Go read that thread. Natural Law is by no means a liberal position. Liberals don’t care about such things; they will wilfully violate rights whenever they see a use for it. They’ll violate free speech, religion, property rights, whatever they don’t see a use for.
My standpoint is to leave people be. People are actors who move in ways according to emergent order, why they move is for reasons too complex for a Government to unravel, or usefully manage.
We can prune the population here or there to try to control for criminals or terrorists, but if you’re obstructing people from exercising natural rights, people who aren’t culpable for anything, then you are betraying the heritage the Founder’s left us with, and are inviting disorder.
Immigration is the only reason we don’t have poor demographics like Europe. Immigration is the only way Canada has avoided the same situation.
Demographics resoundingly supports my position, because a nation that doesn’t have a growing population, is basically dying on the inside. A general losing of perishable work skills, consumption, & savings.
Japan knows it, Russia knows it, and China will start to feel it soon enough.
It’d be going into the weeds if I talked on this fully, but basically, the primary driver for these problems is the Dominance hierarchy. Where women are hypergamous, and aren’t finding enough men who are “better” than they are to settle down with.
Case in point, Japan has had the same problems with declining marriage and “parasitic singles” (without immigration). I looked at their problems 10-15 years ago, and realized “****, this is coming here”, if it wasn’t already here, and I just wasn’t noticing.
And again, my answer to you is, how was this navigated in the past?
We had much larger waves of immigrants before, with a smaller, poorer population of natives at home to absorb them with.
Every social problem you can imagine, to include things like terrorism and sickness, was worse then. Our capability to cope with anything was worse then.
And yet, society navigated it. It seems to me the knowledge of how that happened wasn’t passed on.
There have only been 3 groups of immigrants since the 1960s, who we’ve let unrestricted or close to unrestricted legal access to this country.
The Vietnamese, the Cubans, and people from the Eastern Bloc. All three of these groups vote conservatively, more than liberally.
Why do they do this? I’d argue it’s because we laid down far less obstacles for them to join into our society, allowing them to assert their own 1st hand experience of how much their home countries sucked, thus motivating them to reject what the Democrats were offering because they know better than most Americans what it leads to.
Reagan once referred to how there was something about Immigrants that made America more “American”, and I believe that this is precisely what he was getting at.
They take better note of what we take for granted, and voice it.
I’m not saying they don’t have problems; Bob in the other thread threw out problems they had in the early 20th century, and I’d say “yes, those are true”
But what’s also true is that, demographics show they’re more likely to start business, they’re more likely to be entrepreneurs, they’re more likely to come up with new ideas.
This is true of basically every nation on earth; immigrants everywhere are a self-selecting group of people, who are more driven towards risk-taking.
This is an absolute fact, across all cultures, and all ethnic groups. There’s little need to explain why in an economy, having such a group of people is tremendously useful.
So, the real issue that I see you scratching your head at, is why low-skilled immigration is useful, and I admit, that’s a more difficult thing to parse & define.
But we know that they have a use, because again, even advanced nations universally have to import them to fulfill their labor needs. There are no exceptions. Even China, the human labor giant, isn’t an exception.
There are natural drivers to demand for this labor, and I don’t think you’ve fully defined or encountered.
And yeah, so I have to ask again, did you read the article?
You were so quick to respond last time, that you didn’t seem to notice what I was pointing to. I had already admitted that, at the State level, immigrants tended to be a fiscal cost.
And yet, I’m not concerned about this. Why? Because the article (talking on the Texas study) goes on to mention their $$$ contribution to the economy. Which was a far & away larger figure than their fiscal cost… About 15x more.
The economy, is more important than the welfare state. The economy is a sphere where we assert natural human progress. But what’s more, because the GDP the economy is gaining from Immigrants being here is far & away more than what the welfare state costs;
We can conclude, that we can fix the welfare cost, by restructuring the welfare state. We can find a way for the welfare state to collect more of the money the immigrants are generating.
Or, y’know, cut the benefits. Which I would prefer, but whichever.
With or without immigrants, we need to do this anyway. The welfare state won’t last the way it is.
As I said before, the two things that have kept the Democrats plans afloat so long are coming to an end, and they’re will be reckoning inside the Government because of it. Democrats have in fact noticed this, but I’ve yet to see them develop a concrete plan to work ahead of it.