• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Humanity

ImTheCaptain said:
muslims roundly defeated the christians in the crusades; not sure why they'd use it as a scare tactic. that's like us using british redcoats to scare our kids
Click to expand...

It helps justify the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, unless you want the King of England to come take your guns and freedom.

-Homer Simpson
 
sailordeac said:
Here is one country's experience with migrants. Maybe we should let each country decide for itself to what degree it wants to accept migrants.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...elfare-recipients-are-non-western-immigrants/
Click to expand...

The migrant situation in Europe has little to do with the refugee situation in America. I agree that each country should have the right to determine how it handles immigration and refugees, but pointing to the situation in Europe isn't really a fair comparison to US refugee policy.

I can't speak to all situations, but our office has a 94% success rate over the two years of refugees being employed and self-sufficient within 6 months. His experience that "migrants he came into contact with on a daily basis saw government cash assistance as a right, and the so-called “refugees” generally saw work as “punishment” to be avoided at all costs. The fundamental problem was that the Danish welfare state was built on the Protestant work ethic and was incompatible with the new arrivals he said" does not hold true for most of our clients. Most want to work, and work hard to overcome language and cultural barriers to become employable. For most, any benefit that they receive is dependent on working toward employment and sustainability.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
The migrant situation in Europe has little to do with the refugee situation in America. I agree that each country should have the right to determine how it handles immigration and refugees, but pointing to the situation in Europe isn't really a fair comparison to US refugee policy.

I can't speak to all situations, but our office has a 94% success rate over the two years of refugees being employed and self-sufficient within 6 months. His experience that "migrants he came into contact with on a daily basis saw government cash assistance as a right, and the so-called “refugees” generally saw work as “punishment” to be avoided at all costs. The fundamental problem was that the Danish welfare state was built on the Protestant work ethic and was incompatible with the new arrivals he said" does not hold true for most of our clients. Most want to work, and work hard to overcome language and cultural barriers to become employable. For most, any benefit that they receive is dependent on working toward employment and sustainability.
Click to expand...

Do you ever think about the native born Americans whose job prospects/earnings are negatively impacted by the presence of the people you are helping? Or maybe you don't believe there is any negative impact?
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Do you ever think about the native born Americans whose job prospects/earnings are negatively impacted by the presence of the people you are helping? Or maybe you don't believe there is any negative impact?
Click to expand...

There probably is some negative impact from a slightly larger pool of potential employees in that there is some increased competition in the job market, but I believe that is minimal. There is no competitive advantage to hiring refugees on paper - the wages aren't lower,the requirements for employment aren't different. It's not somehow undercutting the job market, just increasing the pool of potential employees. The numbers are not overwhelming, either.

Plus, it is increasing the population contributing to the local economy. I think the overall positives far outweigh any negatives that may exist.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
The migrant situation in Europe has little to do with the refugee situation in America. I agree that each country should have the right to determine how it handles immigration and refugees, but pointing to the situation in Europe isn't really a fair comparison to US refugee policy.

I can't speak to all situations, but our office has a 94% success rate over the two years of refugees being employed and self-sufficient within 6 months. His experience that "migrants he came into contact with on a daily basis saw government cash assistance as a right, and the so-called “refugees” generally saw work as “punishment” to be avoided at all costs. The fundamental problem was that the Danish welfare state was built on the Protestant work ethic and was incompatible with the new arrivals he said" does not hold true for most of our clients. Most want to work, and work hard to overcome language and cultural barriers to become employable. For most, any benefit that they receive is dependent on working toward employment and sustainability.
Click to expand...

I was not trying to comment on the situation in America. I live in Europe. The situation with immigrants is extremely complex, and here in Europe the policies and attitudes championed by Frau Merkel, the unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats, the Western liberal or leftist media that the current immigration from the Middle East is an overwhelming positive good and should be embraced by a one size fits all policy throughout Europe, is simplistic and mistaken.
 
sailordeac said:
I was not trying to comment on the situation in America. I live in Europe. The situation with immigrants is extremely complex, and here in Europe the policies and attitudes championed by Frau Merkel, the unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats, the Western liberal or leftist media that the current immigration from the Middle East is an overwhelming positive good and should be embraced by a one size fits all policy throughout Europe, is simplistic and mistaken.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, my mistake. The intricacies of the migrant situation in Europe is ridiculously complex.
 
I just sit here imagining that the people in whatever European country sailordeac is in would like to send his ass back to America for stealing their jobs.
 
RChildress107 said:
why?
Click to expand...

The population in Africa is expected to double by 2050. There will soon be more people living in India than live in China. Most people in India and Africa lead very difficult lives and would prefer to live in the United States. That's true for much of the rest of the world. We already have over 42 million immigrants, legal and illegal, living here. Presently the people who are most hurt by immigration, in terms of competition for jobs and reduced wages, tend to be those Americans who are most vulnerable and have the least power. Beyond the financial impact on native workers, there's a strain on social services (immigrants take advantage of welfare at a much higher rate than natives- households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use), strain on school systems, quality of life issues in terms of overcrowded cities, increased rents, traffic, the environmental impact, increased pollution, overburdened hospitals, etc. 80% of US population growth is from immigrants- at a time when our economy is about to shed millions of jobs due to automation.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
The population in Africa is expected to double by 2050. There will soon be more people living in India than live in China. Most people in India and Africa lead very difficult lives and would prefer to live in the United States. That's true for much of the rest of the world. We already have over 42 million immigrants, legal and illegal, living here. Presently the people who are most hurt by immigration, in terms of competition for jobs and reduced wages, tend to be those Americans who are most vulnerable and have the least power. Beyond the financial impact on native workers, there's a strain on social services (immigrants take advantage of welfare at a much higher rate than natives- households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use), strain on school systems, quality of life issues in terms of overcrowded cities, increased rents, traffic, the environmental impact, increased pollution, overburdened hospitals, etc. 80% of US population growth is from immigrants- at a time when our economy is about to shed millions of jobs due to automation.
Click to expand...


That post in no way responds to my question.

Americans aren't inherently more worthy of opportunity than non-Americans. There is room for a wide-range of opinions on immigration policy and America's proper role in the world-wide humanitarian crisis, but I do not accept the premise that Americans deserve better lives than everyone else.
 
Good lord. Fear mongering at its finest.

The entire continent of Africa and all the Indians are not going to immigrate to America. A tiny fraction of a percentage will, and they will be the most motivated, hardest working, smartest fraction of a percentage. Immigrants are big net contributors to social security and other programs paid for by payroll taxes.

A well-controlled and relatively open immigration process is good for America. The process should be driven by the needs of business, not by political posturing or the politician's views on who needs to be protected or subsidized or whatever. There are many good resources on this topic here. http://www.cato.org/research/immigration

There is no doubt that certain groups, mainly low-skilled males, are impacted by immigration in the form of increased labor market competition. It does not make sense take extremist measures like building a giant wall, imposing religious tests, or just outright refusing to admit people who have a very high chance of becoming very productive citizens, all in order to protect the least productive native-born Americans. 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).
 
Deacon923 said:
Good lord. Fear mongering at its finest.

The entire continent of Africa and all the Indians are not going to immigrate to America. A tiny fraction of a percentage will, and they will be the most motivated, hardest working, smartest fraction of a percentage. Immigrants are big net contributors to social security and other programs paid for by payroll taxes.

A well-controlled and relatively open immigration process is good for America. The process should be driven by the needs of business, not by political posturing or the politician's views on who needs to be protected or subsidized or whatever. There are many good resources on this topic here. http://www.cato.org/research/immigration

There is no doubt that certain groups, mainly low-skilled males, are impacted by immigration in the form of increased labor market competition. It does not make sense take extremist measures like building a giant wall, imposing religious tests, or just outright refusing to admit people who have a very high chance of becoming very productive citizens, all in order to protect the least productive native-born Americans. 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).
Click to expand...

We need to get in touch with Frau Merkel, she can really give good advice on the "well-controlled" part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top