ROTFLMAO!!! Aw, come on! It is Anglo-American culture which maintains our standard of living, and the more you undermine that culture by allowing floods of immigrants who have little or no desire to assimilate, the poorer our country will become. Jesus, how many unskilled laborers who can’t speak English do we need? It helps the rich by providing them with cheap labor, and it helps the lefties who expect to build a power base among the new immigrants, but for working people like me it’s a slow-motion disaster.
Mass immigration may have been a boon in the nineteeth and early twentieth centuries, but it doesn’t follow that it will always be beneficial.
Ha! Is this the best you can do? Really? Attempt to compare the settlement of a continent with the immigration policy of a nation? You did read the OP, right? You do know that the discussion is about the legal immigration policy of a country, right? And “need” is the exact right word, as a nation’s immigration policy should be designed to help it. Tell me, in what world should a nation set immigration policy that would be to it’s detriment? Other than Bizarro World, of course.
It’s not a fallacy. It’s just a question that makes you uncomfortable. Those two are not the same things.
The OP is discussing immigration to the US in terms of its benefits to other countries, so perhaps you should re-read the OP. I’m only address immigration in terms of its benefit to the US because somebody thinks that’s all that matters.
It doesn’t, it turns the US into a third world country. However, through shaming tactics it’s become difficult for otherwise sensible people to point this out.
It most certainly did, or at least it was seen that way in Washington. The Nazis were seen as both an immediate and a long term danger to the United States. You don’t think we were fighting to end the Holocaust or something, do you?
That is pretty much all that matters. We need to put our own interests first. You can be damn sure nobody else is going to put our interests ahead of theirs.
So the American Indians should have just stepped quietly aside without resisting? They should simply have allowed themselves to be dispossessed without a struggle because they weren’t supposed to consider their own needs? Were they supposed to consider their claim to the land to be no more valid than the settlers? Are we supposed to follow their example or something?
Nah, we should raise our immigration numbers. We should also make naturalization much easier. More votes in the working class means more power outside the elite subculture to balance the neoliberal plutocrats.
The plutocracy has power over the working class across borders. A working class that is nationalistic & divided by nation is unduly handicapped. The USA working class isn’t fighting for the well-being of the global working class because it’s distracted by nationalism.
“Fight the real enemy,” might be too belligerent. But we do need to look at the real problems of wealth & poverty worldwide.
I don’t see how that’s relevant. If someone wants to come here, why should they be prevented from doing so? If I want to move from one state in the US to another, that state can’t stop me even if it doesn’t “need” me.
I don’t see why some people should deserve better opportunities just because of where they were born.
Why do people automatically assume immigrants get welfare?
First off, many immigrants work. That’s the basis of the entire ‘they’re stealing out jobs’ thing after all.
Second off, immigrants are limited in what government aid they can get, especially illegal immigrants. Increasing immigration does not automatically mean we have to give out welfare checks to them. There’s nothing wrong with saying ‘Alright, we’ll take in more people. But they have to support themselves once they’re here.’
Although free education should stay. Education is one of the strongest indications of earning ability. The more we educate immigrants, the higher paying jobs they’ll be able to get, the less they’ll need welfare and contribute to the economy via taxes.
The point is that communities don’t necessarily want demographic upheaval imposed by open borders. People might not want Sharia law for instance.
Strinka asked why anyone who wants to come shouldn’t be allowed in. Well, followed to its logical conclusion you could have hundreds of millions of people who have no skills, but would be eligible for welfare. This isn’t an illusory concern. Consider the problems of underclasses that have developed in the outer suburbs of Paris, or amongst some migrants in European countries.
Sure, although groups don’t all have the same track record for taking to education. Nonetheless, people still imagine that populations are interchangeable. So what then? Offer more affirmative action?
Nonsense. The second does not follow from the first. Managing my financial affairs primarily for my own benefit doesn’t preclude donations to charity and giving an occasional buck or two to panhandlers. But that doesn’t mean I have to give my whole paycheck to UNICEF or the Salvation Army, and I don’ t have to let the homeless enter my home at will and take whatever they please. There is nothing evil in putting your own interests first.
We are not morally obligated to do the impossible, and letting everyone come who wants to come would most certainly end in disaster. Yet that seems to be exactly what some people want.
