|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Immigrants good for me and you? Bad? How to make a good answer that is accurate? | |||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I did a little research and was going to post it in a thread but got sidetracked into talking about the Roman Empire. The thread author then said he only wanted to discuss the constitution. I can't find a suitable thread for this discussion so I propose a new one. This is it.
Ian Goldin has a little book (I need to read his bigger works sometime which are far better ) which I will quote. Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it (Oxford) Google On page 36, he shows how many migrants there are presently.
quote: More migration but lots of barriers to bottleneck the situation. The benefits to consider are many.
quote: Google I had some good mainstream media articles on the astonishing benefits of innovation from the immigrants but failed to post them. The issue of "sending countries" suffering a supposed brain drain is a false alarm and it is just not the accurate way of seeing what goes on. The real thing is "brain circulation" happening for the benefit of all including the sending nations. The dynamic is very mutually beneficial. Look at the benefits of open borders.
quote: This is not an easy policy to implement but understand that the 40 trillion dollars in benefits to the economy would be at least 20% higher growth than would otherwise be the case. The world economy is under 100 trillion dollars now and not growing too much lately. The world wide growth benefits of these "open borders " are only based on free human travel and do NOT include the huge additional benefits of 100% free trade and tearing down the gargantuan and endless trade barriers. Both Europeans and Americans pay over $1000 more per person each year on food due to disastrous protectionism. The world wide benefits there are potentially limitless if we somehow managed to get the political will to do the right thing and put humanity above narrow and greedy special interests . Putting humanity first for a change and slaying nationalism and xenophobia would help us all - even the nationalist minded folk who are mislead into cutting their own throats (thinking in their own 1 dimensional way to be doing something good for themselves ). Without major changes, the most rosy scenario doesn't have the world economy above $200 trillion by 2035. Opening borders (now!) alone would add over 20% (and probably much more to the economy. The growth (the added trillions above where we are now at the end of 25 years) would actually be much more than 20%. Lots of issues to look at. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I can't wait to tackle this b.s. about immigrants coming over here to "sit on their butts and not work".
New York has about 3 million and 23 thousand (according to figures from a few years ago which are the most recent) immigrants among a population of 8.5 million. 5.5 million New Yorkers born here (64%) 3 million immigrants (36%) You would think that would suggest that immigrants would be about 1/3 of the workforce if they are working on par with native Americans. Anything less than that would at least indicate a tiny bit of evidence backing up the claim that they come here and don't work. Guess what? Immigrants are 47% of the workforce here in the city I was born in. So much for the "they just want our benefits which Americans get when not working" claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
This controversial right winger demolished anti-immigration arguments in one of the best op-ed pieces that I have ever seen.
I am going to quote just a smidge
quote: 83% of illegal immigrants are Christian in identification while nonimmigrants are 70.6% Twice the number of new business starts come from immigrants. In Silicon Valley and everywhere else. Check out the article! Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The scientific research shows that immigrants cost us in the first generation but the costs are small.
1st generation immigrants cost U. S. taxpayers $57.4 billion a year. 2nd generation ddescendants of immigrants benefit us $30.5 billion a year. 3rd generation immigrants' descendants benefit the national tax treasures to a net tune of $223.8 billion. We have 32 million legal and 11 millions first generation undocumented immigrant human beings presently. Understand that the $71.5 billion defense budget increase ( will be a cost that must be paid for each and every year - NEXT year and for every year we must pay for ) that the Congress just proposed is only possible to pay for due to our small upfront investment in immigrants from the past few generations ( and longer back ). If the American military is even 1/10 as vital to freedom as militaristic commentary constantly insists, then it is vitally REQUIRED that we increase overall annual immigration numbers by several orders of magnitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
The dislocated folks are the types of economic consequences that get lots of attention due to the fact that hurting segments of a population will be politically active. There will be winners and loosers all over, but especially in the relatively rich countries that the poorer people will migrate to. The hurting folks will get their due attention regardless of what the studies look for.
That is the situation in the rich host countries. As for the global population at large, the fact that you have a poorer part of the world (which will have folks who will migrate to the greener pastures like the United States ) means that there will be upfront costs to the host nation. The question of the day is actually several questions about how much the respective parties will get from the deal and how long it will take. (As well as who gets hurt in the process ) The parties are the citizens of the richer host country, the immigrants, the state and federal coffers, the jobs, the economy, the employment rate, etc. Then the (not quite seen as "patriotic") concern about the overseas financial situation will be more relevant than many might think at first glance. The better off the world is, the less people will want to immigrate to the United States to start with. The ironic thing is that the immigrants help our national economy, federal deficit, national debt, economic growth, employment, etc. But the average person thinks that the poorer people coming here hurts us so immigrant arrivals are (supposedly ) a "bad thing" . I wish that there was a World Constitution that gave everyone rights ( like health care rights to see any doctor, anywhere, regardless of your national origin and residential address ) so this question of "who benefits more" is irrelevant. But we see immigrants as "bad" so the fact that the wealth is going up in the rest of the world will reduce the amount of immigration to the USA so that is "good" (except it really isn't good really because the immigrants really do "help us " though it isn't really politically correct to admit that they are beneficial ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
From the June 25 New York Times
quote: The left had a fit over this conservative global warming skeptic being hired by a fairly liberal newspaper. Just like the populist right will have a fit over his total demolition of popular anti-immigrant propaganda. (Will his fact filled article get the coverage that anti-science theories get? ) The media likes to present the Global Warming skeptic arguments but will pseudo science coverage be matched in total airtime by the fact-filled evidence that demonstrates the benefits of immigrants (contrary to popular anti-immigrant lies that we have heard presented as truth ) ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Nice that somebody noticed what I long ago noticed.
The Democrats suck and they aren't an opposition party (they play the same role that the late Alan Combs played when he was on the Sean Hannity show, just useful fodder for those promoting the Republican line). Immigration policy is too important to just simply give an incomplete and (at best)abbreviated debate. The American people deserve to have all possible policies engrained in (our heads)the national debate. Why Democrats should support open borders | Reece Jones | The Guardian
quote: See link for more in article The Open Borders position needs to be heard. (We need some real policy choices) Nice if we had a true opposition party. Can't get good policy if Democrats don't shape up (the Democratic incumbents are a proud lot, and they - by and large - never get shipped out, so we need to demand they shape up)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: Cal Thomas admits that 25% of Republicans have a positive view about something you feel should be banned in the USA, Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
But you DO CARE what people think.
You said you want people banned from the country over economic policy views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Poll: Americans Like Free Markets More than Capitalism and Socialism More Than a Govt Managed Economy
Only 70% of conservatives and 72% of Tea Party folks hold a negative view of socialism. Faith. You aren't being clear enough about this situation. Clarify please. Should they be considered dangerous too? For their views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: Bernie Sanders demolished this scare tactic and appealed to broad cross-sections of Americans. Even conservatives are really showing awareness of the very real differences between Scandinavian "socialism" and North Korean communism. Donald Trump is remembered for the "blood from her wherever" comment directed at the moderator of the August 2015 debate, but he should be remembered for yelling at his demagogic Republicans the list of countries that Single Payer healthcare works well in. As President, he told the Australian leader, "you have a better health care system than we do" (close to what he said) in front of an international media. Socialism just isn't the dirty word it used to be. (the attack never gets old though, huh?) People know that higher per capita incomes mean less than was once thought. There needs to be a way to make sure that progress is reflected in the quality of living (or at least reflected in the quality of the safety net when people fall down) for all people. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
I associate public education (promoted by Marx) with progress, and it specifically was crucial in moderating people and causing us all to move AWAY from old mindsets that were congenial towards tyranny and lack of freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Robert Bartley is noteworthy for his 5 line proposed amendment.
Robert Leroy Bartley (October 12, 1937 — December 10, 2003) was the editor of the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal for more than 30 years Robert Bartley - Wikipedia Here is what one gets when putting those 5 words into google.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
quote: What is "Christian culture" anyway? The Aramaic language? Or one of the Roman Empire languages (Greek?) (Latin?) The latter has Spanish as a living language. Greek and Aramaic are about dead. (Aramaic would be considerably more "Christian" than Greek, but Greek would perhaps slightly count as there was a Hellenistic Jewish party in the 2nd century Palestine among those like Jason, and Greek was spoken and used by even Jewish Christian sects) This article is about the last few Aramaic speakers in Georgia. The last of the Aramaic speakers | The Times of Israel Protestants were converting Aramaic Christian speakers in India to an even more alien European religion. (The Aramaic "Christians" were so already so totally washed in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman doctrine that they weren't very close to the early Jewish Christians themselves ANYWAY) Protestants demolished Aramaic speaking peoples, so they killed (what should be considered) "Christian culture". (my point is that today's so-called "Christians" are frauds and they have used cultural appropriation to claim to be something they are not)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Hyroglyphx said:
quote: But Norway might possibly have a response that challenges that line of thought. Government Pension Fund of Norway - Wikipedia
quote: The fund saves pretty good, but it spends out a portion (on Norwegian social programs) every year. It might be superior to a private system.
quote: Nowway has muscle. It owns oil and has a single payer health care system.
quote: In 2013 (when the currency was stronger in Norway), this was the health care spending per person.
quote: But in 2016, it was much less.
quote: Here are 2016 numbers. (has a good set of graphs, and includes Norway) How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker While Norway is at around $6,500 per person (it isn't on a chart that lists the actual number, but is on a graphical comparison thingy), here is the United States and Switzerland. United States $10,348 Switzerland $7,919 Norway has a per capita income of $82,000 presently (Switzerland is around $86,000), while we are at about $62,000. Our health care is 50% more expensive. The government pays 85% of the total Norwegian costs, so I think it is fair to say that the same $ amount is spent by the government's of both countries. The difference is the smaller dollar amount spent out of pocket in Norway. It could be that the socialist system does create wealth when it owns an industry, like oil, that is BOTH profitable and maximizes economic growth. The health care system might be half the PER GDP COST, which could be seen as "reducing GDP 7-9%", but if it is efficient, then it is macro-economically favorable and in actuality it ends up facilitating growth when the bigger picture is viewed from afar. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024