QuoteDemocrats face uphill climb on immigration
By Jared Allen - 10/14/09 06:04 AM ET
A small cadre of Democrats on Tuesday continued to push Congress to take up a major immigration reform bill even though the issue has all but evaporated from the majority's agenda.
At an afternoon rally in front of the Capitol, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's immigration task force, said an immigration overhaul is long overdue.
"We simply cannot wait any longer for a bill that keeps our families together, protects our workers and allows a pathway to legalization for those who have earned it," Gutierrez said.
Hopes for action on legislation to create a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants have steadily eroded since President Barack
Obama twice delayed a White House immigration summit and his attention became all but monopolized on healthcare reform.
Gutierrez, who has questioned Obama's commitment to the issue, on Tuesday said: "It is time we had a workable plan making its way through Congress that recognizes the vast contributions of immigrants to this country and that honors the American Dream."
At the same time, however, even Gutierrez has yet to introduce a bill.
The Illinois Democrat has been intent on including as many Republican-friendly provisions as he can swallow in order to attract some GOP support, and the plan he outlined on Tuesday includes provisions for enhancing border security and employment verification systems, both of which he said will reduce illegal immigration.
But it remains unclear whether any Republicans will step out to support immigration reform after a 2007 bipartisan effort collapsed under the stress of conservative criticism.
While the issue no longer dominates the conservative airwaves, it remains a political lightning rod for many on the right. The now-infamous "You lie!" outburst of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) came in response to Obama's pledge that no illegal immigrants will be covered under the government-funded portion of his healthcare plan.
For the time being, Democrats seem to be the more immovable obstacle.
Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (Calif.), the only Hispanic member of the House leadership team, said the urgency for immigration reform hasn't subsided, but acknowledged that it has been overshadowed by more pressing matters.
"There's a daily urgency," Becerra said. "The stories continue to come out about children who are separated from their parents, people dislodged from their workplace that they've been in for over a decade ... The drumbeat hasn't diminished one bit."
He suggested a busy House calendar is part of the problem.
"What we have found," Becerra continued, "is that we're encountering calendar issues with some of these big, heavy, but very important policy issues that we're confronting ... It's just a matter of finding the space on the calendar when you deal with the economy, jobs and healthcare."
Yet the House schedule in recent weeks has shortened.
House leaders have slashed a number of Mondays off of the upcoming legislative calendar, and have long since abandoned Fridays as days when the House meets to consider legislation.
With the House unable to reach a consensus on its own approach to healthcare reform, and with a number of Democrats wanting to wait even longer for the Senate to finish its bill, leaders have been struggling to find enough reasons to keep members in town for four days at a time.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said immigration reform could come after healthcare, but acknowledged the more likely possibility was for leaders to put it on next year's agenda.
Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform like Schakowsky and Gutierrez had pressed for action in Obama's first year, knowing that the emergence of an issue like immigration in an election year could make GOP support unattainable and also spell trouble for conservative Democrats.
Forced to scratch their original game plan, immigration reform backers are now hoping that Republicans in states with significant percentages of Latino voters will feel pressure to support, rather than shun, a pathway-to-citizenship bill, and that a reform bill will earn enough GOP support to offset the likely significant defections from Southern Democrats.
"We'll see how controversial it ends up being," Schakowsky said. "There are lots of Republicans in districts that, if not now, will soon be relying on citizen immigrants to reelect them."
I have mixed feelings about this; while I don't know what reform would entail, having millions of people in America illegally is clearly an unviable solution.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/62961-democrats-face-uphill-climb-on-immigration
Quote from: Faeelin on October 14, 2009, 02:40:04 PMwhile I don't know what reform would entail,
I think it should include some guest worker program.
The choice here is the issue of efficiency. Either you think the benefits of having legal cheaper workforce outweigh the potential cost of encouraging more illegal immigration or you don't. What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
Know what would be even more important? Information security reform so we don't see supposedly secure government servers hacked on a tri-weekly basis.
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
The choice here is the issue of efficiency. Either you think the benefits of having legal cheaper workforce outweigh the potential cost of encouraging more illegal immigration or you don't. What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
Well, it's also a question of what sort of people you want in. Those of us in the Anglosphere are pretty big on waiting our turn and not queue-jumping.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2009, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
The choice here is the issue of efficiency. Either you think the benefits of having legal cheaper workforce outweigh the potential cost of encouraging more illegal immigration or you don't. What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
Well, it's also a question of what sort of people you want in. Those of us in the Anglosphere are pretty big on waiting our turn and not queue-jumping.
Only that it's never been so and preventing immigration is exactly the opposite of what made America great.
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:58:47 PM
Only that it's never been so and preventing immigration is exactly the opposite of what made America great.
...If you were a WASP. Look at Irish settlers, look at the transcontinental railroad, look at Ellis Island. The United States has a pretty inglorious history where immigration is concerned.
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:58:47 PM
Only that it's never been so and preventing immigration is exactly the opposite of what made America great.
Tell that to the Chinese, or Jews in the 1930s.
Ok but that's my point. If anti-immigration sentiments happened in American history, they have always proven to be a mistake in retrospect. So why don't you fucking cut it out?
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 03:04:53 PM
Ok but that's my point. If anti-immigration sentiments happened in American history, they have always proven to be a mistake in retrospect.
Source?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 14, 2009, 02:40:04 PM
[
I have mixed feelings about this; while I don't know what reform would entail, having millions of people in America illegally is clearly an unviable solution.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/62961-democrats-face-uphill-climb-on-immigration
It is certainly viable--it just isn't ideal.
If you are pro-immigration there are a lot of solutions that could make the current situation better, but for several years it has been obvious that the status quo is the best that can be done. If Bush couldn't get through immigration reform, I don't see how Obama can.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2009, 03:02:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:58:47 PM
Only that it's never been so and preventing immigration is exactly the opposite of what made America great.
...If you were a WASP. Look at Irish settlers, look at the transcontinental railroad, look at Ellis Island. The United States has a pretty inglorious history where immigration is concerned.
In what way does that disapprove Marty? Your country was built by immigrants, which happened to be illegal most of the time, but a) you did let them in, and b) keeping them illegal was moronic
In short: give me my fuckin' working visa and let me prove myself
Quote from: Tamas on October 14, 2009, 03:24:47 PM
In short: give me my fuckin' working visa and let me prove myself
We already have enough Irish Travellers. Thanks.
Um...the people who arrived on Ellis Island and the Irish who built the transcontinental railroad were all legal immigrants. :huh:
I think if they were illegals they probably would not be going through an immigrant processing center like Ellis Island. :lol: Also how exactly was the 19th century immigration inglorious? I mean it wasn't easy to come here and do well but I think it is what made America great.
Quote from: Tamas on October 14, 2009, 03:24:47 PM
In short: give me my fuckin' working visa and let me prove myself
Nah we have a commitment to help the betterment of the Magyar lands. You will stay and build a better Hungary.
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:58:47 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2009, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
The choice here is the issue of efficiency. Either you think the benefits of having legal cheaper workforce outweigh the potential cost of encouraging more illegal immigration or you don't. What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
Well, it's also a question of what sort of people you want in. Those of us in the Anglosphere are pretty big on waiting our turn and not queue-jumping.
Only that it's never been so and preventing immigration is exactly the opposite of what made America great.
A wonderful line of bullshit.
European immigration is what made America great.
Rat can also be used as topping for pizza, but I'm sure you'll agree it won't make it great even if you argue "Meat makes pizza great".
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2009, 03:28:48 PM
Um...the people who arrived on Ellis Island and the Irish who built the transcontinental railroad were all legal immigrants. :huh:
I think if they were illegals they probably would not be going through an immigrant processing center like Ellis Island. :lol: Also how exactly was the 19th century immigration inglorious? I mean it wasn't easy to come here and do well but I think it is what made America great.
Agreed. Most Americans aren't against immigration, but they want it controlled or regulated to some extent, not a free for all coming across the border, as makes sense for any nation to do. The US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.
It's amazing the level of expectation people seem to have. Obama's already working on a number of huge projects that are time-consuming, like health care, fighting two wars, etc. The guy can't just snap his fingers and fix every interest group's pet issue overnight.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 14, 2009, 03:36:32 PM
It's amazing the level of expectation people seem to have. Obama's already working on a number of huge projects that are time-consuming, like health care, fighting two wars, etc. The guy can't just snap his fingers and fix every interest group's pet issue overnight.
He is certainly proving that to be correct.
Quote from: Berkut on October 14, 2009, 03:43:03 PM
He is certainly proving that to be correct.
Proving what? That finger snapping tends to fail in the process of government policy?
Quote from: KRonn on October 14, 2009, 03:34:55 PM
Agreed. Most Americans aren't against immigration, but they want it controlled or regulated to some extent, not a free for all coming across the border, as makes sense for any nation to do. The US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.
Not really though. You guys take about a million immigrants per year, legally.
But your overall population is over 300 million.
Canada receives about 250,000 per year, legally, but into a population one tenth the size of the US. Australia seems to take in around 120,000-150,000, into a population of 20 million.
I always thought we should allow anybody to move to the US provided they agree to live in uninhabited places like North Dakota, Wyoming, or the West Texas desert. Once they see where they have to live they will probably want to go back home.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2009, 03:48:45 PM
I always thought we should allow anybody to move to the US provided they agree to live in uninhabited places like North Dakota, Wyoming, or the West Texas desert. Once they see where they have to live they will probably want to go back home.
Those places aren't uninhabited though...
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 14, 2009, 03:34:55 PM
Agreed. Most Americans aren't against immigration, but they want it controlled or regulated to some extent, not a free for all coming across the border, as makes sense for any nation to do. The US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.
Not really though. You guys take about a million immigrants per year, legally.
But your overall population is over 300 million.
Canada receives about 250,000 per year, legally, but into a population one tenth the size of the US. Australia seems to take in around 120,000-150,000, into a population of 20 million.
How does comparing it to total population make sense?
Does this mean China or India ought to take in even more immigrants, despite the fact that there isn't anywhere for them to go?
What a bizarre metric - one should take in immigrants in proportion to their population, which of course means that their population will grow exponentially forever!
Great argument, counselor.
Canada and Australia are outliers. We have a greater percentage of foreign born residents than countries like the UK or France in spite of their close ties and ease of immigration from the surrounding countries.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 14, 2009, 03:36:32 PM
It's amazing the level of expectation people seem to have. Obama's already working on a number of huge projects that are time-consuming, like health care, fighting two wars, etc. The guy can't just snap his fingers and fix every interest group's pet issue overnight.
It's not clear to me that status of between ten and thirty million people in America is a pet issue.
Quote from: Berkut on October 14, 2009, 03:50:40 PM
How does comparing it to total population make sense?
Does this mean China or India ought to take in even more immigrants, despite the fact that there isn't anywhere for them to go?
What a bizarre metric - one should take in immigrants in proportion to their population, which of course means that their population will grow exponentially forever!
Great argument, counselor.
The obstacles to immigration aren't ones of physical space, not for western countries at least. The barriers are cultural - how easily can they be assimilated/acculturated/whatever. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that immigration rates should be looked at as a
per capita number, rather than total numbers.
Look, I have no horse in this race . YOu guys can let in as many or as few immigrants as you want. I was merely pointing out that I don't think it's accurate to say you're already taking in large numbers of immigrants when the other countries most comparable taking in significantly more immigrants
per capita.
Quote from: citizen k on October 14, 2009, 02:47:32 PM
I think it should include some guest worker program.
Agree. Keep the lid shut pretty tight on citizenship, though.
FWIW, I do support more open immigration for skilled/educated people. I think it's silly that immigration from Europe is so restricted, when they're practically already assimilated.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2009, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 14, 2009, 02:47:32 PM
I think it should include some guest worker program.
Agree. Keep the lid shut pretty tight on citizenship, though.
FWIW, I do support more open immigration for skilled/educated people. I think it's silly that immigration from Europe is so restricted, when they're practically already assimilated.
I really don't want more Euro fucktards here.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2009, 04:13:07 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 14, 2009, 02:47:32 PM
I think it should include some guest worker program.
Agree. Keep the lid shut pretty tight on citizenship, though.
FWIW, I do support more open immigration for skilled/educated people. I think it's silly that immigration from Europe is so restricted, when they're practically already assimilated.
If you open up immigration for skilled/educated people who speak English, and you're going to be swamped by Indians.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 04:16:24 PM
If you open up immigration for skilled/educated people who speak English, and you're going to be swamped by Indians.
Cool.
I don't think US really needs any more immigrants. All the good ones already came in 1994 or earlier, the new ones are just a drain on society.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2009, 04:13:07 PM
Agree. Keep the lid shut pretty tight on citizenship, though.
FWIW, I do support more open immigration for skilled/educated people. I think it's silly that immigration from Europe is so restricted, when they're practically already assimilated.
And who will do the shitty jobs? Why do you think hordes of third-worlders are allowed in under the guise of humanitarian reasons? The skilled professionals of Europe or Australia aren't interested in being taxi drivers, or trash collectors, or McDo burger flippers. So countless africans or asians or south americans or arabs are allowed in since they're used to shit - and american (or canadian) shit is usually preferable to what they had in Yemen or Bangladesh or Burkina Faso.
I think a much better approach would be to target an ideal stable population which you merely have to maintain. Thus we could use profiling and eliminate the undesirables from the waiting lists.
G.
The "shit work" argument is persuasive if you don't subscribe to that whole "supply and demand" nonsense.
Quote from: Grallon on October 14, 2009, 04:42:09 PM
And who will do the shitty jobs? Why do you think hordes of third-worlders are allowed in under the guise of humanitarian reasons? The skilled professionals of Europe or Australia aren't interested in being taxi drivers, or trash collectors, or McDo burger flippers. So countless africans or asians or south americans or arabs are allowed in since they're used to shit - and american (or canadian) shit is usually preferable to what they had in Yemen or Bangladesh or Burkina Faso.
I think a much better approach would be to target an ideal stable population which you merely have to maintain. Thus we could use profiling and eliminate the undesirables from the waiting lists.
Who is "undesireable"?
Quote from: DGuller on October 14, 2009, 04:31:05 PM
I don't think US really needs any more immigrants. All the good ones already came in 1994 or earlier, the new ones are just a drain on society.
:lol: :XD:
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 04:46:40 PM
Quote from: Grallon on October 14, 2009, 04:42:09 PM
And who will do the shitty jobs? Why do you think hordes of third-worlders are allowed in under the guise of humanitarian reasons? The skilled professionals of Europe or Australia aren't interested in being taxi drivers, or trash collectors, or McDo burger flippers. So countless africans or asians or south americans or arabs are allowed in since they're used to shit - and american (or canadian) shit is usually preferable to what they had in Yemen or Bangladesh or Burkina Faso.
I think a much better approach would be to target an ideal stable population which you merely have to maintain. Thus we could use profiling and eliminate the undesirables from the waiting lists.
Who is "undesireable"?
Can I answer that one? :goodboy:
Quote from: Slargos on October 14, 2009, 03:32:55 PM
A wonderful line of bullshit.
European immigration is what made America great.
Rat can also be used as topping for pizza, but I'm sure you'll agree it won't make it great even if you argue "Meat makes pizza great".
This is one of the most ignorant posts I can remember in recent Languish history. I'd like for you to look at a list of the Fortune 500 tech companies. And I'd like for you to look at how many of them have top management from India or China.
And I'd like you to shut the fuck up, you worthless piece of shit. Take a ride through Silicon Valley; you will find few German or Italian immigrants there.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 14, 2009, 05:00:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on October 14, 2009, 03:32:55 PM
A wonderful line of bullshit.
European immigration is what made America great.
Rat can also be used as topping for pizza, but I'm sure you'll agree it won't make it great even if you argue "Meat makes pizza great".
This is one of the most ignorant posts I can remember in recent Languish history. I'd like for you to look at a list of the Fortune 500 tech companies. And I'd like for you to look at how many of them have top management from India or China.
And I'd like you to shut the fuck up, you worthless piece of shit. Take a ride through Silicon Valley; you will find few German or Italian immigrants there.
Take a chill pill, cock chaser.
I didn't say only Europeans have contributed to modern America, but the US was great long before electronics and rap music.
If generic "immigration" was all it took to make a nation great, South America would be filled with spectacular success stories, and Sweden would be a member of the G20 in a direct capacity.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 04:16:24 PM
If you open up immigration for skilled/educated people who speak English, and you're going to be swamped by Indians.
Immigrants with high education make jobs for lower income people in their new country.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 14, 2009, 05:08:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 04:16:24 PM
If you open up immigration for skilled/educated people who speak English, and you're going to be swamped by Indians.
Immigrants with high education make jobs for lower income people in their new country.
I wasn't saying it would be a bad thing, but just that speiss's post seemed to imply he wanted more european immigration.
Quote from: Slargos on October 14, 2009, 05:07:54 PM
Take a chill pill, cock chaser.
I didn't say only Europeans have contributed to modern America, but the US was great long before electronics and rap music.
If generic "immigration" was all it took to make a nation great, South America would be filled with spectacular success stories, and Sweden would be a member of the G20 in a direct capacity.
That is because you are woefully uninformed. A few things.
1) During Argentina's peak period as a destination if immigrants, it was one of the 10 or so wealthiest countries in the world. Turning away from that in the Peron period, along with everything else Peron did, fucked it up.
2) We had far more problems assimilating some European immigrants than you do in assimilating Muslim ones. Look at Haymarket Riot and the campaign of Anarchist bombings, or the Mafia. The German-American, now effectively the backbone of the Mid-West and California, was once a pretty big problem in some American cities, as they came here radical and often became even more radicalized.
First the bigots said that only English immigrants were acceptable, because only they fit into american culture and had a democratic mentality.
Then the bigots said that Northern European protestants were OK, but not those papist worshipping Catholics or Southern European degenerates.
Then they said the French and Catholic Germans were OK but not the Irish.
Then the Irish were OK but not the Italians.
Then all Western Europeans were OK, but not the Eastern Europeans.
Then all Europeans were OK, as long as they weren't Jewish.
Then the Jews were OK, but no Chinese . . .
And so on.
The thing about being a bigot is bigotry is entirely impervious to logic, evidence, or the experience of being proven dead wrong time and time again.
Quote from: Grallon on October 14, 2009, 04:42:09 PM
And who will do the shitty jobs?
G.
The guest workers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 14, 2009, 05:44:51 PM
First the bigots said that only English immigrants were acceptable, because only they fit into american culture and had a democratic mentality.
Then the bigots said that Northern European protestants were OK, but not those papist worshipping Catholics or Southern European degenerates.
Then they said the French and Catholic Germans were OK but not the Irish.
Then the Irish were OK but not the Italians.
Then all Western Europeans were OK, but not the Eastern Europeans.
Then all Europeans were OK, as long as they weren't Jewish.
Maybe we should have stopped there. :P :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on October 14, 2009, 03:24:47 PM
In what way does that disapprove Marty? Your country was built by immigrants, which happened to be illegal most of the time, but a) you did let them in, and b) keeping them illegal was moronic
In short: give me my fuckin' working visa and let me prove myself
Actually no, the country was built by immigrants who happened to be
legal most of the time. They were oppressed at various times but more often than not that was a result of bigotry and hatred brought from Europe and other places by prior settlers and immigrants.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 14, 2009, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
The choice here is the issue of efficiency. Either you think the benefits of having legal cheaper workforce outweigh the potential cost of encouraging more illegal immigration or you don't. What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
Well, it's also a question of what sort of people you want in. Those of us in the Anglosphere are pretty big on waiting our turn and not queue-jumping.
I dunno about that. I know lotsa of whitebread queue jumpers, given the chance. more like: we want the less than pale pipples to wait
their turn
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
You find it bizarre that some people argue that we shouldn't recognize as legal behavior that breaks the law? And then you're surprised that people question whether or not you're really a lawyer? lol
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 14, 2009, 09:33:02 PM
I dunno about that. I know lotsa of whitebread queue jumpers, given the chance. more like: we want the less than pale pipples to wait their turn
I would question the idea we want poor and uneducated white people coming over here either. Last I checked we were not sending out messages to Russia and Eastern Europe telling them all to flock over illegally but hey whatever makes you feel justified.
Quote from: dps on October 15, 2009, 11:17:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
You find it bizarre that some people argue that we shouldn't recognize as legal behavior that breaks the law? And then you're surprised that people question whether or not you're really a lawyer? lol
Indeed, what a bizarre argument for Marty to make.
The US is not against immigration, but to claim that being opposed to illegal immigration on moral grounds is rather difficult to understand.
I guess we shouldn't bother with laws at all, since breaking them has no moral weight. Of course, he is drawing a false distinction anyway, since in fact the laws are created based on economic principles to begin with.
This is not the first time he's taken this position, as I pointed out in the "lol stop saying I'm not a lawyer thread" a week or so ago. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2009, 03:02:39 PM
...If you were a WASP. Look at Irish settlers, look at the transcontinental railroad, look at Ellis Island. The United States has a pretty inglorious history where immigration is concerned.
WTF? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 11:32:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2009, 03:02:39 PM
...If you were a WASP. Look at Irish settlers, look at the transcontinental railroad, look at Ellis Island. The United States has a pretty inglorious history where immigration is concerned.
WTF? :huh:
Apparently we are monsters since Ellis Island didn't have amenities on par with The Greenbrier.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 14, 2009, 05:44:51 PM
The thing about being a bigot is bigotry is entirely impervious to logic, evidence, or the experience of being proven dead wrong time and time again.
Except this time - surely you will recall:
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 03:46:25 PM
Not really though. You guys take about a million immigrants per year, legally.
But your overall population is over 300 million.
Canada receives about 250,000 per year, legally, but into a population one tenth the size of the US. Australia seems to take in around 120,000-150,000, into a population of 20 million.
To put your accuracy into context, since your made-up US number is short by 500,000 immigrants per year, Canada and Australia can be said to allow no immigrants at all.
To use non-made-up numbers that actuially are meaningful to the discussion, we need merely go to http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/p3-eng.cfm (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/p3-eng.cfm) and discover that in 1996 Australians were 22.6% foreign-born, Canadians just under 20% foreign-born, Americans just under 13% foreign-born, and (from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312) Britains 8.3% (in 2001, the last year for which figures were available). This data does not support a contention that the US does not allow in a large number of immigrants.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: KRonn on October 14, 2009, 03:34:55 PM
Agreed. Most Americans aren't against immigration, but they want it controlled or regulated to some extent, not a free for all coming across the border, as makes sense for any nation to do. The US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.
Not really though. You guys take about a million immigrants per year, legally.
But your overall population is over 300 million.
Canada receives about 250,000 per year, legally, but into a population one tenth the size of the US. Australia seems to take in around 120,000-150,000, into a population of 20 million.
I don't know the numbers, but I'd say a million a year is actually quite a high number anyway. I'd assume each country takes in what it feels its economy can absorb, or what ever other criteria. The US has a need for workers, so also issues lots of Green Cards for people to just work here.
I also assume that Canada and Australia, with much lower populations, might be encouraging more people to immigrate to build up population, which also translates to more economic growth.
Quote from: dps on October 15, 2009, 11:17:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 14, 2009, 02:50:19 PM
What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.
You find it bizarre that some people argue that we shouldn't recognize as legal behavior that breaks the law? And then you're surprised that people question whether or not you're really a lawyer? lol
That's not his argument though - he is arguing that it is bizarre to conclude that something is immoral simply because it is against the law.
He is making a distinction between morality and positive law.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2009, 11:53:14 AM
To put your accuracy into context, since your made-up US number is short by 500,000 immigrants per year, Canada and Australia can be said to allow no immigrants at all.
To use non-made-up numbers that actuially are meaningful to the discussion, we need merely go to http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/p3-eng.cfm (http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/p3-eng.cfm) and discover that in 1996 Australians were 22.6% foreign-born, Canadians just under 20% foreign-born, Americans just under 13% foreign-born, and (from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312) Britains 8.3% (in 2001, the last year for which figures were available). This data does not support a contention that the US does not allow in a large number of immigrants.
I pulled the one million figure from a website (wiki I think), the same as I did for Canada and Australia. So feel free to provide alternate figures, but your response is unduly hostile.
My source was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States which gives a couple of different numbers depending on where you look in the unweildy article, but none are as high as 1.5 million that I can see. But feel free to provide alternate sources, I'm not going to live and die based on a wiki article.
The figures for % foreign born is obviously strongly correlated to immigration rates, but it is tied to past immigration policies which may have changed. It also doesn't discriminate between legal and illegal immigration.
But for all that I think you're agreeing with me - Canada and Australia have much higher rates of immigration than the US does.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2009, 12:51:06 PM
That's not his argument though - he is arguing that it is bizarre to conclude that something is immoral simply because it is against the law.
He is making a distinction between morality and positive law.
Maybe, but he's also trying to put the burden of proof on the wrong side.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
But for all that I think you're agreeing with me - Canada and Australia have much higher rates of immigration than the US does.
Does that include illegal immigration?
And no, Canada and Australia do not have higher "rates" of immigration at all.
In fact, one could see this simply by reading the article you posted:
QuoteAs of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world.[1] In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 01:25:37 PM
But for all that I think you're agreeing with me - Canada and Australia have much higher rates of immigration than the US does.
Does that include illegal immigration?
And no, Canada and Australia do not have higher "rates" of immigration at all.
In fact, one could see this simply by reading the article you posted:
QuoteAs of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world.[1] In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million.
You're confusing the rate of immigration (which is a per capita figure) with total immigration.
The US lets in more immigrants than any other country as a total number, but lets in fewer
per capita than Canada and Australia.
The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate
A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.
Rates of demographic statistics tend to be per capita. Birth rate, death rate, murder rate, etc.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
Per capita makes a lot of sense for the assimilation reasons that Barrister mentioned earlier. You aren't seriously going to say that if Liechtenstein took in 70,000 immigrants in a year (twice its population) that it would not stress Liechtenstein significantly more than for the US to take in 70,001 (a higher absolute rate)?
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate
A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.
Heh, this makes no sense at all.
"The US has ten times the
rate of death of Canada!!!!oneone" is a totally meaningless figure, in the absense of the fact that the US has ten times the
population of Canada. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2009, 02:34:27 PM
Rates of demographic statistics tend to be per capita. Birth rate, death rate, murder rate, etc.
Including the "net migration" (net immigration or emigration) rate per the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate
A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.
Your post is so full of fury I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say. :huh:
Are you trying to say my terminology was misleading or confusing? Fine - I will cheerfully correct my prior post to reflect I was only talking about per capita rates of immigration.
Are you trying to say that looking at per capita rates of immigration is the wrong thing to look at? I have to respectfully disagree with you if you are.
Quote from: ulmont on October 15, 2009, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
Per capita makes a lot of sense for the assimilation reasons that Barrister mentioned earlier. You aren't seriously going to say that if Liechtenstein took in 70,000 immigrants in a year (twice its population) that it would not stress Liechtenstein significantly more than for the US to take in 70,001 (a higher absolute rate)?
So you are saying that India can absorb 3 times as much immigration as the US, since they have 3x as many people?
Canada and the US both let in very significant numbers of immigrants. Not clear what the competition here is supposed to be about
Net migration rate per capita is a relevant consideration in measuring "burden" but not the only one. The total raw number is also relevant on the assumption that each has to be processed administratively in some respect, and the administrative capacity of a country is not necessarily directly proportional to total population.
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate
A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.
Heh, this makes no sense at all.
"The US has ten times the rate of death of Canada!!!!oneone" is a totally meaningless figure, in the absense of the fact that the US has ten times the population of Canada. :D
Except that one does in fact expect that all things being equal, the rate of death should compare, since the RATE that people die is in fact a function of how many people there are.
The rate at which people immigrate into other countries, or the amount that a country should allow to immigrate is NOT a function of the number of people already there. Obviously. In fact, it is completely independent.
Quote from: ulmont on October 15, 2009, 02:40:27 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2009, 02:34:27 PM
Rates of demographic statistics tend to be per capita. Birth rate, death rate, murder rate, etc.
Including the "net migration" (net immigration or emigration) rate per the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html
We're 25th out of 181. I think it's fair to say we have a high immigration rate. (Australia and Canada are 15th and 18th).
Not a bit surprised that UAE is leading the list.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:50:47 PM
So you are saying that India can absorb 3 times as much immigration as the US, since they have 3x as many people?
Comparing India and the US is pretty tricky, since India is still only a developing country, and is a country with no real history or experience with immigration.
Comparing Canada, Australia, and the US is fairly straightforward however.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:52:24 PM
The rate at which people immigrate into other countries, or the amount that a country should allow to immigrate is NOT a function of the number of people already there. Obviously. In fact, it is completely independent.
I would agree with Minsky's post directly above yours. Immigration is fairly closely tied to the overall population, although the correlation is not perfect. To say that immigration and tht total population are "completely independent" is, well, wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 02:41:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:01:06 PM
The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate
A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.
We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.
So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.
Your post is so full of fury I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say. :huh:
Are you trying to say my terminology was misleading or confusing? Fine - I will cheerfully correct my prior post to reflect I was only talking about per capita rates of immigration.
Are you trying to say that looking at per capita rates of immigration is the wrong thing to look at? I have to respectfully disagree with you if you are.
I am saying your terminology is misleading, yes - because it is.
Now you are moving into ad homs and trotting out the "Oh Berkut is banging on his keyboard" schtick - very nice response - are you trying to move into the Fireblade/Jaron mode of argument? Maybe you could comment on my wife while you are at it, or point out that I was unemployed once.
And you can disagree all you like, but simply disagreement is not an argument, and you have not even tried to respond to my point that per capita immigration rates mean nothing, other than as ammunition for your little bizarre pissing contest.
No country should sit down and say "Gosh, our population is X, so we should allow Y immigrants in!" It has very little to do with it, otherwise we should all be noting how many people China and India allow in...oh wait, they are both net emigrant coutries.
The CIA numbers look "off".
Last year's net migration was around 5.5/1000 for Sweden.
Indications are it will be higher this year.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 02:53:03 PM
Comparing India and the US is pretty tricky, since India is still only a developing country, and is a country with no real history or experience with immigration.
Well they did get lots of Arab, Mughal, and British immigrants in the past.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 02:53:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:50:47 PM
So you are saying that India can absorb 3 times as much immigration as the US, since they have 3x as many people?
Comparing India and the US is pretty tricky, since India is still only a developing country, and is a country with no real history or experience with immigration.
ZOMG! Ar eyou saying there are other variable sinvolved other than total population!
QuoteComparing Canada, Australia, and the US is fairly straightforward however.
How so? Tell me BB, what other variables are involved in how much a country should allow to immigrate, such that we can determine that despite the fact that the US immigration rate is some 4 or 5 times that of Canada, we are actually somehow deficient, in comparison?
How about historical immigration, and how much of a load the country is currently managing as a result right now? How about availability of work? Availability of places to live? Social infrastructure to hold immigrants? Simple space? Educational opportunity?
Do any of those matter compared to the simple measure of total population?
How about you assholes take your fair share of the "asylumseekers" you are creating with your policy of bombing places to shit.
2004-2008 saw Sweden receive around 18/1000 whereas the number for the US was around 1.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 02:55:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 02:52:24 PM
The rate at which people immigrate into other countries, or the amount that a country should allow to immigrate is NOT a function of the number of people already there. Obviously. In fact, it is completely independent.
I would agree with Minsky's post directly above yours. Immigration is fairly closely tied to the overall population, although the correlation is not perfect. To say that immigration and tht total population are "completely independent" is, well, wrong.
They are completely independent in the sense that Malthus compared it to death rate - in that the death rate is a direct function of the number of people, and immigration is most certainly not.
For example, China has a net negative immigration rate. If in fact they were not "completely independent" variables, that would be impossible. It is entirely possible to have any level of positive and negative migration no matter what your population is - it is not possible to have a greater population while having less total number of people dieing, barring some rather weird external factors.
So sorry, you are wrong again. Immigration rate is certainly "completely independent" from total population - knowing a countries total population tells you nothing about its net immigration rate.
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
How about you assholes take your fair share of the "asylumseekers" you are creating with your policy of bombing places to shit.
2004-2008 saw Sweden receive around 18/1000 whereas the number for the US was around 1.
Take them or don't take them, no concern of ours. :mellow:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2009, 02:52:49 PM
We're 25th out of 181. I think it's fair to say we have a high immigration rate. (Australia and Canada are 15th and 18th).
Not a bit surprised that UAE is leading the list.
Let's say you exclude the island-city-states and microstates and Afghanistan (which is probably counting aid workers as "immigrants"). then the rank is:
1) UAE
2) Kuwait
3) Australia
4) Jordan
5) Canada
6) Liberia
7) Ireland
8) US
9) Bosnia
10) Portugal
Of this group UAE and Kuwait are basically gastarbeiter economies on a grand scale and don't really bother integrating their migrants. Jordan is probably capturing political and economic refugees from Iraq. Liberia is probably capturing a recent infusion of aid workers and probably some diasporic return after decades of civil war. Bosnia same thing.
That leaves the "immigrant countries" as Australia, Canada, US, Ireland, Portugal(?!)
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
How about you assholes take your fair share of the "asylumseekers" you are creating with your policy of bombing places to shit.
2004-2008 saw Sweden receive around 18/1000 whereas the number for the US was around 1.
QuoteSince World War II, more refugees have found homes in the U.S. than any other nation and more than two million refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1980. Of the top ten countries accepting resettled refugees in 2006, the United States accepted more than twice as many as the next nine countries combined.
Sweden rocks. But you can blow me.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 03:00:03 PM
ZOMG! Ar eyou saying there are other variable sinvolved other than total population!
Why are you still arguing about that? Barrister Boy just conceded that point several posts ago...
You are the guy saying they are COMPLETELY independent, which is idiotic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2009, 03:04:16 PM
Portugal(?!)
Latin Americans I presume?
Does the rate of immigration considers immigration of all sorts or just legal documented immigration? That would make a big difference in this case.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2009, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 03:00:03 PM
ZOMG! Ar eyou saying there are other variable sinvolved other than total population!
Why are you still arguing about that? Barrister Boy just conceded that point several posts ago...
You are the guy saying they are COMPLETELY independent, which is idiotic.
Dude, do you know what an independent variable is?
More people != more immigration. It is that simple.
So saying it is just like birth rate, death rate, etc., is false - it is not, since those are dependent variables, whereas total population is an independent variable to immigration.
Hence the claim that "immigration rate" is jsut like those other demographic measures is in fact wrong.
But BB is still arguing that somehow total population is in fact a variable that ought to matter when you compare the immigration rates of different countries, and in fact is the MOST IMPORTANT variable to consider, since he hasn't mentioned any others, and based his apparent claim that the US doesn't really allow much/enough immigration based solely on that single variable.
I claim that is false, and that the US allows more immigration than any other country in the world, and that the raw rate is a much better measure than the per capita rate.
If BB wants to make a decent argument, he might try comparing the US/Canadian immigration rates as a function of GDP - that would at least be comparing a variable that actually matters. Of course, there are a LOT that matter, so picking which ones matter over others is a bit of a challenge, as JR pointed out.
Immigration/GDP for those three countries is going to track (ordinally) immigration/pop for those 3 countries because they all have similar per capita GDPs.
I still don't see the point in the pissing match because the bottom line is that all 3 countries take in lots of immigrants.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2009, 03:15:50 PM
I still don't see the point in the pissing match because the bottom line is that all 3 countries take in lots of immigrants.
Indeed - have to ask BB about that one. Apparently it is really important though, since he was willing to be rather insulting about it.
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
How about you assholes take your fair share of the "asylumseekers" you are creating with your policy of bombing places to shit.
2004-2008 saw Sweden receive around 18/1000 whereas the number for the US was around 1.
BOO HOO.
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 03:01:15 PM
How about you assholes take your fair share of the "asylumseekers" you are creating with your policy of bombing places to shit.
2004-2008 saw Sweden receive around 18/1000 whereas the number for the US was around 1.
Would you like our Mexicans?
I hope Slargos gets more Somalis.
Why doesn't anyone care about emigration reform anymore? :mad: During the Bush years it was a priority. Someone needs to streamline the process of fleeing this horrible country for Canada or Denmark or wherever.
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 03:17:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2009, 03:15:50 PM
I still don't see the point in the pissing match because the bottom line is that all 3 countries take in lots of immigrants.
Indeed - have to ask BB about that one. Apparently it is really important though, since he was willing to be rather insulting about it.
:huh:
Let's backtrack a bit, shall we?
This all started with:
Quote from: KRonnThe US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.
I replied saying, well, not really, Canada and Australia take in more
per capita.
And all of the numbers people have pulled up have born out that assertion. From my wiki statistics, to the percentage foreign born, to the CIA fact sheet, all have Australia and Canada taking in more people.
I certainly don't think that citing statistics means engaging in a 'pissing match'. As I said I don't have any horse in thie race. But this isn't a matter of quibbling over a few decimal places. Australia in particular, taking those CIA statistics, takes in 50% more immigrants than the US does, on a per capita basis. Canada takes in around 30% more immigrants, per capita.
In formulating an immigration policy in the US, before you just assume you're already taking in a large number of immigrants, it might be nice to consider some context. The argument can be made that the US could or even should be admitting a lot more legal immigrants.
I don't think I've been insulting, and that wasn't my intent to do so.
What I did say was:
Quote from: BarristerYour post is so full of fury I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say.
I'll plead guilty to a misdemeanour
ad hom - this is Languish after all. But I was honestly confused what it was you were attacking. And I didn't see that comment as an insult. If you found it insulting I will humbly apologize and ask to retract the offending statement. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 04:50:42 PM
I replied saying, well, not really,
Would you say that Canada has a high per capita gnp?
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 04:50:42 PM
Let's backtrack a bit, shall we?
This all started with:
Quote from: KRonnThe US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.
I replied saying, well, not really, Canada and Australia take in more per capita.
The problem is with the "not really"
The US does take in a large number of immigrants. That fact that two other countries who also take in a large number of immigrants happen to take in more per capita doesn't belie that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2009, 05:56:02 PM
The problem is with the "not really"
The US does take in a large number of immigrants. That fact that two other countries who also take in a large number of immigrants happen to take in more per capita doesn't belie that.
Well now we're talking about general worlds like large, small, lots, few, which can't be quantified. I'm not sure than I agree that the US takes in a large number, but you can't win or lose that debate.
How about this - the US takes in fewer legal immigrants than people realize...
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
How about this - the US takes in fewer legal immigrants than people realize...
But that is a claim about popular perception, which can only be verified through survey data. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
How about this - the US takes in fewer legal immigrants than people realize...
More like, "We beat the USA at something! :nelson:"
Considering that we have a higher per capita foreign born population than EU countries which include semi-internal migrations from one member state to another, it's hard to make a claim that the US does not have high immigration.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2009, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
How about this - the US takes in fewer legal immigrants than people realize...
More like, "We beat the USA at something! :nelson:"
Considering that we have a higher per capita foreign born population than EU countries which include semi-internal migrations from one member state to another, it's hard to make a claim that the US does not have high immigration.
I think Canada should probable take in fewer immigrants. :huh:
European states don't have a long history or tradition of immigration, so comoparisons between Europe and the US aren't as revealing as between the US and other developed "new world" countries.
Cherry-picking two considerably lower populated countries that have higher per capita immigration than the US isn't particularly revealing of anything either.
The US brings in large numbers of immigrants. In fact, the US brings in more than any other country in the world, and has been doing so for probably over 100 years.
They may not bring in as many per capita as some countries, but since comparisons on a per capita basis are to no purpose other than making some other countries feel better about themselves, it isn't really an interesting metric. Raw numbers are much more telling - especially if you happen to be someone looking to emigrate.
Uh, can any one of you point me to where immigration should be proportional from country to country? Different economies, different rights and privileges for guest workers and other non-citizens, not to mention differing conditions in immigrants' home countries (I'd assume countries with a more volatile climate would produce more emigrants, who also wouldn't go as far)....
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 06:58:58 PM
They may not bring in as many per capita as some countries, but since comparisons on a per capita basis are to no purpose other than making some other countries feel better about themselves,
You're the only one putting a value judgement on whether a high number is good or bad.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 07:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 15, 2009, 06:58:58 PM
They may not bring in as many per capita as some countries, but since comparisons on a per capita basis are to no purpose other than making some other countries feel better about themselves,
You're the only one putting a value judgement on whether a high number is good or bad.
No, actually that would be you and your "The US doesn't really allow all that much immigration...." despite the fact that we have more immigration yearly than any other country by a large margin, and more historically than any other country by an even larger margin.
*You* are the one who has felt the need to dispute this - I am not really sure why.
America sucks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 07:16:58 PM
America sucks.
Agreed. Let's just give up and throw the borders wide open.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 15, 2009, 04:21:13 PM
Why doesn't anyone care about emigration reform anymore? :mad: During the Bush years it was a priority. Someone needs to streamline the process of fleeing this horrible country for Canada or Denmark or wherever.
Because it's a political loser for both parties.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 09:14:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2009, 07:16:58 PM
America sucks.
Agreed. Let's just give up and throw the borders wide open.
I for one welcome our new beaner overlords. *glances at Katmai* Actually, seems like we're a little late to notice.