beautyfromashes wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:28 pm
You rail on capitalism but then advocate for anyone to come here and work, letting the best worker take the job...the very basis of capitalism. And I’m fine with that if I didn’t see a very real negative social impact on other countries. There also is a large social welfare cost for those left out of the workforce but wanting to stay in this market, likely poor minorities. I don’t doubt that you are advocating for these immigrants out of heart for humanity and those in a terrible economic situation. I have the same desire for them to have full, productive lives and families.
If you want to talk about "the very basis of capitalism," it is actually just to make a profit, which is only connected indirectly, if at all, to being the best worker, or having the best product, or whatever. People assume that competition is an intrinsic feature of capitalism (it isn't) and that the "best" competitor always wins (he/she/it doesn't). But this is beside the point, I didn't join this discussion to "rail against capitalism" (though I'm happy to do so another time).
You keep stressing this "negative impact" on other countries but you have yet to explain how this impact is meant to occur, except that you assume all of the "best" people in every less developed country will come here and stay here. You're gonna have to show your work on that one. We already know that many immigrants are just migrant workers who cross back and forth to the extent they're able to, and it's reasonable to think more would if they could. Even those who are here permanently send a lot of money back home, which can contribute to "development" there. Meanwhile, is current restrictive immigration policy driving "development" in other countries? It's one thing to think, intuitively, that "the best" would leave and this would hamper development, but are they staying and developing the country now? Or are they leaving anyway (to let their real skills wither while they do unskilled, low wage manual labor under the table because it's the only work they can get without status), or simply being oppressed or killed at home? I mean if you're going to argue for status quo then you have to make the case that status quo is actually doing what you think it will.
The unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in half a century (granted that the actual quality of the jobs people have has gotten much worse, but that's a capitalism issue, not an immigration issue), so the idea that immigrants will impose "a large social welfare cost" on citizens who can't find jobs is not really supported by reality. There are also not a finite amount of jobs to go around in the first place -- an immigrant who is living and working here will necessarily consume goods and services that will require yet more people to be hired to provide them.
I just don’t think removing them from the situation instead of trying to help the situation in place is the best solution.
I trust the people who are actually living in "the situation" to find the best solution for themselves.
FangKC wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:07 pm
cityscape wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:37 pm
Completely agree. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades and have now flipped the corner of there being more available jobs than workers to fill them. We need immigration (legal) to support this country as we continue to age as a nation. The workers outside of the baby boomer generation don't have great enough numbers to support the baby boomers through their retirement. It is simple math. We need immigrants to take the jobs being left behind to support our economy. Plain and simple.
Be careful cityscape, phuqueue says that human beings shouldn't be participants in any sort of national economic goals or purposes. Having enough workers available to support retirees is bad! He'll accuse you of not having any humanity.
No, I just said they aren't tools to accomplish your policy goals. I usually think of you as a very good boarder with your heart in the right place, so I'm kind of surprised by the bad faith that you're engaging in now. I don't have a problem with acknowledging the positive economic effects that immigrants have -- I have repeatedly acknowledged them myself. I do have a problem with dehumanizing immigrants and treating them as nothing more than economic goods who should be forcibly placed in whichever rust belt town is most rapidly hemorrhaging population.
I also don't know how, now of all times, you can honestly believe that the government would exercise that kind of power in good faith. We've got DHS stealing children at the border and sending them to prison camps in hopes that this will dissuade people from trying to come here. If the government were forced to accept immigrants but empowered to say "you can live where we tell you to live or you can go home," what makes you think they wouldn't just start placing immigrants in, like, the Aleutian Islands or somewhere?