to see some source for this [proceeds to throw out a bunch of source-free numbers]
I looked up the source for these numbers.
It's the Center for Immigration Studies, and they are notorious for being a right-wing think tank used to dress up up anti-immigration policy using misleading statistics.
How notorious are they? Well, they are listed as a hate group with the Southern Poverty Law Center[1].
The numbers you're citing aren't 'welfare,' the biggest thing is using the education system. The thing that, long term, makes they into productive taxpayers. CIS doesn't figure the long-term benefits into their numbers because that would destroy their thesis.
The HUD secretary mentioned the number, and the number was also included in a Congressional report, though it ended up being through testimony, also from that same source, which I hadn't realized. I'd been under the impression the one claim was independently sourced from actual federal data, rather being from CIS.
In any case, none of this amounts to immigrants using less welfare than native born residents, which is what I was asking sources for.
I can't find study now from CIS but when I dug into it, it lumped citizen children of undocumented immigrants into "undocumented immigrant", and other studies classify them as native/citizen. It also looked at estimated education costs since schools are required to take all school age kids without regard to immigration status and many of big school systems don't have a breakdown of immigration status. CIS argument was: If parents are immigrants, shouldn't be contribute the kids cost to them regardless of kids status?
Looking at CBO numbers, CBO reports that recent immigration into United States is drain, in particular, at state and local level since that's generally budget that gets impacted the most by people. <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
This is a statistic that is technically true but has some hidden nuance.
Depending on what gets counted, "public assistance" stats like this usually include medicare and social security. (Social security gets debated because of how it's paid-in, but I'm not here to argue that. The fact is, it gets included in these stats). Those two make up the dominant consumption of public assistance to the point that things we hear about in the media like food stamps are kind of a rounding error.
Medicare and social security are collected primarily by older people. Foreign born populations have much lower numbers of people in that age bracket than the general popualtion.
Combine those two facts and it's not surprising that when you look at charts of foreign born vs native born, the foreign born population uses less public assistance.
It's a statistic that is more about age distribution than anything. Like when you one of those bad maps trying to prove a point but really just showing population density of big cities.
Completely wrong, except possibly if you're defining Social Security as welfare, in which case honesty would compel you to note that no one draws Social Security except based on having previously made contributions via dedicated taxation for social security.
Just a reminder... Social Security requires 40 quarters (ie, 10 years) of income to even qualify for a pension. And the pension is based on what you earn, which is what you pay into the system.
Only 10 years? Damn, here in many EU countries you need to contribute much longer than that to qualify for receiving a pension. And supposedly we're the socialist ones.
There’s a difference between “able to receive” vs. “receive a useful amount”. As I recall they tally one’s contributions when determining payment. But like all government systems it can probably be gamed.
FWIW, social security and Medicare taxes are noticeably higher in the US than Canada. Pay more get more.
I agree that Social Security is not plain welfare, but it has significant welfare components. Simplifying some, you get back something like 90% of the first $15,432 income per year but only 32% of income above that up to $92,988. (And above that, it's 15%.) Only getting 32% back of what you pay in so that the rest can be redistributed to others who made less could be considered partly welfare. Also, if you die too young, you don't get the money back, nor can you give it to your children. It's redistributed to other people. I'm not saying it's bad (I think it's probably good overall), but I can see how it's partly welfare.
The US doesn’t lack the capital for welfare. The country decides to instead waste its resources fighting wars, fighting its allies, fighting its trade partners. The money is here, there is no will to allocate it to welfare. You could reduce the number of people on welfare by a massive amount and none of the savings from that would get distributed to the remaining recipient
I hate to break it to you, but the world of pre-1900 has been dead and gone for a solid 120+ years, it was killed off by Europe getting itself into two stupid wars that the Americans had to come over and save them from. Nothing works the same anymore.
All those European countries get to invest in those nice social programs and isolationism because the US has at least up until now acted as world police and handled their foreign affairs for the most part.
No, they're essential to protecting Benjamin Netanyahu's ass. No more and no less.
Less vindictively, the only economic interest the US has in the Middle East is oil. Relying on oil for your energy needs is, in 2026, a choice and not a requirement. Wind, solar, and the batteries you need to store them are continuously getting cheaper. And for the people who are net consumers of energy - primarily the US, Europe, and China - renewables are better for everything, but especially they're better for energy independence!
The only things that require oil are airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemical processes (like we make asphalt out of oil and certain inks out of naphtha). Eliminating most of the energy demand for oil would mean a significantly reduced dependence on foreign oil, and more specifically, the political dependence on low gas prices. America rebuilt all its cities in the image of the car and, as a result, made gasoline/petrol a necessary ingredient of urban mobility. This was, again, a choice - we absolutely could have retained and grown our dense urban cores and we can still rebuild what was destroyed.
But this requires an entire governing body at every level that is not a corpse paraded by the ghosts of Tammany Hall, Standard Oil, and Hitler. The primary crisis in America that is driving these wars is a fundamental lack of political will for alternatives.
>"Those wars are essential to protecting our economic interests"
Translation - we bomb people for money. well thanks for being frank anyways. otherwise it is sick to hear all that moralizing about "us being a good guys"
Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.
Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?
I'm not sure people should be forced to live with those they feel xenophobia towards, even if one grants that the feelings of xenophobia have no basis in reality.
OK, so considering Sweden, if Sweden is flooded with immigrants, where should the Swedes who just want to live with other Swedes go? Australia??
Also you do realize that your preferred migration policy will lead to microaggressions (and possibly macroaggressions) against immigrants? If people don't have democratic means to keep out disliked foreigners, they may be tempted to try alternatives. The ballot box is ultimately an alternative to violence.
Are you suggesting that all the immigrants in Sweden are acting and thinking exactly like Swedish people, and differ only in "race?" You think the Swedes are jealous about the people who don't need as much sunscreen? Otherwise, your comment is simply irrelevant.
Your preferred policy also leads to microagressions, where the mere presence of someone who doesn't 'look' swedish would set these 'people' off.
It seems more like 'xenophobia' is the real culprit here, and should be tackled directly instead of 'granting' it as a preference that doesn't need to be interrogated.
They can go anywhere they want to. If they can't handle it, they can leave.
And no, we don't negotiate with terrorists. If people try violence, they go to prison. We don't want antisocial people in our society. They're not valuable citizens.
1) Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
2) 30-40% returned home
3) The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
4) Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York. And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York and Chicago today.
> Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
About ten and a half million of those in 15 years, from 1900 to 1914. Against a 1900 US population of about 76 million.
> The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
Or, you know, because the political wind changed.
> Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York.
Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
> And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York
The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
> and Chicago today.
Chicago Democrats were immigrants around the relevant time. Chicago Republicans were from older stock. Both were corrupt.
> Or, you know, because the political wind changed.
Assimilation was the effect of immigration restriction, whether or not that was the motivation. It broke up the chains of migration that facilitated maintenance of separate cultural enclaves.
> Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
Canada and Australia never had a similar problem.
> The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789. According to Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall ("Following the 1854 mayoral election and the resulting mayoralty of Fernando Wood, Tammany Hall controlled Democratic Party nominations and political patronage in Manhattan for over a century through its organized network of loyal, well-rewarded, and largely Irish Catholic district and precinct leaders.").
To be clear, the point isn't that they were Irish. As far as I can tell, Ireland isn't more corrupt than other western european countries. It was the political dynamics that arose from the presence of a large culturally distinct immigrant population.
> and Chicago today.
Irish domination of Chicago's political machine long outlasted the Ellis Island era, well into the 1970s: <a href="https://www.thelastward.org/p/what-happened-to-chicagos-irish-machine" rel="nofollow">https://www.thelastward.org/p/what-happened-to-chicagos-iris....
> Canada and Australia never had a similar problem.
Greetings from Canada. I live in Montreal. We have more of a Mafia problem nowadays than New York (no RICO here), and we were comparable in the 1930s. Bootleggers, remember? Where do you think they were running the booze from? Same "market", same mob. Yeah, they managed to dominate everybody else. That's what I mean about "niches". In fact they did it worldwide, and according to Wikipedia they're prominent in Australia, too. These are transnational groups. The Mafia is also big in Sicily. Are you going to say that's because of (checks notes) Sicilian immigration? Specifically because of a huge wave around 1900?
We also have Hell's Angels here. Ethnically "white". No immigrant identification whatsoever, totally acculturated... although I assume some of them moved here from the US. Pretty racist and anti-immigrant, actually. Cool fact: I used to live two houses away from Sonny Barger in beautiful Oakland, California. OK, it wasn't actually that cool. Those guys were really noisy. But I assure you they did not come through Ellis Island.
Apparently Winnipeg has First Nations gangs (Indians to you). Kinda the opposite of immigrants.
... plus a grab bag of others, some of them organized by immigrants. Yes, organized crime tends to segregate itself ethnically, so if one group gets the upper hand, you're likely to see its ethnicity as the face of the problem. But all ethnicities get to play, and they will expand into any available vacuum. If you hadn't had the Italian Mafia (worldwide), you'd have had something else (at least regionally).
And it's not always ethnic. Apparently there's a gang in BC that actually calls itself the United Nations.
> Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789.
It sure was by 1854, eh, according to your own quote? That was 38 years before Ellis Island opened. Before the specific wave of immigration that you're claiming caused the problem. Goalposts. You are moving them.
> Irish domination of Chicago's political machine long outlasted the Ellis Island era
... and preceded it. Your own link says "Of the 28 most influential Chicago aldermen of the 1890s, 24 were Irish.". I don't think they teleported from Ellis Island and took over in under 8 years.
Now do a realistic summary of what it took to pass these checks, eg how details of a medical inspection or what level of resources (inflation adjusted) were required. Equating past practices with current standards is a bait-and-switch.
... as determined by an on-the-spot interview. Which was admittedly done in a very bigoted way.
> had passed a medical inspection
... which took about one minute to check for red flags. If you had red flags, they diverted you to quarantine. They were mostly looking for TB and some eye disease.
> had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
... by which they meant having as much as $25 on hand (call it $1000 in 2026, though that's a bit high), and convincing the interviewer that you could probably get a job. That convincing step did include claiming, in a way the interviewer found credible, to have skills beyond the "day laborer" level. But only just beyond.
> I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
Good news: the medical requirements now are equivalent, the financial/self-support requirements are now much, much higher, and the vetting is vastly more thorough.
The US requirements are so much lower that calling them similar does a disservice.
The proposed requirements in Japan require earnings to exceed Japan's average and also for them to have an equivalent of 30 years of pension payouts saved up.
The US requirements are not as specific, but for comparison one of the numbers is that that families need to have an income requirement 25% higher than federal poverty guidelines, which very low compared to average US incomes.
they don't require 30 years saved up, only showing (somehow) that you will be able to generate such a pension equivalent over time. I suspect that will be very squishy in practice.
> Draft Revisions to the Guidelines for Permission for Permanent Residence (Summary)
...
> Regarding the positioning of the "Permanent Resident" status of residence:
> ・ Explicitly stated for the first time that, as it is "the most stable legal status—entailing no restrictions on activities or duration of stay and presupposing a lifetime spent in Japan"—there is a "need for particularly careful screening."
...
> Regarding "2. Requirement for Independent Livelihood"
> ・ Underlying Principle: Explicitly requires an economic status equal to or better than that of Japanese nationals, both currently and in the future.
> ・ Income: Whether income consistently meets or exceeds the average income level of Japanese households based on household size (raising the standard).
> ・ Pension: Whether the projected future pension benefit amount reaches the level corresponding to 30 years of enrollment in the Employees' Pension Insurance at the aforementioned annual income level (newly added requirement; however, financial assets that can cover any shortfall will also be taken into account).
Seriously. That's such a fuzzy number. Why not just say X yen? None of us have a crystal ball to tell us if our investments will make the traditional 8% interest or not.
> “ive me your tired, your poor,
> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
> The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
> Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
> I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
The U.S. was founded as a nation of immigrants, and has a cultural history of being exceptionally immigrant-friendly (compared to other nations), especially with regard to immigrants without much means.
I don't believe other nations have any obligation to follow this example. On the contrary, they should be able to set whatever immigration policies make sense for them. But this model of letting in poor immigrants, letting them do the work that nobody else wants to do, and letting their kids become net contributors, does seem to have benefited the U.S. greatly over the past few centuries.
I dunno... 1790 Naturalization Act says only white people could become citizens. Sounds like they were friendly towards immigration from very specific countries.
Roosevelt's 1915 Americanism address also reveals this:
He says americanism "is a matter of the spirit and of the soul". In the very next paragraph, the so called "hyphenated americans" are condemned. This is perfectly reasonable.
In 1923, the supreme court decided an indian was not eligible for citizenship because he was not white.
So arguably the US was a white ethnoatate from the very beginning. This stuff only really went away after the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, just over half a century ago.
I mean yes, obviously: the nation was founded with a giant genocide of native peoples.
I do imagine original white people were perhaps more keenly aware of the fact that this land was not originally theirs, and that other people should be let in and given a fair shot, even if they're poor.
I was merely making the argument that U.S. immigration policy has historically not been very classist (even if it was immensely racist), and not caring about the wealth of the incoming immigrants has worked out immensely well for the country over its lifespan.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
Animats · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-on-making-public-charge-inadmissibility-determination" rel="nofollow">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-issues-guidance-...
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
tchalla · · focus · HN ↗
If you want fairness, start from the top and don’t punch down. I’m not against any definitions of immigration but generally most definitions aren’t reasonable. They are just downstream and issues of an upstream systems problem.
jumpman_miya · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
Aeolun · · focus · HN ↗
pfannkuchen · · focus · HN ↗
If we look at it from the other direction, we are artificially increasing quality of life by taking advantage of foreigners who have no better option than to work for little pay. Getting rid of this seems positive?
AlotOfReading · · focus · HN ↗
I'm not saying that exploiting immigrants for labor is necessarily good, but the free hand of the labor market doesn't usually achieve policy goals.
pfannkuchen · · focus · HN ↗
Farm labor is not very regulated, but until about 10 minutes ago it was flooded with cheap foreign labor which seriously distorted the pricing mechanism for labor. And, that distortion helped to paper over some serious money supply expansion, i.e. the foreign labor helped food not get as much more expensive over time as it otherwise would have. If we keep things steady for several years we will see the market stabilize and rebalance, albeit now at a higher level (due to money supply expansion).
*Note that I don’t really support the haphazard way this has been done, and I’m not confident that things actually will be held steady given the political environment, I’m just stating what theoretically would happen if they were.
autoexec · · focus · HN ↗
TMWNN · · focus · HN ↗
* was a legal immigrant
* had passed a medical inspection
* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal
Shipping liner companies were charged to return ineligible passengers to their origin (the same is true with airlines today), so they had every incentive to verify ahead of time that they could enter the destination country. The "only 2% of immigrants were rejected at Ellis Island" statistic often bandied-about by the pro-open borders side elides the restrictions that caused the rate to be so low in the first place.
I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
cdot2 · · focus · HN ↗
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
zdragnar · · focus · HN ↗
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-still-use-much-less-welfare-native-born-americans" rel="nofollow">https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-still-use-much-less-wel...
zdragnar · · focus · HN ↗
> Native-born Americans use an average of ... $3,638 in means-tested benefits in 2023. By comparison, immigrants used ... $3,370 in means-tested benefits.
The article also ignores state provided benefits, and thus the disparity between documented and undocumented migrant populations. The article 's "much less" headline is not really supported by the evidence provided.
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
mullingitover · · focus · HN ↗
I looked up the source for these numbers.
It's the Center for Immigration Studies, and they are notorious for being a right-wing think tank used to dress up up anti-immigration policy using misleading statistics.
How notorious are they? Well, they are listed as a hate group with the Southern Poverty Law Center[1].
The numbers you're citing aren't 'welfare,' the biggest thing is using the education system. The thing that, long term, makes they into productive taxpayers. CIS doesn't figure the long-term benefits into their numbers because that would destroy their thesis.
[1] <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/center-immigration-studies/" rel="nofollow">https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/center-i...
acheron · · focus · HN ↗
zdragnar · · focus · HN ↗
In any case, none of this amounts to immigrants using less welfare than native born residents, which is what I was asking sources for.
stackskipton · · focus · HN ↗
Looking at CBO numbers, CBO reports that recent immigration into United States is drain, in particular, at state and local level since that's generally budget that gets impacted the most by people. <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464
Aurornis · · focus · HN ↗
Depending on what gets counted, "public assistance" stats like this usually include medicare and social security. (Social security gets debated because of how it's paid-in, but I'm not here to argue that. The fact is, it gets included in these stats). Those two make up the dominant consumption of public assistance to the point that things we hear about in the media like food stamps are kind of a rounding error.
Medicare and social security are collected primarily by older people. Foreign born populations have much lower numbers of people in that age bracket than the general popualtion.
Combine those two facts and it's not surprising that when you look at charts of foreign born vs native born, the foreign born population uses less public assistance.
It's a statistic that is more about age distribution than anything. Like when you one of those bad maps trying to prove a point but really just showing population density of big cities.
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
hyperpape · · focus · HN ↗
jleyank · · focus · HN ↗
PorciiVorbesc · · focus · HN ↗
jleyank · · focus · HN ↗
FWIW, social security and Medicare taxes are noticeably higher in the US than Canada. Pay more get more.
aero_code · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
voidfunc · · focus · HN ↗
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
voidfunc · · focus · HN ↗
All those European countries get to invest in those nice social programs and isolationism because the US has at least up until now acted as world police and handled their foreign affairs for the most part.
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
kmeisthax · · focus · HN ↗
Less vindictively, the only economic interest the US has in the Middle East is oil. Relying on oil for your energy needs is, in 2026, a choice and not a requirement. Wind, solar, and the batteries you need to store them are continuously getting cheaper. And for the people who are net consumers of energy - primarily the US, Europe, and China - renewables are better for everything, but especially they're better for energy independence!
The only things that require oil are airplanes, plastics, and industrial chemical processes (like we make asphalt out of oil and certain inks out of naphtha). Eliminating most of the energy demand for oil would mean a significantly reduced dependence on foreign oil, and more specifically, the political dependence on low gas prices. America rebuilt all its cities in the image of the car and, as a result, made gasoline/petrol a necessary ingredient of urban mobility. This was, again, a choice - we absolutely could have retained and grown our dense urban cores and we can still rebuild what was destroyed.
But this requires an entire governing body at every level that is not a corpse paraded by the ghosts of Tammany Hall, Standard Oil, and Hitler. The primary crisis in America that is driving these wars is a fundamental lack of political will for alternatives.
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
kjs3 · · focus · HN ↗
themaninthedark · · focus · HN ↗
FpUser · · focus · HN ↗
Translation - we bomb people for money. well thanks for being frank anyways. otherwise it is sick to hear all that moralizing about "us being a good guys"
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
hyperpape · · focus · HN ↗
Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.
Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
habinero · · focus · HN ↗
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
Also you do realize that your preferred migration policy will lead to microaggressions (and possibly macroaggressions) against immigrants? If people don't have democratic means to keep out disliked foreigners, they may be tempted to try alternatives. The ballot box is ultimately an alternative to violence.
TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
habinero · · focus · HN ↗
usernomdeguerre · · focus · HN ↗
It seems more like 'xenophobia' is the real culprit here, and should be tackled directly instead of 'granting' it as a preference that doesn't need to be interrogated.
habinero · · focus · HN ↗
And no, we don't negotiate with terrorists. If people try violence, they go to prison. We don't want antisocial people in our society. They're not valuable citizens.
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
habinero · · focus · HN ↗
0xDEAFBEAD · · focus · HN ↗
whatshisface · · focus · HN ↗
hyperpape · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
1) Only 12 million immigrants came through Ellis Island in 60 years.
2) 30-40% returned home
3) The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
4) Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York. And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York and Chicago today.
rendang · · focus · HN ↗
justin66 · · focus · HN ↗
Hizonner · · focus · HN ↗
About ten and a half million of those in 15 years, from 1900 to 1914. Against a 1900 US population of about 76 million.
> The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
Or, you know, because the political wind changed.
> Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York.
Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
> And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York
The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
> and Chicago today.
Chicago Democrats were immigrants around the relevant time. Chicago Republicans were from older stock. Both were corrupt.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
Assimilation was the effect of immigration restriction, whether or not that was the motivation. It broke up the chains of migration that facilitated maintenance of separate cultural enclaves.
> Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
Canada and Australia never had a similar problem.
> The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789. According to Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall ("Following the 1854 mayoral election and the resulting mayoralty of Fernando Wood, Tammany Hall controlled Democratic Party nominations and political patronage in Manhattan for over a century through its organized network of loyal, well-rewarded, and largely Irish Catholic district and precinct leaders.").
To be clear, the point isn't that they were Irish. As far as I can tell, Ireland isn't more corrupt than other western european countries. It was the political dynamics that arose from the presence of a large culturally distinct immigrant population.
> and Chicago today.
Irish domination of Chicago's political machine long outlasted the Ellis Island era, well into the 1970s: <a href="https://www.thelastward.org/p/what-happened-to-chicagos-irish-machine" rel="nofollow">https://www.thelastward.org/p/what-happened-to-chicagos-iris....
Hizonner · · focus · HN ↗
Greetings from Canada. I live in Montreal. We have more of a Mafia problem nowadays than New York (no RICO here), and we were comparable in the 1930s. Bootleggers, remember? Where do you think they were running the booze from? Same "market", same mob. Yeah, they managed to dominate everybody else. That's what I mean about "niches". In fact they did it worldwide, and according to Wikipedia they're prominent in Australia, too. These are transnational groups. The Mafia is also big in Sicily. Are you going to say that's because of (checks notes) Sicilian immigration? Specifically because of a huge wave around 1900?
We also have Hell's Angels here. Ethnically "white". No immigrant identification whatsoever, totally acculturated... although I assume some of them moved here from the US. Pretty racist and anti-immigrant, actually. Cool fact: I used to live two houses away from Sonny Barger in beautiful Oakland, California. OK, it wasn't actually that cool. Those guys were really noisy. But I assure you they did not come through Ellis Island.
Apparently Winnipeg has First Nations gangs (Indians to you). Kinda the opposite of immigrants.
... plus a grab bag of others, some of them organized by immigrants. Yes, organized crime tends to segregate itself ethnically, so if one group gets the upper hand, you're likely to see its ethnicity as the face of the problem. But all ethnicities get to play, and they will expand into any available vacuum. If you hadn't had the Italian Mafia (worldwide), you'd have had something else (at least regionally).
And it's not always ethnic. Apparently there's a gang in BC that actually calls itself the United Nations.
> Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789.
It sure was by 1854, eh, according to your own quote? That was 38 years before Ellis Island opened. Before the specific wave of immigration that you're claiming caused the problem. Goalposts. You are moving them.
> Irish domination of Chicago's political machine long outlasted the Ellis Island era
... and preceded it. Your own link says "Of the 28 most influential Chicago aldermen of the 1890s, 24 were Irish.". I don't think they teleported from Ellis Island and took over in under 8 years.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
anigbrowl · · focus · HN ↗
Hizonner · · focus · HN ↗
... as determined by an on-the-spot interview. Which was admittedly done in a very bigoted way.
> had passed a medical inspection
... which took about one minute to check for red flags. If you had red flags, they diverted you to quarantine. They were mostly looking for TB and some eye disease.
> had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
... by which they meant having as much as $25 on hand (call it $1000 in 2026, though that's a bit high), and convincing the interviewer that you could probably get a job. That convincing step did include claiming, in a way the interviewer found credible, to have skills beyond the "day laborer" level. But only just beyond.
> I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
Good news: the medical requirements now are equivalent, the financial/self-support requirements are now much, much higher, and the vetting is vastly more thorough.
Aurornis · · focus · HN ↗
The proposed requirements in Japan require earnings to exceed Japan's average and also for them to have an equivalent of 30 years of pension payouts saved up.
The US requirements are not as specific, but for comparison one of the numbers is that that families need to have an income requirement 25% higher than federal poverty guidelines, which very low compared to average US incomes.
simonsarris · · focus · HN ↗
Aurornis · · focus · HN ↗
> Applicants will also be required to have a pension pot equivalent to 30 years of payouts.
If there's a better article to read, I'd appreciate a link.
aphexairlines · · focus · HN ↗
Google Translate:
> Draft Revisions to the Guidelines for Permission for Permanent Residence (Summary)
...
> Regarding the positioning of the "Permanent Resident" status of residence:
> ・ Explicitly stated for the first time that, as it is "the most stable legal status—entailing no restrictions on activities or duration of stay and presupposing a lifetime spent in Japan"—there is a "need for particularly careful screening."
...
> Regarding "2. Requirement for Independent Livelihood"
> ・ Underlying Principle: Explicitly requires an economic status equal to or better than that of Japanese nationals, both currently and in the future.
> ・ Income: Whether income consistently meets or exceeds the average income level of Japanese households based on household size (raising the standard).
> ・ Pension: Whether the projected future pension benefit amount reaches the level corresponding to 30 years of enrollment in the Employees' Pension Insurance at the aforementioned annual income level (newly added requirement; however, financial assets that can cover any shortfall will also be taken into account).
runamok · · focus · HN ↗
rrrrrrrrrrrryan · · focus · HN ↗
The U.S. was founded as a nation of immigrants, and has a cultural history of being exceptionally immigrant-friendly (compared to other nations), especially with regard to immigrants without much means.
I don't believe other nations have any obligation to follow this example. On the contrary, they should be able to set whatever immigration policies make sense for them. But this model of letting in poor immigrants, letting them do the work that nobody else wants to do, and letting their kids become net contributors, does seem to have benefited the U.S. greatly over the past few centuries.
matheusmoreira · · focus · HN ↗
Roosevelt's 1915 Americanism address also reveals this:
<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/68152/68152-h/68152-h.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.gutenberg.org/files/68152/68152-h/68152-h.htm
He says americanism "is a matter of the spirit and of the soul". In the very next paragraph, the so called "hyphenated americans" are condemned. This is perfectly reasonable.
However, note the examples used:
The implication is only the souls of white europeans were eligible for americanization.There is even legal precedent for this:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_...
In 1923, the supreme court decided an indian was not eligible for citizenship because he was not white.
So arguably the US was a white ethnoatate from the very beginning. This stuff only really went away after the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, just over half a century ago.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan · · focus · HN ↗
I do imagine original white people were perhaps more keenly aware of the fact that this land was not originally theirs, and that other people should be let in and given a fair shot, even if they're poor.
I was merely making the argument that U.S. immigration policy has historically not been very classist (even if it was immensely racist), and not caring about the wealth of the incoming immigrants has worked out immensely well for the country over its lifespan.