Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

[Benvolio]

I like the subtle lie at the end -- no one is asking for immigration increases (mores' the pity).

The main part I've corrected for accuracy. If Republicans hadn't stood against Americans because Obama was for them on a number of bills, we'd be adding another 100k to 200k jobs per month -- but they'd rather oppose Obama than do what's good for the country.

You lie. 11 million new legals is a big increase.

 

[opinterph]

First, the other side of the equation is what happens in the source country of the immigrant. Canada attracted significant negative attention 10 or 15 years ago, being accused of vacuuming up all the talented skilled people from South Africa, hampering that country's progress and depriving them of their investment in a generation which that country could not afford to lose.

In a way that affirms the value of immigrants to their new home; their loss really was our gain, at least according to them (my hope would be that it would create new links between the two countries that open up trade and create new opportunities for partnership and mutual growth). Regardless, from that you might infer that a relatively open border is good for at least the receiving country. But it does also raise the question of responsibility to the source country. Does it exist?

I agree that robbing source countries of their most talented workers does harm to those countries. Whether to take that outcome into account when considering the immigration process is perhaps part of the moral responsibility each country (or society) must determine. The flip side could be an argument that enabling unskilled persons to immigrate carries with it some element of charity or benefit to those individual migrants and their families. And I think that is part of Mr. Sailer’s argument against immigration – that racial rectitude is regarded as a virtue that cannot be legitimately challenged in America, thanks to political correctness, altruism, etc.

If most of the world were to achieve economic and social standards to make [other parts of the world] realistic destinations for immigration, I think it would take away a lot of the pressures that currently attach to the influx…questions about integration, questions about displaced opportunity, etc. It would make the question of where to settle more of a personal choice and less of a macroeconomic worry.

Yes. To the extent that our global standard of living approaches parity, I suppose it is reasonable to assume that the economic incentive for unskilled workers to immigrate will diminish or at least cease to be a significant influence. Likewise, if the rewards associated with opportunity for skilled workers is not limited to places like Canada, the US, Australia, and Europe then maybe their choice will be more a matter of personal preference.

 

[mightbe]

Benvolio--It's not a lie just because you don't understand it.

 

[opinterph]

Global capitalism affects every country in different ways. In the US it's the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs, the rise in financialisation of the economy, etc. Immigration is a symptom of this condition. It is underpinned by increasingly authoritarian political power. There appears to be no alternative to this neoliberal agenda, for democracy itself has become its hostage.

Which political ideology or political party do you think most closely resembles (or promotes) the principles of “neo-liberalism” in the US?

 

[Benvolio]

Government data shows that all the net gains in employment in the last 13 years has gone to immigrants, while the number of native born in employment has decreased.s.org/immigrant-gains-native-losses-in-the-job-market-2000-to-2013?utm_source=E-mail+Updates&utm_campaign=a781f22ea4-Immigrants+Gain%2

 

[opinterph]

Reminder:

The topic of this thread is open to a wide variation of interpretation or conceptual illustration; however, interpersonal commentary or excessive deviations from the presented ideas are not desired. A methodical approach is most likely to provide a clear result.

I also recommend that members not use post numbers when referencing other posts in this (or any other) thread. When posts are removed, the remaining posts are automatically renumbered.

 

[palbert]

Of recent date I have tried to refrain from posting, but this OP and discussion are so intellectually blind and dishonest I can't refrain here.

"Morality" has nothing to do with this discussion. The days of "[STRIKE]white man's burden[/STRIKE]" "America's burden" to save all humanity in my estimation fell by the wayside long ago. Morality as an unquantifiable burden of guilt projection is not salvaged by sleight-of hand adjectives, adverbs, catch phrases or -isms.

The only relevant matters to discuss are:

(Projected available resources) divided by (projected population) times (resource allocation per inhabitant).

Instead of talking categories of workers we should be discussing mouths. And ballot consequences should not be germane.

The immigration debate is a way to avoid the above factors; it is also stands in default of an honest discussion of the social engineering required. Increasing or decreasing immigration will most likely not have any of the palliative or deleterious effects cited. Instead of relying on immigration to have one's desired effect we should institute policies that demonstrably give the outcome society determines.

I am neither a Malthusian nor Cornucopian, But on the whole I think Malthus was more right empirically than the Cornucopians. (Malthus was wrong in timing, not in theory.) I will not recite the perils the world's food supply enjoys. We have all - or at least the sentient - heard or talked about "peak oil;" a more pressing problem - with immigration or population shifts - is "peak water."

My equation above is not holy writ, but it is Chapter One of the discussion that was disguised by the one posited.

If our future supports immigration, fine; if we feel it does not, that's fine too.

 

[Benvolio]

I think it is immoral to invite or allow large scale immigration when we have millions of poor and unemployed already.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's only because you view jobs as some finite number that anyone can fit in. But that's ok, we all grow up at some point.

 

[Kulindahr]

You lie. 11 million new legals is a big increase.

This lie is not so subtle.

Do you really think we're all going to fall for your distorted analysis of things? If you believe that members of Congress are asking for immigration increases, please show us the part of proposed legislating which would raise the number of permitted immigrants by that number, and over what period of time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Discussing the topic with a xenophobe is a waste of time, but use of the term retarded is hurtful and not called for at any time.

Not really. The notion of "citizenism" fails because it rests entirely on how one defines what is good for a citizen. Depending on one's point of view, slavery, mandatory military service, land redistribution, eligibility to federal office limited to military veterans, voting dependent on education, nationalized energy industries, or a number of any of a plethora of views could be considered part of "citizenism".

Anything so empty of an ability to actually guide policy is not unreasonably regarded as "retarded".

 

[Kulindahr]

Government data shows that all the net gains in employment in the last 13 years has gone to immigrants, while the number of native born in employment has decreased.s.org/immigrant-gains-native-losses-in-the-job-market-2000-to-2013?utm_source=E-mail+Updates&utm_campaign=a781f22ea4-Immigrants+Gain%2

Damaged link corrected:

http://www.cis.org/immigrant-gains-native-losses-in-the-job-market-2000-to-2013


It's an interesting read. One truly interesting aspect is that the data may actually argue that we do in fact have a high level of immigration because there are jobs Americans won't take: it's not likely that all those millions of immigrants are so highly skilled that the unemployed Americans don't qualify for them, so the competition must lie in low-skilled or unskilled labor positions. When there is such a skewed result between two groups with respect to such a choice (work this job or not), motivation has to be a large factor -- either the motivation of the prospective employed, or of the prospective employers. Conjecturing that employers fall evenly on the divide of "rather hire an American", what this shows is that numerous -- millions -- Americans are deciding they don't want the jobs in question.

Perhaps, for the sake of citizenship, those not willing to work should lose their status?

 

[opinterph]

Not really ... Anything so empty of an ability to actually guide policy is not unreasonably regarded as "retarded".

Perhaps this is another matter related to “Political Correctness?”

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/thr...-State/page3?p=8490180&viewfull=1#post8490180​

 

[opinterph]

More food for thought:

The Changing Demographics of America (Smithsonian magazine)

The United States population will expand by 100 million over the next 40 years. Is this a reason to worry?​

 

[bankside]

Of recent date I have tried to refrain from posting, but this OP and discussion are so intellectually blind and dishonest I can't refrain here.

"Morality" has nothing to do with this discussion. The days of "[STRIKE]white man's burden[/STRIKE]" "America's burden" to save all humanity in my estimation fell by the wayside long ago. Morality as an unquantifiable burden of guilt projection is not salvaged by sleight-of hand adjectives, adverbs, catch phrases or -isms.

The only relevant matters to discuss are:

(Projected available resources) divided by (projected population) times (resource allocation per inhabitant).

Instead of talking categories of workers we should be discussing mouths. And ballot consequences should not be germane.

The immigration debate is a way to avoid the above factors; it is also stands in default of an honest discussion of the social engineering required. Increasing or decreasing immigration will most likely not have any of the palliative or deleterious effects cited. Instead of relying on immigration to have one's desired effect we should institute policies that demonstrably give the outcome society determines.

I am neither a Malthusian nor Cornucopian, But on the whole I think Malthus was more right empirically than the Cornucopians. (Malthus was wrong in timing, not in theory.) I will not recite the perils the world's food supply enjoys. We have all - or at least the sentient - heard or talked about "peak oil;" a more pressing problem - with immigration or population shifts - is "peak water."

My equation above is not holy writ, but it is Chapter One of the discussion that was disguised by the one posited.

If our future supports immigration, fine; if we feel it does not, that's fine too.

I think, to be a little more math-like, we should adjust your equation.

Let y = projected available resources
Let q = projected population

y/q = C

C= consumption limit per capita

or

Let y = projected available resources
Let a = resource allocation per inhabitant

y/a= P

P = max population

but
(y/q)(a) would be resources squared per inhabitant squared, yet it wouldn't permit you to solve for any of the terms.

I….did I forget to carry a two or something?

 

[Benvolio]

The primary reason they don't want the jobs is because the jobs don't pay well, because there is a huge oversupply of people willing to do the jobs for low wage. But this lack of willingness is more a liberal ideology than a fact. What evidence is there that Americans are unwilling to drive taxis? But it most cities it is hard to find a taxi driven by someone who speaks English as his first language. Immigrants now dominate many jobs which were American a decade or two ago. Construction, for instance.
The liberal ideology--forget about the Americans because they don't want to work, and bring in masses of immigrants--is a formula for ever increasing poverty. Sure, they vote Democrat, but is that the kind of country you want?

 

[Benvolio]

This lie is not so subtle.

Do you really think we're all going to fall for your distorted analysis of things? If you believe that members of Congress are asking for immigration increases, please show us the part of proposed legislating which would raise the number of permitted immigrants by that number, and over what period of time.

11 million additional legal workers and legal immigrants IS a big increase in an of itself.

 

[palbert]

.... I….did I forget to carry a two or something?

You should have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express® last night.

 

[Benvolio]

Not really. The notion of "citizenism" fails because it rests entirely on how one defines what is good for a citizen. Depending on one's point of view, slavery, mandatory military service, land redistribution, eligibility to federal office limited to military veterans, voting dependent on education, nationalized energy industries, or a number of any of a plethora of views could be considered part of "citizenism".

Anything so empty of an ability to actually guide policy is not unreasonably regarded as "retarded".

The examples you give are questions of what is good internally for the citizens. It is separate from the question of what is good for citizens versus non-citizens. The thrust of the OP is that the governments FIRST duty is to protect and serve its citizens, rather than non-citizens. That would seem to be obvious. No, it does not mean that we are harmful to other countries but the governments first duty it to its own. Remember the Constitution says the union is to secure the blessings "for ourselves and our posterity."

 

[Kulindahr]

The primary reason they don't want the jobs is because the jobs don't pay well, because there is a huge oversupply of people willing to do the jobs for low wage. But this lack of willingness is more a liberal ideology than a fact. What evidence is there that Americans are unwilling to drive taxis? But it most cities it is hard to find a taxi driven by someone who speaks English as his first language. Immigrants now dominate many jobs which were American a decade or two ago. Construction, for instance.
The liberal ideology--forget about the Americans because they don't want to work, and bring in masses of immigrants--is a formula for ever increasing poverty. Sure, they vote Democrat, but is that the kind of country you want?

I know three contractors here who did their best to hire the local kids from established families as workers, but found time and again that it was the immigrant kids who worked their asses off; a couple of farmers I know feel the same way.

Interestingly, though, the loggers I know tell a different tale, but it seems to come down to the immigrant kids seeming lost in the woods, while locals applying for those jobs grew up in and around them.