Note that this isn't new. During and after WWII the US worked hard to bring scientists to the US to prevent them working for the enemy. Just one example:
What sort of thinking is this? People stopped being subjects of their countries a while ago. Countries should compete for people, not trap them. If a country isn't OK with losing its top talent it should fix its institutions to make itself competitive.
You know what country doesn't allow its citizens to leave? North Korea.
Besides, remittances are a thing.
But why is it "making it" in some countries to leave and go to America? Why not build up your own country and affect their living standards in a positive way?
Personally I have no desire to leave my country because I like it and want to make it better. I think that is a healthy way to think about your identity.
Many reasons.
* Because they'll be able to add more value to society in the other country.
* Because they're part of a marginalized group and the other country has better protections for people like them. Maybe they can't get married in their home country but can in the other country, say.
* Most importantly, because they might not want to.
People should generally be free to do what they like, right?
> I have no desire to leave my country because I like it and want to make it better.
Great, sounds awesome! You're free to do as you desire. Others have different desires or constraints and should be free to do as they wish as well.
I can answer that in a personal way. Because I don't care.
The modern world is capitalist, especially with software. If your work is worth X dollars, why would you work for X/10 dollars? Because of nationalism?
Would it be too bold for me to say it has some cultural reasons? Perhaps the openness to innovation? or maybe the way people think about solving new problems? Why not try to instill these cultural mechanisms in the country you came from? I hope i'm not coming across as a cultural imperialist but I am genuinely curious.
Also I don't think people should migrate for purely financial reasons. There is a lot of rich and interesting cultures in this world - it would be a shame if people just abandoned them for the sake of money.
It's usually an institutional problem. For example, a country where the laws governing business are predictable will work better than one where businesses are at the whim of a local authority.
For more along those lines, check out Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson.
> Why not try to instill these cultural mechanisms in the country you came from?
So work twice as hard to get half as far?
Are you asking me why some places pay more than others? I don't think I have the expertise to answer that correctly honestly, it's probably a multitude of factors.
But I don't think it's cultural (or mostly cultural) since it happens within countries too. Silicon valley pays more than the Midwest, London pays more than Birmingham. I don't know why exactly but it's undeniable that they do.
>>> Why not try to instill these cultural mechanisms in the country you came from?
Because I don't think it's cultural. And even if it were... Why would I do that? My family is more important that some vague notion of changing cultural mechanisms.
>>> Also I don't think people should migrate for purely financial reasons. There is a lot of rich and interesting cultures in this world - it would be a shame if people just abandoned them for the sake of money
Sorry to be blunt, but it's not your choice. People's lives and priorities are their own to make.
This sounds too much like airmchair philosophy. It's great that you can do it but it's not "just money" for the vast majority of people, rich country or not.
They are not. But the people there have no options. In my country(India), despite a level of free market reforms, there is still a huge cancer of socialism at large.
Socialist spending, affirmative action policies and corruption are extremely rampant. Public apathy is at peak. Almost anybody smart enough to make genuine difference has only one life style, where he/she has to earn all life to pay nearly 50% of all earned money in taxes and yet live a third world quality life.
So there is only one option. Just immigrate and save yourself the trouble.
>>How much immigration can a society take before it is unrecognizable to the people that live there.
You might want to take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
To your point though, I suspect a lot of older voters grew up with much lower immigration (due to the Immigration Act of 1924) and so this level feels really high to them even though it was common for a large part of US history.
There is an argument that there is enough of a cultural difference for it to affect the country one way or another.
Ironical, given Thanksgiving is a few weeks from now.
Is that an argument for or against immigration by people with different cultural values?
I guess you will sit in your camp and I will sit in mine; no reason to have a civil discussion about the complex topic of immigration.
which itself is a conveniently ambiguous phrase.
FDR was white. FDR was nationalist.
Was he a 'White Nationalist'?
certainly not, but if he publicly held the same political positions he held less than a century before the label would more than likely be applied.
Why is it that we cannot compete with foreign companies with native workers? Why should those countries be okay with losing their top talent?
Shoudnt we solve the problem of native workers not having the right skills before we open the borders to everyone else?
The other argument I understand is cultural. How much immigration can a society take before it is unrecognizable to the people that live there. You can't say that if you moved 100 million indians to the US ( A fairly small number of the population) it wouldn't look and feel completely different.