Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



3 Pages < 1 2 3 > 
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Rampant Immigration
[ Standard ] · Linear+
Slow_Runner
post Aug 14 2014, 01:31 AM
Post #16


The Forum Fact Faerie signal called?
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,520

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-May 05

From: Finland
Member No.: 54,881






QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 14 2014, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.
*


I'm right though. Instead of draining a country of its natural resources, you'd be draining a country of its talented workers. Your solution reeks of a master race ideology where the superior homogeneous society should be free to get the best from others while carefully controlling who gets to be a part of that society. It's like some good old boys' club on a societal scale.

"Oh you're exceptional? Then sure we'll have you and deem you worthy of being one of Us! Good thing you're not one of those filthy normals though 'cause we don't like those guys. We need them to do the stuff we don't want to do so we keep them around as long as they are able to work for us but then we toss them back to where they came from."
*



Yes precisely, you understand correctly. This is immigration in its optimal form. Immigration should be to the sole and maximum benefit to the host country.

Why else would would/should a country accept immigrants? Immigration in its current form is deleterious to our way of life and our economies. My question is this: why do you favour destroying our society and our economy with rampant immigration, when it is clearly sub-optimal?
*


And your solution is sub-optimal for the immigrant's country of origin and the temporary workers.

Hell, people are sub-optimal. People aren't given citizenship oh a whim even now. Immigration is controlled. There are green card systems and working visas in place. Reasons for immigration vary from asylum seekers to romantic and employment motivations. Asylum refugees are taken because it's considered the humane thing to do. People move to another country because their spouse is from there. You posit as fact that a homogeneous society is superior to a heterogeneous one when it's completely up for debate. You operate under the assumption that immigrants are, by default, inferior and have to prove that they are somehow worthy of being Canadian, Finnish or Ethiopian.

At no point have I been in favour of rampant immigration or the destruction of society or economy. I've stated my objection to exploiting countries and people by your temporary worker status idea and to the notion that homogeneous societies are automatically superior to heterogeneous ones.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]SpOefT
post Aug 14 2014, 04:57 AM
Post #17


SpOefT, the legend ©
Group Icon

Group: AoT Gosu
Posts: 21,562

Submissions: None
Joined: 10-February 04

From: Belgium, holy land
Member No.: 3,596






QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 14 2014, 02:34 AM)
QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 13 2014, 03:22 PM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 10:02 PM)
It's just his style of argumentation. He tries to out-type people and if anyone gets tired of responding to his text-walls he proclaims himself the winner of the argument. He always does this.
*



Exactly, or uses words which I have to look up and will obviously not do.
*



Brevity isn't a substitution for deep analysis.

J4, if you're too stupid to understand how I express my argument, you're inevitably too stupid to defeat my argument.
*


Not everyone has English as their mother tongue.. If I would write out a 10 page text in Dutch with tons of hard words in it, would iy make you stupid for not understanding everything? :P

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Hellsravage
post Aug 14 2014, 09:16 AM
Post #18


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 18,206

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-October 06

Member No.: 45,923






QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 14 2014, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 14 2014, 05:28 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 13 2014, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE(ArmyCore @ Aug 13 2014, 07:30 AM)
QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 12 2014, 09:55 PM)
Your solution is human resources colonialism.
*



A tacit admission of intellectual defeat in the form of a sound bite.

I win.
*


I'm right though. Instead of draining a country of its natural resources, you'd be draining a country of its talented workers. Your solution reeks of a master race ideology where the superior homogeneous society should be free to get the best from others while carefully controlling who gets to be a part of that society. It's like some good old boys' club on a societal scale.

"Oh you're exceptional? Then sure we'll have you and deem you worthy of being one of Us! Good thing you're not one of those filthy normals though 'cause we don't like those guys. We need them to do the stuff we don't want to do so we keep them around as long as they are able to work for us but then we toss them back to where they came from."
*



Yes precisely, you understand correctly. This is immigration in its optimal form. Immigration should be to the sole and maximum benefit to the host country.

Why else would would/should a country accept immigrants? Immigration in its current form is deleterious to our way of life and our economies. My question is this: why do you favour destroying our society and our economy with rampant immigration, when it is clearly sub-optimal?
*


And your solution is sub-optimal for the immigrant's country of origin and the temporary workers.

Hell, people are sub-optimal. People aren't given citizenship oh a whim even now. Immigration is controlled. There are green card systems and working visas in place. Reasons for immigration vary from asylum seekers to romantic and employment motivations. Asylum refugees are taken because it's considered the humane thing to do. People move to another country because their spouse is from there. You posit as fact that a homogeneous society is superior to a heterogeneous one when it's completely up for debate. You operate under the assumption that immigrants are, by default, inferior and have to prove that they are somehow worthy of being Canadian, Finnish or Ethiopian.

At no point have I been in favour of rampant immigration or the destruction of society or economy. I've stated my objection to exploiting countries and people by your temporary worker status idea and to the notion that homogeneous societies are automatically superior to heterogeneous ones.
*




1 - People haven't been granted citizenship on a whim since it became possible to actually monitor, categorize, and restrict immigration. At least here in the US I'm talking roughly the 1840's through 1870's.

2- States act in their own self-interest. If a state wishes to allow temporary workers to live and work there for a short amount of time, there is no harm being done, as long as the country extends basic liberties to those workers (see: Qatar.) Most workers choose to do this willingly to make short term gains. Rather than wishing to relocate their entire families, they often come in search of short term work with better wages that they either save up with or send to their families.

Temporary worker programs =/= exploitation of peoples

This post has been edited by [DoD]Hellsravage: Aug 14 2014, 09:17 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 14 2014, 10:28 PM
Post #19


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 14 2014, 12:31 AM)
And your solution is sub-optimal for the immigrant's country of origin and the temporary workers.
*



Immigration to the host country should be completely in the interests of the host country. There are no other factors to be considered.

If country X attracts skilled labour from country Y, it is in country X's interests to do so, country Y doesn't feature in the equation. If this were the case, you could say that any immigration is always to one country's disadvantage, and thus is "sub-optimal" from someone's perspective. Furthermore, temporary workers will only come if it is to their benefit, and while it may be sub-optimal from their perspective, it is closer to optimal than residing in their home-countries.

The only perspective which need be considered is that of the host country's. A state must function in the self-interest of its people, and its people alone, otherwise the purpose of the state is compromised, as it exists for the sole benefit of its people.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 14 2014, 12:31 AM)
Hell, people are sub-optimal. People aren't given citizenship oh a whim even now. Immigration is controlled. There are green card systems and working visas in place. Reasons for immigration vary from asylum seekers to romantic and employment motivations. Asylum refugees are taken because it's considered the humane thing to do. People move to another country because their spouse is from there. You posit as fact that a homogeneous society is superior to a heterogeneous one when it's completely up for debate. You operate under the assumption that immigrants are, by default, inferior and have to prove that they are somehow worthy of being Canadian, Finnish or Ethiopian.

At no point have I been in favour of rampant immigration or the destruction of society or economy. I've stated my objection to exploiting countries and people by your temporary worker status idea and to the notion that homogeneous societies are automatically superior to heterogeneous ones.
*



It is a fact that homogeneous societies are superior to heterogeneous societies. It is not up for debate.

Temporary workers are not necessarily exploited (Western workers in Saudi Arabia are very well paid, for example). They will come only if it is to their advantage to do so, and they should be allowed to come only if it is in the advantage of the host nation. However, simply because they work there isn't a reason to allow them to become citizens, and partake in all of the rights and privileges which are granted to full citizens.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slow_Runner
post Aug 14 2014, 11:55 PM
Post #20


The Forum Fact Faerie signal called?
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,520

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-May 05

From: Finland
Member No.: 54,881






The main exploitation is that of the immigrants' home country. Employing the masses and allowing immigration of only the top is a big brain-drain, especially when the home country has to educate them and care for them at old age, only to have them work abroad, spending most of their money abroad boosting another country's economy.

Pure employment is not a reason for citizenship. Long stay in the country (typically under employment) is. You need a minimum of 5 years of stay barring any other factors in the US for example.

QUOTE
It is a fact that homogeneous societies are superior to heterogeneous societies. It is not up for debate.
Keep telling yourself that.

Hells, did you not read what I wrote? I already mentioned green cards and working visas. I'm not saying countries can't allow for short term employment in their country or that they should automatically handout citizenship status at customs. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to be exceptional to become a citizen. If a plumber stays in a country long enough, learns the language, adapts to the culture and maybe even gets a family there, should she still be denied citizenship forever simply because she's not a rocket scientist? AC wants to cultivate his precious homogeneous society by keeping people out so as to not taint it with people from other cultures, a view which probably stems from his perceived negative effects of immigration policies in his own country (and, I'm guessing, a confusion between 'permanent resident' and 'citizen').

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 15 2014, 06:49 PM
Post #21


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






[quote=Slow_Runner,Aug 14 2014, 10:55 PM]
The main exploitation is that of the immigrants' home country. Employing the masses and allowing immigration of only the top is a big brain-drain, especially when the home country has to educate them and care for them at old age, only to have them work abroad, spending most of their money abroad boosting another country's economy.

Pure employment is not a reason for citizenship. Long stay in the country (typically under employment) is. You need a minimum of 5 years of stay barring any other factors in the US for example.
*

[/quote]

1) Brain drain exists, it already happens. The elite from foreign countries already has free reign to immigrate to the West, meaning that my system would change nothing which isn't already happening with respect to brain drain.

2) The state must serve the interests of its own people, not the interests of other states' people. "Exploitation" of another states' citizens (who willingly emigrate) is not my concern, nor should it ever be the concern of a host nation.

3) A long stay in the country is not a valid reason for citizenship. Simply because some shmuck lives among us doesn't mean that he deserves the rights and privileges associated with being a citizen (that is control of the government, social services etc.).

If someone can bring nothing to a society but a warm body, why should we let him become one of us? You wouldn't allow useless people to join your family, your work, your group of friends, why your nation?

[quote]It is a fact that homogeneous societies are superior to heterogeneous societies. It is not up for debate.[/quote]Keep telling yourself that.

Hells, did you not read what I wrote? I already mentioned green cards and working visas. I'm not saying countries can't allow for short term employment in their country or that they should automatically handout citizenship status at customs. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't have to be exceptional to become a citizen. If a plumber stays in a country long enough, learns the language, adapts to the culture and maybe even gets a family there, should she still be denied citizenship forever simply because she's not a rocket scientist? AC wants to cultivate his precious homogeneous society by keeping people out so as to not taint it with people from other cultures, a view which probably stems from his perceived negative effects of immigration policies in his own country (and, I'm guessing, a confusion between 'permanent resident' and 'citizen').
*

[/quote]

It's axiomatic that they are superior. This observation is born out by both history and science, to deny this is to be absolutely blinded by the own deranged ideology with which you were indoctrinated (as is every good European child).

Citizenship should be something which is jealously guarded, and all citizens should work together for their collective benefit. Temporary workers and resident non-citizens enrich the citizenry of the state, without drawing down the resources of the state (social programs etc.) or watering down the value of citizenship and its associated rights and privileges, the political power of the citizens, or their culture etc.

My solution essentially gains all of the positives of immigration, without any of the associated negatives. It is optimal.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slow_Runner
post Aug 16 2014, 12:51 AM
Post #22


The Forum Fact Faerie signal called?
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,520

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-May 05

From: Finland
Member No.: 54,881






From a societal point of view, it would also be optimal to kill all disabled people at birth, old people once they can no longer work and people with injuries that make them incapable of contributing anything to the society. Should we do that too because it's optimal?

In the same vein, we should offer the benefits of the society to all living in it, be they temporary workers or citizens, and allow people who have worked for the welfare of the society to become full members of it. Even if it's sub-optimal in the short term.

What exactly is the value of citizenship and the associated rights and privileges that you're so scared of getting watered down?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 16 2014, 01:06 PM
Post #23


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 15 2014, 11:51 PM)
From a societal point of view, it would also be optimal to kill all disabled people at birth, old people once they can no longer work and people with injuries that make them incapable of contributing anything to the society. Should we do that too because it's optimal?
*



Anyone with a severe mental disability should be aborted, although people with physical but not mental disabilities are not really limited in what they can do, given that key professions are chiefly intellectual (eg. Stephen Hawking is valuable despite his physical disability).

Old people are citizens, and under ideal conditions have earned their keep. Given that I have stated the only objective of the state is to care for its citizens in the best possible way, killing old people is clearly wrong in every way.

Disobeying the purpose of the state is not optimal, fulfilling it is.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 15 2014, 11:51 PM)
In the same vein, we should offer the benefits of the society to all living in it, be they temporary workers or citizens, and allow people who have worked for the welfare of the society to become full members of it. Even if it's sub-optimal in the short term.
*



Massive immigration is damaging in the long-term, not the short term, you have it backwards. A temporary worker (who has a work visa for 6 months) should not be given all the benefits of citizenship, and I hope you're joking. Why should the Mexican who works 4 months a year in Nova Scotia picking berries be given universal medical coverage, welfare payments, subsidized housing, free school for his 10 children etc.? Clearly even you would disagree with your own logical extension.

Now assuming that you mean people who have worked, say, even 10 years in the country, why do they not deserve to become citizens? Those who are useful should, however, the 100,000 Philpinos who have worked in Canada for the last 20 years at McDonalds have no business becoming Canadian citizens, determining our government policies etc. They will never, ever recouperate the costs associated with their citizenship, they will drain our state coffers and reduce my quality of life.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 15 2014, 11:51 PM)
What exactly is the value of citizenship and the associated rights and privileges that you're so scared of getting watered down?
*



They were all stated in my original post, I will reencapsulate some of the key points:

QUOTE
-The point here is that massive immigration to acquire skilled labour is a short-term solution, in order to really address the systemic labour problems (not enough X), the system itself must be changed (train X).  Immigration retards the development of domestic training programmes and the cultivation of domestic experts.

-An artificially expanding citizenry (through immigration, as opposed to natural growth) causes pernicious microeconomic effects on the pre-extant citizenry, principally a  diminishment of purchasing power and a lack of labour opportunities and domestic oppression.

- Average purchasing power in the destination state is diminished because the average immigrant adds less to economic growth than they add to the population.

-The economic feasibility of the welfare state is jeopardized by significant immigration.

-Homogeneity bonds people, this creates a strong society.

-Immigration damages social structures, immigration of physically distinguished groups greatly magnifies this problem.

-Mass immigration can create large ex-pat groups which can negatively impact the political landscape of the destination nation.  That is, the ability of the host state to determine policies in its own best interests is retarded (eg. Jewish or Cuban impact of US foreign policy, Taiwanese and Ukrainian impact on Canadian foreign policy).


This post has been edited by ArmyCore: Aug 16 2014, 01:08 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slow_Runner
post Aug 17 2014, 02:18 PM
Post #24


The Forum Fact Faerie signal called?
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,520

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-May 05

From: Finland
Member No.: 54,881






QUOTE
Those who are useful should, however, the 100,000 Philpinos who have worked in Canada for the last 20 years at McDonalds have no business becoming Canadian citizens, determining our government policies etc. They will never, ever recouperate the costs associated with their citizenship, they will drain our state coffers and reduce my quality of life.

And how do high school drop-out Canadians working at McDonald's for 20 years recuperate the costs associated with their citizenship? Or alcoholics who live on wellfare for 50 years, contributing nothing to the society. Why are they more entitled to determine your government policies? Because they were born into your precious Canada? Is that why they get a free pass to drain your state coffers and reduce your quality of life? What makes them better citizens than immigrant plumbers or maids?

What exactly would you suggest as the cut-off point where one is deserving of citizenship? 5 years as a surgeon? 10 years as a teacher? 15 as a carpenter? 30 as a cashier?

Temporary workers are presumably working so which welfare payments would they even be eligible for? I'm not entirely sure what "universal medical coverage" means over there, because over here we have pretty much free health care so I see little reason to turn people away from hospitals, be they immigrant or citizen. They should be paid enough to afford to pay rent so they shouldn't need subsidized housing either, and I doubt that they'd bring their 10 children along for 4 months to pick berries. The idea that someone would just move to another country on a working visa with 10 children in tow is absurd.

- Immigration does not retard domestic training programs or the cultivation of domestic experts, are you nuts? Do you think any sane nation would try to fix a long term shortage of, for example, medical experts, by simply importing masses of foreign experts without trying to train new ones domestically?
- Artificially expanding citizenry is better for the state than a diminishing citizenry. An influx of people does not diminish purchasing power, on the contrary it increases it. More people buy more stuff. Domestic oppression I'm just going to laugh off and immigration does not reduce the number of labour opportunities. Immigrants are never favoured over domestic applicants unless there is some misguided policy in effect and if there is, it should be that policy that you should be arguing against, not immigration.
- Who cares about average purchasing power? Any money immigrants earn and spend in the destination state adds to the state's economy. Would MacDonald's become more profitable if everyone who purchased mostly cheeseburgers simply stopped going to MacDonald's altogether, even though the average purchasing power of their customer base went up as a result?
- Economic feasibility of the welfare state is not jeopardized by significant immigration.
- USA is a heterogeneous society and arguably the most successful society in the world. United Kingdom is also a heterogeneous society and at its peak, pretty much ruled the world.
- If immigration damages social structures, it is only in the short term. Physically distinguished groups only magnify the problem in the short term. Civilized people get over distinguishing features pretty quickly, given the chance.
- How have the Jewish or Cuban ex-pat groups negatively impacted US foreign policy in ways that are harmful to US interests? Or the Taiwanese and Ukrainian groups Canadian policy?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 17 2014, 07:03 PM
Post #25


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE
Those who are useful should, however, the 100,000 Philpinos who have worked in Canada for the last 20 years at McDonalds have no business becoming Canadian citizens, determining our government policies etc. They will never, ever recouperate the costs associated with their citizenship, they will drain our state coffers and reduce my quality of life.

And how do high school drop-out Canadians working at McDonald's for 20 years recuperate the costs associated with their citizenship? Or alcoholics who live on wellfare for 50 years, contributing nothing to the society. Why are they more entitled to determine your government policies? Because they were born into your precious Canada? Is that why they get a free pass to drain your state coffers and reduce your quality of life? What makes them better citizens than immigrant plumbers or maids?

What exactly would you suggest as the cut-off point where one is deserving of citizenship? 5 years as a surgeon? 10 years as a teacher? 15 as a carpenter? 30 as a cashier?
*



There is a difference between natural mediocrity and artificial mediocrity. That is, that some citizens will fail is unavoidable (half of everyone has below average intelligence), however, that's no an excuse for the state to artificially increase the number of losers by allow them to immigrate en masse to the state.

The state should clearly be attempting to increase the quality of the citizenry by allowing only the best foreigners to immigrate. The opposite is currently true, where Western governments allow enormous quantities of uneducated, unqualified people to immigrate.

Just because someone vandalized a building doesn't mean you should also vandalize. If we already breed our own failures, why should we encourage more to immigrate?

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
Temporary workers are presumably working so which welfare payments would they even be eligible for? I'm not entirely sure what "universal medical coverage" means over there, because over here we have pretty much free health care so I see little reason to turn people away from hospitals, be they immigrant or citizen. They should be paid enough to afford to pay rent so they shouldn't need subsidized housing either, and I doubt that they'd bring their 10 children along for 4 months to pick berries. The idea that someone would just move to another country on a working visa with 10 children in tow is absurd.
*



Yes, temporary workers would not be eligible for welfare payments, but if they were to become citizens, they would. This is why they must remain temporary workers, and not become citizens. Furthermore, because the immigrants I wish to disallow would be working at low-end jobs, they would receive government welfare because they would fall into low income brackets. No, they will not bring 10 children when they're just picking berries for 4 months, that's the whole idea (if we allow him to immigrate, he lives here year-round, brings his children, and is an unnecessary drain on society).

Universal health care is what we call our system, which is similar to the NHS or other European "free healthcare" models. But of course, it is anything but free: public healthcare spending is the largest part of the government's budget, and is eating away increasingly large shares of GDP. The fact is that the economic situation is dire, and the system is made unsustainable due to unnecessary immigration. When you have 100,000's of new people every year using expensive health-care systems into which they have never paid or contributed, this increases the burden on native citizens, and wrecks the entire system. The fact is that the western welfare state was contrived within a context without massive immigration, and is predicated upon intense social cohesion, both fundamental principles are being eroded by the sort of immigration we see today (that is vast numbers of poor, ethnic, uneducated immigrants from diverse places).

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
- Immigration does not happy guy domestic training programs or the cultivation of domestic experts, are you nuts? Do you think any sane nation would try to fix a long term shortage of, for example, medical experts, by simply importing masses of foreign experts without trying to train new ones domestically?
*



I am in favour of the sort of immigration wherein foreign experts arrive and train domestic assets, where the point is to foster domestic development, and immigration is a simple necessity of this process. For example Japan and Germany in the late 1800s, they modernized through the use of foreign experts training domestic workers, without suffering an immigration crisis (much like modern China).

But that this occurs is very obvious, for example the USA and Canada and trades education. Almost all new trades workers are foreigners and there is no attempt to increase the training of domestic tradesmen. The same goes for professionals throughout Latin America, which for the bulk of modern history has suffered from this very problem (the only state which attempted to change course was Argentina, and consequently it has followed a different path than places like Columbia). Just look at the composition of student populations at universities, foreigners are eating up a great deal of positions which could go to training domestic students etc.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
- Artificially expanding citizenry is better for the state than a diminishing citizenry. An influx of people does not diminish purchasing power, on the contrary it increases it. More people buy more stuff. Domestic oppression I'm just going to laugh off and immigration does not reduce the number of labour opportunities. Immigrants are never favoured over domestic applicants unless there is some misguided policy in effect and if there is, it should be that policy that you should be arguing against, not immigration.
- Who cares about average purchasing power? Any money immigrants earn and spend in the destination state adds to the state's economy. Would MacDonald's become more profitable if everyone who purchased mostly cheeseburgers simply stopped going to MacDonald's altogether, even though the average purchasing power of their customer base went up as a result?
- Economic feasibility of the welfare state is not jeopardized by significant immigration.
*



"Most people buy more stuff": this is such a simplistic understanding of how economics works it blows my mind. First, my system does not call for a diminishment of consumers (temporary workers and citizens are both consumers), so this point is irrelevant. Second, this argument only works under the assumption that there are no negative economic consequences for an additional consumer (which there are, and they come at the price of government spending).

Domestic citizens are passed over for training in favour of foreigners who already have the relevant training: it's a shortcut with negative long-term consequences (it's cheaper to import someone with training than to train someone, but the investment in training facilities would be worth it in the long run, it is due to our immediate political climate that short-term thinking prevails).

Average purchasing power is what matters for quality of life, not gross purchasing power. Which citizenry is better off?

1) Canada:
GDP PPP 1.8 trillion
GDP PPP/capita 53,000

2) China:
GDP PPP 16 trillion
GDP PPP/capita 9,800

Purchasing power per capita is what matters, not the overall size of the economy.


QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 01:18 PM)
- USA is a heterogeneous society and arguably the most successful society in the world. United Kingdom is also a heterogeneous society and at its peak, pretty much ruled the world.
- If immigration damages social structures, it is only in the short term. Physically distinguished groups only magnify the problem in the short term. Civilized people get over distinguishing features pretty quickly, given the chance.
- How have the Jewish or Cuban ex-pat groups negatively impacted US foreign policy in ways that are harmful to US interests? Or the Taiwanese and Ukrainian groups Canadian policy?
*



When the UK ruled the world, it was one of the most homogenous countries in Europe (and still is). In fact, there was 0 immigration of the sort I'm talking about until roughly the 1950s (in Europe). The USA operated as a homogenous society, by excluding any element which didn't assimilate, and marginalizing those of different cultures, religions, and races. The diverse elements of America have played almost no positive role in its history, and have been the cause of immense suffering and weakness (eg. the US civil war).

"Civilized people get over physical features pretty quickly given the chance": this idealistic claim serves no purpose here, other than to identify yourself as a gullible fool. Have fun when your entire continent is occupied by Muslims within the next few dozen years. You'll wish you had fought harder for what was your birthright.

Jewish interests have dominated US foreign policy since WWII, and are the source of most problems in the middle east. They have entirely handicapped the US government from acting in its own interests in the region (by supporting Israel unilaterally, the US has forgone positive relations with the Arab nations with which it trades). The US policy on Cuba was drafted by Cuban ex-pats, and has been a disaster, which is why the US is such a pariah regarding Cuba.

The strong Taiwanese influence in Canada has led the government to forego trading with China, and now we are at a massive disadvantage regarding competitiveness in China, and our governments have been at loggerheads ever since the People's Republic was created. Canada has a massive Ukrainian population, which has caused us to strongly undermine our relationship with Russia (who we trade with, and have common cause with in the High Arctic, in favour of a backwater poopie-hole with which we have 0 economic or political ties).

In either case, neither nation is acting in the interests of its citizens, due to the interference of immigrants.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Slow_Runner
post Aug 18 2014, 12:55 AM
Post #26


The Forum Fact Faerie signal called?
Group Icon

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,520

Submissions: None
Joined: 23-May 05

From: Finland
Member No.: 54,881






Immigrant != loser. I guess you have a problem with asylum seekers and being the misanthrope you are, I can see why.

If we allow immigrants to emigrate and live all year round, they will also work all year round, performing a service that would otherwise be left undone. That they visit a hospital every once in a while will not put that big of a dent in the economy unless there is some inherent flaw in your health care system.

If a country chooses to import all of its expertise without trying to train its own, that's not the fault of immigrants.

Temporary workers save up their money and spend it in their country of origin. Immigrants spend that money in the destination country because they are building their future there.
That China's citizenry is worse off than Canada's is not a result of China's superior economy. By your logic, Monaco is superior to China, but I'd sure like to see them duke it out.

UK consists of: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But I guess that doesn't matter since they're all Caucasian. Throughout its history leading to its greatness, there has been massive immigration to the Isles from vikings to other Hanseatic peoples that greatly influenced their language and increased the British Isles' wealth through trade. UK abolished slavery in 1833 and distinguishing features have not caused upheaval there. The Civil War was not caused by immigration nor the distinguishing features of slaves, just like the WW2 was not caused by Jews. The civil war was caused by slavery. But I suppose you would prefer slavery to still be in effect because it was a massive boon for the US economy and incurred little costs to the citizenry.

Are you saying that the US would be better off if they had allied themselves with the Arabs instead of the Jews? And no matter what influenced them, the decision to create a Jewish state was done by the UN at the time. We're not talking about mind control here.
Cuban relations with the US are bad not because of the US having Cuban immigrants, but because of the cold war and US fears of Communism.
You think that your country is wrong by acting morally in its foreign policy? Do you think your country should continue trading with Russia despite its actions in Ukraine? Do you think countries should forgo showing their disdain of China's various problems in order to promote better trade with it?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Hellsravage
post Aug 18 2014, 07:11 AM
Post #27


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Staff
Posts: 18,206

Submissions: None
Joined: 9-October 06

Member No.: 45,923






Diversity and difference in opinion is what leads to the protection of minority rights and more competition in the marketplace of ideas. Competing interests is the fuel of democracy. Yes, diversity inevitably creates conflict but eventually the seams of society are strong enough to withstand such conflict and the process ultimately creates a more liberal and just society

This post has been edited by [DoD]Hellsravage: Aug 18 2014, 07:14 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DoD_J4Jc3
post Aug 18 2014, 08:22 AM
Post #28


The Rag Master
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 15,028

Submissions: None
Joined: 1-May 06

From: Belgium
Member No.: 37,529

Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3





QUOTE
however, that's no an excuse for the state to artificially increase the number of losers by allow them to immigrate en masse to the state.


oh lawd

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 18 2014, 06:54 PM
Post #29


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 11:55 PM)
Immigrant != loser. I guess you have a problem with asylum seekers and being the misanthrope you are, I can see why.

If we allow immigrants to emigrate and live all year round, they will also work all year round, performing a service that would otherwise be left undone. That they visit a hospital every once in a while will not put that big of a dent in the economy unless there is some inherent flaw in your health care system.
*



I don't think a state should accept asylum seekers as immigrants, although it is our humanitarian duty to care for them as refugees. But that doesn't mean they automatically deserve citizenship because their homeland is fruited up.

There is a serious myth of "jobs being left undone" without immigrants. First, hiring workers on a temporary basis can meet this demand without any of the negative impacts of immigration (so if you're arguing for immigration on economic grounds, it is completely unnecessary). Second, cheap immigrant labour soaks up jobs which could be done by citizens, which causes unnecessary citizen unemployment and artificially keeps wages low, and decreases the motivation to find automation and streamlining (because it's cheaper to hire a bunch of immigrants than to invest in automated systems).

For example, from 2008 to 2013 UK averaged 500,000 immigrants a year, despite a contracting economy and increasing unemployment. This story was repeated throughout the West, and demonstrates an abject failure on the part of policy-makers to account for the needs of the citizenry. Cheap immigrants continued to flood our streets and crowd our hospitals without any economic prospects. They worked for cheap when our own citizens couldn't find work. They plagued our public service and social structures while contributing nothing productive to society.

The fact is that most immigrants are a drain on society.

QUOTE(Slow_Runner @ Aug 17 2014, 11:55 PM)
If a country chooses to import all of its expertise without trying to train its own, that's not the fault of immigrants.

Temporary workers save up their money and spend it in their country of origin. Immigrants spend that money in the destination country because they are building their future there.
That China's citizenry is worse off than Canada's is not a result of China's superior economy. By your logic, Monaco is superior to China, but I'd sure like to see them duke it out.

UK consists of: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But I guess that doesn't matter since they're all Caucasian. Throughout its history leading to its greatness, there has been massive immigration to the Isles from vikings to other Hanseatic peoples that greatly influenced their language and increased the British Isles' wealth through trade. UK abolished slavery in 1833 and distinguishing features have not caused upheaval there. The Civil War was not caused by immigration nor the distinguishing features of slaves, just like the WW2 was not caused by Jews. The civil war was caused by slavery. But I suppose you would prefer slavery to still be in effect because it was a massive boon for the US economy and incurred little costs to the citizenry.

Are you saying that the US would be better off if they had allied themselves with the Arabs instead of the Jews? And no matter what influenced them, the decision to create a Jewish state was done by the UN at the time. We're not talking about mind control here.
Cuban relations with the US are bad not because of the US having Cuban immigrants, but because of the cold war and US fears of Communism.
You think that your country is wrong by acting morally in its foreign policy? Do you think your country should continue trading with Russia despite its actions in Ukraine? Do you think countries should forgo showing their disdain of China's various problems in order to promote better trade with it?
*



Temporary workers, depending upon the duration of their stay, will logically send as much money home as possible in the form of remittances. This will be a minor loss to the economy. However, it is clear that he will generate some economic activity in the form of his labour (the way an immigrant would). However, the loss in remittances will be much less than the loss the state would incur in doling out health care, education etc. should he and his family immigrate to the host state.

Regarding Monaco: yes, I would rather live in Monaco than China. Comparing the military might of the two countries isn't whatsoever germane to this debate (China has over 1 billion people, Monaco has 30,000).

Regarding Britain. The differences are much more negligible because there is no racial difference between the nations, furthermore, they were all historically Christian etc. Thus, society is still relatively homogenous. I don't see how England's abolition of slavery has anything to do with this debate, as there were no black slaves in the UK anyways, they were only in the Caribbean.

Regarding the USA. I am not nor could ever be in favour of permanent slavery. Stop straw-manning my argument. I'm not against immigration, I'm not in favour of slavery (both are ridiculous): I'm against unnecessary and deleterious immigration. However, citizens in the south were on average 4 times as wealthy as those in the north, and if you substitute slaves for temporary workers, the wellbeing of the citizenry in the South proves my point. If you had to choose where to live (from the perspective of a citizen), you would clearly rather live in the South (assuming there were no moral issues surrounding slavery).

Yes, the USA would have been much better off had it allied to the Arabs. Relations between Cuba and the US deteriorated before the cold war. The fact that a trade embargo continues to exist is largely due to the Cuban-American lobby. Russian-Ukrainian relations have nothing to do with Canadian foreign policy with either country. We should continue to trade with Russia, and logically, we should support Russia (because their economic and political interests are more in line with ours, whereas Ukraine is completely benign regarding Canadian interests). However, Ukrainian Canadians pressure the government to side with Ukraine, despite this being directly opposed to our self-interest.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Aug 18 2014, 07:16 PM
Post #30


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE([DoD�)
Hellsravage,Aug 18 2014, 06:11 AM]
Diversity and difference in opinion is what leads to the protection of minority rights and more competition in the marketplace of ideas. Competing interests is the fuel of democracy. Yes, diversity inevitably creates conflict but eventually the seams of society are strong enough to withstand such conflict and the process ultimately creates a more liberal and just society
*



This passage makes me angry. It assumes a teleology in which a liberal society is first, desirable, and second, inevitable.

Diversity, of a certain sort, is clearly a disadvantage, given that all states evolved separately to value homogeneity (that is of race, culture, language, ideas, political ideology, religion etc.). Self-similarity is an organizational principle behind the emergent property that is society. It is how people naturally organize, it is why people, on average, sort themselves into groups of friends which believe the same as them, look like them, think like them etc.

Second, it is anything but inevitable. The fact is that most of the world is rife with conflict caused by diversity, and exceptions are few and far between (and these exceptions have always proven to be temporary). The fact is that no cosmopolitan society has ever withstood the test of time; clearly it lacks the adaptive power of a homogenous society.

As for democracy, that it works best when society is largely without substantial diversity is born out through history. Iceland has been a democracy since 1000 AD, and like it, the best-functioning, and most resilient democracies have had more in common to unite them than to divide them. Highly fractured societies have always turned to authoritarianism in order to withstand the fissures caused by substantial diversity.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicTopic Options
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 04:49 AM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy