Thread by @gauravsabnis

Unless you're an unabashed ethno-nationalist, explain to me why "too much diversity" is bad. I know several Indian immigrants who immigrated here, got green cards, became citizens and now want to pull up the ladder. That's an American tradition. But what is "too much diversity"?

If you cut the crap, what they are basically saying is "hey, we came to the west to mostly live with white people and cool black people here because of history and a handful of the other kinda Indians, so what are these other people doing here?".

That's the weird mentality.

I want to separate out, like in a biology lab, the "we are quasi-white" mentality that makes so many Indians fans of Trump and Hitler, from the more general American tradition and mentality of pulling up the ladder.

This bit from Bryson is very much like Douglas Adams on tech.

Naturalized desi US citizens who then become immigration hardliners or immigration centrists or anything less than full-throated supporters of immigration. My biggest triggers at social events.

Like how devoid of empathy and self-awareness do you have to be to be that way?

People will seriously, with a straight face, say things like "yes, we got a green card but then we also pay taxes here, you know!". Oh wow, you pay taxes? Do tell! Would you also like a medal for converting oxygen into carbon dioxide?

"I pay my taxes" is a valid position when you're taking your government to tax.
It is not a valid position to use for excluding others from participating in a republic. Taxation should not be the basis for fundamental constitutional rights. And immigration is fundamental.

I'm one of those who thinks the "Right to Immigrate" should be codified in our understanding of human rights. It is one of my most unpopular opinions. Almost always the standard response is not to understand the ethical reasons for it, but the possible practical "problems".

We are a species that exists based on like a hundred thousand plus years of constant migration. So that is over 100,000 years of migration being part of our DNA.

Then the last 150 years or so, we created "visas".

And lost sight of how fundamental migration is to who we are.

I usually don't get to explain these points because the instant feedback is always "so anyone can show up to any country and get admitted?"

And I'm like "Yes."

"So tomorrow ten million Indians or Iranians can just show up in US and US has to accept them?"

"Yes."

"Don't you see the problems there?"

And I'm like don't you get my point? Fundamental human rights can't depend on practical concerns. That's what makes fundamental human rights so fundamentally human.

I'm just saying I want immigration to be such a right.

"what if tomorrow all of Mexico decides to move to USA?"
"what if tomorrow all of Pakistan moves to your Maharashtra"

Are the kinds of outraged questions I get.

And I'm always like, I don't want to play fantasy games on human rights.

All I'm saying is, right to Immigrate.

I try this parallel.

Imagine you're a supporter of free speech trying to explain why it should be a fundamental right. And the other person starts asking,

"But what if some people spread rumors? What if some people spread hate?"

Won't you be like, that's not the point.

Every human being has an evolutionary biological humanitarian instinct to migrate wherever they and their families can have best lives.

That is the implicit basis of USA and explicit basis of the human species.

You think borders & visas are more important, that's on you.

Are you currently living in the place you spent most of your childhood in?