Why do you oppose immigration?

[Black_Rose]

When a quarter of the workforce dies in a short time, that can surely lead to labor shortages and higher wages. But killing off a substantial percent of the population doesn’t strike me as a good method of economic development. If it works that well, nuclear war should do wonders for the economy. In most countries a growing population portends a growing economy, and a population in decline portends ghost towns and a shrinking economy. Without immigration Europe will find itself in a depopulation spiral; the U.S. should avoid such a fate.

The Black Death killed humans and did not destroy significant economic capital; a nuclear war would destroy capital, render areas unfit for human habitation, and probably causes environmental changes such as releasing dust into the air altering agricultural productivity. Before the black death, available arable land limited agricultural productivity, not the available amount of labor.

A posteriori, the Black Death was a great event for those surviving the plague after a few decades. Of course, no one would advocate a plague before it happened since that would entail undesirable pain and suffering. But after the calamity, wouldn’t it be wise for the survivors to exploit the salubrious aspects of it?

 

[Redratfish]

You are trying to make this far more complex than it needs to be for the sake of a forum discussion. We have laws. Laws must be obeyed. Period.

I will humor you - of course we can’t have open borders. National security, social services, infrastructure – none of these things can be properly managed with an open border. There is a situation known as political asylum. If someone wants to apply for that then there are proper legal processes to follow to do so.

~Liza

Best response here.

 

[adv1sor]

Your argument does not make any sense to me.

I don’t believe you would find any American opposed to immigration.

Immigration is not, as you said, illegal. There are legal ways to migrate to the US. They may be difficult and costly, but that doesn’t excuse people who would resort to entering the country illegally.

The US was made by immigrants. No true American is against immigration. But all law abiding citizens should be against illegal immigration. Do you not understand the difference?

 

[jchoffman]

I’m all for LEGAL immigration as well. My wife is a Thai National( her parents we both immigrants to Thailand from China) and she came to the US 10 years ago to go to School for her MBA. It took years for us to get her a Green Card( she was legal the whole time) Her parents had to go to Thailand Legally as well, and I know the citizenship process took years for them as well.

 

[Biedrik]

I really take issue with your equating people who are against illegal immigration and those who are against legal immigration.

Would you equate people who are for legal drugs with those who are for the legalization of illegal drugs?

Legal immigration should, theoretically, be based on a thorough consideration of the common good, and illegal immigration is mainly motivated by the self-interest of those involved.

I am all for legal immigration, allowing people to come here who have been vetted to assure, at a minimum, that they are not criminals and that they do not have infectious diseases, and preferably that they have a means of supporting themselves and even some sort of support network for when they get here. I am for allowing people to come here on temporary work visas, since I know that not all those who come here want to stay here, altho this I think should be seriously limited to jobs that Americans really won’t take, and not just jobs that corporations want to pay less for.

There are a lot of problems with illegal immigration, aside from the fact that then there is a smokescreen for a lot of other illegal activities. The illegal immigrants themselves are unprotected and many are callously used by those who guide them into the country as well as those who hire them. Criminals and people who may not even know they have anti-biotic-resistant TB enter. It’s a mess.

An excellent post. Legal immigration is the way to go. While it would be fantastic if we could help the many poor who try to come illegally, we simply cannot. There are far too many consequences to illegal immigration. In the end, being opposed to illegal immigration does not mean that you do not like immigrants.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

An excellent post. Legal immigration is the way to go. While it would be fantastic if we could help the many poor who try to come illegally, we simply cannot. There are far too many consequences to illegal immigration. In the end, being opposed to illegal immigration does not mean that you do not like immigrants.

And it is a stretch to say that those that are against illegal immagration are against immagration in general.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

I really take issue with your equating people who are against illegal immigration and those who are against legal immigration.

^^ This.

The OP’s question unfairly combines two separate issues. I support legal immigration and oppose illegal entry.

 

[choy]

If you had a smaller labour force wages would go up as labour would be in short supply, supply and demand and all that. What’s not to like about getting paid more for the work you do?

on the contrary, a larger population means more purchasers, and in the economies of scale, companies can offer products at a lower price because they don’t need to make more profit on every individual item to make a large profit as a whole

imagine this. if you are mcdonalds and in the US you are making $1 per hamburger, and supposedly every person in the US (not counting visitors) buys 1 hamburger in one month, in that month mcdonalds would have made $350 million, assuming the US population is 350M.

now in China, if mcdonalds sells their hamburgers for 50cents profit, and they have 1.5 billion people, and everyone buy 1 hamburger in one month, that month mcdonald’s in China would have made $750million.

also, higher wages equals higher price for products and services. so even if you earn more, you’ll pay more for products and services, and you’re no better than if you earn less and you pay less for products and services

 

[Biedrik]

And it is a stretch to say that those that are against illegal immagration are against immagration in general.

Agreed.

 

[St_Francis]

What? Immigrants are actually socially conservative as they opposed gay marriage and abortion, but it is in their economic interest to vote for redistributive economic policies.

So what you are saying is that immigrants will naturally vote for the government to take money from those already here and give it to the immigrants? And you are saying that those opposed to immigration are self-serving?

If one is able to distill social conservatism from a solution of economic conservatism, they would vote against gay marriage and abortion on individual ballot propositions. But in this case, social issues MUST be separated from economic issues.

In which case? How will this happen? Why MUST?

 

[Black_Rose]

So what you are saying is that immigrants will naturally vote for the government to take money from those already here and give it to the immigrants? And you are saying that those opposed to immigration are self-serving?

In which case? How will this happen? Why MUST?

Hispanics tend to vote for left-wing economic policies, but on individual ballot measures, they are conservative such as the gay marriage issue recently in California. Of course, I am reasonably assuming that Hispanic immigrants share the same values as Hispanic citizens.

 

[JulieAA]

When a quarter of the workforce dies in a short time, that can surely lead to labor shortages and higher wages. But killing off a substantial percent of the population doesn’t strike me as a good method of economic development. If it works that well, nuclear war should do wonders for the economy. In most countries a growing population portends a growing economy, and a population in decline portends ghost towns and a shrinking economy. Without immigration Europe will find itself in a depopulation spiral; the U.S. should avoid such a fate.

I do not know too many people who are against LEGAL immigration. My family immigrated from Italy…legally… They had no money (I hear that story far too many times…LOL) and did not know the language. They studied hard…obeyed the laws…learned english and became prosperous. The United States has every right to know who is in our country…especially these days. States are going broke because of the handouts. Believe me when I say that I am in full agreement that the poorest among us needs a helping hand; however, that does not mean just throwing cash up in the air and hope for the best…there must be accountability! Just to say that someone is “poor”, does not mean that they can not contribute to society. I know lazy people who just want to take advantage of good, decent and hardworking people…among the poor…among the middle class and among the very rich.

 

[scipio337]

I really take issue with your equating people who are against illegal immigration and those who are against legal immigration.

Would you equate people who are for legal drugs with those who are for the legalization of illegal drugs?

Legal immigration should, theoretically, be based on a thorough consideration of the common good, and illegal immigration is mainly motivated by the self-interest of those involved.

I am all for legal immigration, allowing people to come here who have been vetted to assure, at a minimum, that they are not criminals and that they do not have infectious diseases, and preferably that they have a means of supporting themselves and even some sort of support network for when they get here. I am for allowing people to come here on temporary work visas, since I know that not all those who come here want to stay here, altho this I think should be seriously limited to jobs that Americans really won’t take, and not just jobs that corporations want to pay less for.

There are a lot of problems with illegal immigration, aside from the fact that then there is a smokescreen for a lot of other illegal activities. The illegal immigrants themselves are unprotected and many are callously used by those who guide them into the country as well as those who hire them. Criminals and people who may not even know they have anti-biotic-resistant TB enter. It’s a mess.

The whole thread is based on a “How long have you been beating your wife” fallacy, but you had the best answer.

 

[JimG]

I do not know too many people who are against LEGAL immigration. My family immigrated from Italy…legally… They had no money (I hear that story far too many times…LOL) and did not know the language. They studied hard…obeyed the laws…learned english and became prosperous. The United States has every right to know who is in our country…especially these days. States are going broke because of the handouts. Believe me when I say that I am in full agreement that the poorest among us needs a helping hand; however, that does not mean just throwing cash up in the air and hope for the best…there must be accountability! Just to say that someone is “poor”, does not mean that they can not contribute to society. I know lazy people who just want to take advantage of good, decent and hardworking people…among the poor…among the middle class and among the very rich.

I fully agree with you. I don’t support immigration for the purpose of helping the poor, but for the purpose of helping the U.S. economy. If immigrants have a job, they help the economy.

If employers wish to hire immigrants, good, let’s make that a condition of entry. I don’t support immigration for its own sake; and if U.S citizens were having enough kids to support a growing economy (and pay taxes for an aging population) there would be less need for immigration.

But when the largest growing portion of the population is the elderly who will be on Medicare and Social Security, new workers are needed as a tax base. There are numerous small towns which have shriveled up and died due to a declining population. And there are several towns, even here in Kansas, which are booming because immigrants have provided a workforce which was otherwise unavailable.

My own grandparents were immigrants. But they didn’t have to be on a years-long wait list to enter the country.

(Even back then, people worried that the Irish, and Germans and Poles would take away their jobs and dilute the ethnicity of ‘real’ America. But it didn’t happen. They all got jobs and the economy prospered.)

 

[JulieAA]

I fully agree with you. I don’t support immigration for the purpose of helping the poor, but for the purpose of helping the U.S. economy. If immigrants have a job, they help the economy.

If employers wish to hire immigrants, good, let’s make that a condition of entry. I don’t support immigration for its own sake; and if U.S citizens were having enough kids to support a growing economy (and pay taxes for an aging population) there would be less need for immigration.

But when the largest growing portion of the population is the elderly who will be on Medicare and Social Security, new workers are needed as a tax base. There are numerous small towns which have shriveled up and died due to a declining population. And there are several towns, even here in Kansas, which are booming because immigrants have provided a workforce which was otherwise unavailable.

My own grandparents were immigrants. But they didn’t have to be on a years-long wait list to enter the country.

Jim,

Point taken and I agree somewhat. When you say that new workers are needed as a tax base, I understand that; however, do you think this equates to the expenses paid on their behalf, i.e. hospital, etc? The government needs to be held accountable for what they did to social security. From the onset, they put I.O.U.'s in the vault instead of all of the monies that had been contributed to date. Gee, if an insurance company did that, they would be put in jail for sure! I know a way to get social security back on track…how about taking all of the perks, including pensions, that all of the house and senate leaders will receive after only serving one term! Yeah, like that will ever happen. To boot, make them take the exact medical plan that our president is forcing down our throats as well. Maybe if all of that happens, we could finally get some representation. Concept???

 

[St_Francis]

Hispanics tend to vote for left-wing economic policies, but on individual ballot measures, they are conservative such as the gay marriage issue recently in California. Of course, I am reasonably assuming that Hispanic immigrants share the same values as Hispanic citizens.

Well, in the first post of this thread, you said that you thought that people who were against immigration were self-serving, but you seem blind to the self-serving aspects of voting for income redistribution from the “rich” to the poor by poor people.

And you don’t seem to think that maybe that type of self-serving attitude might not affect those who are against immigration, the vast majority of which is of poor people?

 

[Black_Rose]

Well, in the first post of this thread, you said that you thought that people who were against immigration were self-serving, but you seem blind to the self-serving aspects of voting for income redistribution from the “rich” to the poor by poor people.

And you don’t seem to think that maybe that type of self-serving attitude might not affect those who are against immigration, the vast majority of which is of poor people?

Most people are self-serving. People who are poor have to be self-serving financially to the extent allowed by their abilities, and if voting for income transfers serves their financial interest, they will do it. Those who are financially secure have the luxury of articulating and advocating policies that would not maximize their financial welfare, but they also have an incentive to advocate policies that would secure their financial status.

Furthermore opposition to slavery wasn’t really that high-minded, although certain individuals such as John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe, are probably motivated by high-minded concerns.

By Henry CK Liu:

One not-so-high-minded reason Lincoln and the Republicans gave for their opposition to the extension of slavery was that they wanted to preserve the new territories for white labor, not opposition to an immoral institution. They said clearly that they wanted the political support of white laborers who did not want competition from black slave labor. In practice, democracy often thrives on the lowest instincts of impassioned voters while ignoring the rights of the disfranchised. Representative democracy, as practiced in the United States, is an electoral power game in which the rich and the powerful have an overwhelming advantage over the weak and the poor, which is objectionable enough by itself, and it becomes absolutely repugnant when vaunted as a universal standard for a global holy war.

henryckliu.com/page115.html

 

[GratefulFred]

Questions:

1. Is it unChristain (sinful) to lock your house and car?
2. Is it unChristain (sinful) to drive by a hitchhikker when you have room in your car?
3. Do you have the right to enter your neighbor’s home at any time and stay as long as you like as long as you contribute something for the comfort and use of his home?
4. Does your neighbor have the right to enter your home at any time under the same circumstances?
5. If you invite 6 neighbors into your home, are you obligated to also invite the other 200 neighbors who asked for your invitation?
6. What is the difference between choosing to enter, without permission, someone else’s home or choosing to enter some else’s country ?

Immigration simply must be controlled and orderly or there will be chaos. Criminals should be denied entry. Those for whom work is available should be able to enter in an orderly and legal way, but not illegally. If work is not available, entry must be limited.

None of the above is meant to escape our Christain duty to provide for the poor in this country and other countries in the world. I presume most of us on this site do a reasonably good job of paying our taxes and contributing to charity.

It is meant to say that ILLEGAL immigration is not the BEST way or only way or to provide for the poor in other countries. America needs to work for a better way. Chaos is not good for us or the immigrants, legal or not.

As for needing a work force to replace the aging boomers - we created the need through birth control and abortion didn’t we?

 

[St_Francis]

Most people are self-serving. People who are poor have to be self-serving financially to the extent allowed by their abilities, and if voting for income transfers serves their financial interest, they will do it. Those who are financially secure have the luxury of articulating and advocating policies that would not maximize their financial welfare, but they also have an incentive to advocate policies that would secure their financial status.

Furthermore opposition to slavery wasn’t really that high-minded, although certain individuals such as John Brown and Harriet Beecher Stowe, are probably motivated by high-minded concerns.

Right, most people are self-serving. You seem to be missing my overall point, which is that your first post was rather insulting. You equated opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to legal immigration and you said that the opposition to either would be based on one’s own self-interest.

Now all of a sudden, it’s ok for people to look out for their own self-interest.

 

[texasnan]

Of course, I except most people’s opposition to immigration (or illegal immigration) to be mainly motivated by self-interest, instead of a through consideration of the common good. People would, of course, try to veil their self-interest by appealing to a version of morality by interpreting it in a fashion that would be in agreement with their interests.

I expressed my own views about it elsewhere, and they would be quite surprising to many.

Regardless of the actually motivations, I am interest enough to take a few minutes post a thread asking about people’s justifications for their position on immigration.

I’ll close with a quotation from Kevin MacDonald that is very controversial and frank:

“People opposed to immigration, they talk about economic problems and this and that. No one simply says “Europeans are not going to benefit from this as a group” that we are giving up control of our country to other peoples.”

Why do you consider it to be purely self-interest to expect people to obey the law? Do you think you should be allowed to break the law with impunity? Or are you saying that just this particular set of laws (immigration laws) should be broken at will?