Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

Explore the business, economy, finance and trade aspects of human society.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#1  Postby Loren Michael » May 06, 2013 4:23 am

Here in the United States, opponents of immigration reform frequently talk about the dangers of rewarding people who came without authorization or the prospect that immigrants might take jobs from native-born Americans. But there is another concern about immigration that they don’t typically raise, one that you are more likely to hear from the European left than the American right: that immigration undermines the social welfare state by making voters less supportive of public spending.

The logic behind this argument is simple. Writing in the Guardian, David Goodhart contends that “if newcomers do not make some effort to join in it is harder for existing citizens to see them as part of the `imagined community’. When that happens it weakens the bonds of solidarity and in the long run erodes the ‘emotional citizenship’ required to sustain welfare states.”

The striking thing about the United States, though, is that increasing ethnic and racial diversity hasn’t dampened our public investments.


More here.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#2  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » May 07, 2013 3:07 am

Loren Michael wrote:
Here in the United States, opponents of immigration reform frequently talk about the dangers of rewarding people who came without authorization or the prospect that immigrants might take jobs from native-born Americans. But there is another concern about immigration that they don’t typically raise, one that you are more likely to hear from the European left than the American right: that immigration undermines the social welfare state by making voters less supportive of public spending.

The logic behind this argument is simple. Writing in the Guardian, David Goodhart contends that “if newcomers do not make some effort to join in it is harder for existing citizens to see them as part of the `imagined community’. When that happens it weakens the bonds of solidarity and in the long run erodes the ‘emotional citizenship’ required to sustain welfare states.”

The striking thing about the United States, though, is that increasing ethnic and racial diversity hasn’t dampened our public investments.


More here.

I detest the term "welfare state." It's a lie.

The single biggest issue in America's current effort to implement immigration reform is the path to citizenship that will be included for those currently in the country illegally. Propositions from the right on this are draconian to say the least, waits of up to ten years, payments of large fines and calculated taxes owing given time-in-country, and other similar measures that are equally obnoxious.

Republicans go on and on about not wanting to grant any of the 11 to 20 million illegal Latinos in America legal status because "they'll vote Democratic." They argue constantly that the Democrats have fostered illegal immigration so they could bolster their voting numbers. The thing is, Latinos do vote Democratic, but for good reasons.

it appears that Mr. Goodhart either isn't listening or he's chosen to ignore this reality.

The single biggest driver of illegal immigration in the US involves the corporate desire for cheap labor, even though it is illegal for them to hire undocumented folks.

This plays out in cities like Las Vegas, Reno, and Phoenix, where at any one time there are some 200,000 or more undocumented immigrants working in the tourism industry, mostly as chambermaids in large resort hotels and casinos. Hotel owners love it. Neither GWB's nor Obama's DOJ has made a single move against this practice, so obviously they love it too. Its been going on more than 50 years.

There appears to be no surety that the Congress can or will enact an immigration reform Bill this year. Senator Marco Rubio is flopping like a tuna over it as he tries to sell his program to those on his right and they keep telling him to stick it up his ass, as do those to his left. He's plunked himself right in the middle of a no-win situation.

Here's the thing, America has never been good at doing the immigration thing. Its immigration policies have almost always been geared to providing cheap labor for American industry and services, like lawn care and mowing and hedge trimming, or ditch digging or being a Cop in the lower east side in 1900 or a pool cleaner in Palm Springs today.

I was witness to this practice in Califonia for 3O years (circa 1940-1970) when a flood of Latinos entered the State from Mexico and went to work in the farming industry. Industrial-scale farmers even built barrios for them to live in. This was mostly a wide open practice. The government looked the other way, after all, it was good for the economy.

The US has been quick to issue work visas and green cards to skilled IT workers, again at the behest of corporations, who pay them less than their American counterparts and thus enhance their profits.

America just doesn't know how to do immigration, at least in a manner that would benefit not only people from other countries but the American nation as a whole.

Having immigrated to Canada (from the US) I found Canada's immigration policies to be far superior to America's. They actually prioritize educational achievement, learned skill sets, and personal health, which would never occur to an American immigration policymaker.

When immigration is done for all the wrong reasons and is motivated by whacko thinking, it's going to end up being a big fat mess, which is exactly what America has on its hands right now.

The proof as they say, is in the pudding.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#3  Postby Loren Michael » May 07, 2013 3:55 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Here's the thing, America has never been good at doing the immigration thing. Its immigration policies have almost always been geared to providing cheap labor for American industry and services, like lawn care and mowing and hedge trimming, or ditch digging or being a Cop in the lower east side in 1900 or a pool cleaner in Palm Springs today.

[...]

America just doesn't know how to do immigration, at least in a manner that would benefit not only people from other countries but the American nation as a whole.


Is that "America has never been good at..." line based on some absolute standard, or is it relative to the rest of the world? America is relatively one of the best countries in the world, historically, for immigrants. It could absolutely be doing better, and should absolutely be doing better, but in relative terms America is very good at immigration.

They actually prioritize educational achievement, learned skill sets, and personal health, which would never occur to an American immigration policymaker.


Doesn't this sentence of yours contradict that notion?:

The US has been quick to issue work visas and green cards to skilled IT workers, again at the behest of corporations, who pay them less than their American counterparts and thus enhance their profits.


A cursory glance at all the rhetoric surrounding the issue suggests that policymakers are doing anything but forgetting the high-skilled workers, at least rhetorically.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#4  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » May 07, 2013 5:25 am

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Here's the thing, America has never been good at doing the immigration thing. Its immigration policies have almost always been geared to providing cheap labor for American industry and services, like lawn care and mowing and hedge trimming, or ditch digging or being a Cop in the lower east side in 1900 or a pool cleaner in Palm Springs today.

[...]

America just doesn't know how to do immigration, at least in a manner that would benefit not only people from other countries but the American nation as a whole.


Is that "America has never been good at..." line based on some absolute standard, or is it relative to the rest of the world?

Neither. It's based on ordinary observations and the conclusions one may draw from them, with a little common sense thrown in and reading a few books on the topic..

Loren Michael wrote:
America is relatively one of the best countries in the world, historically, for immigrants. It could absolutely be doing better, and should absolutely be doing better, but in relative terms America is very good at immigration.

Strawman. Just because the US is "relatively better" at immigration than other countries doesn't mean that it's worth a shit.

Loren Michael wrote:
They actually prioritize educational achievement, learned skill sets, and personal health, which would never occur to an American immigration policymaker.

Doesn't this sentence of yours contradict that notion?:

The US has been quick to issue work visas and green cards to skilled IT workers, again at the behest of corporations, who pay them less than their American counterparts and thus enhance their profits.

Only to a very minor and exceedingly narrow extent, given the numbers that associate with H1B and H1C visas.

Loren Michael wrote:
A cursory glance at all the rhetoric surrounding the issue suggests that policymakers are doing anything but forgetting the high-skilled workers, at least rhetorically.

Yeah? Just try to immigrate to the US if you're a skilled IT worker in, oh say, Portugal, with good command of English. They'll refer you to their HiB visa program.

Most legal immigration in the US today is limited to accepting people as part of the family reunification program.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#5  Postby I'm With Stupid » May 07, 2013 5:31 am

It's a false argument a lot of the time. You'll typically find that the people arguing against immigration are the same ones that are in favour of little-to-no welfare state anyway. In their ideal society there would be nothing for the immigrants to "fraudulently" claim anyway.

The exception to this is more right wing members of the working classes (the sort of people who might be tempted by the BNP) who actually support many aspects of the welfare state and public services, but fall for the "coming over here, taking our jobs" rhetoric.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9632
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#6  Postby Loren Michael » May 07, 2013 6:11 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:It's a false argument a lot of the time. You'll typically find that the people arguing against immigration are the same ones that are in favour of little-to-no welfare state anyway. In their ideal society there would be nothing for the immigrants to "fraudulently" claim anyway.

The exception to this is more right wing members of the working classes (the sort of people who might be tempted by the BNP) who actually support many aspects of the welfare state and public services, but fall for the "coming over here, taking our jobs" rhetoric.


My perception is that people on the right (as it were) are against immigration fundamentally for nationalist-racist reasons, while people on the left (as it were) are against immigration for nationalist-protectionist reasons. Both left and right tend to take a kitchen sink approach to arguing against immigration though, with essentially any and all arguments being on the table.

That is, the right will appeal to the problems immigration supposedly poses to the welfare state regardless of whether or not the right actually supports the welfare state.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#7  Postby Loren Michael » May 07, 2013 6:20 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Here's the thing, America has never been good at doing the immigration thing. Its immigration policies have almost always been geared to providing cheap labor for American industry and services, like lawn care and mowing and hedge trimming, or ditch digging or being a Cop in the lower east side in 1900 or a pool cleaner in Palm Springs today.

[...]

America just doesn't know how to do immigration, at least in a manner that would benefit not only people from other countries but the American nation as a whole.


Is that "America has never been good at..." line based on some absolute standard, or is it relative to the rest of the world?

Neither. It's based on ordinary observations and the conclusions one may draw from them, with a little common sense thrown in and reading a few books on the topic.


(1) Are those ordinary observations based on some absolute standard (and if so, what), or are you considering America relative to the rest of the world?

Loren Michael wrote:
America is relatively one of the best countries in the world, historically, for immigrants. It could absolutely be doing better, and should absolutely be doing better, but in relative terms America is very good at immigration.

Strawman. Just because the US is "relatively better" at immigration than other countries doesn't mean that it's worth a shit.


(2) That's not a strawman. There's no position I'm misrepresenting there.
(3) Given that you apparently take umbrage at observations of relative import, am I to understand that you're comparing America to some absolute standard? If so, what is that standard? When you say that America does a bad job at immigration, what exactly do you mean?

Loren Michael wrote:
A cursory glance at all the rhetoric surrounding the issue suggests that policymakers are doing anything but forgetting the high-skilled workers, at least rhetorically.

Yeah? Just try to immigrate to the US if you're a skilled IT worker in, oh say, Portugal, with good command of English. They'll refer you to their HiB visa program.

Most legal immigration in the US today is limited to accepting people as part of the family reunification program.


(4) Is H1B not immigration?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#8  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » May 07, 2013 11:20 pm

Just try to get immigration reform in America!


Immigration Bill Faces Hundreds Of Amendments, Including On LGBT Rights

By Else Foley
Posted: 05/07/2013 6:36 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/0 ... 32641.html

WASHINGTON -- Some of the potential pitfalls for the bipartisan Senate immigration reform bill came into focus on Tuesday when Judiciary Committee members filed well over 200 amendments, ranging from worker visa changes to LGBT rights.
The 18-member committee will begin discussion Thursday on those amendments to the so-called gang of eight's "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act." As they do, some tough votes will come up for both opponents and supporters of the bill -- particularly members of the group who drafted it.

Senators in the immigration group have said they will stick together to defeat amendments they view as poison pills to the bill, but they also expressed openness -- in vague terms -- to supporting other amendments they see as more beneficial.

One big question is how they will respond to proposals they might be likely to support but that their colleagues on the other side view as fatal to the legislation. Republicans in the gang of eight may have to vote against measures to toughen the bill if they want to stick with Democrats in the group. On the other side, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have been vocal in their support for LGBT rights, but they face Republicans in the gang of eight who have said that including provisions for same-sex couples are a non-starter.

Durbin told reporters Tuesday that the gang of eight will likely meet before the mark-up Thursday to go through the amendments. Durbin is a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) used as the model for his amendment to the immigration legislation, to allow same-sex couples to petition for legal status for foreign-born partners. But as of now, Durbin said he is not sure whether the gang of eight's agreement would take precedence over an amendment that he supports independently.

"There isn't even an understanding, at least a formal understanding," Durbin said of the group's plans for how to address an amendment in support of LGBT rights in immigration reform. "We know politically how it comes down, but in terms of any blood oath one way or the other, it was never taken."

Schumer told reporters Tuesday that he wouldn't talk about whether he would vote for Leahy's same-sex couple amendment, but that the gang of eight is "working on it" and hopes to not split up on important votes.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the gang of eight who is not on the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement earlier Tuesday saying, as he has before, that he welcomes changes to the bill. He recently said he doesn't think the gang of eight bill -- as it is now -- could pass a Republican-controlled House because its border security provisions are too weak.

"I look forward to working with [the Judiciary Committee] throughout this process to ultimately fix our broken immigration system and ensure we never repeat today’s broken mess again," Rubio said Tuesday. "What is not an option is doing nothing. Anyone who opposes this bill but fails to offer a real and specific alternative is in favor of the status quo. And the status quo is de facto amnesty."

Several Republicans in the Judiciary Committee have been particularly critical of the gang of eight bill. Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) have voiced a number of concerns with its path to citizenship, while Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) have said its border provisions are too weak. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has voiced general support for immigration reform, but also said visa and refugee systems need to be addressed in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, allegedly perpetrated by a naturalized U.S. citizen and a legal permanent resident.

Sessions offered 49 amendments, but sounded unlikely to support the bill in the end regardless. Among other things, he proposed restricting the legalization of undocumented immigrants, adding more border fencing than is already required in the bill, and stating that local and state immigration law preempts the federal government's -- which would allow states such as Arizona to implement their own enforcement laws.

Continues ...

Flopping like tunas, as usual.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#9  Postby Loren Michael » May 08, 2013 12:08 am

So, am I to understand that you're comparing America to some absolute standard? If so, what is that standard? When you say that America does a bad job at immigration, what exactly do you mean?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#10  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 16, 2013 10:42 pm

Loren Michael wrote:So, am I to understand that you're comparing America to some absolute standard? If so, what is that standard? When you say that America does a bad job at immigration, what exactly do you mean?

I don't think it's too difficult to imagine a reasonable immigration standard that countres like Canada or the US or Australia should and could strive to achieve.

In my opinion, the US has not managed to keep its immigration policies and laws up to date against the realities. There hasn't been any significant reform since 1986 and the last attempt, in 2007, failed. In the meantime, ten or eleven million people have gained entry to the country illegally and they've nearly all found employment, which is illegal under the laws. But corporations don't give a hoot about laws, they hire illegals anyway so as to boost their bottom lines and its pretty much been an open practice.

The flow of illegals into the country has slowed because of the recession, although it never really stopped. Many illegals return to their countries of origin after lengthy periods of working in the country, having remitted enough money to go home and live a decent life. Many of course stay, have children, and become productive members of society. But the Obama administration has teken to deporting many, and last year alone 26,000 children were left parentless in one state alone when their parents were deported. They became wards of the state (Illinois) at no little cost.

This is a huge clusterfuck, it has gone on for decades.

There are enormous political forces that have maintained this Godawful status quo. It has become such a gargantuan mess that the Congress has finally decided to act and the Senatte Judiciary Commiittee recently adopted a 1,000 page Bill and released it to the floor for a vote, which has yet to occur.

Meanwhile there's a veritable tsunami of conflicting debates among Members of the House and the Senate that take aim at vaious provisions in the Bill. Some don't like the fact that LGBT people will be covered, they'd prefer they simply be deported, kids and all; there's debate over the border security provisions, which business interests want to water down and moderates want to strenghthen. Some don't like the fact that there's a path to citizenship in the Bill for illegals, even though its provisions are about as draconian as they come. There's debate over the e-verify provisions for employers, which the US Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbies have lobbied against. It goes on and on.

The leaders on this issue are still saying they're going to get a Bill by the end of the year, and if they do you can bet it'll be so watered down it won't be worth a dime. One Senator has already offered an 128 page ammendment to the Bill approved by the Judiciary Committee, rewriting ten per cent of it.

I think they probably will pass a Bill before the year is out, but it'll be a 2,000 page monster so filled with compromises and exceptions it won't make a lot of sense to anyone except the insiders. Obama will sign it amidst much fanfare and hoopla, and then we'll go back to the way things have been since 1986, situation normal, all fucked up.

This is not what I'd call a rational process nor one that's capable of achieving any sort of reasonable outcomes, and when I say America does a bad job at immigration, this is exactly what I mean.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#11  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 17, 2013 3:53 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:So, am I to understand that you're comparing America to some absolute standard? If so, what is that standard? When you say that America does a bad job at immigration, what exactly do you mean?

I don't think it's too difficult to imagine a reasonable immigration standard that countres like Canada or the US or Australia should and could strive to achieve.


I agree! What do you think that standard should be?

Mine is roughly "open borders save for reasonable security risks". with revisions made according to evidence. I would be happy with many things between the status quo and my desired extreme.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#12  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 17, 2013 11:42 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:So, am I to understand that you're comparing America to some absolute standard? If so, what is that standard? When you say that America does a bad job at immigration, what exactly do you mean?

I don't think it's too difficult to imagine a reasonable immigration standard that countres like Canada or the US or Australia should and could strive to achieve.


I agree! What do you think that standard should be?

Mine is roughly "open borders save for reasonable security risks". with revisions made according to evidence. I would be happy with many things between the status quo and my desired extreme.

Does "security risks" include health risks or those who adhere to demonic religious faiths of whatever stripe? What about educational achievement or successful professional achievement or language skills or physically debilitating conditions?

Not many applicants would pose security risks, but some could easily pose risks to public health; those with low educational achievement could end up being welfare cases, those with inappropriate language or professional skills may not ever become productive members of society.

Immigration policies should serve to improve or enhance the population's ability to contribute to the greater good, not detract from it. Immigration should boost a country's ability to move forward, not go backward.

When I immigrated to Canada I had to pass a pretty rigorous health examination that looked for chronic communicable diseases such as tuberculosis. Acceptance was based on a points system in which one had to score a mimimum of 50 points. The scoring criteria included health, educational achievement/professional accomplishments, and language skills (for which a test was administered). I was not told how many points I scored but I was accepted, and that was good enough for me.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#13  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 18, 2013 1:37 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:So, am I to understand that you're comparing America to some absolute standard? If so, what is that standard? When you say that America does a bad job at immigration, what exactly do you mean?

I don't think it's too difficult to imagine a reasonable immigration standard that countres like Canada or the US or Australia should and could strive to achieve.


I agree! What do you think that standard should be?

Mine is roughly "open borders save for reasonable security risks". with revisions made according to evidence. I would be happy with many things between the status quo and my desired extreme.

Does "security risks" include health risks or those who adhere to demonic religious faiths of whatever stripe? What about educational achievement or successful professional achievement or language skills or physically debilitating conditions?

Not many applicants would pose security risks, but some could easily pose risks to public health; those with low educational achievement could end up being welfare cases, those with inappropriate language or professional skills may not ever become productive members of society.


1) In regards to the particulars of health and security, I'm not certain; I tend to think that if someone would otherwise be able go somewhere (if they had the resources necessary to get a visa and bus/plane ticket), then they should be allowed to live and work there as well. If there's some evidence to suggest that might be problematic, that might be a good reason to put some restrictions up.

2) Regarding people's education and language skills, those are possibilities at the individual level, but is there any evidence that it's a broader problem?

Immigration policies should serve to improve or enhance the population's ability to contribute to the greater good, not detract from it. Immigration should boost a country's ability to move forward, not go backward.


3) When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

4) What part does the welfare of the potential immigrants play in this moral calculus?

5) Again, you're comparing America to some absolute standard, right? What is that standard?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#14  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 20, 2013 6:57 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
I don't think it's too difficult to imagine a reasonable immigration standard that countres like Canada or the US or Australia should and could strive to achieve.


I agree! What do you think that standard should be?

Mine is roughly "open borders save for reasonable security risks". with revisions made according to evidence. I would be happy with many things between the status quo and my desired extreme.

Does "security risks" include health risks or those who adhere to demonic religious faiths of whatever stripe? What about educational achievement or successful professional achievement or language skills or physically debilitating conditions?

Not many applicants would pose security risks, but some could easily pose risks to public health; those with low educational achievement could end up being welfare cases, those with inappropriate language or professional skills may not ever become productive members of society.

1) In regards to the particulars of health and security, I'm not certain; I tend to think that if someone would otherwise be able go somewhere (if they had the resources necessary to get a visa and bus/plane ticket), then they should be allowed to live and work there as well. If there's some evidence to suggest that might be problematic, that might be a good reason to put some restrictions up.

People can walk around and look perfectly normal when they're carrying Hepatitus or Tubercular or Herpes or other similar pathogens that may be recessive at the moment. Allowing auch persons to immigrate only invites public health issues.

Loren Michael wrote:
2) Regarding people's education and language skills, those are possibilities at the individual level, but is there any evidence that it's a broader problem?

Every immigrant is an individual.

Loren Michael wrote:
Immigration policies should serve to improve or enhance the population's ability to contribute to the greater good, not detract from it. Immigration should boost a country's ability to move forward, not go backward.


3) When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

Many would say that Hispanic immigration into Arizona and California has caused those States to go backward.

Loren Michael wrote:
4) What part does the welfare of the potential immigrants play in this moral calculus?

5) Again, you're comparing America to some absolute standard, right? What is that standard?

I don't think a wise immigration policy would include the idea of just throwing the doors open and letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry in. There should be some screening. For example, convicted felons cannot immigrae to Canada, nor, I believe to the US. The exact nature of screening is probably beyond the scope of this discussion. Every country has to work it out for themselves.

On the whole, though, I think immigration is a mistaken social policy. Right now for example there are probably tens of millions of people in third world countries who would give their eye teeth to immigrate to Canada or the US. It would be utterly foolish to throw the doors open to them.

The nature of immigration in the US has changed since 100 years ago when most immigrants came from Europe and were white and easily melded into the existing population, creating what became known as the "melting pot." This hasn't been true for some time now as most immigramts over the past 40 or 50 years have been non-whites who do not chose to integrate but rather create their own communities and neighborhoods in the vein of the "Chinatowns" of the past. Today we have "Koreatowns" and "Little Saigons," or Spanish barrios and solidly Russian neighborhoods in New York city. The days when America was a "melting pot" are long gone.

I also think that people who are aren't satisfied with conditions in their country of origin should stay home and work to improve their lot, rather than running off to some other country where they think their prospects will be better. Countries won't improve if everyone just wants to flee. They should stay home and work to make them better.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#15  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 21, 2013 1:47 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:1) In regards to the particulars of health and security, I'm not certain; I tend to think that if someone would otherwise be able go somewhere (if they had the resources necessary to get a visa and bus/plane ticket), then they should be allowed to live and work there as well. If there's some evidence to suggest that might be problematic, that might be a good reason to put some restrictions up.

People can walk around and look perfectly normal when they're carrying Hepatitus or Tubercular or Herpes or other similar pathogens that may be recessive at the moment. Allowing such persons to immigrate only invites public health issues.

Loren Michael wrote:
2) Regarding people's education and language skills, those are possibilities at the individual level, but is there any evidence that it's a broader problem?

Every immigrant is an individual.


1) That's a fair point in regards to health, but I'd have to see some studies before I weigh in.
2) Yes, but is there any evidence that would present a broader problem?

Loren Michael wrote:
Immigration policies should serve to improve or enhance the population's ability to contribute to the greater good, not detract from it. Immigration should boost a country's ability to move forward, not go backward.


3) When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

Many would say that Hispanic immigration into Arizona and California has caused those States to go backward.


3) Many would say that the earth is 6000 years old.

When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

What does it mean to make a country "go backward"? If a poor person from Mexico goes to the US and works, that person is one more poor person. Statistically, they make the country poorer, but it's not clear what adverse impact such a person has.

Loren Michael wrote:
4) What part does the welfare of the potential immigrants play in this moral calculus?

5) Again, you're comparing America to some absolute standard, right? What is that standard?


On the whole, though, I think immigration is a mistaken social policy. Right now for example there are probably tens of millions of people in third world countries who would give their eye teeth to immigrate to Canada or the US. It would be utterly foolish to throw the doors open to them.

The nature of immigration in the US has changed since 100 years ago when most immigrants came from Europe and were white and easily melded into the existing population, creating what became known as the "melting pot." This hasn't been true for some time now as most immigramts over the past 40 or 50 years have been non-whites who do not chose to integrate but rather create their own communities and neighborhoods in the vein of the "Chinatowns" of the past. Today we have "Koreatowns" and "Little Saigons," or Spanish barrios and solidly Russian neighborhoods in New York city. The days when America was a "melting pot" are long gone.


4) What problems does that actually present? So what if there are Koreans, so what if there are Russian neighborhoods. What's the problem of their existence?

I also think that people who are aren't satisfied with conditions in their country of origin should stay home and work to improve their lot, rather than running off to some other country where they think their prospects will be better. Countries won't improve if everyone just wants to flee. They should stay home and work to make them better.


5) The receiving countries improve, and the welfare of the people improves. Why care about countries? The important thing is people. Countries only matter insofar as they're a stand-in for groups of people. If those people can enjoy dramatic improvements in conditions by simply crossing a border and enjoying the new opportunities, why stop them?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#16  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 21, 2013 1:56 am

Related:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... wages.html

I've seen some conservatives characterize the most recent Congressional Budget Office report on the Gang of 8 immigration bill as saying that the bill will reduce Americans' wages.

It does not, in fact, say that. As they write, the wage numbers "represent differences between the averages for all U.S. residents under the legislation—including both the people who would be residents under current law and the additional people who would come to the country under the legislation—and the averages under current law for people who would be residents in the absence of the legislation." In other words, if you start with 10 middle-class Americans and then add a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up. It's the shifting of the low-income Mexican person into the comparison set that drives the average down, not a decline in anyone's living standards.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#17  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 21, 2013 7:30 pm

Loren Michael wrote:Related:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... wages.html

I've seen some conservatives characterize the most recent Congressional Budget Office report on the Gang of 8 immigration bill as saying that the bill will reduce Americans' wages.

It does not, in fact, say that. As they write, the wage numbers "represent differences between the averages for all U.S. residents under the legislation—including both the people who would be residents under current law and the additional people who would come to the country under the legislation—and the averages under current law for people who would be residents in the absence of the legislation." In other words, if you start with 10 middle-class Americans and then add a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up. It's the shifting of the low-income Mexican person into the comparison set that drives the average down, not a decline in anyone's living standards.

It's not going to matter a whole lot because the Bill is looking like it's going to die in the House, sufferig the same fate as the Farm Bill, which was defeated when 80 Republicans voted against it. Leader Boehner will lose his position as Majority Leader if he lets the Immigration Bill go to the floor and it too is defeated. That's a risk he's unlikely to take.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#18  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 22, 2013 1:16 am

What's not going to matter a whole lot to the fact that starting with 10 middle-class Americans and then adding a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up?

If House and Senate bullshit makes nothing matter, we might as well not talk about anything.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#19  Postby james1v » Jun 22, 2013 2:01 am

I dont think organised immigration harms anyone, or anything. Chaotic immigration may do. Look at Turkey, Jordan etc. Now.

Without external financing, chaotic immigration can bankrupt a country. Its not good for the emigres, or the hosts.
"When humans yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon". Thomas Paine.
User avatar
james1v
 
Name: James.
Posts: 8948
Age: 62
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#20  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 22, 2013 3:50 am

james1v wrote:I dont think organised immigration harms anyone, or anything. Chaotic immigration may do. Look at Turkey, Jordan etc. Now.

Without external financing, chaotic immigration can bankrupt a country. Its not good for the emigres, or the hosts.


I tend to think some sense of order is better than chaos, all else being equal, so I'm sympathetic to that. But what do you mean by that, and what do you mean by external financing?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Economics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest