Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out • Hacker News Board

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#61

Post by simplecomplex » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 5:10 AM UTC

la12 wrote: post #50

simplecomplex wrote: post #45

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?

There isn’t a numerical upper limit. A job isn’t property that can be owned and stolen from you. You’re presenting a false dichotomy on top of a false premise. And it’s not goodwill, it’s a matter of principle and ethics.

An immigrant can’t take jobs from citizens, since jobs aren’t property owned by citizens. Jobs are trades (an agreement, a relationship) between two people. Do I really need to explain that a job isn’t an entitlement you get for being a citizen? I think you know this.

No matter how many immigrants come here, they can’t steal the fruits of your labor. Immigrants aren’t reaching into your bank account and taking your money.

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#62

Post by fzeroracer » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 5:16 AM UTC

romaaeterna wrote: post #59

jonstewart wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What quantity of people are you talking about exactly, and what price are you willing for poor black/Hispanic/white people with only high school degrees to pay in low-skilled labor competition, in order to assuage your racial guilt? 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 c…

I don't think 'mass immigration' is to blame for wage depression post-1970s, considering that era also consisted in the destruction of workers rights, unionization and considerable increase in corporate bargaining power.

This also ignore two other big parts of the picture: The fact that in the pre-1970s America still had historically high immigration with the same complaints you bring up now (that the 'dirty' Irish for example were poor, uneducated and a drain on society) just with different color slapped on top. New York was quite literally a city of immigrants.

And then you have automation, which means even if you were to completely stop all immigration would mean the loss of jobs as companies further reduce their bottom line.

I'm not a fan of this sort of historical revisionism where the history of immigration in the US is sort of paved over to make way for new fears of immigrants destroying the fabric of society somehow.

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#63

Post by rdiddly » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 5:18 AM UTC

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #10

rdiddly wrote: post #6

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…

How does that square with many western nations whose population would be declining due to low birthrates if not for immigration?

It doesn't need to square with it. In some places population can increase, in others it can decrease; add them all up and there is some number, ΔP, that is either positive or negative. For a long time now, it's been an exponentially-increasing positive, which I contend is bad news, and I hope it reverses. If people move around, all that does is move the growth around.

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#64

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 5:28 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #47

neetdeth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…

One of the illustrative point is also that some present day Democrat presidential candidates and legislators just 4-5 years ago were against increased immigration and open borders. Listen to what Sanders has to say about "open borders": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 he is not just slightly against it, he is quite upset by the idea altogether.

No one in public office or campaign for it supports “oprn borders”, it's only deployed as a strawman of opposite candidates (or sometimes an attack on a real or also strawman position outside of declared candidates) to define oneself against. And, yeah, it's not uncommon for people who have used the strawman to have it used against them. It's not a sign of flip-flopping unless you can find someone endorsing open borders after having criticized it, something essentially no candidate does (certainly no Democratic Presidential candidate, all of whom have called for strengthening border security and continuing to enforce policies limiting total legal immigration, while disagreeing with the particular policies and practices pursued by the current administration.)

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#65

Post by masonic » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

ajxs wrote: post #34

deogeo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it difficult to believe that a pro-trade union candidate like Bernie Sanders does not understand the basic laws of supply/demand: How a supply of cheap labour affects the wages of the individual employee. This interview would indicate that he understands that, and wants to restrict immigration for that very reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 Edit: The interview is from 2015, so it may be tha…

( Without watching said interview, I'm in the office and don't have headphones ) Did Sanders not indicate his support for decriminalisation of illegal border crossing in the primaries? I would hardly take that as an endorsement of restricting immigration.

Simple border crossing was not a criminal act then in the first place.

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#66

Post by masonic » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 5:58 AM UTC

jonstewart wrote: post #43

romaaeterna wrote: post #40

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

What makes Honduras/Guatemala/Salvador increasingly "unliveable" is (1) the flight of its most industrious people to the US, and (2) the resulting indebtedness of those smuggled to the gangs that smuggle them and arrange illegal, subminimum-wage, off-the-books employment for them.

Persistence of the status quo flow of illegal entrants would doom the Triangle countries forever.

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#67

Post by bruceb » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:00 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #64

rdtsc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the illustrative point is also that some present day Democrat presidential candidates and legislators just 4-5 years ago were against increased immigration and open borders. Listen to what Sanders has to say about "open borders": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 he is not just slightly against it, he is quite upset by the idea altogether.

No one in public office or campaign for it supports “oprn borders”, it's only deployed as a strawman of opposite candidates (or sometimes an attack on a real or also strawman position outside of declared candidates) to define oneself against. And, yeah, it's not uncommon for people who have used the strawman to have it used against them. It's not a sign of flip-flopping unless you can find someone endorsing open bord…

Isn't straw man.

Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders, same with Julian Castro.

She literally said during the debate no one gets deported, and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket.

You can argue the pros and cons, but clearly she and some of the other candidates are calling for de facto open borders.

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#68

Post by ap3 » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:01 AM UTC

hash872 wrote: post #41

neetdeth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money does seem to be the only way to get even a hint of policy change from Washington, but the trend line of public opinion is opposite of what you suggest. Until around 1995, immigration restriction was overwhelmingly mainstream in the United States and still commands a strong plurality. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests…

>I'd further point out that the overwhelming majority of the moneyed interests still stack up on the side of permissive immigration policies. It is, after all, capital that benefits from a global free market for labor George Soros does not, to my knowledge, employ a large number of low-wage workers- how would he personally benefit from a larger labor pool? The Koch brothers do have a very large workforce, but they're…

>The only people who could conceivably benefit from immigrant labor would be industries with huge huge numbers of minimum or close to minimum-wage employees- Home Depot, Chipotle, Subway etc. I guess Amazon.

It’s the farms

Just look at the latest big raid: chicken farms

In California César Chavez was against illegal immigration because the farms would use immigrants to break the unions

Don’t know exactly what Soros and the Kochs do, I’m guessing they don’t exactly employ people but own companies that sell things to people

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#69

Post by ap3 » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:06 AM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #51

oh_sigh wrote: post #44

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?

Because permanent residency shouldn't be a privilege granted only to the relatively wealthy.

Do you have to be wealthy to not need public assistance?

Re: Socialite Cordelia Scaife May Spent Her Fortune Trying to Keep Immigrants Out

#70

Post by ap3 » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:32 AM UTC

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #55

la12 wrote: post #50

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.…

Immigration shouldn’t be about helping, but about letting people help themselves by being productive members of their new society

Certain sectors of the economy are experiencing shortages - of course that just means people are not willing to pay the price that citizens charge: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/A-catastrophic-trend...

Wonder how many nativists will end up cared for by immigrant caregivers