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.
Lets see if we can answer your questions: Hospitals don't provide free health care to anybody, what they are required to provide is emergency medical treatment. After that they can discharge the person or send them elsewhere.
If you had open-immigration and hospitals had to guarantee care to everyone. Then hospitals would be even more burdened with the cost of emergency care than they already are. Which is already a major issue in regards to illegal immigration today, because it drives up medical costs for everyone.
So my point was, you cannot have open-immigration and any sort of guarantee of medical treatment. Emergency or not.
Quote:
Birthright Citizenship is only for those whose parents are already citizens or LPR/GC holders. A person born on US soil is only assumed to be a citizen as states can not make the determination if they are or not, only the Feds can through DoS. A birth certificate is nothing more than a document showing the identity of the child born and to whom the parents are. It does not have any status of the parent or the child whatsoever.
I'm confused on what you are saying. Are you talking about the way things are now? Or is this a policy change?
Open-immigration does not mean immigrants will become citizens, ever. Open-immigration simply means that people wouldn't be prevented from coming here, even as just residents. Those people wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed anything that citizens might enjoy(such as voting). If you had a system where the offspring of immigrants who were not citizens are automatically guaranteed citizenship, then you will still have potential for abuse of the system, as well as major future voting shifts that could undermine the nature of government.
To simplify things. Naturalization should be very difficult to achieve. And naturalization should only be something achieved if a person proves that they are loyal to America and American values(IE military service). Anything that allows a foreigner/immigrant the ability to sidestep sort of the American "merit" test, is not good for America. So birthright citizenship does absolutely no good for this country.
Quote:
Public education is paid for through mostly property tax, maybe it should be changed to have the parent pay tuition for the child to cover the costs.
My point was, public education is not equally paid for by all, immigrants tend to be poor and do not in any way pay a proportional cost for the education of their children. If you have a system where citizens are forced to subsidize the educations of immigrants, then the costs of immigration will heavily burden American citizens. And if open-immigration places a burden on Americans, then it simply won't work.
Quote:
Get rid of AA and discrimination laws all together, doesn't a person have the right to associate with whom they choose?
No. Anti-discrimination laws affect everything from housing rentals, to hiring patterns, to school grants/scholarships, and beyond. Because of anti-discrimination lawsuits, companies tend to hire minorities to give the appearance of being "Diverse", because regardless of if they are only hiring the best-qualified applicants, if only white people work in a company, someone will throw a fit.
Schools regularly promote "diversity" by giving preferences to minorities. And it is illegal to discriminate in regards to renting out your own property. And if you have a system that makes discrimination illegal, then it empowers culturally-incompatible people to live in this country, even if it is harmful to the social fabric of America. IE, most people won't want to rent to Muslims because they believe their values are counter to American values, but because of anti-discrimination laws, you must rent to them, you must sell to them, you must tolerate them, you must hire them, even if you think they are destroying America.
Quote:
The Feds decide who gets let in as the states are not individual countries. No, states should not be allowed to bring in foreigners.
What do you think a state is? A state by definition is a nation(what do you think rogue state means?), and the United States is a union of nations. Before the 14th amendment, the states were the ones who regulated their own immigration. Don't you find it silly that if California wants immigrants, that they have to ask North Dakota for permission(since North Dakota has as much say in the senate as California).
If you have a system where the states regulate immigration, but the states cannot hand out citizenship. Then you have a system where the immigrants that do come in, cannot leave the state that allowed them to come in. So you have a system where each state can invite in the people they need, that wouldn't do harm to the other states. Which is another reason you must abolish birthright citizenship. You cannot have a system where the states regulate immigration, if the offspring of immigrants are guaranteed citizenship, which will allow them the right to travel to all the states.
Quote:
Voting over time would change as most immigrants bring with them their ideology, this wouldn't be good for citizens of which have lived here for a generation or more.
My point was, you can have open immigration only if you don't guarantee citizenship. Without citizenship, immigrants aren't guaranteed the right to vote(or any other benefit of being a citizen). And so open immigration without guaranteed citizenship doesn't necessarily cause any shift in voting patterns. Moreover, if there is a clarification on the limitations placed on government(IE no welfare), then even if voting patterns were to shift, they would be less damaging(IE restrictions on the commerce clause, which is where most welfare programs get their "constitutionality").
Quote:
There already is the freedom to move throughout the US if you are here as a citizen, immigrant, or visitor. There are no restrictions for this. This freedom exists for everybody, legal or illegal, citizen or not, if they are within the boundaries of the US. Do you not have freedom of movement/travel within the US? Are you not relatively secure in your person, anywhere you go in the US?
I was discussing it on an international level. I was looking for a policy that not only applied within the United States, but could apply to the entire world. Because regardless of the fact that you are American, it is impossible to move from the United States to almost any other country(unless you are rich of course). So the question was, what kind of policies would enable relatively open worldwide immigration?
Quote:
Your objective to do this worldwide will never work, it will never be reached or achieved, each country has its own government and type of society, they are all individual nations for which permission is required for entry/visiting/living/etc.
I don't believe it would ever be achieved. I was just asking if it was possible from a theoretical perspective. So could it be possible? And what would be necessary?
Quote:
There are no policies that can/should allow open migration to any nation, a nations first order of business is to take care of its own citizens.
Was that always the case? Like I said many times, the 1800's in the United States did not have a policy of "taking care of its own citizens". No welfare, no public education, no protections against discrimination, no guarantees of citizenship(usually requiring military service or long stays in the United States), no subsidies, no nothing.
Quote:
Even if all the countries in the world had the same policies as the US had in the 1800's there would have been restricted immigration. This question simply shows you have very little knowledge of the immigration laws of the 1800's. Modern immigration laws (worldwide) go back to at least the 1400's.
Here is the list of federal immigration acts throughout American history.
The very first act that limited immigration, didn't come until 1875, which was the page act(mostly aimed at Asians). The federal government didn't even keep any sort of records on immigration till the 1830's. The federal government didn't really start regulating immigration until 1890. The famous Ellis Island didn't even open until 1892. Whatever regulations on immigration there were, almost entirely came at a state level all the way till 1890. The immigration and naturalization service(INS) didn't even exist until 1952. Almost all of the immigration regulations that barred people from certain countries, or required reading tests, or education requirements, or job requirements, all came about in the 1900's. The more famous act was for "quotas", which limited from what countries people were allowed to come, even from Europe. And that wasn't until 1921 and 1924.
In truth, almost all of the restrictions on immigration to the United States during the 1800's, came from other countries, and not the United States. People used to go back and forth from Canada to the United States all the time. People would also go back and forth to Mexico all the time. Even all the way up to the basically the great depression era, there were basically no restrictions on immigration from Mexico. Even the immigration act of 1924 that set quotas from Europe, exempted Mexico from the same quotas. And during that period of time, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans came to the United States. It wasn't until the 1920's and on into the great depression and then into World War II that you saw any real push for restrictions on immigration.
The basic truth is, throughout almost all of the 1800's, and for all but Asians, even part of the 1900's. All almost anyone had to do to come to the United States, was simply find a way to get here.
When we look at why immigration laws changed. It wasn't because immigrants weren't good for the economy. It wasn't because the country was already too full. The reason why they put restrictions on immigration was almost entirely for social reasons.
The quotas were because people were basically scared of the Catholics. The page act(which heavily restricted immigration from Asia) mostly focused on prohibiting Asian women from coming to the United States, and did very little to stop Asian men from immigrating. The reason was because a great many Asian women were being brought over as prostitutes, and people were afraid that these Asian women were undermining American values on marriage and virtue.
Even when you look at immigration today. You might talk about how we need highly-skill immigrants. But when you say that, you are really only talking about people who are permanent residents, who will eventually become citizens. Because I highly doubt you are talking about the thousands of H2B(temporary/seasonal work) visa's granted each year.
If we look at the H2B visa for example. The question is, why is it a good thing that those people only come here temporarily? Wouldn't it be better if they stayed here? Kept their money here? Why is it that we don't want them to stay?
Because the truth is, immigration has nothing to do with economics, it has everything to do with social factors. The same basic logic not only applies in the United States, but elsewhere. When you look at Europe, the argument isn't that immigration is bad on a purely economic basis. But rather that immigration is pushing their social welfare programs into bankruptcy. It is that immigrants from non-western countries aren't assimilating and adopting western culture and values.
At this point, I hope that everyone understands that immigration is not actually harmful economically on the macro level. In fact, immigration must necessarily be beneficial on the macro level, except where government spending per new immigrant is higher than the increased value they add to the economy.
When we talk about immigration and economics, we are really talking about the possible effects on a micro level. It is obviously true that it is basically impossible to operate a landscaping company practically anywhere in this country, that doesn't employ immigrants. And if you are a white landscaper and suddenly we had massive new wave of immigration, that you would either need to take a pay cut, or be unemployed. But that doesn't mean that as a whole we are worse off economically. Because while you might end up unemployed, someone else just got their landscaping done at a cheaper price, which frees up more of their money to spend elsewhere.
When we talk about economics, money itself doesn't matter. All that actually matters is the amount of goods and services being produced. The goal is always to produce more goods and services, so that there are more goods and services available for people to consume. If the goal is only to raise wages, then you are being foolish. Because all the money in the world does absolutely no good, if there is nothing to buy with it.
As for immigration and unemployment. There is no correlation in the number of people immigrating vs the unemployment rate. There are times where the number of people immigrating is very high, and unemployment is very low. This was the case through most of the 2000's(up until the recession of course).
Immigration is not the cause of the recession, nor is it prolonging it(though it does have the potential to shorten it). When people talk about immigration right now, it is most likely because they are unemployed. It is because they believe that if they could just get rid of these immigrants, that they would suddenly become employed. But the majority of these people simply don't want to do the work that immigrants are currently doing, especially for what the immigrants are currently getting paid. If we were to actually get rid of the immigrants today, it is true that employers would hire Americans. But more likely than not, wages would go up in those industries, and productivity would probably go down in those industries. In the end, there would be massive price inflation in this country, and we would be worse off as a whole. Even though some people would obviously be better off, because they are now working, but only at everyone else's expense.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-24-2012 at 03:39 AM..
What is wrong with our immigration laws is we only legally allow in the intellectual's and people with money. These people undercut the good jobs in our society. We need the poor and huddled mass's because they want to work hard and let their kids become the next Dr, Lawyers and Engineers. It is what work for us all these years (up to the 60's.)
To stop illegal immigration...............Throw a couple of EMPLOYER'S in jail and confiscate all their assets because they were gain running a criminal enterprise (using illegal labor.) If you did that they were be no demand for illegals , they only come here for jobs and a better life. There are already laws on the books that allow this , they choose not to enforce them. Then have a better immigration policy to allow the poor in here ; they have to know our language, cant be a criminal and need to have a small amount of money in their pocket ( which they give to a coyote already.) We don't need to throw the poor illegal in jail but rather the American who is taking advantage of the Illegal and undercutting everyone that doesn't use illegal labor. They (the ones that hire them)drive down everybody's wages which isnt good for the working man.
Why can't Latin Americans change their countries? That is just a cowards copout to say that it is impossible.
It isn't that Latin American countries can't change their countries. They obviously can. But part of what plagues Latin-American countries is their general animosity to their neighboring countries, and the corruption of their governments.
For example, another thing I proposed to my uncle was. What if the United States annexed Guatemala tomorrow? What would it look like five years from now?
Guatemala city has beautiful weather. It's Pacific coast is practically undeveloped. It has a large port that goes out basically into the Caribbean. And a huge natural lake called lake Izabal. There is no reason to believe that Guatemala wouldn't see a massive surge of investment and development if it were annexed.
But even if the United States didn't annex Guatemala, and both countries simply adopted the systems of government that I advocated, I think there would be the same result. If it was as easy to move from one country to the other as hopping in a boat or driving a car, and neither country had a welfare state. Why wouldn't you see huge numbers of Americans moving to Guatemala, buying land, and developing it. The land values in Guatemala would skyrocket. And it would provide both countries with a whole new range of opportunities. This would especially be true if both countries ditched the fiat currency system, and both used a sort of gold standard or something similar, so that exchange of goods and services could be easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yldrosie
You guys are funny! All that land you're talking about, is already owned by someone now. The wild west was over a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
There is a reason that we don't populate ever inch of this country. I suggest you learn what the carrying capacity of a nation is which includes vegetation, wildlife, natural resources, etc.
Immigrants migrate to the larger cities because that is where the jobs are.
Look, it is certainly true that all the land is owned by someone. But much of that land is completely undeveloped. This is especially true in Western states. And much of the land in Western states is actually owned by the federal government. In fact, about 30% of all the land in this entire country is owned by the Federal government.
When it comes to the land. The more people you have living in a country, the more demand for land. If you had open immigration tomorrow, would real estate values go up or down? Would the price of farmland go up or down?
When we talk about the "carrying capacity" of a country. You are certainly correct. There is always going to be a limitation to the population size of a country. That limitation is only its ability to produce food. But the truth is, we are simply no where near our food capacity. It is already projected that the United States population will grow to about 500 million in the next 40 years. Are we going to starve? No.
The UN predicts that the population of the world will exceed 10 billion by the year 2100, but the population might even be as high as 16 billion. Will we all be starving then? Get real.
The truth is, regardless of what the hippies tell you, the world could most likely sustain a population of far more than 20 billion people. Only about half of the worlds farmland is even being used right now. And most of the worlds farmland isn't being cultivated with modern farming practices. And with things like genetically modified organisms, and better fertilizers, and maybe in the future things like vertical/hydroponic farming(which greatly reduces the need for water, land, and insecticides), the amount of food being produced should be many times what it is today. Let alone the possibility of "lab-made meat", and other synthetic foods.
Right now the United States is responsible for half of the grain exports to the entire world. About half of all the grain we produce in this country is exported. All while we turn large amounts of our grain into ethanol.
It should be fairly obvious that the United States, which has a land mass larger than China, could easily sustain a population of more than one billion without changing anything. It is already predicted that we will hit one billion by the year 2100. And I highly doubt it will stop there.
What is wrong with our immigration laws is we only legally allow in the intellectual's and people with money. These people undercut the good jobs in our society. We need the poor and huddled mass's because they want to work hard and let their kids become the next Dr, Lawyers and Engineers. It is what work for us all these years (up to the 60's.)
To stop illegal immigration...............Throw a couple of EMPLOYER'S in jail and confiscate all their assets because they were gain running a criminal enterprise (using illegal labor.) If you did that they were be no demand for illegals , they only come here for jobs and a better life. There are already laws on the books that allow this , they choose not to enforce them. Then have a better immigration policy to allow the poor in here ; they have to know our language, cant be a criminal and need to have a small amount of money in their pocket ( which they give to a coyote already.) We don't need to throw the poor illegal in jail but rather the American who is taking advantage of the Illegal and undercutting everyone that doesn't use illegal labor. They (the ones that hire them)drive down everybody's wages which isnt good for the working man.
That's simply not true. Most of our legal immigration comes from family reunification and many of them are poor. There is no reason to import more poor, uneducated and unskilled immigrants. They end up being a burden to our society. They drive down wages for blue-collared working Americans. Where is your proof that their offspring end up being well educated individuals? They bring their culture with them and their poverty with them and poverty begets more poverty. They have the highest rates of high school dropouts.
When employers are caught and proven to have hired illegals "knowingly" they are punished. So illegal immigants share no blame for this and shouldn't be punished also? Since when? Did someone drag them over the border? Wasn't that a conscious choice on their part to break our immigration laws? They have no personal responsibility and don't know what laws mean or that they aren't applicable to them?
I would change our current policy of giving priority to family reunification as a reason for immigration to looking at the individual and what they can contribute to our society.
Ronald Reagan made a complete mess of our immigration system when he granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens living here. The policy of giving preference to family members opened the floodgates for all those previous illegals to bring in their relatives.
We should go back to giving priority to people with advanced degrees, sought after skills, and those who just plain want to work hard. Create a lottery system and give anyone who wants in and has something to offer a crack at it. Not everyone who wants it will get in but life is not fair.
I have an idea,which may seem silly.
Here it goes.....
The mountain states of Idaho,Montana,and Nebraska(to name a few) have low population ,with large land mass. I'm sure immigrants could immigrate there and develop the land into farms.
But no,immigrants seem to want to go to already crowded cities,and I'm not sure why.
So,while the Usa does have the land mass,the immigrants are going to the wrong places.
Hispanics especially like to cluster in cites,instead of branching out.
Or better yet -- they stay home and develop their own lands into farms or they crowd on top of each other in their own crowded cities.
The USA simply cannot take in the over 2 billion impoverished people of the world who want the easy life and the big social safety nets we offer. It would benefit far more people if instead of all pouring over the border that these people would instead stay home and work for social reform and cultural change so that their own countries could become better places to live. Not having 12 kids starting at age 13 would be one big cultural change, many illegals could easily become middle class in their own country if they would delay the start of their family, limit family size and also finish their educations. It takes a little effort on their parts but they could improve their societies.
So my point was, you cannot have open-immigration and any sort of guarantee of medical treatment. Emergency or not.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I'm confused on what you are saying. Are you talking about the way things are now? Or is this a policy change?
The way things are now. They should be defined better to get rid of the confusion that anybody born here is an automatic citizen, when they are only assumed to be so by the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Open-immigration does not mean immigrants will become citizens, ever. Open-immigration simply means that people wouldn't be prevented from coming here, even as just residents. Those people wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed anything that citizens might enjoy(such as voting). If you had a system where the offspring of immigrants who were not citizens are automatically guaranteed citizenship, then you will still have potential for abuse of the system, as well as major future voting shifts that could undermine the nature of government.
I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
To simplify things. Naturalization should be very difficult to achieve. And naturalization should only be something achieved if a person proves that they are loyal to America and American values(IE military service). Anything that allows a foreigner/immigrant the ability to sidestep sort of the American "merit" test, is not good for America. So birthright citizenship does absolutely no good for this country.
I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My point was, public education is not equally paid for by all, immigrants tend to be poor and do not in any way pay a proportional cost for the education of their children. If you have a system where citizens are forced to subsidize the educations of immigrants, then the costs of immigration will heavily burden American citizens. And if open-immigration places a burden on Americans, then it simply won't work.
I agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
No. Anti-discrimination laws affect everything from housing rentals, to hiring patterns, to school grants/scholarships, and beyond. Because of anti-discrimination lawsuits, companies tend to hire minorities to give the appearance of being "Diverse", because regardless of if they are only hiring the best-qualified applicants, if only white people work in a company, someone will throw a fit.
Even MLK believed people should be not be judged by the color of their skin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Schools regularly promote "diversity" by giving preferences to minorities. And it is illegal to discriminate in regards to renting out your own property. And if you have a system that makes discrimination illegal, then it empowers culturally-incompatible people to live in this country, even if it is harmful to the social fabric of America. IE, most people won't want to rent to Muslims because they believe their values are counter to American values, but because of anti-discrimination laws, you must rent to them, you must sell to them, you must tolerate them, you must hire them, even if you think they are destroying America.
As I said, get rid of AA and discrimination laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What do you think a state is? A state by definition is a nation(what do you think rogue state means?), and the United States is a union of nations. Before the 14th amendment, the states were the ones who regulated their own immigration. Don't you find it silly that if California wants immigrants, that they have to ask North Dakota for permission(since North Dakota has as much say in the senate as California).
A state in the US is a Federated State, many together form a territorial and constitutional federal union. Before the 14th amendment? States were unable to regulate their own immigration when the Articles of Confederation where adopted in 1777.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
If you have a system where the states regulate immigration, but the states cannot hand out citizenship. Then you have a system where the immigrants that do come in, cannot leave the state that allowed them to come in. So you have a system where each state can invite in the people they need, that wouldn't do harm to the other states. Which is another reason you must abolish birthright citizenship. You cannot have a system where the states regulate immigration, if the offspring of immigrants are guaranteed citizenship, which will allow them the right to travel to all the states.
Now you are limiting the free movement of people you so deeply wanted in prior comments. There is no guarantee that these immigrants would stay within the state that asked for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
My point was, you can have open immigration only if you don't guarantee citizenship. Without citizenship, immigrants aren't guaranteed the right to vote(or any other benefit of being a citizen). And so open immigration without guaranteed citizenship doesn't necessarily cause any shift in voting patterns. Moreover, if there is a clarification on the limitations placed on government(IE no welfare), then even if voting patterns were to shift, they would be less damaging(IE restrictions on the commerce clause, which is where most welfare programs get their "constitutionality").
You can't have open immigration based on your theory, it still wouldn't work as the citizen would be giving up their guaranteed rights of the USC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I was discussing it on an international level. I was looking for a policy that not only applied within the United States, but could apply to the entire world. Because regardless of the fact that you are American, it is impossible to move from the United States to almost any other country(unless you are rich of course). So the question was, what kind of policies would enable relatively open worldwide immigration?
NONE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I don't believe it would ever be achieved. I was just asking if it was possible from a theoretical perspective. So could it be possible? And what would be necessary?
NO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Was that always the case? Like I said many times, the 1800's in the United States did not have a policy of "taking care of its own citizens". No welfare, no public education, no protections against discrimination, no guarantees of citizenship(usually requiring military service or long stays in the United States), no subsidies, no nothing.
Sure it did. I suggest you learn the history of the US starting from 1606.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Here is the list of federal immigration acts throughout American history.
The very first act that limited immigration, didn't come until 1875, which was the page act(mostly aimed at Asians). The federal government didn't even keep any sort of records on immigration till the 1830's. The federal government didn't really start regulating immigration until 1890. The famous Ellis Island didn't even open until 1892. Whatever regulations on immigration there were, almost entirely came at a state level all the way till 1890. The immigration and naturalization service(INS) didn't even exist until 1952. Almost all of the immigration regulations that barred people from certain countries, or required reading tests, or education requirements, or job requirements, all came about in the 1900's. The more famous act was for "quotas", which limited from what countries people were allowed to come, even from Europe. And that wasn't until 1921 and 1924.
The first act after the USC was in 1790, limited to immigrants who were "free white men and of good moral character" and limited the right of citizenship, it did not descend to persons whose fathers had never been resident in the United States.
As I said you need to learn history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In truth, almost all of the restrictions on immigration to the United States during the 1800's, came from other countries, and not the United States. People used to go back and forth from Canada to the United States all the time. People would also go back and forth to Mexico all the time. Even all the way up to the basically the great depression era, there were basically no restrictions on immigration from Mexico. Even the immigration act of 1924 that set quotas from Europe, exempted Mexico from the same quotas. And during that period of time, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans came to the United States. It wasn't until the 1920's and on into the great depression and then into World War II that you saw any real push for restrictions on immigration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The basic truth is, throughout almost all of the 1800's, and for all but Asians, even part of the 1900's. All almost anyone had to do to come to the United States, was simply find a way to get here.
WRONG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
When we look at why immigration laws changed. It wasn't because immigrants weren't good for the economy. It wasn't because the country was already too full. The reason why they put restrictions on immigration was almost entirely for social reasons.
This actually goes back to 1606.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The quotas were because people were basically scared of the Catholics. The page act(which heavily restricted immigration from Asia) mostly focused on prohibiting Asian women from coming to the United States, and did very little to stop Asian men from immigrating. The reason was because a great many Asian women were being brought over as prostitutes, and people were afraid that these Asian women were undermining American values on marriage and virtue.
The restrictions were the same as what the states restricted prior to the Articles of Confederation: prohibited the entry of immigrants considered "undesirable". The law classified as "undesirable" any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Even when you look at immigration today. You might talk about how we need highly-skill immigrants. But when you say that, you are really only talking about people who are permanent residents, who will eventually become citizens. Because I highly doubt you are talking about the thousands of H2B(temporary/seasonal work) visa's granted each year.
H2B workers? What about H2A workers? They both can apply for a CoS, but there is no guarantee they will receive it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
If we look at the H2B visa for example. The question is, why is it a good thing that those people only come here temporarily? Wouldn't it be better if they stayed here? Kept their money here? Why is it that we don't want them to stay?
They are allowed to come do to the fact that they themselves are being given the opportunity to better their economic lives, its the US giving to the world generosity. What makes you think that by allowing them to stay they will keep their money here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Because the truth is, immigration has nothing to do with economics, it has everything to do with social factors. The same basic logic not only applies in the United States, but elsewhere. When you look at Europe, the argument isn't that immigration is bad on a purely economic basis. But rather that immigration is pushing their social welfare programs into bankruptcy. It is that immigrants from non-western countries aren't assimilating and adopting western culture and values.
Economics does play a role, social factors also play a role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
At this point, I hope that everyone understands that immigration is not actually harmful economically on the macro level. In fact, immigration must necessarily be beneficial on the macro level, except where government spending per new immigrant is higher than the increased value they add to the economy.
Importing low wage workers actually lowers the GDP, so yes on a macro level they do harm the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
When we talk about immigration and economics, we are really talking about the possible effects on a micro level. It is obviously true that it is basically impossible to operate a landscaping company practically anywhere in this country, that doesn't employ immigrants. And if you are a white landscaper and suddenly we had massive new wave of immigration, that you would either need to take a pay cut, or be unemployed. But that doesn't mean that as a whole we are worse off economically. Because while you might end up unemployed, someone else just got their landscaping done at a cheaper price, which frees up more of their money to spend elsewhere.
The micro level is much more harming as it increases the tax burden on everybody. I operate a Tree Company and don't employ any immigrants, so it is possible to be done. My reputation keeps me working, my company profit reduction was from the recession. That cheaper landscape job just reduced their property value not to mention that they will have added expenses repairing the crap job done by that cheaper company due to the shortcuts taken to achieve that cheaper price. Just because its cheap doesn't free up money for that purchaser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
When we talk about economics, money itself doesn't matter. All that actually matters is the amount of goods and services being produced. The goal is always to produce more goods and services, so that there are more goods and services available for people to consume. If the goal is only to raise wages, then you are being foolish. Because all the money in the world does absolutely no good, if there is nothing to buy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As for immigration and unemployment. There is no correlation in the number of people immigrating vs the unemployment rate. There are times where the number of people immigrating is very high, and unemployment is very low. This was the case through most of the 2000's(up until the recession of course).
There is correlation, it just isn't large enough on the upper skill set yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Immigration is not the cause of the recession, nor is it prolonging it(though it does have the potential to shorten it). When people talk about immigration right now, it is most likely because they are unemployed. It is because they believe that if they could just get rid of these immigrants, that they would suddenly become employed. But the majority of these people simply don't want to do the work that immigrants are currently doing, especially for what the immigrants are currently getting paid. If we were to actually get rid of the immigrants today, it is true that employers would hire Americans. But more likely than not, wages would go up in those industries, and productivity would probably go down in those industries. In the end, there would be massive price inflation in this country, and we would be worse off as a whole. Even though some people would obviously be better off, because they are now working, but only at everyone else's expense.
I agree its not the cause. You are confusing what jobs immigrants are doing with the hyperbole you here. You are assuming production would go down, Hell, product quality might improve. Massive price inflation? Again you are assuming.
I think we should set a limit of 300 million souls in this country. We are already there and through birth we should maintain. There should be no immigration.
Hmmm. In this country, poverty has doubled since 2008. Millions of once middle class families are now not just poor but indigent (homeless). Every month another half million middle class families take the first step down towards the dark pit of destitution. Why? Have they all suddenly turned stupid, fat and lazy overnight? Really? Or is it that they were never needed in the fitst place. Lets get real. None of us is needed. We are all taking up space that should be occupied by a tree or something. But we are here and we have evolved these complex, inter-dependent systems of wealth distribution that are breaking down because the individuals at the top of the distribution system are changing the rules.
If the combined might of the American Middle Class cannot slow or stop the changes that are taking place in America, how do you imagine Central Americans or Communist Bloc Asians can so easily turn their countries into Northern European style Democratic Socialist Republics?? Sounds a little hypocritical to me.
>>Not having 12 kids starting at age 13 would be one big cultural change, many illegals could easily become middle class in their own country if they would delay the start of their family, limit family size and also finish their educations. It takes a little effort on their parts but they could improve their societies.<<
You have no idea... my wife's hairdresser. Husband is a banker... was a banker. Normally I don't care for bankers but this guy wasn't one of the greedy executives at the top that have brought such pain to Democracies all over the free world. He was less than that, but more than a teller or branch manager. Education, you betcha. Experience in decades, not years. No kids. Laid off at the top of his game. Work ethic forces him to do something, anything. Sister gets him a job in a lockdown mental facility for young adults. In the short time he's been there one of the male staff was killed and a female staff may as well be dead. He's developed an ulcer and with no medical insurance is paying for his own treatment which exceeds his minimum wage salary by quite a margin. He never took a day of unemployment money... well maybe a week, possibly two. That's it.
White, male, American, smart, proud and playing the hand that life has dealt. You guys make me sick with your sanctimonious distillation of everything bad that happens down to personal irresponsibly. There is a HUGE population of developmentally disabled young people that are going to reach maturity in a decade or so who are the way they are because their sanctimonious, American, right wing Conservative parents had them way too late. The ones who aren't docile can often be dangerous and once they become adults, they become everyone's problem, not just their parents and/or caregivers.
Spare me anymore speculation and use your brains, some of you. It can't possibly make sense to have insourcing and outsourcing at the kind of clip that these processes have reached with the kind of unemployment figures we do. That's got nothing to do with foreign individuals and how they do or do not conduct their personal lives! Stop defending the 1%. If you could do that you would see that the system is crumbling. There isn't anyplace on earth where so many, who have had so much for so long, are having it systematically ripped from them so impersonally. It is due to the deep reservoir of wealth that the last generation earned and saved that is keeping this generation from burning the whole country down. The number of thirty somethings that have had to move back into their childhood homes has doubled.
Another thread informs me that 33.3% of Americans are on some kind of Federal Aid. Well under Clinton that was capped at 5 years. Way I see it, between unemployment being capped at 99 weeks and Welfare capped at 5 years. Mom and Dad are the only thing keeping the Middle Class together. The housing crash hasn't helped because that's where Mom and Dad got ALL their wealth. I'm really surprised I have to tell anyone this. The kind of denial it must take to look at the everyday reality of life in America post Bush and think that this is all Obama's fault and that replacing him with Romney will somehow bring us back to better times...
I would change our current policy of giving priority to family reunification as a reason for immigration to looking at the individual and what they can contribute to our society.
Ronald Reagan made a complete mess of our immigration system when he granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens living here. The policy of giving preference to family members opened the floodgates for all those previous illegals to bring in their relatives.
We should go back to giving priority to people with advanced degrees, sought after skills, and those who just plain want to work hard. Create a lottery system and give anyone who wants in and has something to offer a crack at it. Not everyone who wants it will get in but life is not fair.
Agreed, however I would include diversity in those numbers also. Today we have far too many from one ethnic group/geographical area lacking skills and an education coming here. We need to curb relation based immigration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
