91–100 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was that true for america when it had the immigrant influx in the previous centuries?
>> Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic parts of the world brings a huge burden on the host population. >Was that true for america when it had the immigrant influx in the previous centuries? Lets ask all the dead native Americans about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant. That's not what your source says. It's not the typical German, it's "comparable groups among the current population", whatever they mean by that.
It means compared to previous crime statistic, ie, anyone who would have shown up in nationwide crime stats previously. By typical German they mean typical person living in Germany.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/...
Quote: "In other words, the typical German was more likely to engage in crime than the average migrant."
Source: https://www.thelocal.de/20151113/police-refugees-commit-less...
Headline: "Police: refugees commit less crime than Germans"
Quote: "Interior Minsiter Thomas de Maizière responded to the news by saying: "The current trend shows that refugees are just as unlikely to commit crimes as comparable groups among the current population. The majority of them don't commit crimes, they are seeking protection and and peace in Germany."
Source: https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article148812603/Str...
Actual Quote: "Ganz allgemein sprach Innenminister de Maizière von derzeit verfügbaren „Tendenzaussagen, dass Flüchtlinge im Durchschnitt genauso wenig oder oft straffällig werden wie Vergleichsgruppen der hiesigen Bevölkerung“."
Translation: "We have have information that suggests that refugees commit crime about as often, or as rarely, as comparable groups in the local population".
First of all, the interior minister obviously has a big incentive to downplay whatever problems are caused by the decisions of his administration. Secondly, he's talking about the refugees, not migrants in general. Also, what are "comparable groups"? It's not defined. If it's "comparable", then it's not going to be "typical" nor "average". The information he references is kept "confidential", by the way. In any case, absolutely nowhere does it say that refugees or migrants are less likely to commit crime, even though that's what is being reported by both English sources.
The reality is that crime rate among migrants is higher, for whatever reason. Migrants were responsible for 10-20% (differing by state) of violent crime in 2016, well above their share of the population: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/kriminalitaet-in-deutschl...
This article does mention however that Syrians/Iraqis are less likely to commit those crimes than migrants from other countries.
It's worth remembering that before the 20th century, the US had more or less completely open borders. And we turned out OK, didn't we?
>And we turned out OK, didn't we? I'm going to have to ask if this was a monumental failure of thinking on your part? First there are some theories that huge numbers of native Americans died from disease leaving the US a very large empty land mass. Second, the native Americans that were left got a real bad deal from European immigration. Third, the US depended heavily on slave labor in the south, something that has l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US does recognize medical degrees from other countries and leans on foreign doctors heavily. We require them to go through a US residency. Something like 1/4 of doctors in the US are foreign born. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/health/12chen.html https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/the-value... https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2016/07/12/25-of-d...
Residencies are one of the most grueling experiences for human beings ,and a restriction that makes doctors go through that process twice (in their home country and then in the US) amounts to a strong restriction. Asking an experienced doctor to go through a residency is worse than asking software developers to get a doctorate if they want to write code in the US.
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions. I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be…
>Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity. If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states. Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is forcing you to. The application of migration restrictions is forcing other people to not move. In terms of individual liberties you lose nothing in this case.
> you lose nothing Right, and if those unskilled immigrants don't all find jobs as nannies and nurses (since I won't be the only one keeping them from the most vulnerable), then I'll be taxed to pay for them anyway. That's not "nothing". If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
Taxed to pay them what. If you have a beef with welfare programs in the us, you should take it with the welfare programs. Foreigners never had a voice or a vote in terms of what qualified for such kinds of programs.
> If the cultures are very different, and they come in huge numbers that refuse to assimilate, then I suffer dilution of mine. That's not "nothing" either.
This argument could be made verbatim against many things that today are considered bigotry or illegal.
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions. I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be…
>Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity. If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their satellite states. Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is s…
That is always true. Its called an invasion, and the rules of warfare and immigration are pretty different.
> Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and same supreme court system.
When a foreigner enters the us, he is under the same federal jurisdiction, constitution and supreme court system. There is no conflict of law. There is conflict of interest, only if you portray the issue as an us vs them.
> I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up and claiming their area as new territory.
The netherlands doesn't want anything, because it's not a person. San francisco is a city, it doesn't have a will or a life. Individuals want things and do what they can to do it. If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to San Francisco, who the hell is a government official in san francisco to forbid him to do it. Funny you mention SF that has a movement to kick out software developers and startups, because it's "destroying the culture of the city".
If 1 million saudi conservatives move to san francisco, they would pay so much money to achieve such a ridiculous demographic goal that the residents will have plenty of money to move and change another city to their own liking. That is, unless they are forbidden to do it by another government official.
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression. Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so many arguments in favour of international restrictions. I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be…
Hello from Germany. We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed. We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 201…
The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.
> If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?
This is the point : you are not supposed to take in anyone, the state shouldnt decide whatsoever what individuals do with their lives. The state doesn't own these people and neither does it own you. If you dont want to provide foreigners with resources then don't. Foreigners cant vote for such measures even if they wanted them.
With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello from Germany. We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed. We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 201…
For someone escaping a war torn country, finding a wall he cant surpass to escape death and destructive would surely be oppressive. He wants to do something that provokes no harm, and a state is telling him he can't. If you don't like that they represent a cost to the german state, you can take it up to the idea of welfare, and if you removed completely for the people that entered the country, they would still go to…
> The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment.
If you want to make an utilitarian argument, then so can I: We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? You know, just like the US does it. Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever.
> With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
People aren't gonna pass forever, they're gonna settle. Right now, they're settling here. If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.