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. +
Of course. But in fact the debate is between the xenophobic instinct and the xenophilic dogma. Optimising on actual benefits, costs and risks seems impossible in this environment.
-
-
I don't believe the bulk of the De Facto Open Borders position is informed by genuine xenophilia. Motives include manufacturing D voters, cheap labor, and signaling Goodness. The advocates don't confront (& don't believe they would confront) any negative effects of immigration.
-
It's as if they are advocating a policy that will be implemented only in a cartoon, or piece of fiction. "We should have more immigrants." "Papa Smurf should help Smurfette." There's no realism or tangibility to the position, for its advocates, except some pleasant feelings.
-
And, of course, the anticipated D votes. Which are presumed to accrue to the benefit of the Nice Smart People (mostly white elites) that, it is believed, will continue to be anointed as leaders in perpetuity by the imported bloc.
-
So you're right that cost/risk analysis is not possible in this context, but not because of the intractable difference between the cost/risk tolerance of the two sides. It's cuz one side isn't using genuine cost-benefit analysis at all, but is doing something closer to LARPing.
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.