51–60 of 84 posts
I assume this article was written because of proposed changes to the green card system hinted at earlier this week. It may be my own bias showing, but is there ever a reason to offer some person permanent residency in the country when you know they will need to go on public assistance right away?
When someone moves from the 3rd world to the US, their CO2 footprint grows enormously. Mass immigration is hugely disruptive to stable job and family formulation. It seems to be supported by mainly by two groups in the US, one that wants cheap exploitable labor, and one that wants to shift American politics by changing the demographics.
If you want to prevent the formation of a pool of cheap exploitable immigrant labor, there are two ways. The best would be to prevent immigrants from entering, but that's impossible. The second best is to make sure that those who enter have the same freedoms and protections as native born workers, so that unscrupulous employers can't take advantage of them (house cleaners paid below minimum wage, H-1B tech employees…
'Impossible' is a very strong word for something many countries manage just fine. Unless you define 'prevent' as "no immigrant ever enters, even if only to be deported the next day".
But there's a third way - prosecute those unscrupulous employers. If only their lobbying money wasn't in the way...
When someone moves from the 3rd world to the US, their CO2 footprint grows enormously. Mass immigration is hugely disruptive to stable job and family formulation. It seems to be supported by mainly by two groups in the US, one that wants cheap exploitable labor, and one that wants to shift American politics by changing the demographics.
I support immigration because my ancestors were immigrants, and I believe others deserve the same opportunity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to prevent the formation of a pool of cheap exploitable immigrant labor, there are two ways. The best would be to prevent immigrants from entering, but that's impossible. The second best is to make sure that those who enter have the same freedoms and protections as native born workers, so that unscrupulous employers can't take advantage of them (house cleaners paid below minimum wage, H-1B tech employees…
> The best would be to prevent immigrants from entering, but that's impossible. 'Impossible' is a very strong word for something many countries manage just fine. Unless you define 'prevent' as "no immigrant ever enters, even if only to be deported the next day". But there's a third way - prosecute those unscrupulous employers. If only their lobbying money wasn't in the way...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a third group: Americans that believe in freedom and liberty, that America is a free country, and that everyone regardless of their race, origin, or class can come here and pursue their happiness like the rest of us.
What is the numerical upper limit to your goodwill? And what about the current citizens who are relatively poorer off because off high number of low skilled new immigrant arrivals? Does a nation not owe more to its current citizens?
> When labor supply rises, Econ 101 says that wages fall, right? Wrong. The problem with this kind of approach is that it ignores the dynamic nature of the US economy.
Source: https://www.hoover.org/research/economic-effect-immigration
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The best would be to prevent immigrants from entering, but that's impossible. 'Impossible' is a very strong word for something many countries manage just fine. Unless you define 'prevent' as "no immigrant ever enters, even if only to be deported the next day". But there's a third way - prosecute those unscrupulous employers. If only their lobbying money wasn't in the way...
Which countries manage just fine? Do those countries’ neighbors have substantially lower performing economies?
When someone moves from the 3rd world to the US, their CO2 footprint grows enormously. Mass immigration is hugely disruptive to stable job and family formulation. It seems to be supported by mainly by two groups in the US, one that wants cheap exploitable labor, and one that wants to shift American politics by changing the demographics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the numerical upper limit to your goodwill? And what about the current citizens who are relatively poorer off because off high number of low skilled new immigrant arrivals? Does a nation not owe more to its current citizens?
I also worry about immigrants taking jobs from citizens. What’s the point of helping a new group of people get jobs if it means taking away jobs from other people. But it turns out that the new group of people actually creates more jobs than they take. > When labor supply rises, Econ 101 says that wages fall, right? Wrong. The problem with this kind of approach is that it ignores the dynamic nature of the US economy.…
> Empirical studies of immigration’s effect on national economies confirm the general impact shown in the third chart. A review by David Card in 2007 concluded that “more than two decades of research on the local labor market impacts of immigration have reached a near consensus that increased immigration has a small but discernible negative effect on the relative (emphasis in original) wages of low-skilled native workers” but also a small, positive overall effect.
So in effect, more or less neutral, then?
> In the face of the reality that average wage levels are not negatively affected, one counterpoint is that the impact differs among skill levels (i.e., that low-skill migrants depress wages for native low-skill workers)
So that means, that low skill immigration which is the bigger chunk of all immigration, is at best neutral and most likely hurts wages? It is the high skill immigration which helps.
> National and even state economies are much more dynamic than simple theory
Just asserts a wishful thinking and concludes on this, doesn't really put any numbers to support this.
All of this from your own link.
When someone moves from the 3rd world to the US, their CO2 footprint grows enormously. Mass immigration is hugely disruptive to stable job and family formulation. It seems to be supported by mainly by two groups in the US, one that wants cheap exploitable labor, and one that wants to shift American politics by changing the demographics.
There’s also a third group, who believes that if someone’s country has become unlivable (e.g., Honduras today), the United States of America would be honored to have them. /s/, descendant of Potato Famine Irish Immigrants
Do you have any idea what has happened to the wages for non-skilled labor since the 1970s? While you and I may have nice cushy jobs and live in nice houses, the largest employer in this country is Walmart. Most people in this country don't have college degrees. They are poor, and mass immigration has made them poorer, and continues to make them poorer.
A lot of the "Abolish ICE" support comes from people in highly gentrifying areas of the country, living in cities that are in the process of driving out their historic minority residents from their homes to go live in the Midwest, all to make way for wealthier white people. Not that this would be your situation, of course! But it can make that sort of person's cheap grace very cheap indeed.
Don't like to see overpopulation being conflated with immigration again, because... Overpopulation is obviously a problem; immigration maybe or maybe not (case-by-case each country decides). Overpopulation is from people being born; not from people crossing borders. No humans are created or destroyed in the act of emigration or immigration. Overpopulation, nobody wants to talk about; immigration, everybody wants to t…
I'm not talking about your little patch of ground, I'm talking about the globe here.