MY HOT TAKE: Immigration numbers, quotas & sources should be a boring technocratic operational issue that rarely enters the public sphere for debate, certainly not in a heated/emotional way. If it does, it indicates some fraud or bait & switch has taken place. +
Was just thinking along the same lines. If an issue is subject to competing instincts or dogmas, how is it possible to achieve optimal tradeofffs?
-
-
Immigration standards shouldn't be informed to any great degree by 'dogmas'. That's like having traffic-light policy be informed by 'dogmas'. People who let their dogmas intrude on and bleed into this issue are in error.
-
There's an exception, which is the dogma of Open Borders. If we are to follow *that* dogma, then fair enough, it will of course dictate immigration policy (or rather, its lack). But most people do not agree with Open Borders. Even most who kinda do, won't admit it.
-
So to the extent that this issue is one of competing dogmas/instincts/priorities, it's characterized by one side attempting to impose de facto Open Borders by stealth and bait-and-switch tactics against a dissenting majority.
-
But for most on the MOAR IMMIGRANTS side, their motive doesn't even rise to the level of ideology. It's about manufacturing more D voters (to give themselves more power), and performative signaling ("I'm so caring and generous!"). Those are not good ingredients of social policy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.