I
hadn't thought through this possibility from Ryan McMaken-- naturalization vs.
immigration. We might let you in, but that doesn't mean we need to figure out a path for citizenship for you, under certain conditions.
It's probably too difficult to add it to our dinner conversations, such as they are, on immigration. (At first, I was thought that the author was going to generalize this to American citizens who could trade their citizenship for benefits. Really provocative!)
But would this work-- happily for our handful of liberals and conservatives, tolerably as a compromise for the larger number of immigration liberals and immigration conservatives, and a nice move forward for the vast set of voters who hang out in the middle on this issue?
It's probably too difficult to add it to our dinner conversations, such as they are, on immigration. (At first, I was thought that the author was going to generalize this to American citizens who could trade their citizenship for benefits. Really provocative!)
But would this work-- happily for our handful of liberals and conservatives, tolerably as a compromise for the larger number of immigration liberals and immigration conservatives, and a nice move forward for the vast set of voters who hang out in the middle on this issue?
No comments:
Post a Comment