In one model, immigration is a right. You need a very strong reason to take it away from anybody, and such decisions should be carefully inspected to make sure no one is losing the right unfairly. It’s like a store: everyone should be allowed to come in and shop and if a manager refused someone entry then they better have a darned good reason.
In another, immigration is a privilege which members of a community extend at their pleasure to other people whom they think would be a good fit for their community. It’s like a home: you can invite your friends to come live with you, but if someone gives you a vague bad feeling or seems like a good person who’s just incompatible with your current lifestyle, you have the right not to invite them and it would be criminal for them to barge in anyway.
It looks like many Clinton supporters believe in the first model, and many Trump supporters in the second model. I think this ties into deeper differences – Clinton supporters are more atomized and individualist, Trump supporters stronger believers in culture and community.
Ok, a very long quote, I apologize. But I’m very shocked by this. I’m a Clinton supporter but not only do I not believe in the first model, I don’t think anybody on the planet does. Because it’s deranged. Has anybody ever met a person who told them they believed this shit?
But I’m completely atomized and individualist and words culture and community make me want to vomit. So this is supposed to be my approach. But it totally isn’t.
This is not making sense at all.
Clarissa's Blog 
A very large number of left wing professors in the US, Europe, and Australia believe very strongly in the first model. Just look at the dozens of posts at Crooked Timber advocating exactly this model.
LikeLike
I have never heard of Crooked Timber – isn’t it a sex app? And I’ve also never met a professor who said something like this. Because it’s insane.
Or maybe I’m insane. It’s either one or the other.
LikeLike
\ And I’ve also never met a professor who said something like this. Because it’s insane. Or maybe I’m insane. It’s either one or the other.
You are sane. Millions of Jews (and Palestinians) agree with you 100%.
community support moment has ended
Uri wrote “The President Elect” :
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1479488872/
I checked feministing and their titles sound so over the top to me (hysterical is not a PC word):
FIVE THINGS TO DO TO PROTECT YOURSELF UNDER A TRUMP SURVEILLANCE STATE
The same powers were held and practiced by Obama’s state, but then it was OK.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FACES GRAVE THREAT UNDER TRUMP, AND YOU CAN HELP NOW
Which grave threat?
SUPPORT A TRANS LIFE NOW AND ASK OBAMA TO REDUCE CHELSEA MANNING’S SENTENCE
So, you can be a traitor to your country, but if you claim to be trans, your sentence should be reduced? In Israel, criminals use “return to religion” trick to get good PR. Here liberals are all about sexual identity, while ignoring releasing-secret-documents part. It SO would not fly in Israel.
Btw, I liked the old and short article on Echidne’s website:
Marketing Bradley Manning (by Suzie)
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.co.il/2011_12_18_archive.html
LikeLike
It’s true that the hysteria is completely out of control. People are milking this for all the drama it’s worth. They have no awareness of how ridiculous this freak out looks.
LikeLike
\ But I’m completely atomized and individualist and words culture and community make me want to vomit.
But you “hoped that the nation-state model could drag out its existence for a while longer. ” May be, after FSU experience, you automatically attach a specific and unpleasant meaning to “culture and community,” which those words don’t have to have in every society?
I think the author and you either attach different meanings to several terms, like “individualist” and “culture,” or / and the logical connection the author claims exists simply does not. At least, not in such a straightforward way.
If I am an individualist, why can not I still be for preserving a certain culture, in which I will have maximum opportunities to flourish? For instance, you wrote about women’s rights in Europe. If public space becomes less safe, good luck with practicing one’s individualism. Or preserving a culture, in which a woman has a right to have an abortion.
Also, pure individualism sounds like anarchy, while pure ‘community’ – like fascism. I am for a healthy equilibrium.
Btw, Israel and me are fully in “immigration is a privilege” model, except it is a right for Jews and practically unachievable privilege for everybody else. 🙂
LikeLike
Abortion rights have nothing to do with “culture.” Abortion on demand existed in the post-stalinist USSR and in Canada today. Are they the same culture?
The word culture repels me precisely because it’s been so overused that it’s emptied of all meaning.
LikeLike
\ Abortion on demand existed in the post-stalinist USSR and in Canada today. Are they the same culture?
I thought cultures were composed of innumerable distinct elements. If we have the same eye color, are we the same person?
Agree that the term culture is vague.
Still, there are some cultural norms, like women rights, which are worth preserving and which will be damaged by the first model of immigration.
LikeLike
Ironic that we agree completely on this one. I take the second view of immigration.
As J otto pointed out many on the left (far left? – political professor types) seem to embrace the first.
Ironically many, many libertarians take the first view too. They argue its a ridiculous impingement on freedom to deny open movement to someone not born here. What they argue tho is that is all the more reason not to have a welfare state (modern america is WAY more welfare state than it has ever been historically, but also much less than all/most western europe). I can at least respect this point ofview, but i think they undersestimate the political realities of we are going to have some version of a welfare state, thus the second view on immigration is most prudent in the modern world.
Just thought you might find it interesting that both sides of the “how big should govt be” scale support view 1 often.
But you and I get to completely unite on ivew 2 🙂
LikeLike
View 1 is supported by no logic or reason. People can’t possibly honestly believe it. If everybody has “a right” to live wherever they want to, the result can only be the entire population of the earth huddling in a tiny bit of land.
A right that there is no rational chance to exercise is not a right. It’s a fantasy.
LikeLike
On balance i agree with you that number 2 is what works in the current world, but the argument is that why should americans be more important than foreigners. It is massively intertwined with both outsourcing and even refugees to some degree in terms of who should politicians favor by default. I think domestic citizens firs and it appears you agree, but some liberals and some free-market libertarians think the burden of proof is the otherway
LikeLike
Outsourcing helps Americans, first and foremost. Nobody does it to benefit the Vietnamese. It’s just that the right of the lazy Americans to make enormous salaries while having no skill and no education is trumped – pun intended – by the right of more enterprising Americans to make piles of money by giving them the boot.
LikeLike
1) Whatever metaphors this writer is using involve more freedom of movement than immigration. These metaphors are sloppy to the point of insult. I wonder if he knows anyone who has immigrated — really knows, not just as an acquaintance.
2) This “uncontrolled” immigration for the people all these “Trump voters” are currently worried about has never existed in this country. Seriously. Prior to 1965, immigration was based on national origin quotas. Afterwards, it’s a skill based system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You don’t have to convince me. There is so much illegal immigration into the US because there are no legal alternatives. What kind of a medieval atrocity is the insane lottery system? Who even came up with it? And why?
LikeLike
Lottery as I recall was created to limit total numbers of immigrants while not favoring particular countries … it was a compromise like the draft lottery … but one should look up exact history
LikeLike
All it does is give a chance to all kinds of criminals to come in. It’s insane. In Ukraine, it is very easy to buy “proof” that you have no criminal history even if you are a convicted mass murderer.
LikeLike
It is supposed to diversify the immigrants. People from countries that don’t send a lot of immigrants here are eligible. I can’t remember the whole rationale for creating it but there was a huge amnesty in the late 80s that legalized many Mexicans and Central Americans. Unless I am wrong the idea was to balance them out with other immigrants — without replicating the kinds of quotas we had had in earlier eras (x number of Irish, no Chinese, etc.). And of course it’s easier than weighing each case on its merits and ranking them. It’s nuts but it is the result of a million compromises and is the rationale is cobbled together taking multiple factors into account, so it is imperfect (like the actually existing ACA). In the meantime you have tons of legit people who are here and not criminals but cannot get documented, or legit people who would like to get in but cannot, etc.
LikeLike