Humanity

[BobStackFan4Life]

You misrepresented what I wrote 923- I never said all of Africa will move here. The point is, most of the world is desperately poor and their numbers are growing at an unsustainable rate- the population in Africa will double by 2050. We cannot take in enough people to significantly improve the lives of most people in the world- and right now most of those we do take in hurt the job prospects/earnings of lower class Americans- and there's research that backs this up, not to mention common sense. If you have a huge surplus of workers competing for the same type of work, those jobs will be more difficult to get and there will be little incentive for the employer to raise wages. I strongly disagree that immigration benefits most Americans. I'm sure you can point to research out of the libertarian CATO Institute that suggests otherwise just as I can point to research by people like Harvard economist George Borjas to support my argument. We'll never convince each other. You telling those who are hurt by immigration that they need to improve their skills is reminiscent of something Tony Blair recently said:

The answer to someone who is unemployed in a country like mine or anywhere else in Europe, is not to blame migrants for having taken your job, [it] is to get the education and the skills necessary in order to be able to operate in the modern world.

In both instances it strikes me as indicative of a callous disregard for your fellow citizens. "Oh hey, you just got laid off and you're finding it impossible to get a job because there's now a million Mexicans in this country doing what you did? Well it's your fault, not the politicians and lobbyists who constructed the immigration policies. Now go get your 40 or 50 year old ass back in school and learn how to do something these Mexicans can't compete with you for. Of course we're probably not gonna pay for your education and there's no guarantee you'll find work afterwards and your worthless unemployed self is probably not gonna have any money coming in while you're in school, but hey, good luck." I'm curious 923, what do you do for a living? If there were millions of immigrants coming into the country that were able to do YOUR job I wonder if you'd be so pro-immigration. It's a really easy issue to be sanctimonious about when you're not one of the people being negatively impacted.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

"all in order to protect the least productive native-born Americans."

This is really elitist.

"Instead of doing that, we should be enacting measures that help those low-skilled Americans improve their skills, and provide a stronger social safety net (which does not have to be accessible to the immigrants, or can be accessible only to a limited degree)."

I do agree with the bolded part. But I would argue it doesn't have to be an either/or. We can do both. Instead of flooding the country with tens of millions of low skilled workers and telling Americans who are negatively impacted to suck it up and improve their skills, I do not see the need to have the number of immigrants entering the country that we currently see, especially lower skilled immigrants which impact the least powerful members of society. I would prefer to see immigration geared much more towards the wealthy and extremely well educated.

 

[PhDeac]

I think Blair is right with the caveat that we as in the government and private sector need to work to keep the population educated and prepared.

If some idiot who hates Mexicans just invented a machine that picks strawberries faster and cheaper than migrant workers, he would address some of his problem.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

I think Blair is right with the caveat that we as in the government and private sector need to work to keep the population educated and prepared.

If some idiot who hates Mexicans just invented a machine that picks strawberries faster and cheaper than migrant workers, he would address some of his problem.

But ultimately it comes down to employers wanting to pay cheaper wages. NPR illustrated this brilliantly a while back when interviewing a citrus farmer in Florida. He said his father lost some workers to another farmer who was willing to pay a nickel more a hour. His father could have paid his workers more but chose not to. The guy said it was at that point that they became big supporters of immigration. Does it really make sense given the millions of unemployed, underemployed, and people who have given up and just quit looking for work to continue to allow a million plus low skilled workers (legal and illegal) into the country?

 

[RChildress107]

Then go live in a third world slum and experience what life is like for most of the world.

I've been to third world slums and seen first-hand what it's like for the rest of the world. That's part of the reason I have no problem with the people that do whatever it takes to get to a country that provides them an opportunity to meet their basic human needs. I'm lucky and proud to be an American but I don't for a second think that I'm better than those living in third world slums or more entitled to a basic standard of living.

If you are truly worried about those losing their jobs to immigrants then your main focus should be the financial system, not immigrants.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

I've been to third world slums and seen first-hand what it's like for the rest of the world. That's part of the reason I have no problem with the people that do whatever it takes to get to a country that provides them an opportunity to meet their basic human needs. I'm lucky and proud to be an American but I don't for a second think that I'm better than those living in third world slums or more entitled to a basic standard of living.

If you are truly worried about those losing their jobs to immigrants then your main focus should be the financial system, not immigrants.

Who said anything about thinking they're better than people in slums? I'm more fortunate/luckier to have been born in the US instead of Calcutta or Nairobi, but it doesn't make me better. And I do believe there are greater problems impacting the quality of life for Americans than immigration.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

I've been to third world slums and seen first-hand what it's like for the rest of the world. That's part of the reason I have no problem with the people that do whatever it takes to get to a country that provides them an opportunity to meet their basic human needs. I'm lucky and proud to be an American but I don't for a second think that I'm better than those living in third world slums or more entitled to a basic standard of living.

If you are truly worried about those losing their jobs to immigrants then your main focus should be the financial system, not immigrants.

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. You aren't entitled to shit, and neither are they. You were born with an inherent advantage, not an inherent right to that advantage, and there is a difference. But we have an advantage for a reason, that reason having no small part to do with the advantages of being a westernized society, with all the things that entails, from democratic traditions to the relative civility of western (Judeo-Christian) religions. Immigration must be tempered and moderated, and it isn't in any way, shape, or form at the moment. Illegal immigration isn't being combated and legal immigration is subject to the whims and abuses of business. But fear not. If we continue to have unchecked immigration, we will resemble a 3rd world country by the time your grandchildren are middle aged, and they will be able to opine about whether or not they have an inherent right to something better.

 

[RChildress107]

Who said anything about thinking they're better than people in slums? I'm more fortunate/luckier to have been born in the US instead of Calcutta or Nairobi, but it doesn't make me better. And I do believe there are greater problems impacting the quality of life for Americans than immigration.

You implied that Americans deserve better rights than everyone else.

 

[RChildress107]

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. You aren't entitled to shit, and neither are they. You were born with an inherent advantage, not an inherent right to that advantage, and there is a difference. But we have an advantage for a reason, that reason having no small part to do with the advantages of being a westernized society, with all the things that entails, from democratic traditions to the relative civility of western (Judeo-Christian) religions. Immigration must be tempered and moderated, and it isn't in any way, shape, or form at the moment. Illegal immigration isn't being combated and legal immigration is subject to the whims and abuses of business. But fear not. If we continue to have unchecked immigration, we will resemble a 3rd world country by the time your grandchildren are middle aged, and they will be able to opine about whether or not they have an inherent right to something better.

That's a debate worth having, but it's a false debate when we start from a purely nativist premise.

 

[PhDeac]

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. You aren't entitled to shit, and neither are they. You were born with an inherent advantage, not an inherent right to that advantage, and there is a difference. But we have an advantage for a reason, that reason having no small part to do with the advantages of being a westernized society, with all the things that entails, from democratic traditions to the relative civility of western (Judeo-Christian) religions. Immigration must be tempered and moderated, and it isn't in any way, shape, or form at the moment. Illegal immigration isn't being combated and legal immigration is subject to the whims and abuses of business. But fear not. If we continue to have unchecked immigration, we will resemble a 3rd world country by the time your grandchildren are middle aged, and they will be able to opine about whether or not they have an inherent right to something better.

So immigrants bring third world status with them? Why hasn't that happened after hundreds of years of immigration?

And Obama is deporting people left and right. How is that unchecked?

 

[EatLeadCommie]

That's a debate worth having, but it's a false debate when we start from a purely nativist premise.

Nativism is a buzzword and way to demean any immigration opposition. I am not opposed to immigration. Hell, I make my living off it. I was born in a foreign country and spent half my formative years there. I have a great respect for immigration and immigrants. I also am in a position to know when things have gone off the reservation, which they have.

If we go by the modern buzzword of nativism, then the Dept. of Labor is nativist because it attempts to certify that jobs have been offered or made available to US citizens and that the prevailing wage is being paid to any foreign workers. That is done to protect the natives and therefore nativist, but it is also common sense and shouldn't carry the negative connotations that a word like nativist does.

Bottom line is this... immigration needs to be tempered. Illegal immigration needs to be rigidly addressed and enforced. Legal immigration needs to be cut back and certain regulations made less ambiguous, more defined, and therefore more stringent. And there should be no amnesty now or any time in the future, "targeted" or otherwise. The GOP is getting absolutely murdered on this issue by their base, as evidenced by the ascension of Trump/Cruz. They didn't "get it" because of their business interests. I think they get it now.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

So immigrants bring third world status with them? Why hasn't that happened after hundreds of years of immigration?

And Obama is deporting people left and right. How is that unchecked?

Because we haven't seen immigration at the level that we are seeing it right now. This started really back in the 60s, but really has taken off since the first amnesty in the 80s.

Obama is a joke on immigration. I've pointed this out for several years now and you just choose to look the other way. You'll go dig up stats showing an increase in removals, I'll tell you that the administration completely rewrote the way removals were counted to look good, and we'll be back to square one, so let's not bother.

 

[RChildress107]

Because we haven't seen immigration at the level that we are seeing it right now. This started really back in the 60s, but really has taken off since the first amnesty in the 80s.

Obama is a joke on immigration. I've pointed this out for several years now and you just choose to look the other way. You'll go dig up stats showing an increase in removals, I'll tell you that the administration completely rewrote the way removals were counted to look good, and we'll be back to square one, so let's not bother.

Immigrants as a proportion of the population were consistently at this level until the 20's

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

 

[RChildress107]

So what you are saying is we are about where we were prior to 1924 and we are expected to rise to 18% by mid century. I see nothing wrong with that. It makes sense that immigration would increase as global communication and travel becomes cheaper and easier

 

[BillBrasky]

If that spike in immigration settles the massive amount of unsettled land in the West, then cool. If they all move to our already overcrowded and crumbling big cities, there may be issues.

 

[RChildress107]

Also roughly 25% of people living in the U.S. in 1790 were immigrants, so we won't hit the highest level in U.S. history anytime soon

 

[RChildress107]

If that spike in immigration settles the massive amount of unsettled land in the West, then cool. If they all move to our already overcrowded and crumbling big cities, there may be issues.

Agreed. Again documenting all immigrants and coming up with a plan for how to best incorporate them would be far more effective than trying to kick and keep them out.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

So what you are saying is we are about where we were prior to 1924 and we are expected to rise to 18% by mid century. I see nothing wrong with that. It makes sense that immigration would increase as global communication and travel becomes cheaper and easier

The vast majority (95 percent) of workers in the United States fall into the 16 to 65-year-old age group, so focusing on this population makes sense when considering the population of potential workers. Looking at the fourth quarter of 2015, the most recent quarterly data available, and comparing it with the same quarter in 2007, just as the Great Recession began, shows that despite significant job growth in the last two years there were still 1.3 million fewer native-born working-age Americans working at the end of 2015 than in the same quarter of 2007. The table below reports these figures. In contrast, the number of immigrants (16 to 65) working was 1.8 million higher in 2015 than 2007. Thus, over the whole time period all of the net gain in employment 2007 to 2015 went to immigrants. This is the case even though natives accounted for 61 percent of overall population growth among the working-age. Put simply, natives accounted for 61 percent of the increase in the number of potential workers 2007 to 2015, but none of the net growth in actual workers in this age group.

In an extensive study of California, the RAND Corporation estimated that between 128,000 and 195,000 natives in California were either unemployed or withdrew from the labor force because of immigration from 1970 to 1990. Two more recent studies concluded that immigration not only reduces the employment of less-educated black men, it also increases crime and incarceration among that population.

One way to think about what has been happening in the labor market is that employment or job growth has not come close to matching new immigration and natural population increase. As the figure shows, between 2000 and 2015 the number of working-age people (both immigrant and native) in the country increased by 25.9 million. But the number working increased by only 8.4 million. The difference of 17.5 million represents the increase in the last 15 years in the number of people ages 16 to 65 who are not working. (It should be noted the figures do not include those in institutions such as prisons and nursing homes.)

At the heart of the immigration debate is the idea that there are not Americans available for work. The data collected by the government shows this is not the case. Rather, there has been a dramatic decline in work, particularly among the young and less educated.

The number and share of native-born Americans ages 16 to 65 who are not in the labor market (not working or looking for work) is at or near a record level, with no meaningful improvement in the last two years. Any suggestion that the nation needs immigration because there is a shortage of labor is not supported by the available data.

http://www.cis.org/Testimony/Camarota-The-Impact-of-Large-Scal-%20Immigration-on-American-Workers

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

If that spike in immigration settles the massive amount of unsettled land in the West, then cool. If they all move to our already overcrowded and crumbling big cities, there may be issues.

It's a problem because there are already not nearly enough jobs being created for native born Americans. And this trend will only accelerate in the coming years as automation becomes more common. Beyond the economic impact, there is also the environmental impact. Yes, we managed to dramatically ramp up food production during the "Green Revolution" but there has been a heavy price to the environment, as a result of the overuse of pesticides and fertilizer, that in many instances is only now starting to come due. What we need are fewer people, not more, not just in the US but especially in countries that have no hope of being able to provide for their people. The Middle East is facing a disaster. Look at Syria, where the population grew seven fold since 1950. The pressure that population growth put on the country was enormous. And then when the nation was faced with a historic drought everything went downhill. Men were forced to leave their farms and move to the cities to try and find work- with little success. Thousands of illegal wells were dug, thus dropping the water table even more. And the rural areas that were hardest hit were the first places that ISIS showed up. With climate change most of the Middle East is vulnerable to severe droughts, at a time when their populations have exploded. I think one of the driving forces of conflict is unsustainable population growth. The west can never take in enough immigrants to significantly alleviate the suffering in these countries. Unless we want to turn the US into a third world country as well. So what is going to happen when the population in Africa doubles in the coming decades? What do you think those countries are gonna look like when the people living there have even less hope than they do now? And it's not just Africa and the Middle East. Look at East Asia. Pakistan, India, etc. They are facing a disaster.