NationStates

I got into an argument about immigration this morning, and now this has been rattling around my head for the afternoon. Assume we want more immigration - how do we best convince skeptical voters and institutions to create the political change for it?

In this essay, The Economist notes a couple different strategies for convincing people of the need for more immigration:

- Personal stories. People generally relate more to personal stories—such as that of Paulette Wilson, a retired cook who previously worked at the House of Commons, who was wrongly arrested and threatened with deportation by the British government—than to dry statistics.

- Social contact. Fear of “the other” tends to dissipate when people get to know each other. So getting people to mix more would help.

- Appeal to emotions. Opponents of immigration whip up fear and hate. As well as appealing to compassion for immigrants, supporters could tap into patriotism, arguing how openness makes a country great.

- Emphasise what unites us. Diversity is great; so is what people in a particular place have in common.

- Appeal to other people’s values. Liberal values such as individual freedom and equal rights leave some people cold. But Trump voters may be swayed by stories about immigrants who fought for America; traditionalists may be persuaded by highlighting how Latino immigrants share their family values.

- Address people’s underlying concerns. As well as pointing out that immigrants aren’t to blame for unemployment, stagnant wages or stretched public services, politicians need to implement policies to address these problems.

In particular, social contact is recognized as a high potential strategy. People who identify with immigrants and encounter them in their daily lives are less likely to support immigration restrictions. Big cities, with more migrants, are more supportive of immigration than small towns and other areas that receive comparably few. They note that the familiarity strategy has worked well with same-sex marriage- as the percentage of people that know a homosexual person increased, so too did acceptance for that group. However, they also note a drawback for this strategy applied to immigration. Same-sex marriage acceptance imposes essentially no costs on individuals opposed to it, whereas more open immigration has greater perceived costs, even if the exact reality of those costs is debated.

Let's try not to debate the question- there are plenty of other threads where you can argue for your preferred level of immigration. We've all had that argument, we know logical points each side is going to make. Let's focus on the meta-debate one step up from that. Assuming that we want more immigration, what's the best way to convince people of it, either rhetorically or through policy?

For what it's worth, my argument this morning focused on addressing underlying concerns & personal stories, with a dash of appeal to emotion.

first of all you'll have to accept that theres always going to be a facet of the population that will not and cannot budge on this topic. This goes for both pro and anti immigration.

I think the best solution is all of the above, through policy and rhetoric. Different methods work on different people and there are conversations and experiences that need to be had that a single answer simply isn't robust enough to tackle.

Personally I'd focus more on social contact. I truly believe in humanity's propensity for sex to unite as all as one people. Asian, Latin-American, Blacks, whites, etc, theres lots of strokes for different folks.

Addressing underlying concerns would be the main method in my opinion, as well as social contact. After those methods you mentioned have been used, there will still likely be people who disagree anyway, and that just kinda has to be accepted.

Immigrants add to our numbers as a country and immigration is natural, having occurred for thousands of years. For example, I'm glad my dad's ancestors immigrated to the Carribean from Lebanon and I'm glad America immigrated to the island of my family's origin, or I would not exist.

Socialist economic policies so they don't push up middle and higher wages at the expense of a downward pressure on wages at the lower rungs. Active pro-integration policy - mandatory language learning classes as a condition, free housing on entry dispersed around the country to encourage a "pepperpot" pattern rather than enclaves, no religious/culture schools.

Basically, try to remove the legitimate concerns it raises and so make it actually good or at least neutral for a wider base of people rather than just middle class "cosmopolitans" who don't care about culture or working class wages. Then it becomes a much less exploitable wedge issue.

Ceranapis wrote:- Address people’s underlying concerns. As well as pointing out that immigrants aren’t to blame for unemployment, stagnant wages or stretched public services, politicians need to implement policies to address these problems.

Addendum to this, acknowledge their underlying concerns: Immigrants produce a net gain for the economy as a whole; but because most are laborers, not professionals they tend to supply more blue collar services and demand more white collar services. This means that the impacts of bringing in immigrants aren't shared equability throughout society, the benefit goes to those who are already advantaged and the costs go to those already disadvantaged. This is something that needs to be address independently of border policy, because even with open borders occupational licencing still restricts immigrant's ability to compete in white collar fields. Refusing to acknowledge this is effectively saying that immigration is good, so long as they only compete with poor people.

You can't, because it isn't.

Immigration is neither inherently a good or bad thing no matter what pseudo-progressives and racists (respectively) think or say.

Some people will never agree on this. Take solace in the majority agree with you

Probably nothing, like an NSG argument, both sides have a 2% chance (about) of convincing the other side.

Immigration Is something that I see as being bad, because we should take care of our own people first, and by putting others first we risk endangering our own.
Also as people we have to realize that certain religions and cultures are not compatible with our own. Such as Islam which is a religion which supports murdering of non believers and homosexuals.

Also with convincing people. Try telling them that better immigration is good, and not more. It's a better argument than telling them you want more people instead of better people.

If the crime rate soars after immigration influx, then it is bad for the citizens.

What? You can't defend your opinions yourself and you have the audacity to stand behind them? Fucking hell, get out of your ideological molds.

It depends on who you're trying to convince. Personally, I would go for a data-driven approach, examining the net benefits of immigration in a tangible way rather than relying personal anecdotes and the like.

It's not inherently good.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:It's not inherently good.

Why not?

You can't. It's not good, nor bad. It's a very complex issue that you can't label as black and white.

Perhaps this applies more to the United States than elsewhere, but in my experience, one of the major factors that seems to entrench anti-immigration views is how often the rhetoric in support of immigration absolutely ignores the term 'illegal' when referring to illegal immigration, and treats immigration on either side of legality as the exact same discussion. There certainly are issues with the legal immigration system that need to be reformed in order to protect law abiding migrants from wrongful deportation, but it's practically impossible to have that conversation in a productive manner when the pro-immigration side has largely been hijacked by people who want to just abolish borders entirely and give endless handouts to anyone who comes knocking.

Some people are absolutely xenophobic and won't stand for any form of immigration, but the first step in winning the support of those who are more moderate in their anti-immigration stance is to acknowledge that they even exist; treating the entire spectrum of beliefs and reasoning against immigration as if all of them are at that far end of unflinching xenophobia only serves to convince the moderates that you have no interest in their concerns, while vulcanizing the extremists. That's not a recipe for dialogue or compromise.

I feel that a very key aspect to the discussion is best summed up by Trump's remark on Mexico's "bad hombres" and how it is interpreted by either side. In its original context, he is referring not to immigrants (or even illegal immigrants) as a whole, but specifically to those attempting to border cross under the radar for the explicit purpose of committing or furthering criminal activity. There absolutely are good decent people who illegally cross the border for entirely non-malicious reasons, but there are also those who cross for the purpose of spreading criminal influence (in the form of violence, drug trafficking, and even human trafficking). When Trump is talking about "bad hombres," he is referring solely to the latter, even though his opponents desperately want to convince us that he is simply "criminalizing human beings".

That kind of blatant misrepresentation has consumed the entire atmosphere of discussion on the issue, and only serves to convince both sides that anybody who opposes them is monstrously self serving with no concern for the ramifications of their actions.


If you truly want to reach across the aisle and convince people opposed to immigration to compromise with you and be more accepting, you must also be willing to compromise. You must be willing to hear out their concerns, acknowledge that neither side of the debate is entirely perfect, and acknowledge that bowing to the extremists who demand the removal of all immigration oversight is not the answer.

If anything, the best way to convince people to the side of supporting immigration, is to support funding for border control and immigration services, to support politicians and policies that encourage quality of immigration over quantity. You can't just tell people that their beliefs are wrong, you have to prove it to them.

It depends on the person. You can't convince me that the immigration that the US is currently allowing for itself is good, because I know for certain that it means accelerating the trend of that country becoming majority non-White (if it isn't already). Hence, it is always going to be bad from my perspective.

Unless we're talking about immigration from majority White countries like those in Europe or some South American enclaves like German Argentina. That sort of migration just isn't happening anymore however, in today's context. That time has come and gone, which was primarily during 19th century. Europe is now too desirable a region to live in, for many people to want to leave it if they live there.

Immigration is good, but must be limited to not exceed the amount the society can handle and it needs to be done legal. No matter your story, illegal means immediate return back. Another thing is integration. If they decide to not integrate and instead shit on the country they are in, you shall be returned to the country you apparently prefer. You don’t want to learn the language? Too bad for you.

How to convince more immigration is good. How much was it in the beginning? In my feeling more is not better. It must stay limited. No immigration is also bad.

You can persuade conservatives and libertarians whose primary values are materialistic that immigration, for the most part, has a net positive impact in the economy. That is well documented by many economists and think tanks. In Europe, you can also point out that immigration can help countries facing demographic crisis, and thus subsequent problems in social security and other aspects of the economy. In America you also have the added advantage that your country has always been multiethnic and open to migration, so you have an easier time persuading people that it is not 'unnatural' to have large-scale migration.

For those of us who reside in European ethno-states (Greece in my case, or Hungary, or Poland) and who do not place materialism/economic growth/viability of social security as primary factor in our politics, you would have to persuade us that a) immigration would not alter the demographics of the country and that X ethnic group (Greeks, Poles, etch) will remain overwhelming majority, b) immigration would not affect the culture of the country and that people coming here will become Greeks/Hungarians/Poles/etch in everything (from language, to traditions, to converting to local denomination of Christianity).

If you can make assurances about those two points, those people might be willing to relent and accept limited immigration. The argument that would persuade me to accept migration would be; "legal, limited, and those who immigrate meet certain economic criteria and are willing to integrate".

Neuer Deutsches Reich wrote:Immigration is good, but must be limited to not exceed the amount the society can handle and it needs to be done legal. No matter your story, illegal means immediate return back. Another thing is integration. If they decide to not integrate and instead shit on the country they are in, you shall be returned to the country you apparently prefer. You don’t want to learn the language? Too bad for you.

How to convince more immigration is good. How much was it in the beginning? In my feeling more is not better. It must stay limited. No immigration is also bad.

Agreed. People like this should be kept out.

The problem is two assumptions:
1) That immigrants are fungible
2) That immigration is a black or white Hobson’s choice.

1) is obviously false, the Boston Marathon bomber was clearly a bad immigrant, while Albert Einstein was a good immigrant. Therefore saying immigration on the whole tends to be a net positive completely misses the point. Immigrants are not fungible and interchangeable.

Basically everyone supports immigration to some degree. Hell even the KKK would allow WASP immigration and want more WASP immigration.

Which move on to point two. Immigration has a lot of subtlety, it is not simply a matter of more or less. Rather the question is how do we determine what is the best number of immigrants? Who makes a good immigrant? Who do we let in and who do we not?

Those are the questions that matter. We do not necessarily need more or less immigration, we need BETTER immigration, and what defines good immigration is a complex matter subject to great disagreement.

I actually support more immigration BUT I want more of the immigrants that are the best fit for us, not just any immigrants.

Each immigrant is unique. Some are good, some are bad, and some are better than others.

Thus simply convincing me we should have more immigration is not sufficient for me to agree with you on immigration policy at all, you would have to show me how a system you propose improves the quality of immigration, not simply the quantity.

It should be noted that some people want to use immigration as a form of demographic warfare and a cheap way to get votes.

San Lumen wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:It's not inherently good.

Why not?

Was the Boston Marathon Bomber good? Obviously not.
Each immigrant is unique, so you cannot say immigration is good not bad without further clarification. Some immigrants are good, other immigrants are bad, because some people are better immigrants than others. Because people are unique individuals not a fungible commodity.