Immigration Simplified

[Theodarzna]

This is assuming that at the end of the road lies ruin, when one hasn't even seen the final destination.

Considering the state of the environment, the ecological annihilation of the planets biosphere, the trash dump formally known as the Oceans, AND the general collapsing fertility rate of humans globally, errrrrrr....

Yeah, we are heading for a cliff.

[nanook12]

Hmmmm....well considering the USA isn't trying to do anything this guy claims it is, I guess I am denying his claims.

The U.S. just elected a guy that wants to starts a national deportation roundup. Yes, they are doing something about it.

[Elegiac]

Considering the state of the environment, the ecological annihilation of the planets biosphere, the trash dump formally known as the Oceans, AND the general collapsing fertility rate of humans globally, errrrrrr....

Yeah, we are heading for a cliff.

This is mainly because the most developed countries, at least in the West, have adopted very schizophrenic and myopic models of government wherein a few hundred thousand working class folks can preclude any reasonable attempt at reform.

[PosPosPos]

Except for everyone single one we invite to our country it takes up that much more in resources for actual Americans.

As if there's a resource shortage to begin with, unless you are the kind who likes to hoard at the expense of others. Oh wait, there are plenty of that ilk in America.

[Spectral]

As if there's a resource shortage to begin with, unless you are the kind who likes to hoard at the expense of others. Oh wait, there are plenty of that ilk in America.

How dare they save? Don't they know that it's their moral obligation to spread their wealth to illegal aliens? Christ, it says so right on the Statue of Liberty or something!

[Sunseeker]

The U.S. just elected a guy that wants to starts a national deportation roundup. Yes, they are doing something about it.

What...is that even an answer to?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Considering the state of the environment, the ecological annihilation of the planets biosphere, the trash dump formally known as the Oceans, AND the general collapsing fertility rate of humans globally, errrrrrr....

Yeah, we are heading for a cliff.

I've never been an alarmist, not even with climate change which I know what we're headed towards. I know humans will adapt and the world will not end, but I also know I want to protect what I currently have for my children and their children. I don't want to see the landscape, both economic and environmental, drastically change because I want to preserve it for future generations. But even then, even I do not know the outcome of everything. For all we know it could be innocuous or even good. Humans living in a world where there are underwater ruins of Orlando could be a good lesson to ultimately becoming completely sustainable.

[Theodarzna]

This is mainly because the most developed countries, at least in the West, have adopted very schizophrenic and myopic models of government wherein a few hundred thousand working class folks can preclude any reasonable attempt at reform.

Usually because the reforms you have in mind involve their liquidation. :3

[NED funded]

Which will necessitate either a World State since no country can exist like that as a sovereign country.

But even if it IS as you say, the main reason for imports seems to be shortfalls or a desire to "GROW FOREVER!" what do we do as the human population stops growing or even contracts?

That's just an argument to justify the existence of low-skilled immigrants. The open borders concept is different it uses other arguments. Cultural arguments are thrown out of the window when discussing things like open borders, most seem to agree that there needs to be a sufficient amount of compatibility between cultures for integration and that's it. So if you like preserving national identity then it's reasonable to oppose the idea.

[Sky High]

What...is that even an answer to?

nanook isn't here is debate with people in the the way you and I are used to. he has an idea, shits it out on the internet, and spends the next few pages or so arguing about why he's right without ever really discussing the issue.

[Theodarzna]

I've never been an alarmist, not even with climate change which I know what we're headed towards. I know humans will adapt and the world will not end, but I also know I want to protect what I currently have for my children and their children. I don't want to see the landscape, both economic and environmental, drastically change because I want to preserve it for future generations. But even then, even I do not know the outcome of everything. For all we know it could be innocuous or even good. Humans living in a world where there are underwater ruins of Orlando could be a good lesson to ultimately becoming completely sustainable.

Ah, now you will pretend to not be "Big on this climate change stuff."

The time to act might be BEFORE the oceans have the consistency of battery acid, not after.

[nanook12]

We're still waiting for you to answer who "some people" are in "some people argue that immigration is the ultimate solution to ending world poverty".

- - - Updated - - -



True enough...

And I am not going to answer you. You took a tiny part of the argument "some people" that is completely irrelevant and are trying to build it into something bigger, but there is nothing there. The thesis of his argument is "the U.S. cannot solve world poverty and shouldn't even try because more poor are born annually that massively exceed any amount we can reasonably take in" And he alludes that the 1 million we accept now are hurting the jobs prospects and wages of the native poor we have in this country already. What more do you want? The United States needs a net negative flow of immigration at the moment plain and border security strengthened plain and simple.

[Theodarzna]

That's just an argument to justify the existence of low-skilled immigrants. The open borders concept is different it uses other arguments. Cultural arguments are thrown out of the window when discussing things like open borders, most seem to agree that there needs to be a sufficient amount of compatibility between cultures for integration and that's it. So if you like preserving national identity then it's reasonable to oppose the idea.

Its arguments are arguments nobody proposes. I don't speak of national identity, I mean jurisdiction and law.

But ignore the point, the only reason we import people at all is for a specific regions economic benefit. If there is no growing number of people, there is no cause for import or migration.

[Darsithis]

Except for everyone single one we invite to our country it takes up that much more in resources for actual Americans.

You make it sound like there is a set amount of resources at all time and we have to juggle who gets what here in America. Those people "taking resources" are contributing (for the most part) back in "resources". It isn't some kind of draining. Your perception that "illegals come here to get on welfare" is wrong.

[nanook12]

nanook isn't here is debate with people in the the way you and I are used to. he has an idea, shits it out on the internet, and spends the next few pages or so arguing about why he's right without ever really discussing the issue.

I will debate, but I am going to believe experts and data practically every time over a random forum poster. Stating what your opinion is and what you believe is not going to sway me much in the face of data and expert analysis.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Ah, now you will pretend to not be "Big on this climate change stuff."

The time to act might be BEFORE the oceans have the consistency of battery acid, not after.

Pretend? I've never been alarmist. You can try and find where I have been, but I've never once been in the WORLD WILL END camp.

I do think we should take action because I want to preserve what we have right now, I WANT to take action, but if the world changes, who's to say it will be the end of human life? It will be difficult. But that's all we really know. Calling something a cliff is fairly alarmist, since humans have always adapted to their situation. Not saying we shouldn't take measures to abate it, but again... cliff. Wut.

[Elegiac]

Usually because the reforms you have in mind involve their liquidation. :3

Then don't bitch when Western countries do nothing.

[Miow]

Get the picture now? The USA cannot solve the problems of global poverty by letting a ton of people in. That just makes everyone's life worse off.

What do you mean by "Letting a ton of people in"? The USA has hardly taken any compared to other countries.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And I am not going to answer you. You took a tiny part of the argument "some people" that is completely irrelevant and are trying to build it into something bigger, but there is nothing there. The thesis of his argument is "the U.S. cannot solve world poverty and shouldn't even try because more poor are born annually that massively exceed any amount we can reasonably take in" And he alludes that the 1 million we accept now are hurting the jobs prospects and wages of the native poor we have in this country already. What more do you want? The United States needs a net negative flow of immigration at the moment plain and border security strengthened plain and simple.

The people we accept are highly skilled and educated, and Donald Dump wants to expand the H1-B visa program to bring in EVEN MORE. And his loyal cultists agree with him. It's called brain drain. You should look it up sometime. Taking in unskilled labor has overall shown to have both negative and positive effects on wages. Ultimately it was determined to have a net zero impact.

So again, nobody has argued that immigration can END WORLD POVERTY. Which is what your entire OP is based on. It's sad.

[nextormento]

Bryan Caplan would be a decent example of an open borders advocate whose case includes poverty mitigation.

It was more of a series of rhetorical questions >_<. OP is pretending any pro-immigration policy to be aimed at solving world poverty, which is not the case.

It's kind of like finding out there's a natural disaster going on, threatening millions of people, and saying "eh, we can't save them all, just hundreds, so why even bother with those hundreds of people?"

At no point during the video is it suggested any party should stop helping.
Quite the opposite really: at the sight of continuous flooding in the area, they're proposing building a damn, rather feel good about what little we accomplish by picking a handful of people every time it floods.
Strategic investment abroad and all that.