There is the question of what happens when the immigrant wants to move -- if they initially go to Wisconsin to work on a dairy farm and then feel like they can get a better job in Chicago . . .
"This is an absolutely fascinating study about how the rise of immigrant transformed the city, largely ending the “urban crisis” of the 1960s-1980s. We talk about how the specific ways people from Latin America use cities (much more publicly than Americans) and how that was transferred into the American city."
Wow. Really interesting. Another café piece i’ll happily reread and reflect upon while sipping tea and then remember while i got out in the world and travel.
Overall I think this is a really great idea worth exploring. But, as someone who is very skeptical whenever politicians play the "national security card," I wonder if this approach might actually introduce some new national security risks or exacerbate existing ones?
Even though the current approach is clearly incredibly flawed, this is one area where I do think there's some important role for the Federal government to play.
Great article. I love this idea and the example you used in Italy. I’m currently writing an article (that no one will read!) about anti-migrant rhetoric in Britain and why we should not only not fear migrants but welcome them for the positive effects they have on our society, culture, economy and population. It feels like I am swimming against the tide though especially when our own Home Secretary keeps making racist and incendiary remarks about migrants.
I think I agree with this approach especially on this topic. I live in the St. Louis area and the city really could use an influx. There are exciting developments happening but growth is slow. There are communities just outside of St louis that would likely be resistant but if this was up to each local municipality (upwards of 30+?) I have to think the system would work better for those who are immigrating and those who are welcoming them.
I really like this idea. It fits with the notion of more federalism. Immigration requires infrastructure to meet human needs: housing, schools, healthcare facilities, etc. Cities vary widely in infrastructure to accommodate growth. Making the visa program more localized can allow for urban and rural planning that is in keeping with local preferences. Immigration meets innovation!
There is the question of what happens when the immigrant wants to move -- if they initially go to Wisconsin to work on a dairy farm and then feel like they can get a better job in Chicago . . .
But it makes me think of this interesting interview about how immigration saved a number of American cities: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/10/lgm-podcast-latino-cities
"This is an absolutely fascinating study about how the rise of immigrant transformed the city, largely ending the “urban crisis” of the 1960s-1980s. We talk about how the specific ways people from Latin America use cities (much more publicly than Americans) and how that was transferred into the American city."
Wow. Really interesting. Another café piece i’ll happily reread and reflect upon while sipping tea and then remember while i got out in the world and travel.
Overall I think this is a really great idea worth exploring. But, as someone who is very skeptical whenever politicians play the "national security card," I wonder if this approach might actually introduce some new national security risks or exacerbate existing ones?
Even though the current approach is clearly incredibly flawed, this is one area where I do think there's some important role for the Federal government to play.
Great article. I love this idea and the example you used in Italy. I’m currently writing an article (that no one will read!) about anti-migrant rhetoric in Britain and why we should not only not fear migrants but welcome them for the positive effects they have on our society, culture, economy and population. It feels like I am swimming against the tide though especially when our own Home Secretary keeps making racist and incendiary remarks about migrants.
I think I agree with this approach especially on this topic. I live in the St. Louis area and the city really could use an influx. There are exciting developments happening but growth is slow. There are communities just outside of St louis that would likely be resistant but if this was up to each local municipality (upwards of 30+?) I have to think the system would work better for those who are immigrating and those who are welcoming them.
I really like this idea. It fits with the notion of more federalism. Immigration requires infrastructure to meet human needs: housing, schools, healthcare facilities, etc. Cities vary widely in infrastructure to accommodate growth. Making the visa program more localized can allow for urban and rural planning that is in keeping with local preferences. Immigration meets innovation!