The legal immigrants from Ireland, Italy and Vietnam shared SOME of the same motivations as current immigrants, legal and otherwise, from Central America and the Middle East. There are, however, huge differences. The Irish and Italians came from the same European culture as the bulk of Americans and shared some cultural, religious and languages. They assimilated in one or two generations. The Vietnamese were largely pro-American to begin with which is why they had to flee their home country. They all came for opportunity and risked failure. They didn’t come for Medicade, Food Stamps, AFDC, HUD housing and Obamaphones. How’s assimilation going in LA, Minnesota, Michigan etc.? How’s it going in the European enclaves and no-go zones? Islam is inherently hostile to American cultural, social and political values. The vast majority of the ones that are NOT radical would be perfectly happy with a sharia compliant America.
No, this is a bad argument; Italians themselves have divergent cultural norms in their own country, dating from their origins as three separate countries, mushed together that fragments their economic composition to this day,
“But their Europeans!”, pay no attention to how blood soaked Europe has been for most of its history.
Nor how the most brutal wars, are nigh-always between peoples who are closely related.
The Koreans and the Japanese, the Rwandans, the Balklands, any ---- blank war you want to name in Africa quite frankly.
This is a bad argument, with no attention paid to actual observed, sociological norms.
So have Latin Americans, they have assimilated faster than the Germans, where 1/3 of 2nd gen Germans were stil speaking German only. You don’t see this today with Mexicans or Central Americans.
They’re assimilating at an above average rate, and have improved that rate overtime.
And I’ll admit, that may have less to do with them in particular, and more to do with the fact that technology makes us more inter-connected than ever, and that the average Latin immigrant is in many ways more educated than a German immigrant from a 120 years ago.
Which makes rejecting them, all the more absurd.
I could say the same thing about the Kurds, they ******* love us! They waive our flag at the head of their convoys, they put themselves on the ******* line each time we had a war with Saddam or the insurgents,
and we treat them like *****? We treat them worse than the Saudis? Who unlike the Kurds, actually bankroll terrorists? WHAT. THE. HELL.
I’m not above making distinctions, but you people seem to be as unable or unwilling to do it as the Left, for equally BS reasons, and you leave people who fought for us to die, and you don’t think a damn thing about it.
That’s sociologically blind.
Most abortions occur in cities; it does nothing to adjust the demographic decline of rural counties, who still need manpower.
So long as you keep ignoring the real, practical reasons people hire migrants, you’ll keep exposing yourself as ignorant on this topic Dave.
You’ve clearly never gone & talked to the people doing this now, just to see for yourself what their rationale is.
The reality of farmers who stopped growing manual-intensive crops, and let that produce go overseas to Turkey or China, because they could no longer find enough workers to work the harvest every year.
BS again, AS. I was RAISED in a large city (Indianapolis, IN) but made my fortune in small, rural community. Just because you’re born in a city doesn’t mean you have to remain there forever. I’d have thought even someone as short-sighted as your posts indicate would know that.
It really wasn’t. Your own article(surprise surprise) even says as much.
So we acknowledge that things not only stopped improving, but took a downturn. But then the author knocks down an imaginary strawman of “Nothing good ever happened for centuries!”. Well that author is either not very familiar with what the “Dark Ages” refers to, or is deliberately misrepresenting it. It was considered to be a period of a lost half millennia. Not that everything grew far worse, but it was a period of complete stagnation and even slight decline. That is completely accurate. That is exactly what happened.
When she’s looking for examples to disprove it, she comes up with an advancement in plows that took 500 years from the collapse of Rome. Then she mentions the whole planet became warmer so crop yields rose. Ok, awesome. That has what to do with European accomplishments? She’s basically saying the one lone thing that was improved during the Dark Ages, took 500 years, and was mostly the product of atmospheric circumstance.
What really sparked a major improvement in Europe was the Crusades. Without them, who knows if things ever would have been righted.
No, he disagrees with me on whether or not we should do it. Not what will happen as a result. It’s at 12 minutes into that Beck interview. He says that bringing in foreign hordes will bring suffering and tragedy, but that your life is a struggle filled with tragedy and it is your responsibility to bear that burden.
I reject his conclusion. I am not interested in struggling and suffering for the sake of foreign peoples. Peterson can feel free to try to maximize suffering by bringing in waves of unfettered migrants. I want less domestic suffering, not more.
Well if that’s true, I’m sure you can give me a lot of examples of all the Middle Eastern, Mexican, and African immigrants who are successfully innovating more than the natives.
Please provide me with some evidence of this claim.
Import labor, or Import food. Which will it be? You can’t avoid the question.
I CAN “avoid the question” since it’s a FALSE premise. We’ve got LOTS of available labor right here in the good old U.S. of A.
BTW, Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian-immigrant.
And immigrants from Nigeria, are richer on average than native whites. Nigeria, the place Trump tried to call **** hole, actually has a culture that consistently produces people as productive as the Chinese or Japanese.
Not cost effectively; if it’s not cost effective, it goes overseas:
The biggest cost they have is labor.
This is you, ignoring the problem Dave.
Import labor, or Import food. Which will it be? By default, the latter is happening. Are you okay with this?
I thought you were all FOR imports, AS. Now you’re acting like they are something evil?
I don’t want the Government deciding which import it is. I want the market to select it.
Just like I want the market to select healthcare options, not the Government.
Sure, let’s look at your article. Maybe this one will go better for you than all of the other articles you use?
65.5 billion/ 2.9 million = $23,000
So they’re generating $23,000 in “business income”. I’m even going to be generous here and assume your author doesn’t know the difference between “income” and “profit”. Because if it really is “income”, that’s some absolutely abysmal income.
So like all of your other articles, this one just supports my case, and agrees with you in tone, but not substance.
Cool, I’ll even just assume you’re right on this one. If so Nigeria has proved itself to be a useful source of immigrants. That’s the exact way we should be processing our immigrants. People who make the country better, not drag it down to the level of the Third World they seek to escape.
Vs you, where none of yours have worked out for you? Where your own source on wage effects, actually proved me right?
Cwolf, at this point, a revaluation of your argument has to occur. You’ve mentioned at least 3 justifications for protectionism itself, that are as knowingly false, as claiming women earn 70 cents on the dollar.
You can’t do that, and expect me to think that you’re taking this seriously.
For the record:
- American manufacturing has not decreased.
- Imports are mostly capital improvements, not cheap consumables.
- Imports increases capital accumulation, not detract from it.
I need to see what’s left. What are your remaining justifications?
Dude, it does not matter how large or small the contribution is, so long as they contribute.
You want to claim that only big contributions matter, but economics does not stand behind that idea. Efficiency increases at the micro scale also helps us.
An increase in productivity, is an increase productivity. So long as what we’re talking about is things people want/need, that’s all that matters. That’s what the economy is there for. Becoming more effective at producing things/services people demand.
LOL. Selling each other cheap, plastic doodads doesn’t contribute much of ANYTHING to our economy OR our culture.
Good thing most of our imports are equipment & resources.
You have to go to #10 to find “plastics”.
Which is mostly you trying to reframe what I said into something else. I never said “The majority of all of our imported Chinese goods are trinkets”. The first thing I said is that low quality goods(and this can include many “capital goods”) make up more than the balance of our trade deficit.
And I don’t recall disagreeing that capital accumulation happens. I said it’s undesirable to sell off portions of domestic land and production in exchange for inferior Chinese goods(which includes many captial goods) which will not be functional in 10 years. But the vast swats of land they bought up will be. I know you don’t care if we sell the country out from under ourselves because The Free Hand will perfectly guide us to prosperity. I however, do care.
This is one of the big problems you have with debate in general. You literally don’t understand difference between agreement of outcomes versus the desirability of said outcomes.
It’s like you say “X and Y will happen if” and I say “X will happen - and that’s a bad thing. Y won’t happen”. You somehow read that as “X and Y both won’t happen!”.
No Dude, you’ve discounted the importance of scale here.
Forcing consumers to only buy equipment at American prices, bottlenecks how productive our economy can be. You force people to have less of this equipment, or to go completely without.
If businesses/consumers can get re-manufactured Chinese made units at half the price, and the number of units in our economy then rises by 50 or 100% or more, our economy is made that much more productive in that area.
The advantage of cheap, is that it makes more of that activity possible, and our economy conserves resources to do other things at the same time.
It’s because Japan cannot do this, with their cheapened currency being too weak to import most goods cost effectively, that their economy is now falling behind. Making capital improvements, which you need to build your own future, is far too expensive for people there.
Again, people were making this same accusation of the Japanese in the 1980s. You need to look back to see why this doesn’t amount to what you think.
It’s the spotlight fallacy; you’re giving more credence to what you see, rather than trends. Just like how people use mass shooting as evidence for gun violence increasing.
I care if you sell to a Government. But to private individuals, who don’t appear to be actors for said government?
We’re not New Zealand with a tiny portion of land. America is <5% developed, half that of the rest of the developed world. There’s plenty of room for foreign investment, and we should welcome it.
It is afterall more money, that we don’t have to add ourselves, to make land improvements.
This is quite literally how places like Denmark keep themselves afloat; becoming a localized haven for outside capital.
What is another example of this?
We WERE talking about all this immigrant entrepreneurs from 3rd-world countries. What has “imports” got to do with that?
Ask yourself that question, you brought up “plastic doodads”.
YOU posted this BS, AS. That’s what I was referring to in my comment. NOT “international trade.”