Immigration debate

Um, a tiny percentage of the world population is still a MASSIVE number of people. If 1 per 1000 (0.1%) want to move that's a migrant population of 5million from "poor" to "rich"... Now the average person is friends with about 200 or so people, how many people do you know who are migrants or want to migrate? That's affluent people shifting between minimally different countries... Perhaps that figure should be over 2%, 100million migrants?

And first-world countries in a nasty depression spiral are still better than most third-world countries. C'mon, when things go to I SWEAR TO READ AND ABIDE BY THE TOS AT MAP here people don't often starve - which is a daily reality for millions of people.

Playing Devil's Advocate by any chance?
 
How about we don't just guess, here is some stats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108325/onequarter-worlds-population-may-wish-migrate.aspx

Edit: And furthurmore

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativemyths/f/Conservs_Racism.htm

Please if your going to attempt to debate, please do it intelligently.
 
So what? would we have a problem if millions of people suddenly turned up? Yes, we would. Would the world economy really work like that? Of course not, the idea is absurd. Supply and demand. The human race managed perfectly well without borders of any sort for millenia.

The fact that they are possibly lying about their motivations to themselves does not mean that they are not also lying to me. latent racism, remember. Also, I find it funny that they mention somebody who voted against the civil rights bill in an article that attempts to establish their credentials as non-racists. fail. Also, you prove my point for me every time you post that 'race card' image. It shows that you resent people who stand up for the rights of races other than your own.
 
The demand for first-world living is considerably higher than the supply. Hence the need for a managed immigration program.



He showed you the race card because you brought it up when it wasn't warranted.



Saying "their own country" is racist? In what way? Try going to another country and telling the residents it isn't "their own country". See what kind of reaction you get...
 
Seriously?!

People die from starvation, childbirth, minimal medical issues and poor sanitation all the time. It's the daily reality for a lot of people.

Our depressions, at worst, would wipe out pensions, demolish house prices and perhaps make food hard to afford, and that's meant to stop immigration?

Even assuming that potential migrants get access to this information on our problems I can't imagine they'll find them noteworthy issues...

I can understand loyalty to your home as a reason not to move, but I think it's insulting to their situation to believe that a collapse of our infrastructure makes first world lifestyle unappealing from health/economic/education perspective
 
Yes it was. Being against immigration is racist. It's just that the basis of the discrimination is supposedly economic rather than based on sheer prejudice. I say supposedly with good reason, as I don't believe it for a moment- it's just a cloak for more traditional forms of racism.

And it's cretinous to think open borders would cause a collapse of our infrastructure. Economics doesn't work like that. What's more, even if it did, objectively speaking, it's better that more people have a little bit more than that a smaller number of people have a lot more and everybody else has less.

You've got it arse about face. You cannot have first world living without a first world job. Once the supply of jobs starts to dry up, immigrants will move elsewhere.
 
Did he say he would accept white immigrants, but not other races? No.



It does when things happen too fast to adjust to - like say, a sudden intake of people that you can't support.



If they have to move elsewhere, then the demand is higher than the supply, isn't it? My point was that there are more people wanting first world living than the first world can support. The intake of migrants has to be matched to the available jobs etc. Who is in the best position to judge this? The hopeful migrants? Or the government of the desired country, which has far more information at hand?

BTW, I don't have any "right" to move to Japan. If I wanted to, I would have to go through whatever their process is. Does that make the Japanese racist? Or is racism a crime that only white people can commit?

Come to think of it, I've got no "right" to settle in the UK either. Does that mean that a white majority country is racist against white people? Or do they employ the same economic logic that has been previously mentioned?
 
Guys.... whatever your views are... you really need to go back and read the TOS on posting stuff that gets caught by the foul language filter. Seriously.

You guys know better. If your post starts to kick out asterisks to cover up your potty mouth then you better be reaching for your thesaurus or you are looking at some time on the naughty step.

Don't make me be my mom.
 
I'm sorry, but most Americans have a very poor understanding of their own history, so why should an immigrant need to study US history (using the US as an example, the same being said for most countries)?

While I agree that the burden should be on the immigrant to integrate, it is important to remember that, particularly in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, they left their home, not out of desire, but out of a desperate need that most of us will never come close to experiencing. It is not surprising that many of these people struggle to integrate, when all they really want is for the troubles back home to dissipate, so they can return.
 
According to who?
Not that I find that most Americans do so well with history... but I find that non-Americans also generally have a poor understanding of American history and culture as well.

The standard your using doesn't seem make much sense. It's almost like two wrongs make a right surely?

I could probably say that for any country. I happen to live in China... and on a day to day basis over the last 15 years... I've had a far better understanding of not only Chinese... but Asian history as a whole than just about any Chinese person I've come across. Though that doesn't make me special but what it does is highlight that often times its the outsider who has a very different perspective than the native does. Native people tend to take it for granted where as the outsider who has a good curiosity will persue the history in a very different way.



Agreed. Absolutely.
 
I probably misstated the case by saying 'most Americans', and while the argument may suck, I stand by it. I think people expect immigrants to have a greater understanding of their host nation's history than they themselves do.

I should add, I think the whole 'you need to know the history of the place you move to' argument is bogus anyway. I don't see why an immigrant needs to know anything about a nation's history in order to be a valuable member of that society.
 
Hmm interesting. I'm not so sure I disagree totally.
However Americans are an easy target. Because the middle class or the FoxNews class is so massive. But despite that there is a fairly large, well educated population in the US. They generally tend to be drowned out by the media which chooses to focus on the likes of Sarah Palin.



Well if any sort of integration above and beyond economic (eg. paying taxes and contributing to the system as opposed to leeching off of it) is going to take place then an understanding of the history will probably help. Otherwise it seems the potential for tension would be massive.

Knowing you history to a certain extent is key to understanding or at least making sense out of the culture. Socially this can help you to avoid embarrassment and alleviate tensions.
 
The history you need can be absorbed through osmosis, I don't think it requires classes and tests and certification.
 
Interesting. I think there is probably a good decent framework that could be worked out. But history as it's taught in many schools for native citizens is a pretty flawed affair to begin with. In the US this is heavily tied into the publishing system for school books. So to expect the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) to do any better is pretty much unfathomable.
 
No- it's implicit rather than explicit.

Like I say- I've not seen anything that convinces me that this is the case.

Yes, and my point is that you've got it the wrong way around- the demand and supply in consideration is that of jobs, not the availability of first world living.

The same racist 'economic' logic, you mean? There's such a thing as white-on-white discrimination, you know. It's funny you should mention the japanese... And even if that's not the case, the fact is that you are accidentally being caught up in a system that is designed to exclude people of different races, but cannot say so explicitly, hence has to exclude foreigners of all descriptions.
Besides, there are other problems besides the fact that being against immigration is racist, and that the economic 'logic' is wrong.
Presuming, and like I say I don't actually believe this for a moment, that the logic for excluding people is actually economic. Then on what basis do you decide who to arbitrarily reject them from your country? Socioeconomic status? Oh great, so your job is important and worth protecting and mine isn't? Thanks a bunch. Willingness to integrate? Now we're getting to the real root of it. You detest and fear other people's cultures.
 
Cute, but no.

Motorways are about £28million per mile to contruct http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/crs_463367.pdf
HS2 costs £30billion (london to Birmingham, so about £300million per mile) http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2011/02/taxpayers-alliance-highlights-incredible-cost-hs2-project.html

The reason for that price gulf is partly the extra complexity of the railway construction but mostly the extra costs involved in the design of a full project vs. the construction cost.

Exactly how much extra infrastructure work do you think the government can do at those prices?


Also pertinent, basic macroeconomics says (or more accurately, observes) that rapid changes in supply/demand are not accurately compensated for and cause hideous problems. In short THERE IS A REASON WHY GOVERNMENTS KEEP INFLATION LOW!!

Your final point is one of morals *shrug* I can't say I agree...
To explain, I don't agree with the implication that there is a moral imperative to aid others at our expense until everyone is suffering equally; that it is ethically inexcusable for disparity to ever exist. The obvious analogy being pulling extra people into a lifeboat until it sinks - even though writing it makes me look like a basta*ToS!!*, um, naughty person
 
Like I say, I doubt the rapid increase of the population would actually materialise.

And... why the hell not? And it's not morals- I don't agree with morals. It is objectively speaking better does not mean 'it is better morally' it means 'it is, in absolute terms, better'.I wish this thread would die- it's making me look as though I gave a damn.
 
Way beyond my knowledge of economics to try to guess what the objective difference is before/after a large,sudden migration.

However I am biased in one important way, I think it is vitally important for us to have the excess that allows blue-sky scientific research into certain pending issues. We can sort inequality when higher living standards for xbillion might not be metaphorically shooting ourselves in the face, *shrug* whole different can of worms there though :P
 
Back
Top