>paired with general xenophobia and anti immigrant sentiment.

It is increasingly infuriating to watch people stall any debate by slandering those with legitimate concerns over immigration as xenophobes.

One can be wary of, for example, the increased infrastructural strain of, say, large numbers of uneducated third worlders entering a country suddenly, without being hostile to or fearful of their culture.

> One can be wary of, for example, the increased infrastructural strain of, say, large numbers of uneducated third worlders entering a country suddenly, without being hostile to or fearful of their culture.

As somebody who is passionately pro-immigrant, I haven't been shy of having this conversation with people. The whole issue of "infrastructural strain" is difficult to address in a way that feels non-adversarial, because the facts only live on one side of the issue. Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than they take in terms of services; the only counter to that is vague tabloid anecdotes that are quite transparently racist and xenophobic.

But facts like this do not matter in such a debate; people have an emotional discomfort with immigrants. When pressed, the defense ranges from "Fine, I don't have any facts to support beliefs; that's just what I believe" to -- perhaps more honestly? -- stories of how immigrants "aren't like us," how they "swarm like cockroaches", and "breed like vermin", etc. (Those last two from a couple of prominent Brexiteers whom I'd started the evening legitimately intending to befriend. Things got real honest after the second pint.)

So can one have "legitimate concerns" about "the increased infrastructural strain of, say, large numbers of uneducated third worlders entering a country suddenly" without being a xenophobe? In my experience -- and really, I've wrestled with this -- no. Not any more than one can have "legitimate concerns about conspiracies of international Zionist bankers" without being a raving anti-semite. In both cases, straight-up lies are being used to provide a cover of legitimacy for attitudes that are unquestionably xenophobic, and often virulently so.

>Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than they take in terms of services

But all of those studies were conducted in countries with regulated borders. Your entire argument is flawed and, ironically, emotionally biased. I have no personal attachment to immigration either way, there is a rational argument to be made here: would a billion uneducated third worlders dumped on a country like England over the span of a month overwhelm the infrastructure?A million? Look at NYC, for example. Our subways are packed at rush our already. Same with Japan. Rationally, there is obviously some rate of influx that a city cannot accommodate, and this rate is probably not impossible in today's world.

Your friends are terrible examples.

Would those billion immigrants to England be made out of straw perchance? This is not a strong argument for a rational basis to oppose immigration. Further your original claim that you are not opposed to the immigrants for cultural or racial reasons is undermined by your repetition of the phrase "uneducated third worlders". It is not the case that third world persons are inherently uneducated. Further, specifying "third world" is itself culturally or racially motivated. It is hard to believe the that you are arguing in good faith and not merely seeking to disclaim the cultural and racial basis of your prejudice.

> The only counter to that is vague tabloid anecdotes that are quite transparently racist and xenophobic.

I know it's not a scientific experiment, but the latest French interior minister (Gérard Collomb) recently resigned while giving a very strong warning about the situation of the relations between the 'native' and 'foreign' french; here is a translated quote;

> "Mister the Prime minister, I went in all those neighbourhoods, -- (lists foreign origin majority neighbourhoods) -- The situation is dire and that is where a democratic re-conquest is needed, as in those neighbourhood the law of the strongest, the law of cartels, the law of radical islam, have taken the place of democracy. We need to bring back security in those neighbourhoods, (..) but we need a global vision car if now we live side by side, i am afraid tomorrow we live against each other. We are facing immense problems. (...) We need to stop immigration in those neighbourhoods or the situation will become completely out of control"

The former french president echoed similar concerns. They are both socialist and not known to be racists. Maybe the situation is specific to France, but it doesn't it show that there can be legitimate concerns and downside about immigration ?

Technically speaking he's treating those as two different concepts not conflating them. But in any case, he's talking specifically about Japan which is definitely xenophobic— for example read about their attitudes toward Korean immigrants.

Yes sometimes legitimate concerns about the effects of immigration can sometimes be miscast as xenophobia.

However, there can be no denying that Japan taken in aggregate, is xenophobic. They have made it difficult to emmigrate for even skilled workers, and even native born descendants of Asian immigrants from Korea, China, Taiwan, etc sometimes experience discrimination in Japan.

There is a defensiveness and sometimes hostility about cultural differences with foreigners and descendants of immigrants in Japan. It's not as bad with the younger generations but it's still there and has been the basis from which their immigration policy has arisen.

If, that concern (of large uneducated immigrants) is paired in the same sentence or paragraph (or at least article) with a suggestion of how to increase immigration of highly skilled/educated people. Because if it just stops at "we should stop immigration because of these potential social problems", then you are (willingly or not) selecting arguments to match your narrative and that can be seen as pushing an agenda that goes beyond simply trying to cope with the potential problems expressed at face value. Hence why articles that describe issues that seem reasonable on the face, can be interpreted as pushing xenophobia.

>then you are (willingly or not) selecting arguments to match your narrative and that can be seen as pushing an agenda

If I lean towards one side of an issue (e.g. unchecked immigration policies are a net negative to first world societies) then the onus is not on me to present both sides. That does not make me a xenophobe.

>can be interpreted as pushing xenophobia Only when there is social pressure to interpret things in such a way.

No matter how you slice it, automatically associating anti immigration sentiment with xenophobia is dishonest conflation.

>No matter how you slice it, automatically associating anti immigration sentiment with xenophobia is dishonest conflation.

That is correct, unless the group in question is saying "we don't want immigrants because they are intrinsically worse then us". In Japan's case, lookat the example of ethnic Koreans changing their names to hide the fact, despite south korea being an industralized economy on par with Japan in terms of technology and prosperity. It is difficult to see a reason why they would discriminate against Koreans for any reason based on actual performance of their people and seems to show that it is in fact xenophobia

This would be a tenable argument if immigrants were all "uneducated third worlders" (they're not) or that immigrants measurably strain infrastructures (they don't). Historically speaking, immigrants are far more likely to build infrastructure than hurt it.

The idea that immigration causes economic harm is contradicted by the tendency of business organizations and unions to favor it.

>This would be a tenable argument if immigrants were all "uneducated third worlders" (they're not)

Of course, no one is saying they are. But if immigration is unregulated, a sizable majority of them likely will be, because living conditions are vastly superior in the U.S. to most poor areas in South America. We already see this in illegal migrations. These aren't doctors and scientists, for the most part.

>or that immigrants measurably strain infrastructures (they don't) More vehicles don't increase wear on roads? More people don't increase demand for emergency services? Schools have unlimited capacity for children? How are you going to pay for all of this without at a minimum limiting the immigration rate? Our infrastructure is already crumbling. And we have enough impoverished citizens to put to work.

>The idea that immigration causes economic harm is contradicted by the tendency of business organizations and unions to favor it.

Well of course businesses favor cheap labor, and labor unions favor more bodies. What good is it for locals when businesses hire immigrants who are willing to work for free? Isn't it kind of a middle finger to people who built their lives here too, to force them to effectively lower their standard of living because a competitor is used to living on a dirt floor?

In spite of benefits, unchecked immigration does not come without cost. Regulations are absolutely necessary for preserving the standards of living of the state. None of this is xenophobia.

What is this nonsense about working for free? We have minimum wage laws for a reason. You should not need to resort to invention to justify your position.

Right. And obviously if a person is an immigrant, they must be from "poor areas in South America" and "used to living on a dirt floor." Even though "no one is saying" they are "uneducated third worlders".

I'm surprised we didn't get a line about carrying disease too.