Immigration Simplified

[bewbew]

Meanwhile the ones they're trying to keep out, the unskilled labor, are the ones who pick the fields and clean hotel rooms. Alabama tried extremely harsh anti-immigration laws and they totally failed. Their local economies collapsed when they couldn't find white laborers who even wanted to do the jobs that the immigrants did. The jobs were were "too hard" and "not worth it". So guess what Alabama did? THEY REPEALED THEIR OWN ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW.

Alabama did that because they bowed down to hysterical fits instead of letting the issue solve itself.

If the jobs were fundamental to the life of that state, only 2 scenarios would emerge from enforcing the law:

a) The people who deemed themselves "above" such jobs would start going bankrupt and would be FORCED into doing those.

b) The people who are hiring for these jobs would have to rise salaries to be more attractive to the workers who are avoiding the field.

In both cases, you don't need illegal workers from another nation.

[Hammerfest]

Sure! Your ancestors got in (unless you are Native) so fuck them all. That is the basic definition of nationalism.

Oh no! Not "nationalism!"

There was nothing wrong with suspending immigration back in the 20th for a while (to allow for assimilation). No reason not to do it now.

[NED funded]

It effects them in that areas with shrinking populations are not keen to move people around.

What you describe is the dream of a strange autistic madman who forgets the social cost of uprooting and moving around or imagines workers have no kids or families and are just atomized units of widgets. Which might explain why when a country gets integrated into this system their birth rates fall dramatically.

- - - Updated - - -



That is the rub of it for me, a bunch of faux-bleeding hearts act like they are doing some massive charity, when in reality the biggest beneficiaries are themselves. And they wonder why they get Brexit'd and Trump'd.

Shouldn't people that leave in small population towns be more keen to move to places with better chances? As far as I can remember that's the case.

What are the social costs of moving around people? Sure some towns are bound to die,but economists and specially macro models care about individuals not places.

[Paranoid Android]

Oh no! Not "nationalism!"

There was nothing wrong with suspending immigration back in the 20th for a while (to allow for assimilation). No reason not to do it now.

Yes because you or your ancestors are now here. So now its time for nationalism.

If you came here prior to say around the 1950's. Immigration policies were much more relaxed. The only limitations were about disease or prison. Ironically we did have laws not letting the Chinese or Japanese into our country.

[Dezerte]

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.

I don't think solving global poverty is the purpose of immigration.

[nanook12]

Water is constantly absorbed as vapor and returned, as well as generated (we can even make water, it's pretty easy) from hydrogen and oxygen, two compounds again created by other biological processes that are supported by...again...other biological processes. If the Earth were a closed system that had no hope of renewal of resources it would not exist today after four billion years.

Taking into account a rising population with the rising mass created my energy to mass processes via photosynthesis, the Earth could be viewed as a closed resource system. You are forgetting that those same plants need water which we have a finite amount and cannot create more cheaply, and elements from the soil for their growth that are also finite. So I am still sticking with Earth is primarily a finite resource system. If we let immigrants into our country, then they will require more resources and native Americans will have to give up some of their resources for the immigrants. Everyone gets a smaller piece of the pie due to immigration.

[truckboattruck]

Yeah, except that's not what we're doing, so there's really no point in arguing against a complete red herring.

what red herring?

[Hammerfest]

Yes because you or your ancestors are now here. So now its time for nationalism.

Lots of would-be immigrants didn't get in during the 20th Century.

[Darsithis]

So I am still sticking with Earth is primarily a finite resource system. If we let immigrants into our country, then they will require more resources and native Americans will have to give up some of their resources for the immigrants. Everyone gets a smaller piece of the pie due to immigration.

Doesn't matter how many times you say it. It isn't true. I can't convince you of that, though, and I won't waste any more of my time bothering.

[nanook12]

what red herring?

There isn't one. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't want to accept the facts, so he just threw red haring out there because he had nothing else to say.

[Paranoid Android]

Historical Overview of Immigration Policy

Immigration has played an important role in American history, and the United States continues to have the most open immigration policy in the world. Before the era of rapid communications and transportation, America encouraged relatively open immigration to settle its empty lands. After certain states passed immigration laws following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1875 declared the regulation of immigration a federal responsibility. The Immigration Service was established in 1891 to deal with the big increase in immigration which started in 1880.

From 1900 to 1920, nearly 24 million immigrants arrived during what is known as the “Great Wave”. The outbreak of World War I reduced immigration from Europe, but mass immigration resumed upon the war's conclusion, and Congress responded with a new immigration policy: the national-origins quota system passed in 1921 and revised in 1924. Immigration was limited by assigning each nationality a quota based on its representation in past U.S. census figures. Also in 1924, Congress created the U.S. Border Patrol within the Immigration Service.

There was very little immigration over the next 20 years, with net immigration actually dropping below zero for several years during the Depression. Immigration remained relatively low during the 20 years following World War II, because the 1920s national-origins system remained in place after Congress re-codified and combined all previous immigration and naturalization law into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. American agriculture continued to import seasonal labor from Mexico, as they had during the war, under a 1951 formal agreement between the United States and Mexico that made the Bracero Program permanent.

First here is some history to read over. Since it looks as if that is something you are lacking.

Second your super open statement of immigrants not getting in during the 20th Century, does not some how refute what I have been saying since again I stated we had relaxed immigration policy up until the 1950's. I didn't name some whole century. Why bother with you. Amirite?

[nanook12]

Doesn't matter how many times you say it. It isn't true. I can't convince you of that, though, and I won't waste any more of my time bothering.

It doesn't matter how many times you deny it. It is true. I can't convince you of that, though, and I won't waste any more of my time bothering.

[Deleted]

what red herring?

the red herring that ''some people argue that immigration helps to solve world poverty'', nowhere has it been said that people actually think this, hence his debunking of this assumption is moot, same as this thread

[nanook12]

the red herring that ''some people argue that immigration helps to solve world poverty'', nowhere has it been said that people actually think this, hence his debunking of this assumption is moot, same as this thread

Here http://openborders.info/end-of-poverty/ there it has been said by somebody. Now will you stop with this fake red herring nonsense? The people using the "who is somebody" argument in this thread are just trying to weasel their way out of addressing the mans actual reasoning in the video. They don't have a fair critique of the mans reasoning; therefore, they try to pick at tiny insignificant things and attempt to inflate their meaning instead. The man logic in the video stands, and it is backed by credible sources. The people that do not want to accept this are either (a) immigrants themselves, (b) have immigrant familys, or (c) don't want facts to infringe on their world view so they deny reality.

[DrIvoRobotnik]

While he makes fair points to the scenario he suggests, that the US or any single country can take in the 100's of millions of impoverished people. He fails to mention the fact that one person coming to a richer country can then effect multiple back home. He makes the argument of how tragic it is that the most intelligent or educated people leave their country when they could make a bigger difference than anybody, but fails to mention the simple fact is, these people's educational ceiling may be limited to their area. Without coming to the US they may not be able to have the education to make that hypothetical difference at all.

In the end this feels like a thinly veiled anti-immigration speech.

[Deleted]

Here http://openborders.info/end-of-poverty/ there it has been said by somebody. Now will you stop with this fake red herring nonsense? The people using the "who is somebody" argument in this thread are just trying to weasel their way out of addressing the mans actual reasoning in the video. They don't have a fair critique of the mans reasoning; therefore, they try to pick at tiny insignificant things and try to inflate their meaning instead.

Holy shit, an incredibly fringe website says it, we have ourselves a debate
Anyways, his numbers have been debunked as well https://graphpaperdiaries.com/2016/0...-and-gumballs/
Now the burden of proof is on you again:
is migration actually bad for the people in the country itself?

[nanook12]

Holy shit, an incredibly fringe website says it, we have ourselves a debate
Anyways, his numbers have been debunked as well https://graphpaperdiaries.com/2016/0...-and-gumballs/
Now the burden of proof is on you again:
is migration actually bad for the people in the country itself?

Incredibly fringe or not you said that "no one says that" and clearly "some people" do think that immigration can end world poverty. Lol look in my thread post history if you want links showing how immigration hurts native worker wages and job prospects. I have did my job, the evidence is there. Go through the posts and find the links yourself.

[Deleted]

Incredibly fringe or not you said that "no one says that" and clearly "some people" do think that immigration can end world poverty. Lol look in my thread post history if you want links showing how immigration hurts native worker wages and job prospects. I have did my job, the evidence is there. Go through the posts and find the links yourself.

Ah the good old ''I am too lazy to present evidence so go find it yourself'' argument.
Meanwhile you completely ignore my link which disproves your sources numbers completely.
And no, if such a fringe group is ''people argue'' then this debate is hardly worth having

[Cthulhu 2020]

Tell me, do you have a kid? or one on the way?

I actually don't believe in preserving what we have now, I think the cost of preservation of THIS! will be self destructive and we will have to live with less.

I plan to have one. My parental status is rather irrelevant. Although I know you've already pegged me as an irrational and misguided 2 dimensional liberal because it makes my arguments all that much easier to entirely diamiss. You know, rather than attempting to understand. Although sometimes you shine through. @thebannzoman is just a lost cause. So much salt and bitter towards evil SJW lefties commies.

- - - Updated - - -

Alabama did that because they bowed down to hysterical fits instead of letting the issue solve itself.

If the jobs were fundamental to the life of that state, only 2 scenarios would emerge from enforcing the law:

a) The people who deemed themselves "above" such jobs would start going bankrupt and would be FORCED into doing those.

b) The people who are hiring for these jobs would have to rise salaries to be more attractive to the workers who are avoiding the field.

In both cases, you don't need illegal workers from another nation.

And yet nobody budged on either issue. Alabama would entirely collapse, as would most red states that rely on immigrant labor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

[Theodarzna]

Shouldn't people that leave in small population towns be more keen to move to places with better chances? As far as I can remember that's the case.

What are the social costs of moving around people? Sure some towns are bound to die,but economists and specially macro models care about individuals not places.

There will be no areas however that produce a net surplus of people to justify moving. You move primarily because there is not enough housing or jobs in an area, which is also a problem but not if the population everywhere is in decline.

As for individuals, its there cost, constantly having to uproot and chase ever shrinking numbers of jobs. Plus the bigger your family the harder it is to move.

Maybe that is why economists are such sperglords, they don't seem to realize humans form groups.

- - - Updated - - -

I plan to have one. My parental status is rather irrelevant. Although I know you've already pegged me as an irrational and misguided 2 dimensional liberal because it makes my arguments all that much easier to entirely diamiss. You know, rather than attempting to understand. Although sometimes you shine through. @thebannzoman is just a lost cause. So much salt and bitter towards evil SJW lefties commies.

Well I am going to pop one out in a couple of months.

And you are an irrational 2 dimensional liberal, so much so that I often doubt you are sincere in any of your posts.