[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1057

Here's another interesting video for you

 No.1065

It's an interesting video.

Picking up where that left off... I think that it's worth disentangling the question of whether or not the U.S. government is growing crueler with the question of whether or not the American people themselves are growing crueler.

Some reasonable evidence exists in terms of polling and more details surveys that white Americans in particular are getting less prejudiced, not more. As well, general social attitudes on multiple issues show the opposite of a 'Trump effect'. Thoughts on immigration have gotten more positive, not less.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/prejudice-among-white-americans-might-be-declining-in-the-trump-era/

https://qz.com/1667475/us-largely-supports-the-squad-over-trump-racism-data-shows/

 No.1067

>>1057
Well, if you're going to judge the actions of humans states or society as cruel, you'll take on a pretty negative view of humanity.  Nope, to be a positive person, you have to believe states deliver kindness to the humans (and kindness is what states deliver).  And if you need assurance, you may watch what happens to humans who disrespect powerful institutions.  

It is true that following World War I there was an immigration crisis, and America has an immigration crisis now.  I think the difference in scale is important, wars in the Northern Triangle and Syria must involve fewer people displaced than WWI.

 No.1068

>>1057
That video is 30 minutes long.  Do you have a summary or a transcript?

 No.1069

The problem is, the american economy is already in a bad position, especially in regards to having higher population levels of untrained labor. It's easy to say "let's just let all these immigrants come in and we should support them", it's a hell of a lot harder to foot the bill for that, especially when it's the middle class actually keeping taxes payed, since the ultra rich use tax havens and lawyers to avoid paying shit, and the poor don't have anything to give, and the middle class has been shrinking for years as a result. What happens when the tax burden of taking care of all these people eventually shrinks the middle class out of existence? The government goes bankrupt, that's what happens. That spells disaster, not only for it's citizens, but for immigrants as well. The united states government going broke and being unable to function as a government probably hurts these immigrants more than it does US citizens. Liberals need to stop pretending like we have the ability to foot the bill for open borders. It's irresponsible. Acknowledgment that there aren't infinite resources available to us isn't being a nazi, and it isn't being racist. It's just being reasonable.

Tangentially, let's look at what happens if it goes well. Let's say we get these centers into great order, and we're able to process immigrants quickly and painlessly. Well, now we have an even greater influx of people into the country. This means a lot more unskilled laborers. Basic supply and demand dictates that this means lower wages for everyone on the bottom. Now, anyone who has worked a minimum wage job knows how hard it is to

As for the video, i want to bring up an important point. We don't know what would have happened to Germany and it's people had they not fallen to the nazis. I think it's perfectly likely that, if they acted as the video seems to suggests they should have, and opened their borders and let everyone in, that their country would have collapsed. Their people would have starved, their economy would be in shambles, and their government effectively would not exist, and their culture would crumble. When there are no good options to take, it's not really fair to criticize a bad choice, since bad choices are the only options.

I think it's very, very easy for someone who makes their living making youtube videos to sit in their comfy chair in their comfy house and say what people in life=or=death circumstances should have done. They act like Germany wasn't a draft. They act like not following along with the Nazis wouldn't be risking your own life to some extent.

Talking is easy. Criticizing is easy. Getting called names when you know you're powerful enough that it won't go any farther than names? That's easy. Criticizing decisions?, saying "somebody who isn't me should pay for it"? Calling people racist? easy easy easy. Coming up with workable, sustainable solutions to the problem? That's a hell of a lot harder. I'd be a lot more inclined to listen to people like the one in the OP video if they could do that.

 No.1070

>>1069
To start with, "Democrats advocate open borders" is a straw man position that has about as much validly as "Republicans oppose abortion because they hate women and want to control their bodies" and "Libertarians oppose welfare because they want poor people to starve to death". We're talking about letting in a number of refugees who in large part came to the U.S. following our own rules about obtaining legal status. This as a matter of objective fact is not the same thing at all as supposing that anybody anywhere should be able to become a U.S. citizen without any process.

Fundamentally, the idea that immigrants are only a burden to the natives and don't contribute anything to the economy is also objectively, factually false. Immigrants are taxpayers. They're workers. They're entrepreneurs. They contribute to growth above all.

The notion that the U.S. economy is some kind of a fixed pie and that if any X group gets a bigger slice therefore everybody else gets less is a popular fallacy. But it's popularity doesn't make it true. As far as actual research goes, the belief is about as justified as, say, creationism or believing in a flat earth.

To pick just one out of countless examples in the scientific research, see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/05/17/new-research-shows-immigrants-may-boost-employment-of-natives/#4f8b230e1600

I've also got to say that your argument-- the economy is a fixed pie and new people means less for those already there-- seems to apply equally to children as it does to immigrants. The newly born from day one suck up resources from the adults that already exist. As young adults they take jobs that would otherwise go to the adults already there. Thus, we should freeze the American population level where it is (maybe adopt a China-style policy that only allows reproduction at the one baby per one death level) and prevent any growth, right?

If you don't agree, why? It's the exact same logic that you're using about immigration.

 No.1071

File: 1564332694228.png (166.17 KB, 700x500, 7:5, 1458651704942.png) ImgOps Google

>>1070
>To start with, "Democrats advocate open borders" is a straw man position
Perhaps they don't advocate it openly, but they advocate policies that have the effect of open borders.  E.g., they refuse to vote to close the refugee loophole (that lets migrants enter the country on any flimsy claim of being a refugee and stay here until their case is adjudicated, which often takes years due to the backlog).  And then the Dems protest when ICE rounds up those migrants and deports them.

>The notion that the U.S. economy is some kind of a fixed pie and that if any X group gets a bigger slice therefore everybody else gets less is a popular fallacy.
OK, but the number of low-skilled jobs is continuing to decrease due to automation, and immigrants coming in from the southern border without a visa are typically poorly educated and there is no vetting process to let in only those who have skills that will allow them to contribute to the economy into the future.

>The newly born from day one suck up resources from the adults that already exist. As young adults they take jobs that would otherwise go to the adults already there. Thus, we should freeze the American population level where it is (maybe adopt a China-style policy that only allows reproduction at the one baby per one death level) and prevent any growth, right?
>If you don't agree, why? It's the exact same logic that you're using about immigration.
Births from existing citizens have an offsetting advantage that immigration doesn't.  All animals, including humans, generally act in ways to favor the propagation of their own genetic line and the genetic lines of their close genetic relatives.  A policy favoring native births over immigration is a natural Schelling point for native citizens to adopt.

 No.1073

>>1071
Quite a lot of false points to unpack here...

First, the so-called 'refugee' loophole exists because the backlog exists, which in turn exists because both Republicans and Democrats (including the Trump administration) have refused to reform the legal system around refugees and adopt the necessary resources to the system that it needs. To put this all on the Democrats and then set up the "Democrats want open borders" strawman is ludicrous. It's sort of like blaming the entirely of the war on terror on Bush and setting up the "all Republicans are warmongers" strawman as if Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, et al's foreign policies didn't exist as well. There's also your bald assertion that the statements made by the refugees are "flimsy", which is directly contradicted by the actual journalist reporting of the conditions of which they're fleeing.

At the end of the day, if you ask a reasonable random person on the street what "open borders" means, he or she is going to say something like "anybody can come to the U.S. and become a citizen with no process". And that as a matter of objective fact is not the same thing at all as demanding that the U.S. follow its own laws on refugees. The two are just not the same.

Second, as stated before, more immigration means more taxpayers, more consumers, more entrepreneurs, and more workers all at once. This increases the labor supply, yes. It also increases the demand for labor. Anyone with even a basic understanding of economics should get that if both the supply and demand of X increases at the same time, then it's not clear necessarily if the price of X is going to go up, go down, or stay the same. It's a matter of looking at the data.

What does the data find? More immigration doesn't mean less work to be around. Wages don't go down. Work either increases or stays about the same while wages either increase or stay about the same.

You can argue against this, but you're arguing against a principle established in scientific study after scientific study. You're basically in the same intellectual position as somebody claiming that evolution never happened or that climate change isn't real. The economy just isn't a fixed pie.

Hell, there's even a Wikipedia page about this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fixed_pie_fallacy

Third, you're entirely missing the point about the children analogy. The question is about population growth. If, as it's assumed by the anti-immigration crowd, new people is necessarily a bad thing because new people compete with older people... then it also applies that children above the replacement rate are bad because it means an increased amount of workers that take away the fixed pie of jobs out there.

You might object that children also consume goods, start businesses themselves, etc. But that's exactly the Goddamn point. Immigrants do all that as well. That's why increased immigration grows the economy and leads to more people being overall better off.

 No.1074

File: 1564373287411.jpg (201.15 KB, 1600x1200, 4:3, A_possibility_if_both_dema….JPG) ImgOps Exif Google

To put some solid numbers down here (from https://hbr.org/2016/10/immigrants-play-a-disproportionate-role-in-american-entrepreneurship ):

>Immigrants constitute only 15% of the general U.S. workforce, but...

>They account for around a quarter of U.S. entrepreneurs.

>And they also account for about a quarter of U.S. inventors.

It's also frustrating to talk about the supply and demand of something without drawing out stuff, so here it is drawn out (not by me). This is generally the result seen by the academic research in terms of both low-skill and high-skill immigrants versus natives: it's mostly a wash in terms of wages as they remain mostly the same. However, society as a whole is way better off since more people are producing more (the equilibrium is shifted more rightward).

I should note that, of course, studies do vary and some find a slight positive push that adds to wages in some isolating circumstances (and others find a slight negative push that lowers wages in some circumstances). That doesn't change the overall story of the data, though.

 No.1078

>>1071
>Births from existing citizens have an offsetting advantage that immigration doesn't.  All animals, including humans, generally act in ways to favor the propagation of their own genetic line and the genetic lines of their close genetic relatives.  A policy favoring native births over immigration is a natural Schelling point for native citizens to adopt.
Not gonna reply to all of this because the other anon did a good job of adressing it I think, but isn't it also true that all over 18 immigrants that come in, have already had their childhood paid for in another country? They're essentially 'free' labor, in the sense that they didn't have to be raised in the states, a process that typically costs a lot of resources.

That seems like a much more tangible advantage, than not offending people's cultural sensibilities (struggling not to call it racism here)

 No.1083

>>1073
>First, the so-called 'refugee' loophole exists because the backlog exists, which in turn exists because both Republicans and Democrats (including the Trump administration) have refused to reform the legal system around refugees and adopt the necessary resources to the system that it needs.
Additional resources aren't required to solve the problem.  All that's needed is to repeal the federal law allowing alleged refugees to enter or remain in the country.

>There's also your bald assertion that the statements made by the refugees are "flimsy", which is directly contradicted by the actual journalist reporting of the conditions of which they're fleeing.
Economic migrants are not refugees under US law.  The US has a very strict definition of who qualifies as a refugee, and most of the people claiming refugee status don't qualify.

>At the end of the day, if you ask a reasonable random person on the street what "open borders" means, he or she is going to say something like "anybody can come to the U.S. and become a citizen with no process".
I disagree.  I'd say it's more like "anybody can come to the U.S. without first being approved by the government".

>Hell, there's even a Wikipedia page about this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fixed_pie_fallacy
>>1078
>They're essentially 'free' labor, in the sense that they didn't have to be raised in the states, a process that typically costs a lot of resources.
I don't believe that there is a fixed pie.  But I do believe that automation is raising the floor on what skills and education are needed to make a contribution to the economy.  And although the US K--12 education system isn't very good, it's a lot of better than those of the countries that most of these migrants are coming from.  Many of the migrants can't even fluently speak English, greatly decreasing the number of jobs that they can work.

>>1074
>And they also account for about a quarter of U.S. inventors.
I'm not against all immigration.  I think that people who are likely be make a positive contribution to the economy should generally be admitted.

 No.1085

>>1083
>although the US K--12 education system isn't very good, it's a lot of better than those of the countries that most of these migrants are coming from
I'd actually challenge that. Mexico is like the 34th ranking OECD country or something like this specifically for people in that age range. That's not bad.

> Many of the migrants can't even fluently speak English, greatly decreasing the number of jobs that they can work.
That's true, but learning rudimentary english takes like... 2 months, maybe? If you're motivated? And you'll have it down pat in a year of use.

That's a hell of a lot less investment than raising someone from birth. I think my point stands up to scrutiny.

 No.1097

>>1083
You can keep claiming "they're not refugees" until you're blue in the face, but that's merely your own personal opinion and doesn't seem at all to be based on fact. The assertion is directly contradicted by numerous points of evidence when it comes to what's actually being reported about these people. As far as repealing the federal law allowing for refugees to stay in the country while their cases are being considered-- why repeal it? It's not a "loophole". It's a matter of common sense: individuals are innocent until proven guilty, essentially, and shouldn't be punished just because we suspect that they might be lying a priori.

As far as the economics goes, again: immigration-- including that of low-skilled individuals such as these refugees-- grows the economy and overall benefits all native citizens without lowering wages. This is solid economic science as established by numerous studies on the matter. As has been stated many times, the immigrants are not just leeches on social systems. They're also workers. Taxpayers. Consumers. Etc.

Ultimately, your objection to letting the refugees in seems to be based on this idea of "they'll make us worse off"... but there's absolutely no connection that I see to any actual harm.

The economy? They'll grow the economy. More will be produced and distributed to more people.

Wages? They'll remain the same. Some isolated areas might have slight increases while others might have slight decreases, but overall it's going to be a wash.

Culture? They'll make the culture more diverse and fundamentally enrich it. It's absolutely a good thing.

Crime? They'll commit less crime than natives. Crime rates in population terms will likely actually decrease.

What else is there?

 No.1098

A little addendum since I should cite sources for the mentioning of crime rates:

"Americans have long believed that immigrants are more likely than natives to commit crimes and that rising immigration leads to rising crime... This belief is remarkably resilient to the contrary evidence that immigrants are in fact much less likely than natives to commit crimes." ( https://www.nap.edu/read/21746/chapter/9#326 )

I also freely concede that culture is a subjective concept. So, somebody might argue that more diverse American society with more diverse choices in art, food, music, etc isn't a good thing. I can't necessarily say that they're wrong since it's a shades of grey issue. Still, I stand by what I said.

 No.1108

>>1098
>I also freely concede that culture is a subjective concept. So, somebody might argue that more diverse American society with more diverse choices in art, food, music, etc isn't a good thing. I can't necessarily say that they're wrong since it's a shades of grey issue.

I think at this point we've already got most cultures represented here, not to mention that in the information era we have access to the culture of other countries whether we're in physical contact or not.  I feel like we're at capacity for enrichment, which means the only thing that could really happen culturally from immigration is other cultures being pushed out as their population a smaller percentage of the total.

 No.1142

>>1108
That argument seems fundamentally unsound since new cultures / subcultures appear to spring up on a regular basis in the U.S. recently, often out of nothing. We didn't have furries once. Now we do. Didn't have bronies once. Now we do. There's Trekkies. There's the Steven Universe people ("Stevies?"). I don't think that we're anywhere close to cultural saturation.

 No.1145

>>1108
I wanna take just a moment to examine the ridiculousness of this statement.

I feel like we're at capacity for enrichment.

That means, any new cultures can only be detrimental to existing ones by pushing them out of practice.

The conclusion seems to not arise from the premise. It doesn't rationally follow that because a new culture is introduced to a developed culture, that the developed culture must be pushed out. Aditionally if this is likely to happen, it's not even necessearily a bad thing. A cultural meeting can be an enriching moment for the individuals involved. We no longer speak ancient norse, and many of our customs and systems have dissappeared over time. When cultures meet, it is often a crucible which distills some value from conflicting ideals, or it can be a point of conflict, where one culture imposes itself over another. We have the option to guide the cultural change, rather than resisting it petulantly.

 No.1158

>>1142
>We didn't have furries once. Now we do. Didn't have bronies once. Now we do. There's Trekkies. There's the Steven Universe people ("Stevies?"). I don't think that we're anywhere close to cultural saturation.

Is it not true, though, that belonging to those cultures take some amount of time and mental space?  Have other cultures not diminished or died entirely because people have adopted these new ones?  Bronies and their culture are doing especially poorly as the show ends, with conventions and websites shutting down, and it's a sad time for a lot of people.

People working on MLP required that they stopped working on something else.  People creating Mexican art and music requires that they aren't making something else.  And the same goes for consuming those things.  We are an incredibly busy nation when it comes to that sort of thing and in order for people to engage with these new cultures they have to let go of old ones.

>>1145

I'm not sure why you think the statement is ridiculous.  It [i]is[/] a feeling, at most a hypothesis, I certainly don't have data for any of this.  But if we were at capacity then the only way we could take on more things is by getting rid of old ones, right?  That's what it would mean to be "full"?

>Aditionally it's not even necessearily a bad thing..

Absolutely true, the post I was responding to had already said that culture is subjective and what's good or bad is a personal concept.  It's entirely possible that you just hate what culture we have and want to get rid of it.

>A cultural meeting can be an enriching moment for the individuals involved.

Well if we're talking Mexico then we met hundreds of years ago and have maintained contact the entire time.  We have a large number of Mexican people now living here as ctizens and even natively born Americans frequently and casually take vacations in Mexico.  We even mark some of their holidays on our calendars.  We are far beyond a meeting or exposure.

For certain other cultures and their associated immigrants that isn't so much the case, but I'd still wager that there isn't a culture in the world that doesn't have some presence in the US.  We have met other cultures, we have exchanged ideas, we have adopted the ideas we think are good and rejected the ideas we think are bad.  I'm not sure what you expect us to learn from more immigrants that our existing immigrants and visitors haven't already relayed.

>We have the option to guide the cultural change, whether than resisting it petulantly.

"Guiding" it isn't mutually exclusive to "resisting" it.  If Nazi Germany had a bunch of refugees seeking asylum and trying to immigrate you wouldn't call the resistance petulant.  Of course, in this case, we're far more similar to the Nazis than the immigrants are, but the case remains that resisting a culture is sometimes the best idea rather than some moral failing.

 No.1159

>>1158
>I'm not sure why you think the statement is ridiculous.  It [i]is[/] a feeling, at most a hypothesis, I certainly don't have data for any of this.
For the same reason that I always find these kinds of sweeping statements ridiculous. You know, someone comes in with a feeling, or a hunch, or an idea, and sometimes they present it as based in fact or reality or sometimes they present it as just an object of consideration, but the function of the idea is to validate the tribal prejudices that really underpin it. Then some wild conjecture is started on the basis of an imagined premise, and in the end, the speaker is allowed to conclude, that, yes, it is not so irrational to oppose immigration, or whatever other regressive idea someone might be interested in justifying.

I find it ridiculous because it showcases a need to justify something that should be understood as an irrational evolutionary artifact, an instinct not suited for the situation, but which is instead coddled for and protected.

>But if we were at capacity then the only way we could take on more things is by getting rid of old ones, right?  That's what it would mean to be "full"?
This sounds like the subject of theory that is much more complex than you give it credit for.

>We have met other cultures, we have exchanged ideas, we have adopted the ideas we think are good and rejected the ideas we think are bad.
You make it sound like the development of culture is a rational process, and not an emergent quality of the system.

>I'm not sure what you expect us to learn from more immigrants that our existing immigrants and visitors haven't already relayed.
Well neither am I. If I knew that, the meeting wouldn't really benefit me, would it? Whatever qualities are outside of us, we cannot understand them deeply until we encounter them and interact with them for an extended time.

>If Nazi Germany had a bunch of refugees seeking asylum and trying to immigrate you wouldn't call the resistance petulant
It did, and I would actually call that resistance petulant. Because it was, and it is today as well. The fascism of Nazi germany was arguably started by an influx of immigrants, specifically jews fleeing persecution from the Russian empire. They were an object of tension among the germans, and fascistic leaders exploited that tension and fed that resistance to the outsiders with propaganda and nationalistic rhetoric in order to gain ever greater control. In exactly the same way, the rise in fascist sympathies today is arguably attributed to an influx of immigrants from the middle east and Mexico.

As the OP video actually points out.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]