Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In general I would say yes (myself being a Naturalized citizen, ergo an immigrant.)
But then the devil is in the details. We import a lot of foreign work in tech, but do little to increase our tech-graduate output. That's one example.
So, there's a point where increasing the number of imported foreign talent will come with negative consequences.
We are not even near that point. Nevertheless, we surely could do a lot better in fostering local talent (mind you, I am of the opinion that many among the local population could do well to develop some agency when it comes to their professional development, but you can't make the horse drink even if you bring it to the pond.)
Also, there's the speed in which a city or town can absorb an influx of immigrants, even if they are of the most talented kind. Immigrants (legal or not, wealthy or not) congregate. School districts might not be able to cater to a population increase.
Educated immigrants with disposable income can come to compete with real estate close to desirable school districts (thus shooting up real estate prices or overwhelm a school.) Heck, we don't even need to consider foreign immigration, but simple mass internal migration from say, northern states to the sunshine states, or rural depopulation towards rapid urbanization in some areas (and vice versa in others.)
Population influx is an stressor no matter who partakes in the influx, on both ends of the flow.
And now the ugly detail no one wants to talk about: resentment. People resent that someone named Patel happens to be the closest doctor (I've seen it.) People resent that Jose from Guatemala is the guy cutting the grass (even if he's here legally), or that a person named Chen happens to be making a quarter million dollar salary (plus benefits) at google.
This is not unique to the US. It happens everywhere. I grew up in a country that f* hated Christian Lebanese immigrants - mind you, these were model immigrants that came to the country *WITH WEALTH* and created jobs and businesses. But the locals, they hated them. They hated they had the money (the money they brought from their countries), they hated they opened jobs (even though they earned their salaries with those jobs), they hated that they spoke Arabic at home, they hated that they had Maronite icons of the Jesus rather than a statue, etc.
Racial resentment is real in all countries, manifested in many ways, and triggered by different, culture-specific catalysts.
Think of all the people whose existential crisis go around "pressing #1 for english" even though that message hasn't been played in automated systems for over 20 years. Their existential crisis now is that they have to wait some extra seconds while the "to continue in spanish press 1" message plays along.
Case in point, David Purinton who killed an Indian engineer in Kansas because he thought the poor guy was "Iranian" (as if that were a justification.) Or El Paso shooter that killed and injured a whole bunch of Americans (including a veteran) and LEGAL shoppers from across the border.
Those are extremes, but are real and are symptomatic of an underlying cultural problem (people using the real problem of illegal immigration to verbally or physically attack other people that fit a profile, even fellow Americans.)
Again, this is not unique to the US. It's human wicked nature.
In summary:
There are socio-economic benefits of increasing legal immigration (even the manual labor type.) But it all depends on the rate of influx and the moral disposition of the local majority to absorb change, a change that happens regardless, even when immigrants integrate (and most do over time, despite the ongoing myths to the contrary.)
Morally and naturally I would support increasing immigration. I see jobs as purely transactional with all things being equal.
Practically, however, I would give it some serious pause for the reasons mentioned above.
Immigration with the right people is good for everyone, including the economy. I might sound racist or judgmental, but for the better of all... immigrants should meet certain criteria.
Immigration just for the sake of letting people into the country to raise the population without being careful who is let in, might end up being a catastrophe for the future.
Immigration with the right people is good for everyone, including the economy. I might sound racist or judgmental, but for the better of all... immigrants should meet certain criteria.
Immigration just for the sake of letting people into the country to raise the population without being careful who is let in, might end up being a catastrophe for the future.
No you don't sound racist, nor do you sound judgmental.....
An immigrant should benefit the country taking them in, Period.
Who are you . Let me guess ... Mark Zuckerberg ... Satya Nadella, Jeff Bezos, ... Larry Ellison some one from Walton family .. ... .. or some other billionaire who really wants to minimize their company's Salary expenses and whose kids will not have to look for jobs when they grow up right?
Population is a major determining factor which is why there are only going to be 3 powerful countries in the future - USA, China & India. If population didn't matter then why is tiny Switzerland irrelevant? Why are Australia & New Zealand irrelevant? Why is Canada irrelevant? We have a much large mostly successful population and so we can use that to great advantage. Those weaker large population countries have figured out that capitalism works and they won't stay weak any longer. America needs to grow or become more irrelevant like the Europeans. Even they know that they are irrelevant which is why the want to form a United States of Europe so that they could compete.
Is this supposed to be a satirical post? The countries you mention have, in many cases, been able to surpass the United States' quality of life on measures such as health care affordability, the ability to take vacations and enjoy life more, a lower violent crime rate, etc. And much of this is because of these countries' insistence in taking care of their own people rather than trying to solve the rest of the world's problems.
I say this from a point of true patriotism, which means I like to look at the things that the US is doing well but also the things the US is falling short on and can improve. And no offense to anyone in a country like India, but they have a much lower quality of life than the countries you view as "irrelevant" in terms of everything from hunger to poverty to lack of basic sanitation in many areas. Higher population isn't always better. If anything, it just makes it harder to get things done that need to be done.
merit based immigration is fine, everybody else, stay out.
Problem with the merit-based system is that no matter how meritorious, someone will argue you took the job away from a US citizen or that if they paid more, a citizen would show up.
As the title suggests I am advocating that we the USA should greatly increase immigration. America should triple its rate of immigration. Why?
1. To secure a better future for Americans
The addition of more American's would open up opportunities on all fronts for a better life. We have the benefit of a massive country. We don't need to give up any federal land to do this. We need to find a way to revitalize the rustbelt and those cities. If we had more immigration to the heartland we could turn back on the lights in Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee etc. We could have more options in great places to live, and an even stronger economy to do everything. We could have an even larger federal budget without having to increase taxes due to a larger population base. Imagine the things we could do in space if NASA had twice the budget? There is a reason that Canada loses its population to the USA. There is a reason that Europe cannot compete with us. It's because we are a larger better united body of people and we should capitalize on it.
2. To protect a better world order
America is a decently strong world power. However in the future age we will be competing against China & India. The Asian countries have a massive advantage considering that half of the world's population lives there. In order to ensure that we can compete in the new age on all fronts we should become an even larger.
Immigration is terrible for the natives. More immigration is worse.
Immigrants get a share of the common goods that belong to present citizens. Thus, immediately, they make Americans poorer. Their presence undermines civic unity, increases conflict, and depresses wages. So the natives are made poorer, and their wages are decreased so they fall further behind where they should be. Plus, the immigrants weaken natives' political power.
Immigration is an unmitigated disaster for the natives. Nothing you said has any support either in theory or empirically. Your point about competing with China and India is especially stupid. We now outcompete the hell out of them. Bringing the people we are outcompeting here will (1) weaken our human capital and thereby make us less competitive, (2) multiply internal conflict and thereby make us less competitive, (3) make corporate and military espionage in favor of India and China easier, (4) give Chinese and Indians the chance too vote to surrender our country to the nations we are supposed to be competing with, and (5) ultimately, erase the whole point (and possibility) of competition since we will have become them anyway.
There is no argument in favor of immigration other than (1) I am an amoral businessman, and I will gladly privatize profits while externalizing costs or (2) I am ethnocentric, and immigration increases my ethnic group's power at the expense of other groups.
That's it, and there's no way to argue that either of those things is good for the American people in general.
Problem with the merit-based system is that no matter how meritorious, someone will argue you took the job away from a US citizen or that if they paid more, a citizen would show up.
Which is, of course, true. The bigger problem is that the "meritorious" immigrant gets a share of the wealth created by the natives and then gets a chance to vote himself more of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
