Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-19-2018, 04:41 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
What method do you propose to determine what it would be before you instituted this program? There have been several surveys done over the years that indicate upwards of 50% of Mexicans would immigrate to the US if they could. Now, you can argue that that's just talk, but wouldn't it make some sense to put a cap on the total number? You know, just in case? And once we say: Come on in, the doors are open! don't you think people are going to be worried that the doors won't be open 5 or 10 years from now?
There'd not be a cap, there'd be a flow. Nobody gets in without being background checked.

As for Mexico:
1) Cite?
2) Couple this with a broad decriminalization of drugs, to sweep the feet out from under the cartels, and maybe Mexicans won't be as interested in fleeing the problems we've helped create in their country.
  #52  
Old 01-19-2018, 04:54 PM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
I don't want to stereotype, but the lion's share of new immigration would likely come from Central America, and you're worried about whether we'd be able to build enough new houses to accommodate the new immigrants? Have you looked a construction crew lately?
Why do think that most new immigrants would come from Central America, a small group of not populous nations?

Eight million people applied for a Diversity Visa lottery from Bangladesh in 2012 - A lottery they had almost no chance of winning (http://www.usagreencardlottery.org/g...statistics.jsp) That's more than the entire population of some CA countries.

Heck, when I lived in Africa, probably half the Africans I met asked me to help them immigrate to America.
  #53  
Old 01-19-2018, 05:20 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Don't have much time to add anything to your proposal, but I will say that I would be mostly on board.

The only thing that I would change is that I don't think the immigrant should have to pay for the background check, but I'm very flexible on that, if they can make the payments in installments over time after they get here.

I've always been for the idea that if someone wants to come here, they should be allowed to come here. We want people to be here that want to be here.

And when they get here, and they realize that they have managed to leave the "shithole" they were born in behind, and have a happy and productive life here that they would not have been able to achieve elsewhere, they will be our most loyal citizens.
  #54  
Old 01-19-2018, 05:28 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,503
I don't see how such a proposal could make it through Congress. Even the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might not endorse it, and it would probably run into opposition from perhaps 80% of the electorate.
  #55  
Old 01-19-2018, 05:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't see how such a proposal could make it through Congress. Even the liberal wing of the Democratic Party might not endorse it, and it would probably run into opposition from perhaps 80% of the electorate.
Goddamn, if I wanted to talk the politics, I woulda put it in Elections . I know there's no way it'd pass under current conditions, I'm saying what I think might be the best approach if we can ever get politicians that don't suck.
  #56  
Old 01-19-2018, 06:02 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,503
Another issue is - this is often viewed as not being in the interests of the United States, but it may not be in the interests of the "sending" nations as well. Sure, many impoverished people might immigrate, but there might also be significant brain drain as well. To drain away the talents of many developing nations wouldn't be helpful to those nations; something often lost in the "charity" rhetoric.
  #57  
Old 01-19-2018, 06:57 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
There'd not be a cap, there'd be a flow. Nobody gets in without being background checked.

As for Mexico:
1) Cite?
2) Couple this with a broad decriminalization of drugs, to sweep the feet out from under the cartels, and maybe Mexicans won't be as interested in fleeing the problems we've helped create in their country.
You are the one who wants to open the doors to anyone who can pass a background check and pay a fee. Tell us how many people you think will come in over the next 5 years (or whatever timeframe you have figured) and how you determined that number and then how you determined that we can absorb that number. If you don't like my number, give us yours and tell us how you got it.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-19-2018 at 06:58 PM.
  #58  
Old 01-19-2018, 07:16 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
You are the one who wants to open the doors to anyone who can pass a background check and pay a fee. Tell us how many people you think will come in over the next 5 years (or whatever timeframe you have figured) and how you determined that number and then how you determined that we can absorb that number. If you don't like my number, give us yours and tell us how you got it.
Okay, dude.
  #59  
Old 01-19-2018, 08:13 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,204
I have no interest in a pissing match, but here's an interesting article that explores an extreme version of this idea: How Would a Billion Immigrants Change the American Polity?
Quote:
I’ll argue that swamping probably will happen, and that open borders is the right thing to do anyway.
Again: the practical limits of vetting every immigrant, and of requiring immigrants to pay for this vetting, are going to slow things down. We'll never talk about 20 million immigrants a year for fifty years. But I'd be interested in seeing some stats on how many people would be able and willing to pay for a background check, and how that'd affect things.
  #60  
Old 01-19-2018, 08:47 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
It's not a pissing match to ask how many people your policy will end up bringing in to the US. If you don't care, that's certainly a fair position to take. I would disagree, but I can't objectively say it would be wrong. If you don't know, then I'd say your proposal has a serious hole in it. And to be honest, I'm not sure there is a good way of knowing. Like I said, if there was a huge influx, the doors would slam shut. And that makes me think people would want to hedge their bets and get in while the gettin' was good.

If you think the approval process would provide a natural limit, then that puts us pretty much where we are now, and then you have to create some system to prioritize.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-19-2018 at 08:49 PM.
  #61  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:01 PM
pdhenry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: PA
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Myself, I'd base it on something similar to what other countries do. Can you demonstrate employment (or can you invest a million or whatever dollars in a local US business), either because you are currently working in the country on a works program or you have a valid offer of employment from a company working in the US? Do you have a criminal record? Do you have a basic understanding of the laws that will apply to you as a citizen? If all the correct marks are checked you are in...welcome to the US.
You've pretty much described the US EB-5 visa program.

Last edited by pdhenry; 01-19-2018 at 11:02 PM.
  #62  
Old 01-20-2018, 11:11 AM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,128
[QUOTE][But I'd be interested in seeing some stats on how many people would be able and willing to pay ... QUOTE]

The results of DV lottery suggest thst, even from countries that have not been major sources of immigrants, there are tens of milions of people willing to come and pay the processing fees, plane tickets and setup costs.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...tatistics.html

The extra BC fee would deter some, but not all.
  #63  
Old 01-20-2018, 12:07 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I have no interest in a pissing match, but here's an interesting article that explores an extreme version of this idea: How Would a Billion Immigrants Change the American Polity?


Again: the practical limits of vetting every immigrant, and of requiring immigrants to pay for this vetting, are going to slow things down. We'll never talk about 20 million immigrants a year for fifty years. But I'd be interested in seeing some stats on how many people would be able and willing to pay for a background check, and how that'd affect things.
I don't think we need to worry so much about it. Our economy will grow as the population does.

If we are stupid about it, and we just let them in and then do nothing further to assimilate them into being productive residents and eventually citizens, then problems may very well occur.

If we go about it right, and give everyone an opportunity to get the education and training to do jobs that help our country, then there is no real limit to the population we can absorb till we start running out of food, and we should be ale to produce enough food to feed well over a billion easily.

The reason that China and India are getting so powerful on the world stage these days is because of their population. I've heard that there are more students in STEM fields in india than there are student in the US. Doubling or even tripling our population is a good thing, IMHO.

The only "downside" is that in doing so, us white men will no longer be the majority. I put "downside" in quotes, as I do not see it as a downside, once again, IMHO.
  #64  
Old 01-20-2018, 07:52 PM
Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Southeast Michigan, USA
Posts: 11,494
I think anyone that wants to be here, should be here, assuming no criminal history. But this is where it gets hard: how do you vet a country, say, North Korea, that doesn't let people out? Even if they establish relations and support a citizen database, they can simply say everyone is convicted of non-party thoughts, or some other thing that's a red flag.

And what degrees of criminal history? I think Canada is completely stupid for not letting in people for tourism purposes that have DUI convictions. People make mistakes, and they clean themselves up, and they're no longer a threat (note: this does not apply to me; I'm clean).

Despite the news, we're still the greatest country on the planet when considering the big picture. Why does our constitution only protect people who won the birthplace lottery?
  #65  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:17 AM
UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't think we need to worry so much about it. Our economy will grow as the population does.

If we are stupid about it, and we just let them in and then do nothing further to assimilate them into being productive residents and eventually citizens, then problems may very well occur.

If we go about it right, and give everyone an opportunity to get the education and training to do jobs that help our country, then there is no real limit to the population we can absorb till we start running out of food, and we should be ale to produce enough food to feed well over a billion easily.

The reason that China and India are getting so powerful on the world stage these days is because of their population. I've heard that there are more students in STEM fields in india than there are student in the US. Doubling or even tripling our population is a good thing, IMHO.

The only "downside" is that in doing so, us white men will no longer be the majority. I put "downside" in quotes, as I do not see it as a downside, once again, IMHO.
How is what you propose/accept substantively any different from a full scale invasion and conquest by a foreign power? I'm all for diversity and moderate legal immigration, but a billion people?

Respectfully, that is an absurd proposition that belies the true purpose of those on your side and makes any reasonable attempt at immigration reform difficult to stomach as it foretells the end of the slippery slope.

Every nation has the right to its self-identity. Bringing in triple the native population from foreign nations who likely do not share our history or ideals is the instrument of our own demise.
  #66  
Old 01-22-2018, 01:53 PM
constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar View Post
Despite the news, we're still the greatest country on the planet when considering the big picture. Why does our constitution only protect people who won the birthplace lottery?
No, you aren't. The US is first in all bad measures (People in prison, death by gun, life expectancy for poor children, for black People...) and among the last in the good measures (education, disparity index, ...) among all modern industrialized nations.

It's just that People in poor countries have Access to Hollywood, and nothing else, so they, too, believe the Propaganda of "American Dream".

A similar Problem is why so many People are trying to get into Europe - they hear exaggerated stories, either from smugglers lying about how much Money they will receive there, so they can get a commission; or from relatives who don't want to admit how bad it is to live illegally and earn Little Money.
  #67  
Old 01-22-2018, 02:00 PM
constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,209
I wonder why Immigration is conflated with controlled entry when talking about "keeping the bad guys out".
You don't conduct a 10 day Background check at the NY international Airport. A lot of People enter with visas, so a real Immigration Reform would have People applying to the US embassy in e.g. Sudan, where the staff have direct contact with the Sudanese authorities, and a valid translator at Hand, do the Background checks and issue a "Visa provisional for Immigration" (considering only serious convictions from a small list).

Then, once the applicant has arrived in US and lived there for 3/5 years, can pass an English test, has a Job, has two friends from local community, he can complete his Immigration and become naturalized, because he's obviously integrated.

Also: any crackdown on Immigration or entry will always hurt honest People much more than effectivly Keep bad guys out. Because: Bad guys don't Keep the rules. They lie, they falsify passports and so on. Or they come with a student's visa and overstay. (That's also why "no-fly lists" are so stupid and ineffective).
  #68  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:06 PM
Balthisar is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Southeast Michigan, USA
Posts: 11,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
No, you aren't. The US is first in all bad measures (People in prison, death by gun, life expectancy for poor children, for black People...) and among the last in the good measures (education, disparity index, ...) among all modern industrialized nations.
Yes, but for those of us who aren't in prison, shot by guns, have poor children, black, we're better than everyone else, and we haven't perpetrated the attempted mass murder of an entire race like certain European countries, dude.
  #69  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:17 PM
constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthisar View Post
Yes, but for those of us who aren't in prison, shot by guns, have poor children, black, we're better than everyone else, and we haven't perpetrated the attempted mass murder of an entire race like certain European countries, dude.
Don't call me dude.

So the genocide against the Indians doesn't Count because it's too Long ago, I guess?

And yes, those who don't have it bad, are fine. That's not how conditions are usually measured, though.
  #70  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:23 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
It takes us between 1 and 3 weeks to get one for potential employees. I don't know what adding a million or so people to the queue would do, but don't imagine it would be good. I suppose it depends on what exactly your background check entails, though my WAG is it would really depend on how willing you are to spend the money to increase the size of the agency doing the checks and reviewing the results.
XT, you do understand that solutions can be scaled. If the 3k or 5k or whatever per immigrant processed was directly added to the department's budget, and you had competent leaders allowed to hire people and buy equipment as needed, it could be done. I mean we as a country have nationwide banks, we have space programs, we have web sites that handle more personal data than a background check for free (facebook), it's clearly feasible.

What you are observing is that government agencies are not known for being efficient. Albeit by some metrics they are efficient and this is a political subject.
  #71  
Old 01-22-2018, 03:28 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is what you propose/accept substantively any different from a full scale invasion and conquest by a foreign power? I'm all for diversity and moderate legal immigration, but a billion people?

Respectfully, that is an absurd proposition that belies the true purpose of those on your side and makes any reasonable attempt at immigration reform difficult to stomach as it foretells the end of the slippery slope.

Every nation has the right to its self-identity. Bringing in triple the native population from foreign nations who likely do not share our history or ideals is the instrument of our own demise.
Agree. How would you expect otherwise? With limited immigration rates, most immigrants get "melted" into the identity of America. Sure, that identity is not constant, it is shifting over time, hopefully overall for the better. But this collective cultural identity - this set of shared values - is why America is reasonably successful and why people want to move here. But if we allow in unlimited numbers of people from failed countries (since obviously they will have the most incentive to move), and it's really a billion people, they'll shift the cultural average to the one that failed.

That doesn't sound like a winning strategy.
  #72  
Old 01-23-2018, 02:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is what you propose/accept substantively any different from a full scale invasion and conquest by a foreign power? I'm all for diversity and moderate legal immigration, but a billion people?
In every possible way. A full scale invasion and conquest by a foreign power would have a foreign state government directing armed people to come into our country without our permission, destroying things, killing citizens, stuff like that.

I can actually see no similarities other than "foreigners are coming"
Quote:
Respectfully, that is an absurd proposition that belies the true purpose of those on your side
Respectfully, that's bull. First, it's my personal opinion on what would be good not only for those wanting to come here, but for those who are already here already. Second, "belies the true purpose" insinuates that there is some dark sinister plot against good 'ole murica. There is no plot, unless improving the lives of people is a sinister plot.
Quote:

and makes any reasonable attempt at immigration reform difficult to stomach as it foretells the end of the slippery slope.
Ahh, the slippery slope fallacy rears its purdy little head. Any attempt at immigration reform is difficult to stomach to those who do not want immigrants to come here. Me posting my opinion on a messageboard isn't the cause of xenophobia.
Quote:
Every nation has the right to its self-identity. Bringing in triple the native population from foreign nations who likely do not share our history or ideals is the instrument of our own demise.
People talk about american exceptionalism all the time, and they seem to think that it is an inherent property of our country that it is exceptional. That's not true. It is the people that make us exceptional. And what makes us exceptional is that we are a country made of immigrants. We have people from all different ethnicities and cultures working together, side by side, to achieve common goals.

That is the self identity of the United States, we are a nation of immigrants. And unless our identity is a nation of immigrants who got ours, and now are pulling up the ladder to prevent anyone else from achieving what we have here, then letting in immigrants only strengthens the american dream and our national identity.
  #73  
Old 01-23-2018, 05:06 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
People talk about american exceptionalism all the time, and they seem to think that it is an inherent property of our country that it is exceptional. That's not true. It is the people that make us exceptional. And what makes us exceptional is that we are a country made of immigrants. We have people from all different ethnicities and cultures working together, side by side, to achieve common goals.

That is the self identity of the United States, we are a nation of immigrants. And unless our identity is a nation of immigrants who got ours, and now are pulling up the ladder to prevent anyone else from achieving what we have here, then letting in immigrants only strengthens the american dream and our national identity.
What you are saying is ignorant. The immigrants who our ancestors let in were not just anyone.

I won't try to claim any particular racial or cultural group is better or worse, so I'm not branded a racist, but immigration policy in the past was selective, and America is highly successful. Maybe selective immigration had some causative effect.
  #74  
Old 01-23-2018, 05:57 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What you are saying is ignorant. The immigrants who our ancestors let in were not just anyone.

I won't try to claim any particular racial or cultural group is better or worse, so I'm not branded a racist, but immigration policy in the past was selective, and America is highly successful. Maybe selective immigration had some causative effect.
It's amusing that someone with such a total lack of historical knowledge would call someone "ignorant" for stating that America is a nation of immigrants. Perhaps you're not familiar with a national monument called "the Statue of Liberty" and the inscription that it bears, which was a foundational principle both before and for decades after, such that the US has the largest immigrant population of any country in the world.

Other than blatantly racist laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no meaningful controls over immigration until Congress reacted in the 1920s with the emergency Immigration Restriction Act of 1921 followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. However, it's important to note that then and now, remarkably through all these years, immigration limits have been heavily focused on ethnicity and country of origin, along with just random lotteries for eligibility, which in recent years have let in numerous murderers, terrorists, and other undesirables. Other countries, by contrast, are much more focused on merit-based admissions criteria. If you think pretty much open immigration policy followed by race-based policy and random lotteries has somehow constituted "selective immigration" and has been the "causative factor" for America's success, you need to (a) explain how you reconcile this belief with your claim of not being a racist, and (b) go back to school and elect "history" as a special point of education for a while, with a focus on immigration history.

Last edited by wolfpup; 01-23-2018 at 05:59 PM.
  #75  
Old 01-23-2018, 06:19 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It's amusing that someone with such a total lack of historical knowledge would call someone "ignorant" for stating that America is a nation of immigrants. Perhaps you're not familiar with a national monument called "the Statue of Liberty" and the inscription that it bears, which was a foundational principle both before and for decades after, such that the US has the largest immigrant population of any country in the world.

Other than blatantly racist laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no meaningful controls over immigration until Congress reacted in the 1920s with the emergency Immigration Restriction Act of 1921 followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. However, it's important to note that then and now, remarkably through all these years, immigration limits have been heavily focused on ethnicity and country of origin, along with just random lotteries for eligibility, which in recent years have let in numerous murderers, terrorists, and other undesirables. Other countries, by contrast, are much more focused on merit-based admissions criteria. If you think pretty much open immigration policy followed by race-based policy and random lotteries has somehow constituted "selective immigration" and has been the "causative factor" for America's success, you need to (a) explain how you reconcile this belief with your claim of not being a racist, and (b) go back to school and elect "history" as a special point of education for a while, with a focus on immigration history.
The crucial flaw in what you are neglecting to mention is that most of the world's population pre-1920 was too poor to come to America or there weren't significant amounts of shipping running that way. Hence it was mostly just Europeans.

I am not going to claim that Europeans are better or worse than anyone else, simply pointing out that an open boarders policy today would be letting in different immigrants from different cultures than the pre-1920 mix.

And if the flow rate is so high that they outnumber the "natives" (even if we aren't really natives) the rational outcome would be a massive cultural change, with the new cultural being mainly weighted towards the culture of origin of the immigrants.

And if that culture is a "failure" creating a "shithole" : what do you reasonably think would happen.

I think we need a merit-based system.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-23-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #76  
Old 01-23-2018, 08:41 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
What percent of the people in India, for example, would want to immigrant to the US under this system? Let's say it's 20%. Are you prepared to increase the US's population by 200M people next year? And that would just be from India. Do the same calculate for Mexico, the Philippines, Central and South America, the rest of Southeast Asia, etc.
LHoD:

Let me clean up your example. Assume a terrific screening program. Up the cost to $10,000 with a mandatory 2 year wait. Pull in the banks to provide financing, maybe escrow services, if problems arise and you need to deport someone for lying about their Nazi background.

You still get a massive influx of foreigners, driving down wages for those in the US who have only a high school diploma. Quite probably for other workers as well, including those in the professional class.

Wonky: Existing studies show this effect to be limited but that's under the existing system. Wage elasticities may very well change when you vastly increase the number of new workers with lower reservation wages.

Furthermore, I'd fully expect 3rd worlders to retire to the US, to take advantage of our safety net.

There's not a country in the world where a majority of its citizens would agree to such a plan. It might ethical, in some glibertarian way. But it's way out of bounds.
----

Counterplan: issue blue cards. They cost $3000, etc. etc. as per the OP. But the key element is that they are limited in number. They also contain some form of work requirements. If there are more applicants than cards available, use a bidding process to allocate them. Start in the agricultural sector - vary the quantity according to the wage levels. Penalize employers if they hire illegal aliens. This is also a non-starter, because the farm lobby likes the status quo. But it's a helpful thought experiment.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 01-23-2018 at 08:44 PM.
  #77  
Old 01-24-2018, 10:26 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
What you are saying is ignorant. The immigrants who our ancestors let in were not just anyone.

I won't try to claim any particular racial or cultural group is better or worse, so I'm not branded a racist, but immigration policy in the past was selective, and America is highly successful. Maybe selective immigration had some causative effect.
Really, you claim that we are not a nation of immigrants? That we didn't come from all over the world? You know nothing of our country's history, if that is the case.

Now, I realize that you don't want to be branded a racist, but everything you said in that paragraph after your "disclaimer" was in fact, racist. Claiming that selective immigration from europe is what made us successful is historical revisionism that does the service of promoting white supremacy. You ARE claiming that northern europeans are superior to other cultures and ethnicities.

You are simply factually wrong on this. I would not say that you are a racist, but wherever you got your information from most certainly is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
The crucial flaw in what you are neglecting to mention is that most of the world's population pre-1920 was too poor to come to America or there weren't significant amounts of shipping running that way. Hence it was mostly just Europeans.
Hmmm, who are you leaving out here?

Did anyone come from Africa pre-1920? Anyone at all that you can think of?

How about china? 12 million came here in the 30 years after the civil war.

People came from all over the world and contributed to our culture and helped build our nation (sometime voluntarily, sometimes not so much). You seem to think that the only valuable people in our country came from europe to the point of revising history to make that claim.

It wasn't until relatively recently, about a 100 years ago, that we started restricting immigration, and we did so specifically for racist reasons. Before that, it really was open borders.

So, we had open borders, then we restricted immigration for openly racist reasons. We continued restricting immigration, but as being a racist fell out of favor, we kept trying to justify it as not being a racist policy, when, pretty much it inherently is.


You want a merit based system, you say? Okay, so we take immigrants from only other well developed countries with educational systems that are capable of producing people with the skills that you think we need. Other first world nations that really feel no pressure to come here. No desire to dramatically increase their standard of living. No loyalty to a country that lifted them from real poverty to comparatively luxurious standards. Most people from other developed nations don't really want to relocate here that much, (and the number that do is dropping quickly), and when they get here, they have no great loyalty to us.

You really think that because someone lives in an undeveloped nation, they are stupider, they are lazier, they have less work ethic or poor morals and family values? Just the basics of surviving in some of those environments would tax most of us lazy first worlders to the point we would just lay down and die from exhaustion. Someone who comes from an environment where bare survival entails 14 hours of gathering wood and water a day is going to thrive in an environment where the most basic elements of life of running water and heated houses and stoves that just turn on when you flip a switch are available. Just through statistics, you can see that there are geniuses in these billions of people that we let live in squalid conditions. There are likely people in these countries that we write off that are smarter than anyone in our country. And we just let that potential rot away, because we don't want people from *those* countries.

If we want to "make America great again", we need help, and lots of it. There's much that needs doing in this country.

If we want to do that without getting our own lazy asses off the couch, we need even more.


I form this policy from purely selfish pragmatic reasons. I want America to be the greatest country in the world again. I don't see us doing that on our own, and I don't really want to get off my couch anyway. Lets bring in other people to do the heavy lifting of rebuilding our country, and then they can join us in sharing in the fruits of their labors.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 01-24-2018 at 10:28 AM.
  #78  
Old 01-24-2018, 12:13 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
The crucial flaw in what you are neglecting to mention is that most of the world's population pre-1920 was too poor to come to America or there weren't significant amounts of shipping running that way. Hence it was mostly just Europeans.
Wait, the risk to immigration today is that the residents of shithole countries -- the shitholians, if you will -- have become more prosperous? Do you think there's a risk that the shitholians might do the same thing if they came over here and, like, grew the economy or something?

Plus, as already noted, it wasn't just Europeans, although the demographics of immigration has indeed been changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I am not going to claim that Europeans are better or worse than anyone else, simply pointing out that an open boarders policy today would be letting in different immigrants from different cultures than the pre-1920 mix.
My dear fellow, you have clearly and repeatedly implied that Europeans are better than everyone else. You appear to be so unaware of it that you just did it again, in the very same sentence in which you tried to deny it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And if the flow rate is so high that they outnumber the "natives" (even if we aren't really natives) the rational outcome would be a massive cultural change, with the new cultural being mainly weighted towards the culture of origin of the immigrants.
What "culture" would that be? I wasn't aware that there was a monolithic culture of "other", which for lack of a better term perhaps we could call "shithole-ism", the universal culture of the shitholians. This would be an understandable viewpoint only if one views the world as consisting on one side of white northern Europeans possessing the "correct" values and culture, and on the other side, everybody else, who can be summarily dismissed as shitholians coming from shitholes, and therefore useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And if that culture is a "failure" creating a "shithole" : what do you reasonably think would happen.
I reasonably think that maybe it would create communities more like Toronto. Toronto has become arguably the most multicultural multiracial city in the world. A city in which nearly 52% of the residents are now visible minorities or, according to your definition, shitholians. The shitholians have somehow inexplicably been able to acquire productive jobs and pre-approved mortgages. They live in houses and -- something that I personally appreciate -- have helped to substantially drive up property values, and they raise families consisting of little shitholians, pretty much as white suburban Americans did in those halcyon days of the 1950s that all the anti-immigration zealots so desperately want to get back to, as portrayed on Father Knows Best.

Yet despite all the shitholians -- some might even dare to say at least in part because of them -- Toronto is a thriving, clean, safe, economically prosperous and culturally vibrant city with a high quality of life and a low crime rate despite the population of the greater metropolitan area now approaching 7 million. Indeed, in keeping with its multiculturalism Toronto is a forward-thinking city invested in the future; one of its current initiatives for example is the Quayside waterfront pilot for the smart city of the future, being done in collaboration with three government agencies and the Alphabet (Google) Sidewalk Labs organization:
Sidewalk's initial ideas – in a 220-page document made public Tuesday – show the company with an agenda that represents significant innovation in architecture, construction and urban design. Within the area it develops, private cars would be banned; streets would be served by autonomous vehicles and freight robots moving in underground tunnels. Intelligent signals would manage traffic on pedestrian-friendly streets; buildings would be designed to be highly flexible, constructed using modular units that are produced nearby. These would be home to what Sidewalk describes as a "radical" mix of offices, retail, residence and maker spaces, a blend which would challenge existing zoning and building-code regulations.

Those buildings would be linked by an energy system that would reduce the district's energy consumption by 95 per cent below city regulations. And a digital layer would measure movements of people, energy, traffic and goods through the district.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle36612387/
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
I think we need a merit-based system.
That's pretty funny, because:

(a) if that's a tacit acknowledgment that America does not, even today, have a sufficiently functional merit-based system, then the only remaining explanation I can see for your "America became successful due to past immigration" hypothesis is that it was the "right" kind of immigration, viz.- white northern Europeans, regardless of qualifications.

(b) if there **is** an effective merit-based immigration system, then why would it matter where anyone is from, shithole or not? Because here, the only explanation I can see is that we don't like their race or ethnicity.
  #79  
Old 01-24-2018, 01:19 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Really, you claim that we are not a nation of immigrants? That we didn't come from all over the world? You know nothing of our country's history, if that is the case.

Now, I realize that you don't want to be branded a racist, but everything you said in that paragraph after your "disclaimer" was in fact, racist. Claiming that selective immigration from europe is what made us successful is historical revisionism that does the service of promoting white supremacy. You ARE claiming that northern europeans are superior to other cultures and ethnicities.

You are simply factually wrong on this. I would not say that you are a racist, but wherever you got your information from most certainly is.

Hmmm, who are you leaving out here?

Did anyone come from Africa pre-1920? Anyone at all that you can think of?

How about china? 12 million came here in the 30 years after the civil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States

As you can see, the evidence does not support your post at all. America was 84% white people in 1930. The primary minority was black people. Other groups were negligible.

That's not a very diverse racial mix. It stayed that way for decades after that.

To be totally frank, if you actually try to measure whole populations for "superiority*", Asians usually come out on top. I'm hardly a white supremacist. (and if you must know, I am not asian myself) All I've been saying is :

a. The facts are, our ancestors didn't in reality let just anyone in pre-1920. I don't know where the 12 million Chinese workers went, they aren't there in the census data.

b. Some people are probably better than others as individuals, regardless of race. We should go by merit instead of having just "no limits, anyone and everyone". Also if our merit system happens to favor people who happen to be from some races more than others, we should still use it, so long as the system is in fact race blind. There is an argument for affirmative action to make up for past wrongs towards our own citizens, but I do not think this should apply to immigration policy.

*metrics like crime rate, higher education completion, how hard someone works, intelligence, child geniuses, it's mostly asians winning the competition by large margins.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-24-2018 at 01:23 PM.
  #80  
Old 01-24-2018, 02:49 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States

As you can see, the evidence does not support your post at all. America was 84% white people in 1930. The primary minority was black people. Other groups were negligible.
My post was that you were falsely claiming that we have always restricted immigration to northern europe, and that that is why america is great.

You did completely forget about a fairly large population that we dragged here.

As far as the chinese, I did misread my cite there, in that it it was talking about all immigration in those years, not just chinese. It doesn't give a breakdown on the numbers from China, especially since many worked here for a while, then returned (and many worked here for a while, then died in the mines or in railroad accidents). But to say they contributed little or nothing, when their labor was key in exploiting the mining in california, and for building the transpacific railroad, is very blind.

They have contributed much to our culture, to our language, and to our culinary traditions.

They were also key in shaping our racist immigration policies, starting with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Quote:
That's not a very diverse racial mix. It stayed that way for decades after that.
Because that was when we started implementing immigration policies to keep "the other" out. And keep in mind, racism wasn't always whites against non-whites. Racism has been against all immigrants as they came in. There was racism against the irish when they were immigrating, the polish, and so on.

When you break down that diversity in terms of all the different places that they came from, and all the places that their contemporaries called "shitholes" you see a much larger spread. You seem to think that "northern europe" was some monolithic culture, but it was as diverse as any other continent full of people. When the irish were immigrating in mass, people were worried about losing our "cultural identity" then too.

It is only that now that we decide to conglomerate a group, and loosely call them "northern european" that that has become our "national identity". That was one of the first melting pots that was america. These cultures didn't have much in common with each other, didn't get along too well, but when they came here, they ended up working together.
Quote:
To be totally frank, if you actually try to measure whole populations for "superiority*", Asians usually come out on top. I'm hardly a white supremacist. (and if you must know, I am not asian myself) All I've been saying is :
If you are trying to measure populations for superiority, you are doing the whole "I'm not a racist" thing entirely wrong.
Quote:
a. The facts are, our ancestors didn't in reality let just anyone in pre-1920. I don't know where the 12 million Chinese workers went, they aren't there in the census data.
As noted, the 12 million was my mistake, but in any case, some died, some worked for a while and returned home, some were forced out by racial policies.

But yes, prior to the chinese exclusion act, there were no controls on immigration, and even with that, it was just the chinese that were not allowed in, because of racism.
Quote:
b. Some people are probably better than others as individuals, regardless of race. We should go by merit instead of having just "no limits, anyone and everyone". Also if our merit system happens to favor people who happen to be from some races more than others, we should still use it, so long as the system is in fact race blind. There is an argument for affirmative action to make up for past wrongs towards our own citizens, but I do not think this should apply to immigration policy.
To be practical, we do have to have limits. Like I said, I don't know that we can feed much more than a billion people with our current agricultural practices. (If we went to more involved things, like vertical farms powered by nukes, or even just reducing our standards to where the bulk of nutrition comes from crickets and algae, we have no real limit). But, what "merit" are you looking for? If merit means having a first world education and can speak english, then you are doing very little better than a racist. If merit is being willing and able to work hard to improve the lives of not only themselves, but those around them, then we can afford to look a little wider than just the countries that are already developed.

If we have a merit system that tends to favor one race over another, then it is very likely that that merit system is flawed and skewed in order to favor one race over another, not that one race is better than another.

Quote:
*metrics like crime rate, higher education completion,
Those two can be objectively measured, and are largely a reflection of the country's ability to prevent crime and educate its people, rather than something inherent to the people themselves.
Quote:
how hard someone works, intelligence, child geniuses,
These cannot be objectively measured, especially as you skip over people who are not in areas where these will be noticed. If you live in a highly impoverished country, and you manage to survive, you are working harder than 90% of the rest of the world. Your intelligence, even your child prodigies, will go completely unnoticed.
Quote:
it's mostly asians winning the competition by large margins.
First world nations win first world competitions, yay us!

In any case, we are pretty much dead middle (actually a bit closer to the bottom of the list [126 of 219]) of countries by homicide. If we want to maintain our "cultural identity", we should be taking immigrants from around us on the list, not the top.
  #81  
Old 01-24-2018, 03:11 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
But, what "merit" are you looking for? If merit means having a first world education and can speak english, then you are doing very little better than a racist. If merit is being willing and able to work hard to improve the lives of not only themselves, but those around them, then we can afford to look a little wider than just the countries that are already developed.
Outcomes. We have let people in in the past, and we have data on them. Language, culture, education, race, country of origin, religion.

We decide on what outcomes we care about. (this is called terminal values)

We decide on how much weight we care about these things. Ideally these weights come from a rational overall model. For example, do we care about taxes paid? Crimes committed? Since a crime is the same thing as a theft from the taxpayers (since it costs money to punish and someone else loses value as a victim) you can connect the 2 variables to a single metric and have a relative weight between the two.

Once we decide on what matters, we then pick immigrants from the pool that our model says we will get the best results with.

I don't know who those people will be, you don't either, but this is how to rationally go about optimizing your policy.
  #82  
Old 01-24-2018, 03:47 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,204
(Lest people think I've abandoned the thread, I'm continuing to read it, but I don't find I have much intelligent to say; I'm happy to hear various perspectives. As I said in the OP, I'm quite willing to have my mind changed.)
  #83  
Old 01-24-2018, 03:51 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,165
I havent read all the posts but that is a similar policy for other countries who allow immigration but only if such a person qualifies. Like having a certain income.
  #84  
Old 01-24-2018, 04:25 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post

I don't know who those people will be, you don't either, but this is how to rationally go about optimizing your policy.
Well, you admit that you don't know who they will be, that's start. And I admit that I don't know who they will be.

But I don't think that your model is going to do much to clarify the matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by crimes committed and taxes paid, there. I do agree that we should probably keep criminals from entering any more than necessary (we already have enough here), but if a few slip through the cracks due to generous immigration policy, I think we still come out well ahead.

We are looking for people that are willing to work. To work hard, for not a whole lot of compensation, and to appreciate the opportunity to do so. We are not going to find these people in developed countries. The people in developed countries that are interested in that sort of work are the dregs of their country, while they are the cream of the crop in others. Nothing to do with ability, only to do with opportunity. We provide that opportunity, and we both benefit.

I really really don't care about education. Maybe that's because I don't have a college education myself, and so I see that there are many things that I can do without it that are still beneficial to society that I don't see it as necessary as one who has it and thinks that anyone without isn't worth considering. I do care about work ethic, and when I see a family working 80 hours a week just to manage basic survival, I see that that family has people with excellent work ethic. It's hard as hell to get any of these lazy first world people to put in an honest days work without constantly cajoling and herding them. When I see a family that has manged to eke out a living off of terrible land with no help from anyone at all, I see people that are very highly intelligent and dedicated. That they have no formal education or ability to speak english does not mean that they are stupid. In fact, if you see what people have accomplished that they have come up with by their own wits, you'll realize that higher education, being told things rather than having to figure them out for yourself, doesn't actually make you more intelligent.

People from these areas will have pretty dedicated children as well. These kids are going to either know, or be reminded of what things could be like. Any first world complaints about how hard homework is, or how the school food is plain and unappetizing will be met with parents who actually understand what suffering and deprivation is like.

So, we get the parents in to do a bunch of heave construction work to rebuild our infrastructure, as well as build it up more to accommodate the hundreds of millions that we will be adding to the population, and we get kids who are intelligent and have every motive to do as well as they can in education and into their careers as academics or professionals.

Who is going to come from Norway? The people that can't make it in Norway. We don't want people that can't make it in Norway.
  #85  
Old 01-25-2018, 12:48 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, you admit that you don't know who they will be, that's start. And I admit that I don't know who they will be.

But I don't think that your model is going to do much to clarify the matter.

Who is going to come from Norway? The people that can't make it in Norway. We don't want people that can't make it in Norway.
The model as I described it would clearly and obviously detect trends like that. Remember, the model is a mathematical construct generated between :

Inputs. What data did you start with?

Outputs. What were the results?

If your theory is actually correct, the data would show that people coming from Norway and other top tier nations would do more poorly than people coming from poorer nations. And the model would recommend the correct policy.

Models are not perfect. Incomplete and limited data. Overfitting. Optimizing for the wrong parameters. Models can fail in many ways. But done right, they do much better than human reasoning and will give you better outcomes.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-25-2018 at 12:50 PM.
  #86  
Old 01-25-2018, 01:15 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
The model as I described it would clearly and obviously detect trends like that. Remember, the model is a mathematical construct generated between :

Inputs. What data did you start with?

Outputs. What were the results?

If your theory is actually correct, the data would show that people coming from Norway and other top tier nations would do more poorly than people coming from poorer nations. And the model would recommend the correct policy.

Models are not perfect. Incomplete and limited data. Overfitting. Optimizing for the wrong parameters. Models can fail in many ways. But done right, they do much better than human reasoning and will give you better outcomes.
I don't know that you can just create a model that tells you who is best to take, people are complex creatures, and unless we end up with a Strong AI as a "benevolent tyrant", the models are going to be lacking.

But, I will agree entirely that a computer model is better than the racist model that we currently use.
  #87  
Old 01-25-2018, 01:31 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't know that you can just create a model that tells you who is best to take, people are complex creatures, and unless we end up with a Strong AI as a "benevolent tyrant", the models are going to be lacking.

But, I will agree entirely that a computer model is better than the racist model that we currently use.
You're mistaking "better" for "perfect". A strong AI is a super-model that is making decisions very close to perfect. (plus a bunch of other subsystems, so it can recognize speech and refuse to open the pod bay doors, etc)

Making a model that beats human judgement is relatively trivial. You don't even need a computer to execute one, you just do better with a computer.
  #88  
Old 01-25-2018, 02:06 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You're mistaking "better" for "perfect". A strong AI is a super-model that is making decisions very close to perfect. (plus a bunch of other subsystems, so it can recognize speech and refuse to open the pod bay doors, etc)

Making a model that beats human judgement is relatively trivial. You don't even need a computer to execute one, you just do better with a computer.
As long as that model is made by people, it will be influenced by their prejudices. And if the model doesn't come up with results that conform to our prejudices, the model will be adjusted until it does.

People are just a hair more complex than a flow chart.
  #89  
Old 03-15-2018, 02:57 AM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,165
Here's a case for open borders laid out: https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double

Here's a key portion:
Dylan Matthews: In rich countries, a lot of people imagine that an influx of foreign workers would reduce wages at a time when median wages have been stagnant for several decades. And because most people are nationalists who privilege the well-being of their countrymen ahead of that of other human beings, that's considered a huge problem with immigration, one that open borders would, on this view, exacerbate....

Bryan Caplan: The simplest response is to say, "Fine. Let’s accept that way of modeling it, let in immigrants with a entry fee or a surtax, and redistribute the proceeds to low-skilled Americans." That’s the easiest way out, which doesn’t require changing the whole way that people think.

But more important is realizing that there are many different kinds of labor. Even Americans we think of as low-skilled actually do very different kinds of labor than, say, low-skilled Bangladeshis. Most low-skilled Americans speak English. They’re familiar with the modern world. When you’re thinking about the kinds of jobs different groups will do, and whether they’ll be competing with each other, you shouldn’t just put everyone into the same "low-skilled" box, but rather realize, "Wow, there are actually a bunch of different low-skilled boxes, and the global poor are in a box that is much lower skilled than even the Americans we think of as being low skilled."
There's more. The interviewer is convinced by Bryan Caplan's argument for open borders. I am not: I much prefer incremental reform over untested and untestable large scale reform. There is an economic case for open borders though: those interested can click the link.
  #90  
Old 03-15-2018, 07:56 AM
Inbred Mm domesticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,659
I am pretty convinced unrestricted immigration (and emigration) would be generally better for most Americans than what we have now. I believe this because I accept the idea an economy must be forever growing to be successful for the people participating in it. The cheapest way to keep an economy growing is to add more people to it, particularly people who have nothing but a willingness to work very hard. Take a typical person from Mexico who probably never owned a car, a house, a computer, or a Snuggie. They want these things and they will work very hard to get them. This increases economic activity that wouldn't ever happen if they stayed in Mexico. Every purchase they can make ripples across the entire economy, affecting people in a huge number of professions.

On the downside, a person who feels they are losing because of such a policy, whether due to losing a job, upsetting their prejudices, changing their culture, or any other unwanted change rightly or wrongly attributed to immigrants will not be convinced by what seem like economic abstractions.

I doubt the overall picture would be much different than what we have now. There are
millions of illegal immigrants in the USA. They will find some way to get across the border because they see the opportunity for themselves. The cost of even a few years of misery in immigrating, a lifetime of hiding, and potential prison is far outweighed by a house, a car, good education, and getting type II diabetes. There are also millions of people who are upset by the changes they believe immigrants bring to their communities. The only difference is we can take out the parts about risky immigration, hiding, and prison.
  #91  
Old 03-15-2018, 09:09 AM
Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
I'd take the employment requirement out of XT's suggestion, but other than that it's fine. The reason for this is, I think people contribute to the economy by being present for job opportunities, not just by actualy having a job. Sure, while unemployed they'll be spending money without making money--but spending money is part of the economy. Also there's more to the importance of residency than strictly monetary economic stuff.
Doesn't this harm American workers, in the sense that it makes them more replaceable, and gives them less bargaining power with their employer?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017