U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 07-15-2009, 06:19 AM
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,887,954 times
Reputation: 6517


Originally Posted by Kellem View Post
I agree with you that the bar should be set and measures should be set in place to attract people with high potential.

But again, some people are in favour of reducing quotas and terminating programs that act as pathways for these individuals to migrate. Just like with anything else, anti/pro-immigration are the extremes and most people would fall somewhere in the middle.

Does your way make you more/less of a forward thinker than someone who does not agree with you, I don't think so. It is just a different way of thinking. Someone could argue that bringing people who cannot support themselves would be fine as long as the sponsor bringing them here is fully responsible for their support. For example, my grand parents are at an age where I would rather have them not work at all, they are not financially independent due to their live choices and circumstances, but I have the means to care for them. So I do not see anything wrong with sponsoring them and being personally responsible for all their expenses. If enough people would do that, it would also create/sustain a market for the goods and services that they require and I am able to afford that would otherwise not exist.

Now, also, how do you define people who has nothing to contribute. How would you judge the potential of a kid who just finished high school. Would they be allowed to contribute? I think it would depend on the choices that the kid makes once he is here, but you cannot evaluate it a priori.

I agree with you that we do not any more dead weight. But I think limiting the number of individuals that can come in is the right approach. I think that removing the driving factor that motivates dead weight to come is the right approach. As some people have said, a country with lax immigration rules and a welfare culture cannot succeed. But I do not think that tightening the immigration rules is the right solution, I think reducing the welfare culture is the right approach. If dead-weights are not going to be able to survive due to the lack of social programs, then they are going to go away.

I am a strong supporter of social programs that target kids, (Kids meaning, from Birth-to-the point you finish your education before you enter the workforce, that be High School, Bachelor's, Masters, Ph.D., Professional Degree). But I think programs like food stamps/subsidized housing/etc. are unnecessary and promote complacency in a welfare class. And I do not think these programs should be available to anyone, even less to immigrants (legal or not).
A solid post and well written. Although I can disagree with some of your points many are valid.
How to measure ones worth? Well one can't completely but we can make an educated guess. For example. No H.S education. No financal means. And no job skills that we require. Pretty much sums up their worth as a potential citizen.
Quota's are a very poor measure or system. Affirmative action bares this point out. Choosing someone based on sex, race, or nation of origin is a flawed method at best and a disaster at worst.
What amazes me is how hard it is for asians to get VISA's inspite of their success record.
Over all you put up a great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 07-15-2009, 01:32 PM
14,307 posts, read 11,152,437 times
Reputation: 2130
Originally Posted by Kellem View Post
Limits are not anti/pro legal immigration, they are just that limits. They are the current status. To want to increase the amount of those limits are pro-immigration, the ones who want to decrease them are anti-immigration.

This is the last post I do regarding this issue, I seem to be repeating myself and getting in return nonsensical counterexamples, like the milk one.

If we extrapolate and afford extreme success to either group, someone wanting to reduce immigration levels would halt immigration. Someone who would like to increase it would lead to open borders. Those are the two extremes against people usually are around the middle.
Again you are totally wrong in your thinking. I think my milk example fit the bill as to why you are wrong also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top