Americans First – Citizenism as a Moral Principle to Regulate Immigration

[TX-Beau]

(peeks in)

Yup, same shit different day.

 

[Kulindahr]

I doubt if there is such a thing as an immigration study without an bias. Common sense should tell us that we have far too many poor and unemployed in the US and continuously importing millions of additional poor and unemployed will not solve that problem.

"Common sense" said that about immigration and south Florida every time a wave of Cuban refugees came over, but whether well-to-do or penniless, each of those waves brought increased prosperity.

Mass deportation won't solve the problem, either -- I presume you noted that in the article opinterph posted. In fact, nothing will "solve" the problem until we penalize corporations for not taking good care of their workers and get control of the border.

 

[Benvolio]

Find a peer-reviewed paper in an academic publishment. An economics journal or something objective.

I didn't bother to read your whole spew, but there are actually betters reason why there are less conservatives in universities. Liberal-minded people are often more open and inquisitive. Conservative-minded people are less so, and it's unlikely that a university would hire somebody who is closed off or outright rejects new experiences. It's also incredibly unlikely that a university would even ask about politics in the interviews and subsequent reviews. Academia is a progressive and liberal branch of society, being primarily interested in learning. Conservative-minded people are often less-inclined (but they do exist in universities--if you haven't found any, you haven't looked hard enough).

Liberals like to flatter themselves that they are open. But if you could look at it analytically, you would see that liberals are now almost entirely governed by a set of dogmas of political correctness. When liberals try to "think" about or discuss social or economic
questions, their thought processes are dominated by ad hominem thinking and name calling. After debating for years, I have come to see that name calling is not just what they do, it is how they "think". Worse, they have been taught or come to believe that people who disagree with the accepted liberal positions are bad, racists, stupid etc and that therefore, liberals fear to stray from the accepted positions, lest they be one of those bad people.
Our discussions of immigration are perfect illustrations. Liberals know that they are supposed to believe that immigration is good. That much is settled. And they are prepared with a set of ad hominem reasons and name: racist, nativist, xenophobic, bigot. No question about it. Beyond that, they have only the most illogical of rationalizations for the dogma: We are all descended from immigrants, therefore we may never ever limit immigration no matter how damaging it is to Americans. Better that millions live in poverty than the hypocrisy of limiting immigration by descendants of immigrants occur. Americans don't want the jobs, we are told, so ignore them and let them be poor, giving the jobs to immigrants.
Of course, I suppose there are somewhere liberals who can think beyond their dogmas, ad hominem reasoning and name calling, but where are they when we need them?

 

[Kulindahr]

^
To those who believe in liberty, immigration is good, because travel and choice of residence are an inalienable human right.

 

[mightbe]

Where the fuck do you get this, Benvolio? You seem to think that the political philosophy of liberalism implies brain washing. What liberals are supposed to think? Just stop.

And the reason you can't find an objective paper showing that immigration is inherently evil is that it isn't. You only want something that supports your views; most of your assertions have been repeatedly proven incorrect.

Nobody is demanding more lax immigration. Everybody wants it stricter to some degree. Quit making shit up.

 

[Benvolio]

^
To those who believe in liberty, immigration is good, because travel and choice of residence are an inalienable human right.

Liberty must end where it hurts others. Immigration hurts Americans. It hurts even more because Democrats use it as a reason to hurt Americans. Immigrants need affirmative action, push Americans aside. They need health care, tax Americans. Teach their children. Build jails for their criminals. Give them food stamps, subsidized housing, tax, tax, tax.

 

[Rolyo85]

What makes you think that repeated repetition of an unproven bias will convince anyone in anything? And if you don't think so, then what makes you keep banging your head at this evil liberal wall?

 

[Kulindahr]

Liberty must end where it hurts others.

That's what the proponents of gun control, universal health care, and eugenics say, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

Immigration hurts Americans. It hurts even more because Democrats use it as a reason to hurt Americans. Immigrants need affirmative action, push Americans aside. They need health care, tax Americans. Teach their children. Build jails for their criminals. Give them food stamps, subsidized housing, tax, tax, tax.

The first assertion is unproven -- it's accurate to say "immigration hurts SOME Americans", but I've seen here that it also saves businesses that would have failed, and enlivens others.

You decry all the welfare state programs, but you're just arguing for a different kind of one. They temper competition by providing protection, and you're seeking the same thing: you don't want Americans to have to compete, so you want to protect them from any competition. By wanting to take away that competition, you harm Americans, because they will no longer have to do their utmost to make the cut.

If you care about someone, you want the best from him. If you want the best, you make him compete.

Your position doesn't help Americans at all -- it would make them weaker.

Given that today's "conservatives" are so social-Darwinist on most everything else, it's astounding that you argue protection here.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's what the proponents of gun control, universal health care, and eugenics say, too.

Except two of these are PROVEN to benefit society, unlike immigration, which Bennie fails pathetically to prove anything about.

 

[Rolyo85]

The first assertion is unproven -- it's accurate to say "immigration hurts SOME Americans", but I've seen here that it also saves businesses that would have failed, and enlivens others.

You decry all the welfare state programs, but you're just arguing for a different kind of one. They temper competition by providing protection, and you're seeking the same thing: you don't want Americans to have to compete, so you want to protect them from any competition. By wanting to take away that competition, you harm Americans, because they will no longer have to do their utmost to make the cut.

If you care about someone, you want the best from him. If you want the best, you make him compete.

Your position doesn't help Americans at all -- it would make them weaker.

Given that today's "conservatives" are so social-Darwinist on most everything else, it's astounding that you argue protection here.

Wait, are you seriously trying to show him internal inconsistencies in his arguments? HIM? You're wearing out your keyboard for nothing.

 

[Benvolio]

Where the fuck do you get this, Benvolio? You seem to think that the political philosophy of liberalism implies brain washing. What liberals are supposed to think? Just stop.

And the reason you can't find an objective paper showing that immigration is inherently evil is that it isn't. You only want something that supports your views; most of your assertions have been repeatedly proven incorrect.

Nobody is demanding more lax immigration. Everybody wants it stricter to some degree. Quit making shit up.

The liberal practice of name calling , such as labeling most things they disagree with as racist, has the effect of pressuring liberals to conform. It explains why there such lock- step in thinking among liberals who claim that they are "open" and" inquisitive ".
You cannot find an objective study supporting immigration. You can only find studies which support the liberal position.

 

[Rolyo85]

The liberal practice of name calling , such as labeling most things they disagree with as racist, has the effect of pressuring liberals to conform. It explains why there such lock- step in thinking among liberals who claim that they are "open" and" inquisitive ".

No, it's just that some things are fucking RIGHT and some are fucking WRONG. Recognizing those isn't "lock-step in thinking", it's, as you like putting it, "common sense". Hating others for being different and making up bullshit unprovable reasons for your hatred IS racism, whether you'll accuse anyone of lock-stepping for calling you out on it, or not.

 

[bankside]

Do people think open borders promote good relationships between nations?

 

[Benvolio]

The first assertion is unproven -- it's accurate to say "immigration hurts SOME Americans", but I've seen here that it also saves businesses that would have failed, and enlivens others.

You decry all the welfare state programs, but you're just arguing for a different kind of one. They temper competition by providing protection, and you're seeking the same thing: you don't want Americans to have to compete, so you want to protect them from any competition. By wanting to take away that competition, you harm Americans, because they will no longer have to do their utmost to make the cut.

If you care about someone, you want the best from him. If you want the best, you make him compete.

Your position doesn't help Americans at all -- it would make them weaker.

Given that today's "conservatives" are so social-Darwinist on most everything else, it's astounding that you argue protection here.

Then of course, you agree that we should end labor unions, a primary function of which is to protect members from the need to compete with others for jobs and salaries.
In practice, immigration has had the effect of moving millions into unemployment and poverty. When laborers exceed the number of jobs, completion necessarily leaves some unemployed and lowers wages for the rest.
Bad enough, but then the liberals exploit the resulting poverty to hurt others. "Look at the poor. We need higher taxes, more laws, more regulations, less liberty."
Social Darwinism" is liberal epithet, you won't hear conservatives espousing it.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's actually not what unions are for.

 

[opinterph]

i can present studies which demonstrate the adverse effects of immigration on minority Americans, but of course, they are from non-liberal sources

From my perspective, a “study” involves more than collecting factual tidbits from other sources and then arranging them in a way that tends to substantiate or promote a particular point of view.

You regard academic sources as unbiased and "legitimate"

Not necessarily; however, academic rigor invites and/or encourages a methodology that is logical and provable.

formal study: research question–driven process involving precise procedures for data collection and interpretation; tests the hypothesis or answers the research questions posed. [Link]

The figures can be juggled to reach any preconceived results desired.

Juggling figures to reach a preconceived result is intellectually dishonest and relates to the methodology employed by the entity producing those results. I note that the juggling is not limited “figures” alone.

Conscientious individuals will recognize that for a large portion of the time since 1865, blacks were frozen out of the labor market. … because of the huge influx of immigrants.

I was raised in the South and hold an opinion that this “freezing out” involved something more substantial than a “huge influx of immigrants.”

Like you were already told, this goes against free market. It says "we should hire based not on quality, but nationality, and end up with an inferior product."

I think there are legitimate reasons for a country to protect its internal market – whether the market being protected primarily involves the nation’s commerce or its labor.

I seldom cite sources because liberals here always dismiss them as right wing.

Any source has the potential to produce useful ideas or information.

Note that Fiscal Policy study uses the euphemism "undocumented" workers. Actually, it is illegal for the workers to come into the country and illegal for them to be hired.

I see no reason to object to their use of a “polite term.” It seems to me that the term accurately describes the situation and is substantially neutral.

Moreover, the law does not do more than require minimum wage.

There are several exceptions to the minimum wage law.

Fact Sheet #12: Agricultural Employers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)​

If we make it legal for employers to hire illegals, and give them the full protection of the labor laws, obviously we give them an incentive to step over the border in greater numbers.

Semantics notwithstanding; this seems, to me, a logical conclusion.

When it is pointed out only 6% have essential skills, you seem to think it is an answer to point to the H-1B limitation. You miss the important point that massive immigration cannot be justified by the argument of essential skills.

It is an appropriate explanation and it also illustrates the mischievous nature of the cite.

I have hired and employed persons under the H-1B program. The process is relatively straightforward, but at the same time precise and somewhat complex. There is a longstanding demand to increase the number of persons allowed to enter the US under H-1B visas. If you read the link I offered in an earlier post above, you’d have noticed that the 2014 cap was exceeded rather quickly.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reached the statutory H-1B cap of 65,000 for fiscal year (FY) 2014 within the first week of the filing period, which ended on April 5, 2013.

Common sense should tell us that we have far too many poor and unemployed in the US and continuously importing millions of additional poor and unemployed will not solve that problem.

I’m not convinced that common sense is necessarily “common.” But in any event, I think it is reasonable to question whether it represents the best approach when attempting to solve a complex and difficult issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wait, are you seriously trying to show him internal inconsistencies in his arguments? HIM? You're wearing out your keyboard for nothing.

Not just internal inconsistencies, but violations of his own stated principles.

Capitalism requires competition to thrive. Crippling it in the name of something else -- here, nationalism -- tends to be a form of fascism.

 

[Kulindahr]

You cannot find an objective study supporting immigration. You can only find studies which support the liberal position.

Absolute excrement.

Try surfing through the material at the Independent Institute, which is about as liberal as Napoleon Bonaparte. My favorite is one advocating worldwide open borders, with an estimate that it would add up to $90 trillion to the world economy, with the presently biggest economies getting the biggest chucks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then of course, you agree that we should end labor unions, a primary function of which is to protect members from the need to compete with others for jobs and salaries.

Only if you agree that we should end all other forms of people joining together in common causes, from churches to corporations to clubs.

In practice, immigration has had the effect of moving millions into unemployment and poverty. When laborers exceed the number of jobs, completion necessarily leaves some unemployed and lowers wages for the rest.

Historically, immigration has had the effect of moving millions from joblessness and poverty into prosperity.

Or maybe all those millions of Germans who came to the midwest actually aren't homeowners and business owners and professionals and such.... or all the Irish who came to the East Coast and the Great Lakes....

The problem here is that you're viewing the situation in a binary fashion, that there is a finite number of jobs available and they come from the "job creators". But the job creators are those with initiative, whether they own a business or not, because those with initiative start businesses when they see opportunity. All those other immigrants came and not only took jobs they could do well, but also started their own businesses and created jobs for others. Immigrants have churned out innovations and inventions and patents, as they continue to do today, benefiting everyone.

Were it not for immigrants, this country would still be a mediocre wilderness with little standing among the nations.

Bad enough, but then the liberals exploit the resulting poverty to hurt others. "Look at the poor. We need higher taxes, more laws, more regulations, less liberty."

And you oppose higher taxes even when they're necessary. By your standards, Ronald Reagan was a liberal, along with Nixon and George H W Bush and, in fact, most Republican presidents. Even Eisenhower, one of the truest conservatives we've ever had, rates a liberal in your book.

That's a sign of closed thinking, of deliberate blindness to anything but an ideological standard of purity.

Social Darwinism" is liberal epithet, you won't hear conservatives espousing it.

Today's GOP is ruthlessly socially Darwinian. I don't know anything about liberal epithets, but I know that social Darwinism is a clearly defined point of view in politics, and the GOP holds to it almost elegantly.