No one here is arguing against vetting immigrants. We’re discussing the reduction of legal immigration to half its current levels and basing entry on merit, including skill level, education and economic status. Both AS and I oppose basing entry on those three criteria. We both appear to agree with excluding criminals, terrorists and the sick. I think that both of us support withholding welfare benefits for five years as in the proposal discussed in the OP.
That argument is how the left attacks the Constitution and your rights. It’s a bad argument, and a bad plan.
We’re discussing the reduction of legal immigration to half its current levels and basing entry on merit, including skill level, education and economic status. It appears that AS agrees with me opposes basing entry on those three criteria. We both appear to agree with excluding criminals, terrorists and the sick. We also both appear to support withholding welfare benefits for five years as in the proposal discussed in the OP. Clearly we agree with you to a point.
So my question to you earlier (I didn’t see an answer) was whether you would support retaining or increasing legal immigration levels if we ban welfare to immigrants for five years after entry. If not, why not? After all, their drain on the fiscal system appears to be the most common complaint in this thread about immigrants. If so, then it appears you, AS and I are essentially in agreement. What an interesting notion.
And this thread is really about immigration policy and legal immigration. Just saying.
It is difficult to have a conversation with you when you ask me questions which I have already expressed an opinion on. You ask above, would I support “. . . retaining or increasing legal immigration levels if we ban welfare to immigrants for five years after entry. If not, why not?"
In post number 44 I wrote: “It seems to me that allowing the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries to flood into our country, as has been the case for over twenty five years, is a recipe for unwanted consequences, and has proven to be the case.”
Even if “welfare” were not available, allowing the above category of foreigners to flood into our country would still have a devastating effect upon local school systems; health care; and law enforcement, which has proven to be the case.
And in post number 87 I wrote:
“We are discussing an America first immigration policy which makes a distinction between the quality of immigrants allowed into the United States as opposed to opening our borders to immigrants who are poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled, in addition to the criminally inspired immigrant.
Is it not in America’s best interests to select immigrants based on their qualities, one of which is their likelihood to not become a public burden to America’s taxpaying citizens?”
And in post no. 125 I wrote:
“* . . . I have expressed my agreement with assigning positive and negative points to desirable and undesirable characteristics of those wishing to migrate into the United States . . .
We need to take a common sense approach to immigration and select immigrants who will be productive and beneficial to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.
Is it common sense to allow the poverty stricken poorly educated low and unskilled populations of other countries to flood into America? Even if there is no government assistance available to this type of immigrant, they still become a public burden in other self-evident ways. Therefore, it is wise to assign a negative point to this class of immigrant. Is it not?
Is it common sense to allow those with contagious diseases such as chickenpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, and sexually transmitted diseases to be introduced into our nation’s population? Of course not, and thus a restriction ought to be placed upon this class of immigrant.
Is it common sense to allow immigrants with mental disorders to be introduced into our country? Of course not, and thus, a negative point must be assigned to this classification.
How about immigrants who are healthy and have a skill to offer, but are destitute and with no visible means of support? Should we not require this type of immigrant to have a job and residence waiting and upon entry place this type of immigrant on a probationary time period?
And how about those wishing to migrate into the United States whose cultural and moral values are in direct conflict with America’s cultural and moral values? Should we not consider the consequences of allowing this group to flood into our country, and restrict their entry to preserve the general welfare of our country?
And let us not forget a group which falls into a very, very dangerous class . . . those who are tied to terrorist groups and whose mission is to bring mayhem and destruction to the United States. Is it really in America’s best interests to open our borders to this type of “immigrant”?”*
**So, my answer to your question is no. Banning welfare to immigrants for five years after entry is only part of a rational immigration policy. There are other factors, which I have pointed out above, that ought to be addressed and remedied. **
? The logic doesn’t work here, markets reach for equilibrium to avoid either a surplus, or a shortage. It doesn’t matter if you reach “stability” in disequilibrium, that misses the point.
You’re forcing the market to be inefficient, to get less-than-best use of its available components, and to create spill-off effects that disrupt production.
You’re also forgetting that the lakes reached stability naturally; whereas you’re forcing the markets into disequilibrium artificially.
The Austrians, equally, have something to say on stability:
> the conditions under which the final state of rest is supposed to be established—namely, stable conditions—can never be given. The market process itself brings about continual change, it implies a constant need for readjustment.
To even propose stability here is itself unnatural.
And once more, none of this provides what I asked for; an example of the Government managing the supply of something better than markets.
If the Government fails to manage anything else better than Markets, then you only get to the conclusion that it can with labor, by holding it up in isolation, and not applying economic laws to it.
Which is precisely the same thing the Left does with Healthcare. They give all sorts of reason for how it’s “too special” to be left to the market to manage, and then rush us all into proving them wrong, with policies that produce either… surplus, or shortages, with spill off effects like decreased innovation.
So long as everything behaves as according to the laws of scarcity, markets are the proper way to manage them.
Your question is absurd. How does the market place keep immigrants with undesirable characteristics, e.g., poverty stricken poorly educated, low and unskilled immigrants, out of the country?
How does the market place keep the criminally inspired, e.g., child molesters, thieves, gang members, etc., out of the country?
How does the market place keep the mentally ill out of the country?
How does the market place keep those with contagious diseases such as chickenpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, and sexually transmitted diseases out of the country?
How does the market place keep those wishing to migrate into the United States, whose cultural and moral values are in direct conflict with America’s cultural and moral values, out of the country?
How does the market place keep a very, very dangerous class of foreigners out of the country, e.g., those who are tied to terrorist groups and whose mission is to bring mayhem and destruction to the United States?
How do you determine and keep undesirables out of your home? Do not make a judgement call as to who enters, and have a locked door to keep undesirables out?
Why do you have such a problem with American citizens, using the force of government which they created, to keep undesirables out of their country? Eh?
Good questions all, Johnwk. AS’s vaunted “market forces” completely IGNORE those desirable things because he thinks in terms of “labor” instead of people…people with flaws, foibles, evil intent or life-long indoctrination in cultures inimical to OURS.
Not a single thing, JWK. I’m not a “social engineer” any more than I’m an astronaut. AS knows this. I’m not trying to “socially engineer” this country. I just think we’ve reached a point socially and economically where it’s to the COUNTRY’S benefit to control who it is that comes here–for whatever reason. NOBODY has a “right” to immigrate to the U.S. That “right” doesn’t exist and really never did. If you believe it does, then ask any Native American how THEY feel about the uncontrolled immigration onto this continent beginning a bit over 500 years ago. They were powerless to stop it ONLY because they were technologically inferior to the newcomers. If THEY had had semi-auto weapons or even just the WHEEL there wouldn’t be a European living on this continent today, except as the INVITED guests of the Native Americans. Japan and China would STILL be feudal societies if the West hadn’t FORCED them to accept Western ways via superior technologies. China didn’t INVENT Marxism, nor did Japan INVENT the steam engine. They ADOPTED them.
You just did, you tried to put, in writing, what “qualities” you would reject people on.
Not because they’re culpable in anything, not because they’re terrorists or sick, but because “oh you don’t have the right work skills”. Because you believe bureaucrats and their regulations can look into a person’s soul, and tell who they are, and what they’ll do.
This is the Adam Smith’s Man of System fallacy.
This is the definition of Social Engineering. You’re trying to manipulate the content of the populace. You’re committing population control.
> I just think we’ve reached a point socially and economically
No Dave, you do not have the knowledge, the expertise, or anything else of the sort to do this.
Neither you, nor Government, knows which skills are useful. If the Government knew, it would make better work training programs. It would pick out the right businesses to support.
But experience time & again is that Government and Economics, don’t mix.
> ask any Native American how THEY feel about the uncontrolled immigration onto this continent beginning a bit over 500 years ago.
Dave, in real life the more productive culture sets the pace. Volga Germans dominated the Russians and the Czechs. Chinese Malays dominate the Malays.
This is how the Romans remained dominant in an empire for centuries that was compromised more of tribes than Romans; having the keys to an affluent lifestyle that the tribes people wanted a piece of, so that the Tribes Romanized.
Rome only fell once they quit being a ladder for other peoples, and could only exploit others, and their own populace, to get by.
It seems that AlaskaSlim is intent on making the argument that open borders are “better”. Please don’t tell me that you are not in favour of open borders. If you were not then you must acknowledge that someone sets the rules and in our country that is constitutionally delegated to the representatives of the people and the states…the Congress. If you don’t like that please tell me who should make the rules and why they should over-ride the Constitution. Now with ANY set of rules, or no rules at all, there will be winners and losers. So, whatever rules you might consider “better” some of the losers will be American citizens who will be unemployed, some of the winners will be aliens who get to come to America and some of the winners will be businesses getting cheap labour and depressed wages. They all get to vote; except the aliens, I hope that you are OK with that! Not depressing wages will cause some prices to go up. I can weigh that when I vote against the interests of my wages or employment and the wages and employment of my friends and neighbours and maybe ALL of my fellow citizens.
> If you were not then you must acknowledge that someone sets the rules and in our country that is constitutionally delegated to the representatives of the people and the states…the Congress. If you don’t like that please tell me who should make the rules and why they should over-ride the Constitution.
Constitution provided Aliens with rights. So said James Madison.
The Founders had this debate, and settled it, by rejecting the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
And that was just over naturalization. The only part of it the Constitution actually gives Congress any power over.
> So, whatever rules you might consider “better” some of the losers will be American citizens who will be unemployed
That’s not how markets work.
Mr. Obama tried to say ATMs created unemployment, and he was wrong. The claim that immigration pushes up the unemployment rate among natives is equally wrong.
There are at least two reasons why both of these claims are wrong even if you can point to people either of these things took jobs from:
If those shortages aren’t filled, then the economy can’t operate optimally, meaning there are less jobs everywhere; including the over-saturated cities that Americans congregate around.
Equally, downturns take longer to get through, and innovations slows in pace. It’s all interconnected.
We do have a globalized economy.
For instance, Farmers can’t compete with farming goods produced by cheaper labor. People like you say they should just pay more to hire American, but the result is very similar to minimum wage; you just end up passing the buck.
Instead of hiring American, the Farmer automates, or more likely quits farming the crop altogether. In the latter case, it means we will now import that crop, and get the benefit of foreign labor, anyway.
These are the constraints of the reality we live in. These are the parameters. You can point out problems, you can highlite people you feel the economy has “left out”, but you cannot change the constraints we are living with. To ignore them is the same error the left makes, and it’s for the same reason they get economic policy wrong, and keep hurting far more people.
Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States.
”Upon arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants were ushered into a room called the Great Hall and paraded before a series of medical officers for physical inspection. Most were allowed to pass by in a matter of seconds, but those whom the doctors deemed physically or mentally deficient were marked with chalk and taken away for additional screening. Questionable candidates were forced to submit to more detailed questioning and medical exams, and any signs of contagious disease, poor physique, feeblemindedness or insanity could see an immigrant denied admittance on the grounds that they were likely to become a ward of the state. In later years, doctors at Ellis Island even devised puzzles and memory tests to ensure that certain immigrants were intelligent enough to find work. New arrivals could also face rejection if they were anarchists, had a criminal record or showed signs of low moral character. Despite the litany of guidelines for new immigrants, the number of people denied entry at Ellis Island was quite low. Of the 12 million people who passed through its doors between 1892 and 1954, only around 2 percent were deemed unfit to become citizens of the United States.”
Today, we have a number of additional categories worthy to consider within a merit based immigration policy, some of which I took the time to list in POST NO. 125. If you have a problem with any specific one state your objection so we can engage in a productive discussion. All you are doing is blowing smoke and making generalized comments. If you are not interested in having a productive discussion, why post in the thread?
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
If unskilled immigrant workers, without a welfare safety net, were a benefit to the economy in the early 20th century it does not say anything about the benefit of unskilled immigrant workers today. Even if they are a net positive to the economy (which is uncertain) some Americans (like me) will weigh that against the damage to American workers in terms of unemployment and depressed wages.
In addition to our safety net for immigrant workers we also provide our safety net to their entire clan, village or tribe of non-workers via chain migration which our President wants to change with his modest, common sense proposal.
Yes it does. Unskilled labor, is utility labor, it goes in and fills broad labor needs. Skilled labor meanwhile is useful as niche labor, it goes in and fills strategic needs.
You need both. The economy has use for both.
If all you import is the latter, the result is dysfunction, and you get people with PhDs driving taxi cabs, which is exactly what happened in Canada. Underemployment everywhere.
And Canada, is the system Trump is trying to imitate; so pointing out the problems they’ve had is germane here.
The aim of immigrants labor, policy wise, is to find a labor population that compliments our own. Since we are a nation whose work skill-distribution is mostly in the middle, it’s immigrants at the bottom and the very top, where we need the most.
Something that looks like this:
Two more things:
Immigrants are more likely to start businesses. This is true in every country, not just ours.
Immigrants are more likely to be mobile; move from place to place, filling shortages.
Both of these things help, when you’re trying to get an economy moving again after a downturn.
> in terms of unemployment and depressed wages
They do not cause the unemployment rate to rise. Not a single study has ever shown this to happen. When you actually study the question, you find that either there is no trend, or it’s a positive correlation with employment going up.
Immigration brings more economic activity, it allows more services to exist, which both mean more Jobs. It’s same effect the ATM had when it came to bank tellers; better efficiency, more branches, more banking, more jobs for Bank tellers.
The problem Old Dog? You’ve only looked at the jobs immigrants take, while never asking what their effect is on job creation. It’s by balancing those two, that the full picture emerges.
As to depressed wages: this is at worst temporary for the lowest skilled Americans (while increasing it for others), Wages in the long run have been found to bounce back. If you want an economic explanation for why they would bounce back, here is an economist explaining it, but basically, it’s because immigrants make more services possible, which makes us more productive, which creates more demand for labor in other areas, pulling wages back up.
Your post is irrelevant to the 20th century. During the early 1900s, there was no welfare state and immigrants were rejected if it was thought they would become a ward of the States. They had to have a job and sponsor to provide their economic needs.
Stop mixing peanuts and popcorn.
We are here talking about constructing a merit based immigration plan which will promote the general welfare of the United States and her tax-paying citizens.
Why do you keep switching the subject to irrelevant esoteric nonsense?
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.