The US needs more immigrants, despite Trump's claim that the US is full!

[dismal]

I haven't heard one democrat call for open borders.

There may be a few that just don't want a border at all.

Bernie is on record calling "open borders" a right wing Koch Brothers proposal. I assume that means he's against it.

[YOUTUBE]vf-k6qOfXz0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Trausti]

I haven't heard one democrat call for open borders.

There may be a few that just don't want a border at all.

Bernie is on record calling "open borders" a right wing Koch Brothers proposal. I assume that means he's against it.

[YOUTUBE]vf-k6qOfXz0[/YOUTUBE]

Think Sanders is legit against open borders. Can't really have the big entitlements socialist paradise with open borders.

 

[dismal]

Think Sanders is legit against open borders. Can't really have the big entitlements socialist paradise with open borders.

I think it's more he's an old school leftist whose ideological faith was placed in the unions, who have historically never been keen on immigrants.

It's possible he may have some sort of epiphany on the road to Iowa, but he seems pretty set in this particular view.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think saying the US "needs" more immigrants is almost as badly simplistic as saying we need to close the borders.

We need to have a sane, sustainable immigration policy that a mix of need based (from the POV of employers and the US economy), merit based, and sympathy based (for refugees of all sorts).

It isn't going to happen in my lifetime, if ever, but that's what really needs to happen.

 

[JohnG]

I guess US immigration policy isn't all bad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5117201/canada-immigration-tech-trump/

 

[dismal]

I guess US immigration policy isn't all bad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5117201/canada-immigration-tech-trump/

Yes, good point. If these immigrants are so valuable it seems like the progressive thing to do would be to redistribute them to poor countries so that those countries might gain this benefit.

It doesn't seem particularly "progressive" to argue we should have them live in the evil American empire so they can pay wealthy white people's social security while depriving Bolivia or Mexico of their super-awesomeness.

 

[Trausti]

I guess US immigration policy isn't all bad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5117201/canada-immigration-tech-trump/

Yes, good point. If these immigrants are so valuable it seems like the progressive thing to do would be to redistribute them to poor countries so that those countries might gain this benefit.

It doesn't seem particularly "progressive" to argue we should have them live in the evil American empire so they can pay wealthy white people's social security while depriving Bolivia or Mexico of their super-awesomeness.

But then Zuckerberg will be stuck hiring Americans at higher wages. Sucks.

 

[DBT]

Some argue that the US is already overpopulated in terms of ecology and consumption;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

View attachment 20920
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1111280782985838593

Only white people are destructive to the environment, at least according to the "NY Post", same city where that plaque was added the French gift of the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration. Wonder what the common tie is?

Bringing in lots of non whites will not be a problem for the environment.

Well, obviously. If you sincerely care about the environment and climate change, ya gotta stop immigration. The more that come here and consume, the quicker we all die. 12 years, is it?

Which completely misses the point of the issue of consumption exceeding carrying capacity of the environment.

 

[ZiprHead]

I haven't heard one democrat call for open borders.

Correct. And anyone who opposes open borders is a horrible, terrible, person.

Funny that yesterday I was watching this show, which at times I vehemently disagree with on some topics



at 1:43:35 he says that his ultimate goal is open borders, but he will tactically not talk about that now. But these folks are more socialists anyway.

Is this sort of a logical fallacy technique? Not disclosing that you have much more ambitious goals and pretending you want a 6 on any scale when you really want a 9.5?

Seems Machiavellian.

Glenn Greenwald is rejected and derided by many US lefties. He left the US some time ago and lives in Brazil.

 

[repoman]

Glenn Greenwald is rejected and derided by many US lefties. He left the US some time ago and lives in Brazil.

It is the lefty cohost of Sam Seder, Michael Brooks, saying that his is real goal is open borders. Greenwald is not in that segment.

 

[repoman]

I would say that if the US was currently at the same demographics and for some reason all non white countries sent zero or negative people the US and tons of especially northwestern Europeans were clamoring to get in...

Even the race focused whites that want less population in the US for concerns about the environment, housing costs, commute times... would want to secure white political power by letting more whites in. This is the position that latinos are in now.

This is an atavistic impulse. It is also the right impulse.

 

[JohnG]

I guess US immigration policy isn't all bad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5117201/canada-immigration-tech-trump/

Yes, good point. If these immigrants are so valuable it seems like the progressive thing to do would be to redistribute them to poor countries so that those countries might gain this benefit.

It doesn't seem particularly "progressive" to argue we should have them live in the evil American empire so they can pay wealthy white people's social security while depriving Bolivia or Mexico of their super-awesomeness.

I am going to wager not everyone's vision of America is as fascist as yours.

 

[DBT]

Ultimately, the problem of over consumption has nothing to do colour, race, creed, religion politics or belief, just too many people with high consumption lifestyles impacting on the environment.

Neoclassical economics downplays the risks in order to maintain unsustainable consumerism and growth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ultimately, the problem of over consumption has nothing to do colour, race, creed, religion politics or belief, just too many people with high consumption lifestyles impacting on the environment.

Neoclassical economics downplays the risks in order to maintain unsustainable consumerism and growth.

This is a right wing circle jerk. Your money is no good here.

 

[steve_bank]

Canada does a bteer job of skills based immigration. I can say uin the 90s west coast technology could not have grown without foreign engineers. Some from Russia and eatern Europe, Mnaty Asians. But these were educated people who spoke English.

I was born in 1951 in the NYC region. Back then someone could make a living as an unskilled worker with little English. Making enough to have a family.

Those days are long gone. If we take in large numbers of immigrants witjhout at least the equivalent of a high school education and facilitymin English we may be creating a serious long term problem.

I see it in a number of Ethiopian and Somali immigrants. Those who have had a primary education pick up English and generally fit right in.

Others have been here for years and barley speak English. I can say the same for Latinos. There are people at my facil;ity who can not read resident medical charts and have to get someone to communicate details in Spanish.

To say there is no down side to unrestricted immigration without qualification is being Pollyannaish if that is the right word.

There is a cost to it that is reflected in taxes.

We have chronic shortages of skilled labor. Stating the obvious, pay for training and relocation of citizens from distressed areas like Appalachia and Detroit. A lot cheaper than immigration.

The cliché is we have always been welcoming to immigrants, and that is not true. Irish, Jews, and Italians.

Immigrants circa 1900 lived in NYC ghettos crowded into rooms or small apartment's. Fires were common. Disease. Near slave labor sweat shops. It still goes on today to some degree.

We should be paying white women to have more white babies too. White people are the bread and butter of our country and we shouldn't be threatening their white continued existence by welcoming non-white immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from non-white countries. It is the white people who built this country and why it should be white. Even the flag has white in it, there isn't any brown or black.

You must be joking or race baiting. What you are describing is the white Christian replenishment movement. Make lots of babies to counter immigration and non whites. Traditionally Poles, Spanish, Eastern Europeans were not considered white. White meant traceable Anglo Saxon heritage. Irish need not apply.

Birth rates are down in industrialized nations. Japan has a serious problem maintain its economy as the work force ages. And they are not conducive to immigration.

Russia's population is declining, but no one wants to move there.

Something I head over the weekend. In the late 19th century there was high immigration, but also high birth rate among citizens. As a result immigrants were a small percentage.

There is no question we need immigration, we always have. The question is who gets in. Obama's diversity immigration policy has a lottery for regions not represented in the USA. People get in regardless of education or skill level. The wrong idea.

Another show on immigration, about 70% of legal immigration is from chain migration of relatives. 30% skill based.

Over here are not enough young people born here opting for engineering in college. There is a shortage.

 

[DBT]

Ultimately, the problem of over consumption has nothing to do colour, race, creed, religion politics or belief, just too many people with high consumption lifestyles impacting on the environment.

Neoclassical economics downplays the risks in order to maintain unsustainable consumerism and growth.

This is a right wing circle jerk. Your money is no good here.

Yet it is just a matter of physics and biology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ok, what about my coworkers who are bringing over their elderly parents?

Elderly immigrants aren't eligible for social security unless they have worked in the US for 10 years. And that assumes they actually become citizens... So... they will only be a drain on your co-worker. Or should I say, an incentive for your co-worker to work hard to support them.

I know people who are not citizens but are married to citizens and collect SS.

https://www.xandyadvisors.com/blog/...now-about-social-security-retirement-benefits

You don't need to be a citizen to get Social Security.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Those days are long gone. If we take in large numbers of immigrants witjhout at least the equivalent of a high school education and facilitymin English we may be creating a serious long term problem.

Yup. Education really matters in the US. America isn't exactly a good place for those without degrees.

I see it in a number of Ethiopian and Somali immigrants. Those who have had a primary education pick up English and generally fit right in.

Others have been here for years and barley speak English. I can say the same for Latinos. There are people at my facil;ity who can not read resident medical charts and have to get someone to communicate details in Spanish.

Observation: What I've seen is those who marry someone who does not speak their native tongue will learn much more English than those who marry those they can speak their native tongue. This applies regardless of education--my wife helps some of her colleagues with English despite the fact they all have tertiary degrees.

We have chronic shortages of skilled labor. Stating the obvious, pay for training and relocation of citizens from distressed areas like Appalachia and Detroit. A lot cheaper than immigration.

I don't think we have a shortage of skilled labor, but rather a bunch of companies who want to pretend there's a shortage rather than pay what it takes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Somebody said something about bringing in elderly family members. Sorry, that only applies to Melania Trump. Most immigrants these days aren't permitted to bring in any additional family members.

Have the laws actually changed??

 

[dismal]

I guess US immigration policy isn't all bad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5117201/canada-immigration-tech-trump/

Yes, good point. If these immigrants are so valuable it seems like the progressive thing to do would be to redistribute them to poor countries so that those countries might gain this benefit.

It doesn't seem particularly "progressive" to argue we should have them live in the evil American empire so they can pay wealthy white people's social security while depriving Bolivia or Mexico of their super-awesomeness.

I am going to wager not everyone's vision of America is as fascist as yours.

"fascist"?

Did someone just teach you that word and you haven't quite figured out when to use it correctly (like Ron Burgundy with "when in Rome")?