Not to mention meeting the needs for housing and infrastructure so that they will have adequate housing, and not end up packed into slums.
Slums compared to what? Our culture's current notion of an acceptable quality of life? Or whatever the immigrant left behind? Which is the more valid?
Never mind that the IBC, Fire Codes, and ADA isn't going to magically disappear somehow. We still have ghettos, but we no longer have tenements as Jacob Riis knew them.
Well, consider the reason that most of those people want to come to the country anyway. In the hispanic case, it's almost entirely a result of demand for cheap labor in the united states. Immigration's only going to happen in accordance with that demand, whether or not everyone gets to legally become a citizen.
Pretty much this. It's only "unappealing" in the sense of demand drying up.
I disagree with a lot of this. There are plenty of reasons a large number of people would want to move into a country, most of which could apply to the Mexico - U.S. situation:
- Seeking abundance
- Escaping poverty
- Seeking more security (escaping war / poorly policed areas)
- Seeking better economic opportunity (this could include seeking a job, but could also be leaving a country with a poor economy)
And the country receiving immigrants does not only feel the effects as demand for cheap labor drying up. Crowding, and just general overpopulation of an area is undesirable, as well as increased competition for jobs, which may lead to unemployment, etc.
Three of those are basically the same thing restated. And if there were no jobs here, none of them would apply. There's a reason no one is clamoring to move to Romania.
Sweden and other scandinavian countries have recently been receiving a large number of immigrants due to their great health care, economy and government benefits. If caring for these additional immigrants becomes a strain on the government and makes it difficult to take care of their native population, why would they accept them?
Define native population.
Those who define themselves as such. If the first thing to come to a person's mind when asked what nationality they are matches the country where that person is currently a citizen (without later contradiction), then that person is a member of the native population.
In a country, every person is a citizen of a structure called "polises." Most polises are cities. But the catch is that (unlike Greek polises), a polis can also represent a guild or an organization for people who aren't rooted to a single city. For example, there's a Farmer's polis, a Merchant's polis, and a Military polis.
Each polis is represented by a Councilor (i.e. a Senator).
In the Council, all the Councilors get to vote on important issues. Sort of like the Senate. However, each Councilor gets way more than 1 vote. A Councilor can cast as many votes as the number of people who belong to his or her polis. What's more, each Councilor can split his or her votes however they want.
So, the Councilor of Chicago gets to cast 3 million votes. But on a controversial issue like abortion, maybe he'll only cast 2 million votes "yay" and 1 million votes "nay." Councilors would have leeway to split the votes as they please. There would be political pressure in some polises to elect councilors who split their votes based on "popular vote" or what the polls say the popular vote is. But other polises might elect all-or-nothing Councilors. Councilors could also negotiate their vote splits within the Council itself, among fellow Councilors.
165m. Canada attracted 45m. Of course, there's quite a difference between desire and capacity.
Not to mention this being a complete hypothetical that would never be implemented, let alone implemented where everybody's invited over next Tuesday (BYOB) rather than something phased in over some length of time.
Oh man, Saudi Arabia is a top immigration destination?
Man, that reminds me of this thing that this thing that Muslims say all the time, after saying the word "Allahoo," says all the time.
Qingu on
0
Options
Grudgeblessed is the mind too small for doubtRegistered Userregular
Sweden and other scandinavian countries have recently been receiving a large number of immigrants due to their great health care, economy and government benefits. If caring for these additional immigrants becomes a strain on the government and makes it difficult to take care of their native population, why would they accept them?
Well for one thing, if it wasn't for immigration, Sweden would have a negative population growth, which is definitely a bad thing for the economy.
And as a consequence of the economical recession, political populism and right wing extremism is on the rise, despite the fact that when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in the next few years, we are going to have to increase immigration a lot, to cover up the loss in productivity and increase in health care expenses.
Sweden and other scandinavian countries have recently been receiving a large number of immigrants due to their great health care, economy and government benefits. If caring for these additional immigrants becomes a strain on the government and makes it difficult to take care of their native population, why would they accept them?
Well for one thing, if it wasn't for immigration, Sweden would have a negative population growth, which is definitely a bad thing for the economy.
Unless you're talking about a sudden and massive drop in population, how is that necessarily bad for the economy?
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Grudgeblessed is the mind too small for doubtRegistered Userregular
Sweden and other scandinavian countries have recently been receiving a large number of immigrants due to their great health care, economy and government benefits. If caring for these additional immigrants becomes a strain on the government and makes it difficult to take care of their native population, why would they accept them?
Well for one thing, if it wasn't for immigration, Sweden would have a negative population growth, which is definitely a bad thing for the economy.
Unless you're talking about a sudden and massive drop in population, how is that necessarily bad for the economy?
Well, the population is also aging, which means that a decreasing number of working people need to generate capital to provide for an increasing number of non-working people.
Sweden and other scandinavian countries have recently been receiving a large number of immigrants due to their great health care, economy and government benefits. If caring for these additional immigrants becomes a strain on the government and makes it difficult to take care of their native population, why would they accept them?
Well for one thing, if it wasn't for immigration, Sweden would have a negative population growth, which is definitely a bad thing for the economy.
Unless you're talking about a sudden and massive drop in population, how is that necessarily bad for the economy?
Well, the population is also aging, which means that a decreasing number of working people need to generate capital to provide for an increasing number of non-working people.
I guess I don't understand how, if it's gradual, it's not something that an economy like Sweden could pretty easily adapt to. Productivity isn't static, it's had a tendency to go up over time. If productivity goes up while the population gradually shrinks... I guess you'd have Japan?
Sweden and other scandinavian countries have recently been receiving a large number of immigrants due to their great health care, economy and government benefits. If caring for these additional immigrants becomes a strain on the government and makes it difficult to take care of their native population, why would they accept them?
Well for one thing, if it wasn't for immigration, Sweden would have a negative population growth, which is definitely a bad thing for the economy.
Unless you're talking about a sudden and massive drop in population, how is that necessarily bad for the economy?
Well, the population is also aging, which means that a decreasing number of working people need to generate capital to provide for an increasing number of non-working people.
I guess I don't understand how, if it's gradual, it's not something that an economy like Sweden could pretty easily adapt to. Productivity isn't static, it's had a tendency to go up over time. If productivity goes up while the population gradually shrinks... I guess you'd have Japan?
The world economy is based on growth. If there is no population growth, the growth in efficiency needs to be huge. The retirement of the baby-boomers are also going to cause a higher than usual loss of knowledge and capacity, both because of the size of that generation, and because they currently hold a large share of the top-tier jobs.
So, declining birth rates combined with a large number of the work force retiring, needs to be compensated by additional immigration if the levels of productivity is not only be kept constant, but grow, as the economy demands. Efficiency alone cannot counter this, especially as Sweden has been moving towards a service/knowledge economy rather than an industrial one for many years now.
I'm a fan of pretty much open immigration, with anyone wanting to become a citizen being able to be one. That implies changes to lots of other policies too, of course.
Basically this.
Wasn't there just a poll of a bunch of countries that showed that about 400 million people would want to immigrate to the United States if they could?
It seems to me that at some point there are pragmatic limits that get imposed on immigration.
165m. Canada attracted 45m. Of course, there's quite a difference between desire and capacity.
Not to mention this being a complete hypothetical that would never be implemented, let alone implemented where everybody's invited over next Tuesday (BYOB) rather than something phased in over some length of time.
The problem is if you are willing to let anyone immigrate and become a citizen, you have to give them equal rights - that's what a citizen is. Doing so means that construction of a social safety net becomes incredibly difficult. Even ignoring a social safety net, such immigration would put major strains on every aspect of society: We only have so many ESL teachers as it is, if you added 30 million immigrants who almost assuredly have a higher birthrate than the native US population you could easily have 5 million new non-native speakers in public schools next year and 50 million in 5-10 years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm a fan of pretty much open immigration, with anyone wanting to become a citizen being able to be one. That implies changes to lots of other policies too, of course.
Basically this.
Wasn't there just a poll of a bunch of countries that showed that about 400 million people would want to immigrate to the United States if they could?
It seems to me that at some point there are pragmatic limits that get imposed on immigration.
165m. Canada attracted 45m. Of course, there's quite a difference between desire and capacity.
Not to mention this being a complete hypothetical that would never be implemented, let alone implemented where everybody's invited over next Tuesday (BYOB) rather than something phased in over some length of time.
The problem is if you are willing to let anyone immigrate and become a citizen, you have to give them equal rights - that's what a citizen is. Doing so means that construction of a social safety net becomes incredibly difficult. Even ignoring a social safety net, such immigration would put major strains on every aspect of society: We only have so many ESL teachers as it is, if you added 30 million immigrants who almost assuredly have a higher birthrate than the native US population you could easily have 5 million new non-native speakers in public schools next year and 50 million in 5-10 years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
At those levels you also have cultural issues. It can genuinely be a problem that you're going to swamp the democratic process with a substantial voting block who won't be sufficiently integrated as to have a traditional breakdown of political views.
I know this was true in the reverse for me. Male citizenship guarantees service, unless you're otherwise deferred (though most of the deferments involve some sort of service).
Nevermind that, thanks to my father, I was also an American citizen (he received his citizenship when he first immigrated to the US in the 1970s). Some countries really, really need those warm bodies.
I'm a fan of pretty much open immigration, with anyone wanting to become a citizen being able to be one. That implies changes to lots of other policies too, of course.
Basically this.
Wasn't there just a poll of a bunch of countries that showed that about 400 million people would want to immigrate to the United States if they could?
It seems to me that at some point there are pragmatic limits that get imposed on immigration.
165m. Canada attracted 45m. Of course, there's quite a difference between desire and capacity.
Assuming it's somewhat accurate, this leads to some interesting political speculation--for example, that the Russian Fed. rates way, way higher than all other of states in the CIS (or that were in the USSR, for that matter), including the Baltic Republics (Belarus is the only popular choice for immigration, and barely). Speculating, of course, I'm tempted to say that people from all the other Soviet Republics tend to want to immigrate to Russia (presumably for work opportunities). There could be a much larger trend at work though.
What's the goal of open borders? Forced economic parity between nations? A worldwide EU style government?
I'm not sure how one would go from "open borders" as in "you can go there if you want" to "forced economic parity".
Open borders allows people to go from areas that are void of opportunities and/or good policy to places with more opportunities and better policy. It's a means for people to vote with their feet against or for various governments, even if they couldn't otherwise vote.
Also, I don't now that a worldwide government would necessarily resemble the EU, but that's one outcome I wouldn't mind at all.
The problem is if you are willing to let anyone immigrate and become a citizen, you have to give them equal rights - that's what a citizen is. Doing so means that construction of a social safety net becomes incredibly difficult. Even ignoring a social safety net, such immigration would put major strains on every aspect of society: We only have so many ESL teachers as it is, if you added 30 million immigrants who almost assuredly have a higher birthrate than the native US population you could easily have 5 million new non-native speakers in public schools next year and 50 million in 5-10 years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
One of the great ironies of the social safety net is that you can't do it unless you can designate a certain elite who are entitled to it, forbidding others, determined largely by birthright.
Posts
Never mind that the IBC, Fire Codes, and ADA isn't going to magically disappear somehow. We still have ghettos, but we no longer have tenements as Jacob Riis knew them.
Those who define themselves as such. If the first thing to come to a person's mind when asked what nationality they are matches the country where that person is currently a citizen (without later contradiction), then that person is a member of the native population.
In a country, every person is a citizen of a structure called "polises." Most polises are cities. But the catch is that (unlike Greek polises), a polis can also represent a guild or an organization for people who aren't rooted to a single city. For example, there's a Farmer's polis, a Merchant's polis, and a Military polis.
Each polis is represented by a Councilor (i.e. a Senator).
In the Council, all the Councilors get to vote on important issues. Sort of like the Senate. However, each Councilor gets way more than 1 vote. A Councilor can cast as many votes as the number of people who belong to his or her polis. What's more, each Councilor can split his or her votes however they want.
So, the Councilor of Chicago gets to cast 3 million votes. But on a controversial issue like abortion, maybe he'll only cast 2 million votes "yay" and 1 million votes "nay." Councilors would have leeway to split the votes as they please. There would be political pressure in some polises to elect councilors who split their votes based on "popular vote" or what the polls say the popular vote is. But other polises might elect all-or-nothing Councilors. Councilors could also negotiate their vote splits within the Council itself, among fellow Councilors.
Man, that reminds me of this thing that this thing that Muslims say all the time, after saying the word "Allahoo," says all the time.
Well for one thing, if it wasn't for immigration, Sweden would have a negative population growth, which is definitely a bad thing for the economy.
And as a consequence of the economical recession, political populism and right wing extremism is on the rise, despite the fact that when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in the next few years, we are going to have to increase immigration a lot, to cover up the loss in productivity and increase in health care expenses.
Unless you're talking about a sudden and massive drop in population, how is that necessarily bad for the economy?
Well, the population is also aging, which means that a decreasing number of working people need to generate capital to provide for an increasing number of non-working people.
I guess I don't understand how, if it's gradual, it's not something that an economy like Sweden could pretty easily adapt to. Productivity isn't static, it's had a tendency to go up over time. If productivity goes up while the population gradually shrinks... I guess you'd have Japan?
The world economy is based on growth. If there is no population growth, the growth in efficiency needs to be huge. The retirement of the baby-boomers are also going to cause a higher than usual loss of knowledge and capacity, both because of the size of that generation, and because they currently hold a large share of the top-tier jobs.
So, declining birth rates combined with a large number of the work force retiring, needs to be compensated by additional immigration if the levels of productivity is not only be kept constant, but grow, as the economy demands. Efficiency alone cannot counter this, especially as Sweden has been moving towards a service/knowledge economy rather than an industrial one for many years now.
Isn't it a bit naive to expect limitless growth with limited resources?
Indeed. None the less, it is built into the fundations of our economy.
On a more positive note, this is an interesting take on the subject: Prosperity without Growth? - The transition to a sustainable economy
EDIT: to avoid derailment, I made a new thread about it here.
The problem is if you are willing to let anyone immigrate and become a citizen, you have to give them equal rights - that's what a citizen is. Doing so means that construction of a social safety net becomes incredibly difficult. Even ignoring a social safety net, such immigration would put major strains on every aspect of society: We only have so many ESL teachers as it is, if you added 30 million immigrants who almost assuredly have a higher birthrate than the native US population you could easily have 5 million new non-native speakers in public schools next year and 50 million in 5-10 years. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
At those levels you also have cultural issues. It can genuinely be a problem that you're going to swamp the democratic process with a substantial voting block who won't be sufficiently integrated as to have a traditional breakdown of political views.
I know this was true in the reverse for me. Male citizenship guarantees service, unless you're otherwise deferred (though most of the deferments involve some sort of service).
Nevermind that, thanks to my father, I was also an American citizen (he received his citizenship when he first immigrated to the US in the 1970s). Some countries really, really need those warm bodies.
Assuming it's somewhat accurate, this leads to some interesting political speculation--for example, that the Russian Fed. rates way, way higher than all other of states in the CIS (or that were in the USSR, for that matter), including the Baltic Republics (Belarus is the only popular choice for immigration, and barely). Speculating, of course, I'm tempted to say that people from all the other Soviet Republics tend to want to immigrate to Russia (presumably for work opportunities). There could be a much larger trend at work though.
I'm not sure how one would go from "open borders" as in "you can go there if you want" to "forced economic parity".
Open borders allows people to go from areas that are void of opportunities and/or good policy to places with more opportunities and better policy. It's a means for people to vote with their feet against or for various governments, even if they couldn't otherwise vote.
Also, I don't now that a worldwide government would necessarily resemble the EU, but that's one outcome I wouldn't mind at all.