Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Neanderthaland]

Hmm. I read it like 5 times, and I still can't make it read the same as "mass immigration... has only negative sides".

If my statement is false, then name a merit of mass immigration today, but which is not the cause of regular immigration? So, yes, name an example where hundreds of thousands of third world migrants entering a country did something good for the country?

There are over 200,000 Hmong people in the United States. When they came, most of them weren't even literate in their own language, and had virtually no money.

They worked very hard, and now their children and grandchildren all seem to have Pharmacy degrees.

[Hexgard]

If my statement is false, then name a merit of mass immigration today, but which is not the cause of regular immigration? So, yes, name an example where hundreds of thousands of third world migrants entering a country did something good for the country?

There are over 200,000 Hmong people in the United States. When they came, most of them weren't even literate in their own language, and had virtually no money.

They worked very hard, and now their children and grandchildren all seem to have Pharmacy degrees.

Well, my concern is about Europe, but true, I did say "give an example of hundreds of thousands.... entering a country", so the fault is on me.
The USA are an exception, not the rule. A naturally multi-racial, multi-cultural nation, which to that is huge, can't be compared to European nations, which are rather populated by mainly Europeans, and their "multi-culturalism" has a far more limited treshold (mainly limited to the European sphere itself), and do not exceed 80 million in population.

As much as I was able to read regarding the Hmong, about 100000 came over a period which can be seen as a wave of immigration. That number, as the number today, was lesser than even 0.1% of the population.

Let us for now disregard the difference in nature of the countries at hand, the difference in the era, and the difference of the very situation it happened under, but, let us rather compare that in numbers. If we use the same percentage, and use a country like Germany as the model, then a "mass immigration" similar to the one of the Hmong in the USA, would be a move of around 40000 people. But, the matter at hand, in real life, is that you have a wave of over one million people entering, the number exceeds 1%, and really is probably something around 2% (given projected growth and so on).
With that being said, an influx of a migrant wave the size of 2% of the US population would be something around 6 million people arriving in a short time frame all from a certain location. The current mass migration into Germany (and Europe in general), in it's full scape, began almost 2 years ago. So, you would have 3 million people entering the USA each year, added upon the around 400000 who immigrate each year regulary. Theoretically, you would end up with an immigrant influx around 700% higher than it usually is.
The Hmong immigration into the USA, that is, their immigration via larger waves, can hardly be considered a mass immigration out of these reasons. As much as I could see, the Hmong actually came in two separate immigration waves, which all lasted a few years. The growth of the regular annual influx surely was far below a 50% added growth, oh what am I saying, it was far lower than that.

That is not mass immigration, or, at least, if that is mass immigration, that the horror happening in Europe is hyper immigration.

Now, lets take all the differences into account. What were the chances of any of those Hmong being terrorists? How many of those Hmong lived on welfare? How many of them brought and push for barbaric customs?
Not to forget, the difference being that the first Hmong wave happened 4 decades ago. Even if they were not fitted for higher qualified work, there were other jobs to take. But, now, almost half a century later, we are driving down the path of automatization, we will have a problem with even native manual workers, so why to bring in a million more?

You are all talking here as if regular immigration was not a thing.
And besides, if anything, we are talking about modern mass immigration into mainly Europe, which is a move of a large quantity of low qualified third worlders. And no, I am not having anything against immigrants from the third world per se, I do not doubt that there are many of a great mind and noble traits which are oppressed in their backwards native societies. That is the great merit of immigration: the country can get a needed worker, who will integrate, and the worker gets a better home, hence fixing the unfairness of one's birthplace.

[Ralkira]

In order to prevent a derailment of the Istanbul terror attack thread, I have decided to create a thread about whether we should permit migration from less developed regions to more developed regions.

While many people view immigration to more developed countries as a good thing for the economy and for their nations (especially as they face a greying population), others fear that immigration brings crime, terrorism, and all that bad stuff. And nothing can sum it up better than the migrant/refugee crisis that is ongoing in Europe as a result of turmoil in the Middle East.

So, what say ye, NSG? Do you feel that mass immigration is beneficial or not?

In my opinion, in regards to refugees, I think that refugees should just go to the first safe country that will not persecute them, follow the proper procedures to apply for refugee status, and if they want to start a new life elsewhere, they can apply to be resettled via the proper means.

For asylum seekers, pretty much the same thing as refugees. If they engage in asylum shopping, then the decision of the first state that they have applied for asylum for should be binding and any other requests be deemed invalid.


For immigration, I personally do not mind it, because in Canada, our population is so small in comparison to our neighbor that we easily absorb American culture. The more people that come here, the more distinctive Canada can become from the States. If we must restrict them, I suggest to just impose a wet-foot/dry-foot policy: those that arrive on shore can apply for asylum/immigration/whatnot, while those caught en route will be sent back, unless the country that they're from is undergoing a war/genocide/what-not.

As for the few bad apples that commit crimes like rape or murder, we can deport them back if convicted in a court of law of such crimes, even if they are already a citizen: in the cases where they become citizens, their citizenship should be revoked.

well its more of a nuanced issue than just a strait yes or no, it really depends on how different the countries actually are, if there are tensions between there peoples believed lies, weather those lies fit together, like catholics and christian, which wont fight to much over each others lies, but unlike sunni muslims and shia (le beoff) muslims who will kill each other over there believed lies. culture is also i big part, american mass immigrating to the uk might be surprised at a few thing but other wise not much would be different, but people coming from america to china would be shocked at how differnet there new home is from what they know.

[The Lone Alliance]

If my statement is false, then name a merit of mass immigration today, but which is not the cause of regular immigration? So, yes, name an example where hundreds of thousands of third world migrants entering a country did something good for the country?

There are over 200,000 Hmong people in the United States. When they came, most of them weren't even literate in their own language, and had virtually no money.

They worked very hard, and now their children and grandchildren all seem to have Pharmacy degrees.

Better than street Pharmacy degrees...

[FutureAmerica]

Would you allow immigrants to live in your home or bedroom if they knocked on your door? Ask yourself this question first.

[Grave_n_idle]

Would you allow immigrants to live in your home or bedroom if they knocked on your door? Ask yourself this question first.

This is a nonsensical argument.

There are a lot pf people I don't want to live in my house. Indeed, there's basically no one in my whole town that I would want living in my house. But I'm happy for them to live in my town.

I realise you didn't invent this particular argument, but that doesn't mean it's not awful.

[Neanderthaland]

Would you allow immigrants to live in your home or bedroom if they knocked on your door? Ask yourself this question first.

Is she hot?

[Arumdaum]

the fuck is supposed to be meant by mass immigration lmao

[Arumdaum]

Would you allow immigrants to live in your home or bedroom if they knocked on your door? Ask yourself this question first.

would you allow donald trump to live in your home or bedroom if he knocked on your door? ask yourself this question first.

if not maybe he shouldn't be in this country either

i don't care whether your answer is yes or no btw

[Arumdaum]

If my statement is false, then name a merit of mass immigration today, but which is not the cause of regular immigration? So, yes, name an example where hundreds of thousands of third world migrants entering a country did something good for the country?

There are over 200,000 Hmong people in the United States. When they came, most of them weren't even literate in their own language, and had virtually no money.

They worked very hard, and now their children and grandchildren all seem to have Pharmacy degrees.

To be honest, the last statement plays off of stereotypes that are detrimental to Asian-Americans and certainly are not accurate for those who arrived as refugees in the United States. Southeast Asians have greatly enriched the country, but still face significant poverty levels and much lower education levels than the average American.

Also, even though there's nearly 300k Hmong-Americans, they weren't the only ones to come to the US. Nearly 1.3 million people from Southeast Asia were resettled in the United States due to war, violence, and persecution between 1975 and 1997. Nowadays, they're like anyone else.

We've actually accepted much higher numbers of refugees in the past. Even if we accept the high number for Syrian refugees and accepted every single one in the US, they would only compromise a percentage and a half of the US population.

The Irish and Germans came to the US in large numbers, and the Irish were significantly discriminated against. As a proportion of the US' population, they compromised a hugely more significant wave of people. However, today, both groups are doing fine in the US.

(just correcting some stuff but mostly adding on to your main point)

[Mark of Chain]

It's interesting to me that if some other country said to us "hey do you want more land?" or "more machines?" we'd take them hand over fist, but if a country says "hey do you want more laborers?" we're like, "no fucking way! You keep those assholes". Like, image if Santa Anna gave us California but we insisted he keep it.

[FutureAmerica]

Refugees should be given full modern housing and support. However, if their nation of origin has stabilized, they must be given a grace period to return. Otherwise, they are simply cutting in line of others who are trying to establish citizenship fairly. They go from war refugees to job refugees.

[Mark of Chain]

Refugees should be given full modern housing and support. However, if their nation of origin has stabilized, they must be given a grace period to return. Otherwise, they are simply cutting in line of others who are trying to establish citizenship fairly. They go from war refugees to job refugees.

Who cares about lines? Why should there be a line? There are no lines to be a butcher, baker, or candlestick maker.

[The Lone Alliance]

It's interesting to me that if some other country said to us "hey do you want more land?" or "more machines?" we'd take them hand over fist, but if a country says "hey do you want more laborers?" we're like, "no fucking way! You keep those assholes". Like, image if Santa Anna gave us California but we insisted he keep it.

You actually believe there aren't enough laborers in the west or something?

You actually believe that in the era of automation that there is a massive high demand for uneducated labor in the technologically driven Western World?

There are no lines to be a butcher,

There already plenty of butchers to go around...

baker,

Plenty of Bakers already, don't need anymore.

or candlestick maker.

No one makes Candlesticks anymore, no one WANTS Candlesticks anymore. A refugee Candlestick maker will make nothing in their new home.

[Mark of Chain]

It's interesting to me that if some other country said to us "hey do you want more land?" or "more machines?" we'd take them hand over fist, but if a country says "hey do you want more laborers?" we're like, "no fucking way! You keep those assholes". Like, image if Santa Anna gave us California but we insisted he keep it.

You actually believe there aren't enough laborers in the west or something?

You actually believe that in the era of automation that there is a massive high demand for uneducated labor in the technologically driven Western World?

Yes. Of course. That's what the evidence says; and it's what makes sense if you think about it for half a second.

People have thought automation would steal jobs for at least a 100 years. If you think it's that bad, maybe we should reinstate 1/3 of the labor force as farmers rather than the 3% we have currently; or better yet, just self-identify as a luddite and destroy your computer.

[Mark of Chain]

or candlestick maker.

No one makes Candlesticks anymore, no one WANTS Candlesticks anymore. A refugee Candlestick maker will make nothing in their new home.

Candlesticks are way back in! I bought one like a week ago. Makes my home smell like sandalwood.

[The Lone Alliance]

Yes. Of course. That's what the evidence says; and it's what makes sense if you think about it for half a second.

Present your evidence that we need massive amounts of uneducated labor?

[Mark of Chain]

Yes. Of course. That's what the evidence says; and it's what makes sense if you think about it for half a second.

Present your evidence that we need massive amounts of uneducated labor?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574003X97800062
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/118/4/1335.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01052.x/full
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573446399030096
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/118/4/1335.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00255.x/full

Here's a lot of the summary. By the way, I've skewed the literature review to include mostly articles by Geore Borjas, a US anti-immigration labor economist, whose research finds (at most) that a 10% increase in unskilled laborers (lots) decreases domestic wages by 5% (little). This is the biggest estimate (the average in the literature is around 0%) and it's fuck all. Also, Borjas says in his own labor economics textbook that this is shortlived, since the capital stock catches up quickly. So, I guess it's cool to increase any natural resource we have...?

[Hexgard]

Refugees should be given full modern housing and support. However, if their nation of origin has stabilized, they must be given a grace period to return. Otherwise, they are simply cutting in line of others who are trying to establish citizenship fairly. They go from war refugees to job refugees.

You do realise that not even all Europeans have modern housing and such support?
Like said, the best way is to have a European humanitarian fond and organisation via which countries in Europe would donate money, and the workers would then build housings and give support to the refugees, in their own area.
Almost no refugee would come to Europe, all would be housed in countries in that area, so they can return home, as that is what most of them really want. It could be way cheaper for Europe to give money that way instead of on having refugees on their own land, the police would not be overworked, there would be no danger of covert terrorists entering as refugees, there would be no tensions, and the refugees would not have to travel half the world.

Well, that is at least for the real refugees, the many Syrian and Iraqi men and women fleeing war, as for welfare grabbers, calling them proper refugees is an insult to anyone who has been force into refuge from actual war.

[Novus America]

It's interesting to me that if some other country said to us "hey do you want more land?" or "more machines?" we'd take them hand over fist, but if a country says "hey do you want more laborers?" we're like, "no fucking way! You keep those assholes". Like, image if Santa Anna gave us California but we insisted he keep it.

Umm actually we had a chance to take all Mexico but did not because we did not want that many people. We took only the least inhabited parts.

Santa Ana did not give US anything. He had already been removed from power before the US decided what to do with Mexico. And we were not given anything, we took what we wanted. We did not want the whole thing (for better or worse).

People however are not fungible, and neither is labor. We need certain labor skills, not just any laborers.

[Novus America]

You actually believe there aren't enough laborers in the west or something?

You actually believe that in the era of automation that there is a massive high demand for uneducated labor in the technologically driven Western World?

Yes. Of course. That's what the evidence says; and it's what makes sense if you think about it for half a second.

People have thought automation would steal jobs for at least a 100 years. If you think it's that bad, maybe we should reinstate 1/3 of the labor force as farmers rather than the 3% we have currently; or better yet, just self-identify as a luddite and destroy your computer.

The average person is much more educated than 100 years ago. Automation does not steal jobs per se, (but does eliminate certain jobs) but it does make them more skilled and specialized.
You have yet to demonstrate we need more unskilled labor.

What we need is more doctors who speak the language. People are not fungible.

If you have a company you are not simply going to hire literally anyone who wants a job. Nor are you going to want as many employees as possible. You are only going to hire the number of people you need, and those who best fit the need.

[Grave_n_idle]

You actually believe there aren't enough laborers in the west or something?

Not really the point.

Humans are the most versatile resource we have. And yet, pretty much the only one we object to being given.

[HokusPOTUS]

I embrace all legal immigration. I oppose all attempts at illegal immigration, and find the idea of economic migrants abhorent.

[Novus America]

You actually believe there aren't enough laborers in the west or something?

Not really the point.

Humans are the most versatile resource we have. And yet, pretty much the only one we object to being given.

Some humans are. But Humans are not fungible. Just because you want person A for something does not mean person B is suitable. Humans can be an asset OR a liability. It depends on many factors.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not really the point.

Humans are the most versatile resource we have. And yet, pretty much the only one we object to being given.

Some humans are. But Humans are not fungible. Just because you want person A for something does not mean person B is suitable. Humans can be an asset OR a liability. It depends on many factors.

That's a nonsense answer. It's like saying telephones aren't valuable because you can't use them as wheels.

Humans are a flexible resource - if you put person A in a job person B would be better suited to, the problem is your ability to organise.