The Immigration system needs a revamp clearly if you have 100 GPD, the Immigration will never go down to net 0 no matter what you do, I have maxed out Border wall, Citizenship test, Border check’s and Ban Foreign Church services, the Immigration is still 20~40ish, and also i really like to see Legal and Illegal immigration, considering THEY ARE A BIG DIFFRENCE, so i get the in theory no country can have 0 Immigration, but considering that 87% of my population is Ethnic minority, i don’t think they are a minority then, and this is like in mid game, really would like a revamp with more realism, Retina Scan’s should not do anything to Legal immigrant’s, but to Illegal immigrant’s they can’t go trou, same thing in theory with Border wall, Also the Conservatives are very undermined i swear they berely appear in policies, i expect example: Border wall Liberal’s don’t like, Progressives don’t like, Socialist’s don’t like, Conservatves DO like it, i also don’t get why Liberal’s do get a buff in Right to privacy, but Conservatives don’t? Does the Democracy 4 team think that Conservatives don’t like privacy? Idk
I will note that Democracy 3 Africa hardcapped minority population at 50%.
At any rate, the immigration system does need a revamp. I like the idea of splitting legal and illegal immigration up. I also think the ability to control immigration LAWS (as opposed to just enforcement) would be awesome. Have a policy with one end of the slider would be “Total ban” on immigration, the other end would be Open door policy. Naturally, banning immigration would make legal immigration zero (since all immagration would be illegal in this case) but actually INCREASE illegal immigration, while totally unrestricted immigration would set illegal immagration to zero (since just walking in would be legal) but send legal immagration thorugh the roof.
I agree. There really ought to be two policies
- The default border control one. The higher it is, the less unregulated immigration you have.
- A legal immigration one. This could be set to something like…
- Exceptional Cases (virtually none)
- Close relatives & ancestor of citizens only
- Employer Sponsored
- Workers only (no families)
- Workers + their Families
- Any workers + families
- Open borders
That’d be the simple way to do it. To make it more complex players could set most of the above as policies. Capitalists would like employer sponsored & skilled workers, and it might boost education & reduce brain drain.
The trick here is… I don’t know how we’d set Japan’s immigration policy (extremely-strict - the only real way to get into Japan is to be sponsored by an employer and these work permits don’t allow workers to bring their families; in other words, it’s JUST the worker, not their spouse/children).
As another note… after 23 turns as the US, the membership in ethnic minorities hit 97% while I didn’t touch the immigration policies at all… so due to a high GDP the US became 98% ethnic minority within 6 years…
yeah, almost same with any country except the U.K which has -25% due to U.K geography, but Canada, doesn’t have that modifier…
Also i don’t get how maxing out Border patrols/security, Border wall, citizenship test, ban foreign religion still on max GDP, doesn’t get me below <10% Migration, it just rises with all of those policies maxed out
All this policies (wall, citizenship test, banning foreign religion and such) means just more obstacles and a more difficult life.
But even with that, the situation in a rich racist country can’t be worst than the situation in most of migrants native country. For example If you are a member of an ethnic minority in Afghanistan, immigration to an european is in a lot of cases better than staying in war thorn country, with religious and ethinc conflict.
In a lot of cases, making legal immigration harder just means that instead of being legal migrants, they are now undocumented migrants.
Yes, I agree! The question is how we make it so that a country doesn’t become 97% Afghan ethnic minorities in 6 years when your border control policies are neutral & GDP is high.
Because when a European country’s GDP goes up it doesn’t become 97% Afghan ethnic minority. Immigration does tick up, but not to the tune of… mathematically it would be… let’s see. About 150 million people immigrating to Europe every year.
The game also somehow replaces the non-ethnic-minority populations with ethnic minority populations which is awkward… I don’t think Positech’s intending to advocate for the White Replacement theory but that’s how the game mechanics currently work.
Yes, I’m all for immigration but the levels here are impossible even if you had open borders.
Yep, i understand the problem. But the root of it is not in the policies, or in legal/illegal distinction but more in the numbers.
For exemple, if you play France and decide to just put border controls at the minimun, in 2 turn, 2 millions of people just come in.
I dind’t dwelve into numbers but it seems that :
The effect of immigration on population is way too important. For example, in 2018 in France, there was 203 000 immigrant (https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3633212) for a total population of 67 000 000 in 2019 (https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1892086?sommaire=1912926). When you look at the number of birth in France for 2018, around 716 000, you can see there is a problem in the way the numbers are tuned in democracy 4.
A second problem is that “Ethnic minority” membership can’t go down.
So let’s a bit talk about this second point. I think we have here a complex point of design. The first point is that being an ethnic minority is not something that is up to you. You can’t just magically have a pale skin tone or such. But race is more complex than that, it’s a social construction.
In France, in the early 20th century, Italians, Poles, Spanish and others were victim of racist violence and even killed. Even if they were white and catholic, they were in some ways treated as “Ethnic Minorities”. But with time and cultural change, their descendant are not viewed as such.
I think you have two way to treat this :
“Ethnic minority” is about lineage. So if you wait long enough, most of your population will have some distant tie with an ethnic minority. It seems that it was the choice of the team of D4 here.
“Ethnic minority” is a about the process of “racialization” (the fact that this society put you in a “race box”) and the negative effect that come with it. In this way, anti-racist policy : as race discrimination act, suppressing citizenship test, stamp out racism week and other can lower the member of “Ethnic minority” as more and more people became part of the norm until the destruction of racialization.
I really, think they should fix that, when migrant’s come, they just replace the old population, which is wrong, i don’t think immigration turn’s Canadian’s into Afganistanian’s, i also think that some kinda assimilation system would work wonder’s in a game like this, where migrant’s get used to life in “Canada” and become Canadian, meaning they are no longer ethnic minority.
@dziugas : I think the assimilation of “ethnic minority” is not about about migrant becoming “canadian” but more into “canadian” stopping seeing migrant as stranger. It’s more about people stopping to be racist.
It’s not a lack of integration that make black more subject to police brutality in the states, it’s the racism of the police.
Oh please don’t get political A.By definition Racism is saying a yellow person is green or etc.
B.more police in black neighborhood’s reduce crime, violance and increase security. The main subject why Black’s commit more crime is not racism. Stop that narative, please. This is not a real-life-political-issue forum
More police mean just more police activity. In the USA, more police in black neighborhood mean that more people are fined for jaywalking, going to prison for weed or debt.
The show “last week tonight” show a lot of in-depth analysis of structural racism. You should watch it.
I’m thinking at those episodes :
Ferguson, MO and Police militarization : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A
Municipal violation : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjpmT5noto
And racism is more complex that what you describe. There is a lot of articles about this subject, you should look at it.
And of course, talking about how some mechanics of the game works will end up about talking about real-life-political-issue. And if we want an at least good game, we should not be affraid to talk and educate ourselves about it.
The only way to do this correctly is to have proper population dynamics which simply aren’t currently there.
Prager U is a farce and I highly recommend seeking out other sources, but rather than going in-depth into how PU is terrible, it’s perhaps better to just drop this discussion here.
They show sources, and they have proof, is the New York Police not a real source? It’s legit liberal’s be like when Conservatives use math to win debates, Liberal’s and SWJ be like: Math is racist, because it doesn’t appeal to my point of view. Even thou it’s true. - The End
According to game education, foreign relations, immigration, poverty, and unemployment influence racial tensions.
I’m not sure if equality should be factor influencing racial tensions too.
Also some conservatives and liberals can be cherrypicking science to support their view point instead of looking at it in nuanced way.
Oh boy. Let’s take this back from talking about “What is race?” and “What are race relations like in Western countries?” to how to code Democracy 4’s immigration system more effectively please!
Perhaps we can reduce the effects of each aspect of immigration (Education/foreign relations/immigration/poverty/unemployment) by half for a simple & quick solution?
Lets absolutely keep things civil here please and not get too deep into any arguments, especially about race which is a time bomb that destroys political communities!
I agree thge ethnic minorities stuff and popualtion / immigration / border policies could all do with some improvments. Its only reading thgsi thread that has made me realize that I’m not sure that immigration is increasing population enough to compensate for the rise in ethnic minorities… It needs work
In general, I have to say that liberals (by which I mean LIBERALS, not socialists, in the US style) are very pro-privacy and freedom. Its a very iliberal position to back ID cards, government surveilance etc.
It gets complex because in the US liberal has come to mean socailist, and socialists can have a range of views on privacy. its complex
But yup, expect some rebalancing of this whole topic during early access.