Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[Arkinesia]

And we do that by opening the borders and making it easier for immigrants (and everyone, for that matter) to acquire marketable labor skills and create a freer labor market that rewards those with the most will, because they will be of relatively equal skill.

Why exactly should our tax dollars go toward educating untrained immigrants to cause more competition in employment?

Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity.

[Vassenor]

The US isn't Europe. What you said is somewhat applicable to Europe, but not to the US or Canada.

He is correct, the vast majority of Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants suffer from the same lack of skill, they settle for extremely horrible wages that require no skill.

And we do that by opening the borders and making it easier for immigrants (and everyone, for that matter) to acquire marketable labor skills and create a freer labor market that rewards those with the most will, because they will be of relatively equal skill.

Why exactly should our tax dollars go toward educating untrained immigrants to cause more competition in employment?

As opposed to going towards rounding them up and removing them from the country?

[Opfornia]

As opposed to going towards rounding them up and removing them from the country?

Or perhaps not letting quite so many come in at all instead.

Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity.

So socialism for the benefit of immigrants is a better idea?

[Gravlen]

Few people I think are saying ban all immigrants. Immigration is a policy, and such the policy should be to the benefit of the society immlementing it.

There is a midddle ground between "open borders" and "ban them all".

Immigration should be allowed, but immigrants need to be carefully screened and interviewed to be sure they will be a benefit to the society, and can and will integrate, sleek the language, obey the law, and contribute without harming local wages.

If someone does not meet the above criteria they should not be allowed to immigrate.
As far as refugees go, you are only required to temporarily house them and provide their basic needs. You are NOT required to give them permanent residency or citizenship.

Refugees meeting the criteria can be offered permanent residency. But this who do not can be kept in refugee camps and then returned when whatever issue the are claiming asylum from is resolved.

I don't believe in open borders either. And how are you going to possibly interview every immigrant and and will you determine whether they meet your criteria especially benefit to society? Couldn't a racist immigration officer decide they don't want to allow anyone who is non white to enter the country?

That's why you should have a system which allows you to appeal a decision you don't agree with, and also to bring it in for the courts for a judicial review.

[Yorkers]

Yes, we should. Many of these refugees have gone through hours of painful traveling

So what? Many natives already live painful lives.

and almost all anti-immigration rhetoric is just bullshit spewed by the alt-right and xenophobes.

How so?

Immigration only strengthens our communities.

Name the benefits of mass immigration without mentioning ethnic dance, food, or cheap labor.

[Yorkers]

Why exactly should our tax dollars go toward educating untrained immigrants to cause more competition in employment?

Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity.

Homogeneous white societies are more likely to have socialism because people feel more empathetic towards their own countrymen when they actually have things in common with them.

[Yorkers]

He is correct, the vast majority of Mexican and Central American illegal immigrants suffer from the same lack of skill, they settle for extremely horrible wages that require no skill.



Why exactly should our tax dollars go toward educating untrained immigrants to cause more competition in employment?

As opposed to going towards rounding them up and removing them from the country?

Nothing wrong with repatriating those that don't belong.

[The Gipper]

Reagan was an open borders advocate. You should take after him more.

The lack of demand for low skill labor is a relatively new problem in the US. Without a doubt, when Reagan was forming his political views (60s) immigration was still a major benefit for the US because we did have strong demand for labor. By the early 80s things had already definitely began to change, but the change wasn't as obviously permanent as it is now. We're never going back to an economy that needs physical labor as we did when Reagan's generation was young.

I'm not even going to go so far as to say Reagan was necessarily wrong in the 80s. But we aren't in the 80s economy and definitely not the 60s economy. We're in an automated and technology dominated economy that has fundamentally changed employment in America.

The US isn't Europe. What you said is somewhat applicable to Europe, but not to the US or Canada.

What I said is very US-centered. I do not know as much about Europe, but I do know the percent of immigrants (born out of the US) is significant, and that population uses welfare of all forms at significantly higher rates than natives (both legal and illegal immigrants). It is obvious on the surface that we do not have a demand for labor sufficient to support the people that have came here in the past. These people are not able to support themselves here, thus, they become welfare dependent. Their lack of opportunities and resentment of the things not being as they were supposed to be in the US fuels gang violence in the Hispanic community.

In a sense it doesn't apply as urgently to the US in 2016 or 2017 because the pressure for economic migration is less currently, and we aren't being hit with the wave of immigrants fleeing political problems as Europe is currently. But that is entirely temporary. There will be another downturn, and the global economy will get worse. We will see increased waves of migrants across our southern border again. Especially if the incoming administration were to follow through on the threat of targeting Mexican imports. That would crush the Mexican economy and send millions running toward our borders.

And we do that by opening the borders and making it easier for immigrants (and everyone, for that matter) to acquire marketable labor skills and create a freer labor market that rewards those with the most will, because they will be of relatively equal skill.

At t he point when the US economy is fully (or at least closer to it) utilizing American-born workers, we would enter the territory of discussing supporting non-natives. As of now, when we have so many idle working age Americans, any opportunities that could be opened up are still not going to available to ESL Americans or immigrants.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Yes, we should. Many of these refugees have gone through hours of painful traveling

So have I on my every vacation. Does it entitle me to stay in the host country forever, should I decide Trump just isn't working out for me?

As opposed to going towards rounding them up and removing them from the country?

No need to round them up - they're only in the country for as long as they're getting their regular dole. Cut it off and there will be a line to leave.

[Major-Tom]

We should embrace smart immigration. This isn't a mere buzzword, its ensuring that first world developing nations such as my own encourage the arrival of skilled immigrants with an educational background or skillful background that makes them a great addition to the workplace. Encouraging low skilled immigrants, regardless of country of origin, acts as a net detriment to the economy.

On a second note, we need to discourage and lessen immigration from places where that culture wouldn't mix well with our own. Vietnamese Americans integrate much more than, say, Iraqi Americans. This is especially true in Europe, where immigrants from Eritrea, Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, Syria etc tend to not integrate well into European society, causing a decrease in cultural cohesion and safety, and an increase in crime and unemployment.

That isn't to say we shouldn't accept migrants and refugees from the Middle East, we just need to be more cautious in that regard, a lot more cautious.

[Arkinesia]

Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity.

Homogeneous white societies are more likely to have socialism because people feel more empathetic towards their own countrymen when they actually have things in common with them.

Because of course, the US is so homogeneously white.

So socialism for the benefit of immigrants is a better idea?

Public education is socialism now?

[Arkinesia]

At the point when the US economy is fully (or at least closer to it) utilizing American-born workers, we would enter the territory of discussing supporting non-natives. As of now, when we have so many idle working age Americans, any opportunities that could be opened up are still not going to available to ESL Americans or immigrants.

We're at full employment currently. For over two quarters, unemployment has stood at or below 5%.

Now, it would be nice to see some of those people moving up the economic ladder, but there's no question that American-born work participation is right about where it needs to be.

[Purpelia]

Public education is socialism now?

Yes. So is public health care or anything else that the nation state provides for its people. Socialism is, at its core the idea that the country should actually work to provide its people with the things they need to stay alive and live happy productive lives as opposed to ripping each others throats out battling for scraps of food to sacrifice at the altar of market freedom.

[Opfornia]

So socialism for the benefit of immigrants is a better idea?

Public education is socialism now?

That's not what we're discussing, why is socialism for immigrants a better idea than socialism for natives? That was what you postulated.

"Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity."

[Arkinesia]

Public education is socialism now?

Yes. So is public health care or anything else that the nation state provides for its people. Socialism is, at its core the idea that the country should actually work to provide its people with the things they need to stay alive and live happy productive lives as opposed to ripping each others throats out battling for scraps of food to sacrifice at the altar of market freedom.

Until there is a country with functional, fully privatized education, I won't sit here and claim that public education is socialism. Publicly-built and serviced roads are not inherently socialist. Socialism = controlling the means of production, not controlling limited corners of a market through heavy state influence. To wit, education in the US is not 100% publicly-operated, meaning that by definition, it cannot be socialist in the case of the US.

[Southerly Gentleman]

Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity.

Homogeneous white societies are more likely to have socialism because people feel more empathetic towards their own countrymen when they actually have things in common with them.

Hence, LE SCANDINAVIA

[The Gipper]

At the point when the US economy is fully (or at least closer to it) utilizing American-born workers, we would enter the territory of discussing supporting non-natives. As of now, when we have so many idle working age Americans, any opportunities that could be opened up are still not going to available to ESL Americans or immigrants.

We're at full employment currently. For over two quarters, unemployment has stood at or below 5%.

Now, it would be nice to see some of those people moving up the economic ladder, but there's no question that American-born work participation is right about where it needs to be.

We are not at full employment, that's just laughable. The labor participation rate remains low. November showed 95 million Americans not in the labor force. That can partly be explained because the boomers are retiring and refusing to die, but it cannot account for that large of a number.

Which means even ignoring part-time/full-time problems, we're not at full employment. We have millions of Americans who should be working but are not.

[Geilinor]

We're at full employment currently. For over two quarters, unemployment has stood at or below 5%.

Now, it would be nice to see some of those people moving up the economic ladder, but there's no question that American-born work participation is right about where it needs to be.

We are not at full employment, that's just laughable. The labor participation rate remains low. November showed 95 million Americans not in the labor force. That can partly be explained because the boomers are retiring and refusing to die, but it cannot account for that large of a number.

Which means even ignoring part-time/full-time problems, we're not at full employment. We have millions of Americans who should be working but are not.

That's not what full employment in economic terms means. It means that the number of job openings and people looking for work are about equal, not that all adults have a job.

[Itoshiki]

Because socialism for the benefit of natives is cancerous nonsense and does nothing to improve national productivity.

Homogeneous white societies are more likely to have socialism because people feel more empathetic towards their own countrymen when they actually have things in common with them.

This is why we must purge white nationalism.

Too much leniency for commies, these days.

[The Gipper]

We are not at full employment, that's just laughable. The labor participation rate remains low. November showed 95 million Americans not in the labor force. That can partly be explained because the boomers are retiring and refusing to die, but it cannot account for that large of a number.

Which means even ignoring part-time/full-time problems, we're not at full employment. We have millions of Americans who should be working but are not.

That's not what full employment in economic terms means. It means that the number of job openings and people looking for work are about equal, not that all adults have a job.

That's what it used to mean. Look at any economics or business journal during this 'recovery' or turn to business oriented media and you will be aware that economists do not agree that measurement is still valid. That definition is (if not totally dismissed) now given a giant asterict. We've never seen participation rates this low, the way we used to measure employment is not very relevant.

[Yorkers]

Homogeneous white societies are more likely to have socialism because people feel more empathetic towards their own countrymen when they actually have things in common with them.

Because of course, the US is so homogeneously white.

It's become less so thanks to post-1965 immigration. The US was near 90% white in the 1950s, with the only significant group of non-whites being blacks, who mostly kept to the inner cities or the South.

So socialism for the benefit of immigrants is a better idea?

Public education is socialism now?

So when it's for natives, you make an odd comparison to national socialism, but when it's for immigrants, you just brush it off as "oh it's just public education"?

[Yorkers]

Homogeneous white societies are more likely to have socialism because people feel more empathetic towards their own countrymen when they actually have things in common with them.

Hence, LE SCANDINAVIA

It's also partly why Bernie Sanders dominated in places like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Wisconsin, and Oregon.

Folksy, community-minded white people with an affinity for Indian dream catchers, granola bars, and craft beer tend to be the kind of people who care about that sort of stuff anyways. The safe, prosperous, educated places they've gentrified created tend to be pleasant places to live.

[Yorkers]

We are not at full employment, that's just laughable. The labor participation rate remains low. November showed 95 million Americans not in the labor force. That can partly be explained because the boomers are retiring and refusing to die, but it cannot account for that large of a number.

Which means even ignoring part-time/full-time problems, we're not at full employment. We have millions of Americans who should be working but are not.

That's not what full employment in economic terms means. It means that the number of job openings and people looking for work are about equal, not that all adults have a job.

As a side note, this is why unemployment will rise temporarily in the early part of Trump's term. People feeling optimistic about the country will rejoin the labor force, but given that they won't find jobs immediately, unemployment will increase.

[Novus America]

At the point when the US economy is fully (or at least closer to it) utilizing American-born workers, we would enter the territory of discussing supporting non-natives. As of now, when we have so many idle working age Americans, any opportunities that could be opened up are still not going to available to ESL Americans or immigrants.

We're at full employment currently. For over two quarters, unemployment has stood at or below 5%.

Now, it would be nice to see some of those people moving up the economic ladder, but there's no question that American-born work participation is right about where it needs to be.

At its lowest level since the 70s? Unemployment is only low because a huge percentage have left the work force. Work force participation has fallen to 63%.
We need to get our work force participation up first, and bringing in people who cannot speak the language and have no marketable skills will make the situation worse, not better.

[Novus America]

In my opinion, immigration isn't a problem, immigration can in fact be an asset. Unfortunately, a large chunk of the immigrants coming out of the middle east or Central America lack any skill or trade and the language skills to ever support themselves in the nations they are seeking to relocate to. They are seeking a "better life" because they've heard about all of the opportunities in the West, but after they've actually been here a while they will quickly discover there is very little opportunity for low skill workers, and no opportunity for low skill workers also facing a language barrier. They will be a permanent member of the absolute bottom rung of society, and will resent our society because this is not how it was supposed to be, there were supposed to be "opportunities" both economically and socially that simply are not available any more.

I don't personally feel most immigrants come to the US or the West with the goal of surviving on Welfare. It seems easier to believe they're goal is to go the same path our great-grandfathers did. But that path is gone, there is no longer a shortage of unskilled labor in America or the West in general, and there is no change that will give them the ability to add more than minimal value to any business. So they find themselves in the position to take welfare (if they have access to it) or have children here and live off their children's benefits.

That type of immigration is a serious problem, and we should work to prevent it. These people become a burden to the state and are logically likely to be more dangerous because they are facing hard barriers that will prevent any sort of social or economic fulfillment. It doesn't have to be Islamic terror, it breeds violence in general. We need to work to reduce the number of people with no path out of poverty, welfare, and the social stigma of failure. That fuels a resentment and bitterness that breeds violence against the society that they feel wronged them.

1. Reagan was an open borders advocate. You should take after him more.
2. Let's deal with where this makes no sense.

In my opinion, immigration isn't a problem, immigration can in fact be an asset. Unfortunately, a large chunk of the immigrants coming out of the middle east or Central America lack any skill or trade and the language skills to ever support themselves in the nations they are seeking to relocate to. They are seeking a "better life" because they've heard about all of the opportunities in the West, but after they've actually been here a while they will quickly discover there is very little opportunity for low skill workers, and no opportunity for low skill workers also facing a language barrier.

The US isn't Europe. What you said is somewhat applicable to Europe, but not to the US or Canada.

That type of immigration is a serious problem, and we should work to prevent it. These people become a burden to the state and are logically likely to be more dangerous because they are facing hard barriers that will prevent any sort of social or economic fulfillment.

And we do that by opening the borders and making it easier for immigrants (and everyone, for that matter) to acquire marketable labor skills and create a freer labor market that rewards those with the most will, because they will be of relatively equal skill.

Reagan was not exactly an open borders advocate. He advocated amnesty ALONG with what was supposed to be increased border security and penalties for companies employing illegal immigrants.
His program failed, but a more secure border was the intent.

He did in the 1980 debate advocate a North American union that in time, once problems were resolved would have internal open borders only to the members, not the whole world.

He was never for immediately open borders to the whole world.