immmigrant haters: do you really want to be like Japan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

That's not really a problem at all. I mean, I'm an immigrant who would have certainly cleared whatever criteria merit-based immigration would have embraced. I have a job that pays in the six figures. I live in a 1M+ house in a nice school district. I shop and I save. You'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that a thousand people like me are worse for the country than a thousand illiterate, low-skilled, non-English-speaking migrants.

PRECISELY. Thank you.

of course a 1000 people like you are worse. who is going to do the unskilled work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Republicans further drive immigrants into the shadow and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

This problem - and its solution - is not tied to any particular candidate. It will persist well past the time when both Trump and Sanders are pushing up daisies. Let go of personalities for a moment.

If your sole argument that low-skilled, low-literacy, poor immigrants are good for the US economy and should be regularized because we rely on them to do the things Americans won't do, do you realize that the whole reason they take jobs Americans won't take is that they have no access to any other jobs? Why would a person who is legally in the country work for less than a native-born American? Why would a person legally in the country take a job that pays crap wages with no benefits?

Yes, they take jobs here because it's a better opportunity - there's nothing unclear about that.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

That's not really a problem at all. I mean, I'm an immigrant who would have certainly cleared whatever criteria merit-based immigration would have embraced. I have a job that pays in the six figures. I live in a 1M+ house in a nice school district. I shop and I save. You'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that a thousand people like me are worse for the country than a thousand illiterate, low-skilled, non-English-speaking migrants.

PRECISELY. Thank you.

of course a 1000 people like you are worse. who is going to do the unskilled work?

You?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

That's not really a problem at all. I mean, I'm an immigrant who would have certainly cleared whatever criteria merit-based immigration would have embraced. I have a job that pays in the six figures. I live in a 1M+ house in a nice school district. I shop and I save. You'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that a thousand people like me are worse for the country than a thousand illiterate, low-skilled, non-English-speaking migrants.

PRECISELY. Thank you.

of course a 1000 people like you are worse. who is going to do the unskilled work?

People who make less money and live in cheaper houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no hate for legal immigration. Illegal immigration is wrong. People are basically overloading the system and destroying our border and BP. They are using “it’s easier to get forgiveness than permission” and trampling over the border.

Partly because they know there are jobs available. Crack down on employers, reduce demand, and the supply will be reduced too.

+1 not a hard concept. They come here because they know someone will give them a job. Kill the demand; supply will dry out.

I don't blame desperate poor people for traveling hundreds if not thousands of miles to get a job. Many of our ancestors did it, and yes, some of our ancestors came here illegally and/or lied to get in.

This would kill our economy and mean you are taken care of a robot in your old age.

Well due to increasing automation we may very well be cared for by robots in our old age.

obviously reducing illegal immigration would need to be paired with increases in legal immigration and/or a guest worker program. The current system is not good for anyone, immigrants included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Republicans further drive immigrants into the shadow and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

This problem - and its solution - is not tied to any particular candidate. It will persist well past the time when both Trump and Sanders are pushing up daisies. Let go of personalities for a moment.

If your sole argument that low-skilled, low-literacy, poor immigrants are good for the US economy and should be regularized because we rely on them to do the things Americans won't do, do you realize that the whole reason they take jobs Americans won't take is that they have no access to any other jobs? Why would a person who is legally in the country work for less than a native-born American? Why would a person legally in the country take a job that pays crap wages with no benefits?

Yes, they take jobs here because it's a better opportunity - there's nothing unclear about that.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

So then who fills the unskilled jobs? Do employers just start paying more to attract workers, or will they start looking for a new source of illegal labor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

On Japan:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/21/679103541/japans-population-is-in-rapid-decline

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2018-08-03/japan-becoming-country-immigration

How bad is progresstard immigration policy when Jeh Johndumbasastone blasts it?
Answer: it’s pretty d$mn bad.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/03/obama-dhs-sec-dem-potus-candidates-pushing-unwise-unworkable-plans-for-open-borders

[Anonymous]

OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So then who fills the unskilled jobs? Do employers just start paying more to attract workers, or will they start looking for a new source of illegal labor?

The same people who always fill them. Young people, people without education, people who just want side jobs, new entries, basically people without better options. Who do you think works at McDee these days? That's your demographic.

And yes, employers may need to start paying more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Republicans further drive immigrants into the shadow and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

This problem - and its solution - is not tied to any particular candidate. It will persist well past the time when both Trump and Sanders are pushing up daisies. Let go of personalities for a moment.

If your sole argument that low-skilled, low-literacy, poor immigrants are good for the US economy and should be regularized because we rely on them to do the things Americans won't do, do you realize that the whole reason they take jobs Americans won't take is that they have no access to any other jobs? Why would a person who is legally in the country work for less than a native-born American? Why would a person legally in the country take a job that pays crap wages with no benefits?

Yes, they take jobs here because it's a better opportunity - there's nothing unclear about that.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

I don't know what your point is. Do you think we should have a permanent underclass of low-skill workers who should never be able to move up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

It's really not, not at all. What this thread HAS show is that Republicans on DCUM really have nothing but animus to support their positions on immigration. And you get really confused when people don't share it -- any your argument pretty much ends there. Not a SINGLE POSTER has engaged with the actual research I have posted (except to claim that all research is manipulated, lol).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

You're failing to see the point. The point is: the research shows NOT that we have an emergency with illegal entry; but rather a mismatch with our legalization of immigration and our current and future labor needs (especially low-skill) in light of our demographics. The rational policy response to to focus on creating legal immigration routes. Yet, your side focuses on demonizing illegal immigrants rhetorically, and treating them brutally. It is not a rational policy response ... unless you're more interested in stirring up animus towards illegal immigrants.

The BEST policy platform for immigration is: reform to provide us with the legal migrants we need, and treat everyone humanely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

You're failing to see the point. The point is: the research shows NOT that we have an emergency with illegal entry; but rather a mismatch with our legalization of immigration and our current and future labor needs (especially low-skill) in light of our demographics. The rational policy response to to focus on creating legal immigration routes. Yet, your side focuses on demonizing illegal immigrants rhetorically, and treating them brutally. It is not a rational policy response ... unless you're more interested in stirring up animus towards illegal immigrants.

The BEST policy platform for immigration is: reform to provide us with the legal migrants we need, and treat everyone humanely.

but yeah, thanks again for showing that the extent of your analysis is screaming "ILLEGALS ILLEGALS ILLEGALS!" you guys truly are embarassing yourselves.

[Anonymous]

So now you're hating on Japan? Isn't that an anti-liberal measure?