this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
130 points (88.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36151 readers
838 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Aside from racism. I mean economically/socially, what issues does too much immigration cause?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 66 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Immigration only really causes economic issues with bullshit employee specific visas like H1Bs - those visas trap immigrants in powerless positions where they're unable to advocate for fair compensation and drive down overall wages.

Everything else is fucking bullshit xenophobia.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Would more supply of workers (even naturalized ones) not drive down wages too?

[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

An increase in supply would reduce wages, unless it also increases demand. If you think about wages in cities vs rural areas, you'll see that most of the time more people = more economic activity = higher wages.

Where this breaks down, is if there's barriers of entry that prevent immigrants from participating in the economy fully. If immigrants aren't allowed to legally work or start business (as happens with some asylum seekers or 'illegal' immigrants) then they are forced to compete over a small pool of off-book / cash-in-hand jobs, which could see a reduction in wages without a significant increase in overall economic activity.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Sounds like an argument for amnesty for illegals honestly. And more relaxed legal immigration pathways.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 50 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mostly to avoid having infrastructure and social safety networks overwhelmed. Yes, you will also see wages be depressed by large-scale immigration, but that's something that could--in theory--be controlled by strengthening unions and labor regulations. That's not where we are though; right now, unions and labor regulations are fairly weak, and are being gutted by courts even as the NLRB tries to strengthen them.

Housing takes time to build, and good city planning is necessary to ensure that cities are sustainable rather than being sprawls. (Not many cities do that, BTW; it's usually, "oh, we'll just add another lane to the existing 20 lane interstate"). Given that we're currently in a situation where there's insufficient low- and middle-income high density housing, and few companies are willing to build any more, competition for most of the immigrants that we're seeing--people that are trying to get away from deep economic woes--would be fierce for housing.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (5 children)

and few companies are willing to build any more

I don't think this is actually true. At least in my area, developers would LOVE to build condos and apartments all over the place, but local laws are holding them back.

I suppose even in a perfectly willing area that upgrades its infrastructure to support more people, you don't want to move people in too quickly, before that infrastructure is available. But it's easy to see that become a self fulfilling prophecy: we don't take immigrants because we don't have the infrastructure, and we don't build the infrastructure because there's no demand for it.

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I don't think anyone wants to make a brand new condo and try to full it full of fresh immigrants that other businesses are exploiting to pay less.

They want to develop 1 set of condos they can sell for $300k+ rather than 3 sets for $100k

[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah this is the biggest issue.

The way most housing gets built where I live it works like this: A company handles the project management, buying the land, getting the permits, hiring the builders, doing the marketing/sales etc. This costs a HUGE amount of money, which they don't have. So these projects get designed on paper and then sold to investors. These put in a big amount of money, with the expectation of the project making money in the sales of the housing in the end. This means they can often double their entry in a couple of years, which is really good in terms of investments. As the investors want to make as much money as possible, the company designing the housing have incentives to not only make the houses as dense as possible, but also as expensive as possible. Their margins in percent are about the same no matter the house, so a more expensive house makes them more money. This leads to really big expensive homes crammed together in either high rises or plots. It's really dumb as well since detached homes are worth more, they build homes with like 2 meter between them. The biggest issue is, only rich people can afford these homes. Even though more homes are built, the majority of people looking to buy a home can't afford these. Homes also get sold to investors again, to rent out as the house itself appreciates in value. These expensive homes also have the effect of driving up property prices in the area, which leads to more expensive houses and higher taxes.

In the end, it's only the rich that profit. They get the good investment projects, making them even more rich. They get to buy the expensive new homes to live in. They get to buy the homes to rent out and use as an investment vehicle.

Some places have made them build cheaper homes as well, if they want to get the permit. But it's not enough. We need to be building practical affordable homes, but we don't cause the people putting up the money to build stuff don't want to.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] weew@lemmy.ca 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

It can suppress wages.

Immigrants often are expected to work for less money. After all, they usually immigrate from an economically worse country, so they don't expect to land top tier wages.

You keep filling in minimum wage jobs with an endless supply of immigrants, then there is never a worker shortage and never any incentive to raise the bar. No company needs to compete with higher wages to attract talent. In fact, it can make things worse and cause a race to the bottom... Reducing wages on existing positions until workers quit and just filling it with less skilled workers.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Immigrants are often effectively scabs. They work for less, take more abuse, that sort of thing. And It's a lot harder to form a union when half the workers don't even speak the same language.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (11 children)

In Canada it's causing a huge housing crisis. Lots of newcomers do not have the finances for what rent is here either so end up in limbo.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes but that's a side effect of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-family_zoning

Which is also screwing over regular people and also causes you to have shittier cities with suburban sprawl, oh and those zoning laws are also racist in origin

[–] gerbler@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

It isn't just housing it's infrastructure in general. Governments are happy to bring in more bodies to fill jobs and pay taxes but don't bother to plan accordingly and infrastructure takes a long time to build leading to a lagging effect.

Hospitals, transit, housing, etc. It's all being overwhelmed right now.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like too many landlords, not too many immigrants.

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 months ago (6 children)

There only are so many resources for them. Here in many European countries the main issue (I think) is that with the current numbers we fail to teach them all our language (it's simply not possible without having more language teachers available, and apart from needing those teachers that also needs more money). Without knowing the language their professional development is massively hindered, causing many to remain lower class, and causing disproportionately high crime rates among certain groups.

This leads to further problems: In the big cities there already are schools where people who speak the local language are a minority (for example in a primary school near me they have two classes for each grade (1-4) for children who can't speak German yet and one class for all grades together for German speaking children).

So guess what people do: They go to a district with less immigrants, while the districts with many immigrants keep getting more immigrants (since cost of living is low there and as pointed out earlier many struggle to leave lower class). We're re-creating segregation. This makes it even harder for those people to leave lower class, since they have no networking opportunities but only know others from lower class instead.

Even the left wing parties are now saying that we have to reduce immigration and instead integrate immigrants better.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 26 points 3 months ago (8 children)

How quickly your culture can absorb new people. If you've got a hundred people who are in culture a, and you integrate 100 people from culture b. Now culture a is 50/50. And it's hard for culture a to maintain its traditional positioning.

If you want to maintain a culture, a people, a language, you need to gate how many people enter the population at any time. So that it can be absorbed.

You similar problems with militaries, how quickly they can ramp up new recruits will still maintaining their previous cadre culture.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

America is a nation of immigrants so I don't really understand this argument. Cultures don't really integrate that way, plus assimilation is a generational thing.

A 2018 study in the American Sociological Review found that within racial groups, most immigrants to the United States had fully assimilated within a span of 20 years. Immigrants arriving in the United States after 1994 assimilate more rapidly than immigrants who arrived in previous periods.

Measuring assimilation can be difficult due to "ethnic attrition", which refers to when descendants of migrants cease to self-identify with the nationality or ethnicity of their ancestors. This means that successful cases of assimilation will be underestimated. Research shows that ethnic attrition is sizable in Hispanic and Asian immigrant groups in the United States.

By taking ethnic attrition into account, the assimilation rate of Hispanics in the United States improves significantly. A 2016 paper challenges the view that cultural differences are necessarily an obstacle to long-run economic performance of migrants. It finds that "first generation migrants seem to be less likely to success the more culturally distant they are, but this effect vanishes as time spent in the US increases". A 2020 study found that recent immigrants to the United States assimilated at a similar pace as historical immigrants.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The US really is a special case even within just America and really cannot be compared to today's refugee hotspots like Europe at all. For starters, US culture is very young and mostly made up of invaders and migrants. There is very little native culture still there as it has been assimilated for hundreds of years, mostly by Europeans. On top of that, there have been heavy crackdowns on migrant cultures as well, making it anything but the organically grown culture it often claims to be. And as such I think it is a bad example of how unchecked mass migration can work because it didn't work for the natives and it didn't happen for the modern US. It does show that strong migration can lead to great success, though it's still far less densely populated than Europe even now so a direct comparison is still difficult.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] fraksken@infosec.pub 15 points 3 months ago (11 children)

There's something to be said for culture and tradition, which have been for a long time the cornerstones of our civilization.

Everybody has their own opinion on this of course. For me, I feel that culture and tradition are in the way of progress. At some point our current traditions, cultures and values will change, they will evolve. I'm all in for a true multicultural society if there is a clear segregation between state and religion.

[–] illi@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Local culture always changes in time. Take Europe, it's culture steeped and deeply influenced by Christianity in many countries. And yet Christianity is a religion with Middle East origins. People just don't look at the bigger picture - or don't want to. The change in the past was not happening to them, but it is now and that's what matters.

[–] ECB 5 points 3 months ago

The issue is though that "segregation between state and religion" is a cultural trait. It's not something that every culture values, nor is it something that inevitably happens.

In fact, it's almost certainly a minority opinion on a global level. Particularly in (although not exclusive to) poorer non-western countries which tend to be much more conservative and religious.

A small number of conservative immigrants won't hugely impact views in the host country, but a sizable number (particularly if they are concentrated in certain areas) absolutely can.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Is culture really that big of a problem? Especially for the US, which prides itself on being a melting pot of different cultures

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] peereboominc@lemm.ee 18 points 3 months ago

It depends on the kind of immigrant. You have students, high educated workforce, people that flee from war/not safe to stay country and people that just want a (economic) better life.

I think too much of any immigration can cause maybe an issue that the majority of people are new and that the culture (how do we interact with each other, what is acceptable behavior etc) has not settled.

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago

It’s easier for most people to believe that different coloured or dressed folk, or those that look the same but speak differently, are the reason your life is difficult. It couldn’t possibly be the people that look and sound like you that are your problem. In the UK it’s been said before that a white British guy in a factory job has more in common with a Jamaican bricklayer or a Polish chamber maid than they do with Boris Johnson. I believe that position.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Aside from racism, it is usually the belief that the new immigrants will either be economic competition for those with jobs or a drain on welfare.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That combined with a lack of available housing are the answers I see most often.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] courval@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

The "shot in the foot" effect when you accept immigrants from conservative/racist countries and they and - most likely - the next generation will vote right wing which more accurately mirrors those conservative/racist beliefs.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Historically, US actually was quite welcoming of immigration, including from Mexico. It tends to ebb and flow. I was taught by an economist that typically you open the flood gates when you want the labor, while restricting it when you don't. To him, labor works just like goods in supply/demand curves. Flooding a market can drive down value of labor, etc., which can be bad for local workers. Obviously it's a little more complex, but that's the jist.

The trouble is, with globalization, one must wonder if that S/D curve is still valid. I imagine it is in some sectors, but in others, those jobs have been outsourced. If this is a bigger strain on demand, then it's better to keep immigration on lock. That would at least help explain why it's so hostile currently, but I'm just thinking out loud. I don't necessarily agree with the economist approach.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

In my opinion, country-based immigration paired with needs-based works really well.

Ultimately, many of the best parts of the culture of a place are because of what people brought with them years ago. Some of the best restaurants are because someone in India moved to the UK, and then moved to the US and brought the culture of Curry Mile or Brick Lane with them, or because a community of Greek railroad workers decided to set up bakeries using their known recipes that all the locals love.

The same often goes for business. Look at the rise of Aldi and Lidl, and how cheap produce and great workers rights will suddenly make local supermarkets look in bewilderment at how markets they once dominated are being torn away from them.

IMO, if you have skills to offer, you should be welcome. I'm currently in the process of moving to the US on a high-skilled visa, and it is mad how one country will require thousands in legal fees and 24+ month waits while a country next door will say "Shit, you can teach?! Come join us! If you want to stay permanently that's fine!"

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

From an economic perspective, it's mostly positive. Raising a child is expensive, and those costs go on for about 20 years before you have a person that's economically productive. Most Immigrants are adults and can join the workforce immediately. The economic costs of their childhood was paid by the country they came from. It's a negative for the country they came from, this is refereed to as a "brain drain." But for their new country, it's like a tax paying worker just appeared out of nowhere.

As for the economic negatives, the big one is housing. Too much immigration all at once can result in a shortage of housing. It can also put stress on public services and infrastructure. Businesses may not have the capacity to serve a larger population. These things can adapt of course, but you can't instantly build a house and you can't instantly expand public services, etc. So you might want to limit immigration so an area can adapt to all of the various economic needs of a larger population. An immigrant will work and pay taxes and contribute to the local economy, so long term it's all positives, but there can be a lot of short term problems if a population grows to rapidly.

As for social... well I'm not really much of a sociologist, but just from I can see, people who already live in an area might be uncomfortable being around people of a different culture. Might say crazy things like "They're eating the dogs!" Yeah that's crazy, but it is a problem. Not caused by the immigrants themselves, but it's a problem that does happen when there's immigration.

But there's social benefits. Can learn from a new culture. May get some new options for restaurants to go to.

Generally the young will enjoy more social benefit (going out to the different restaurants and learning about different cultures), but the older people will tend to be uncomfortable with it. But that's just the tendency.

So overall I'd say you do need limits on immigration to mitigate the short term issues, but it's all positives in the long term.

[–] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Regarding potential societal issues:

When multiple cultures mix together, one of two things can happen:

  1. The cultures mesh well and either coexist or mutually mix into something new

  2. The cultures do not mesh well and this leads to all sorts of problems, especially increased crime

The second usually happens when both cultures place opposite value in something. For example, one culture places a high value on self and the other places a high value on being in a group, this can lead to a divide between cultures. Eventually, the resentment each group has for each other will lead to violence and other sorts of crime. One culture may think "I made the money for myself," while the other thinks ,"we should all share the money." If people don't learn how to get along, you can probably see how that would increase criminal activity. In most cases, it is usually the expectation that the immigrant adapt to the culture of the new place they have moved to, rather than the new place's home residents being expected to adapt to every immigrants different country cultures.

It also isn't good when immigrants enter a new country and do not know the laws of the country they have entered. They may commit crimes that could have been legal wherever they came from, but now someone may be a victim to a crime and the immigrant did not know. Now, usually immigrants that legally enter a country do learn about the basic laws of the country and the basic culture, but ones that enter a country illegally may know nothing about the place they are in. They may continue to act the same as they did in their previous home, which may have very different laws, leading to further divide.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Housing, job availability and potential erasure of culture. I think it depends on what migrants you let in though. Also some groups forming bubbles and refusing to integrate as well.

Personally though, I think kids watching american media on their mum's ipads is a greater risk to our culture than Mohammed and his family down the street

Also, some immigrants are more racist than white people. Which is sometimes kind of funny. Although my white friend got beat up in Bradford, so sometimes it isn't.

[–] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (14 children)

Immigration in excess and esspecially in combination with exploititive or unenforced labour laws and mismanagement of other resources and infrastructure, can decrease wages, and cause shortage of key resources. For example, if there is no new housing being built, but there is very high immigration levels, housing prices will rise, and availability will be limited.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] fart_pickle@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's a complex and polarising issue. The main problem is that some, sometimes most, of immigrants don't want to assimilate. They are creating ghettos, don't respect local laws. Other issue is that governments prefer to spend tax payer money for accommodating immigrants instead of solving nation's issues.

I wouldn't limit immigration per se. I would limit unchecked illegal immigration and spend more money on assimilating immigrants that want to contribute to a country they moved into.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The main problem is that some, sometimes most, of immigrants don’t want to assimilate. They are creating ghettos, don’t respect local laws.

Generalisations like this are the very reason it's a polarising issue. Opinions like yours generally derive from "observation" and "gut feeling". Which by definition is completely anecdotal and harmful when it begins to be applied to millions of people all at once.

Betsy from insert town here sees an immigrant couple down the street in her home-town keeping to themselves and not really wanting to take part in the community. She's talking on the phone to nosy-nessie the town busybody who says "oh...you know...my aunt said the same thing about her insert culture neighbours." And then all of a sudden, that's just "how those people are"...all of them...everywhere.

Maybe this couple is just a little embarrassed about their english skills and want to strengthen them more before going into public everywhere, which comes across as shy. Maybe they're just private...who knows. But suddenly...."it's just how (those people) are", becomes the anecdotal "truth".

It's wrong, it's dangerous, and the fact that you don't even grasp the irony of your own comment is telling in a lot of ways.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 6 points 3 months ago (7 children)

It depends a bit on how you define immigration. Is what the Spaniards and English did to the Americas immigration or something else?

If the influx of a different culture is so big that it displaces you and your children like it did to the Native Americans, then I understand that you'd want to stop it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] frostmore@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

just have a look at the EU and also Germany with some crazies wanting shariah law...this is Germany we are talking about,with their histories and what not

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Check Swedens problems recently with unchecked immigration.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or you could tell me about them? That's why I asked the question.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Well long story short sweden has had quite relaxed immigration law for a long time and is now dealing with major crime problems as violent gangs cause shootings in the cities.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›