81–90 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a good thing for those classes of people you just mentioned (governments, business owners). For everyone else it's just increased competition.
The business owners don’t get rich from the reduced wages, the consumers do.
I feel like the reason immigration is a controversial issue is because people don't feel like one's circumstance of birth is really their "fault". If you don't have a choice in the matter, can you really be blamed? And thus, there's no reason people born in America should get any special privileges compared to those born elsewhere. I agree. If we could snap our fingers, and fix everything that went wrong in someone's…
However, I think there is no real incentive for compromise between the political parties until the border is secured and laws are enforced, because the status quo actually works better for some pro-immigration forces.
They should reform everything, but I do think that the border needs to be secured and enforced before that can realistically happen.
They need a path for legal immigration. They need to reform H1Bs so that they prioritize US degree holders and there is no country based quota on converting to permanent residence and those foreign citizens are not paid less or require complex sponsorships that ties them to an employer. They need to increase the speed that everything is processed and adjudicated at and enforce the laws and secure the border once they reach a compromise. They need to figure out a way to allow low skilled labor into the country. They should offer long term visit visas for foreign relatives that don’t actually want to live here. It’s bizarre that my sons grandparents basically need a green card to come and go as they please. They should amend the constitution so that foreign tourists who are here for a very short period of time don’t get birth right citizenship.
There is just a huge amount of common sense fixes that need to be done, but once the fixes are applied they need to be totally and completely enforced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't ask of every baby that is being born in the US how they will make the country better. But if given the option to bring in a fully grown adult, who already saves us the cost of an education, is of prime working age, and wants to be in this country, we suddenly care?
When every US citizen who wants a job in the US has one, one they can live off of with a living wage, sure, it’s up for a conversation (when legitimate labor shortages exist vs faux shortages leveraged as labor cost controls). Why am I going to support immigration that drives down wages for capital returns? Because it makes “the country” more wealthy by making a select few wealthier? Ineffective policy imho. I am nev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When every US citizen who wants a job in the US has one, one they can live off of with a living wage, sure, it’s up for a conversation (when legitimate labor shortages exist vs faux shortages leveraged as labor cost controls). Why am I going to support immigration that drives down wages for capital returns? Because it makes “the country” more wealthy by making a select few wealthier? Ineffective policy imho. I am nev…
Have you ever heard "the middle of nowhere"? There are many such places. Now imagine vibrant cities and towns in such places.
Have you considered the people that live in what you dismissively refer to as the "middle of nowhere" might not want their towns replaced with "vibrant" cities full of foreigners?
Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable. This article says that it grants 1 million green cards per year to legal immigrants, which is extremely generous. To say it's "nearly impossible" is absurd. I myself, my wife, and 80% of my friends are all legal immigrants to the US.
> Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable. Why? Why is it indisputable? America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system - the only thing we did was weed out smuggling and criminals.
The difference is visible in maps of "foreign country where most non-native residents come from" across the US.
Before the 1970s, this was very diverse. People came to the US from all over. They came, learnt English, and became Americans.
In the decades since, the map has become a single colour in every state from North to South because the overwhelming majority of immigrants are illegal immigrants from a single pretty impoverished country. They move to the US, do not integrate, don't learn English, and don't become Americans.
And guess what? People don't like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is a common anti-immigrant trope: we're full/out of water/out of land/out of X! Where there are shortages why should the solutions be focused on restricting immigration? Should people having children also be penalized?
I didn't say penalized. I think the same is true for everyone worldwide. We're not out of anything. Plenty of room to cram more in. You don't need high standards for clean water, you can tolerate some sewage and dissolved heavy metals. You don't need more than a 10x15x7-ft box to live in with a bathroom at the end of the hall. You definitely never need to have solitude anywhere for your enjoyment, you can be in a cro…
Much like the "peak oil" hysteria of the 90's your claims require that society as a whole doesn't do anything to solve problems, or adapt to changing circumstances.
If population growth really was the problem, then reproduction would be discouraged. But problems of pollution and resource use can be solved by changing policy and behavior. We can become much cleaner and more efficient without forgoing the very real benefits of population growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever heard "the middle of nowhere"? There are many such places. Now imagine vibrant cities and towns in such places.
"Vibrant" is an interesting word with so many lovely meanings and connotations. Have you considered the people that live in what you dismissively refer to as the "middle of nowhere" might not want their towns replaced with "vibrant" cities full of foreigners?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Vibrant" is an interesting word with so many lovely meanings and connotations. Have you considered the people that live in what you dismissively refer to as the "middle of nowhere" might not want their towns replaced with "vibrant" cities full of foreigners?
The context of the current sub-thread is an economic development and wages. So yes, vibrant cities contribute positively to this. As for keeping "cozy" places, that's not a zero-sum game. We can have both.
You need only look at any of the places in the US that have already been subject to these waves of illegal invasion, or the various places in Europe that have been flooded with unwanted illegal aliens falsely claiming asylum after travelling through safe countries (with less generous welfare systems) on their journeys to see why people want their countries to prioritise the welfare of their own citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because someone wants to immigrate to the US doesn't mean they should be allowed. This is the underlying truth that is indisputable. Why? Why is it indisputable? America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system - the only thing we did was weed out smuggling and criminals.
>America existed very prosperously for over 200 years with such a system The difference is visible in maps of "foreign country where most non-native residents come from" across the US. Before the 1970s, this was very diverse. People came to the US from all over. They came, learnt English, and became Americans. In the decades since, the map has become a single colour in every state from North to South because the over…