Let's all immigrate to a better life

[JoeWeber 2,299]

I've spent several months on the ground in central America in the last year.  I have met and hanged with a lot of people moving north for a better life. Good people and hardworking people in many cases but not all. Here in Panama, the gateway to the riches of the US there are a lot of Colombians and Venezuelans working not to get ahead but to move on. Talked to a guy tonight who works on our boat and is from Colombia. His life is better here than in Colombia but he wants more. That's the problem. In our country we have the right of free internal migration that we enjoy every time we cross a state line. But there is no internationally agreed to treaty of right of external migration. I am in no way opposed to bringing new people into the US especially if it reduces the average age of our citizens or residents. But country hopping north until you get the best deal seems not what we should encourage. And I should add that is even if the previous country get stuck with everyone they allowed to get to our border.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Remember that fear thing? Fear of being overwhelmed is real, and at least partially justified. This is the nature of nation states and is the source of anxiety about a global government. God didn't create nations or borders did She? If your nation hadn't of been so unwilling to take on so many non-Europeans after the Spanish American war it could have conquered the rest of Mexico and then you would have had a far more defensible border in the south. 

Edited March 6 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Remember that fear thing? Fear of being overwhelmed is real, and at least partially justified. This is the nature of nation states and is the source of anxiety about a global government. God didn't create nations or borders did She? If your nation hadn't of been so unwilling to take on so many non-Europeans after the Spanish American war it could have conquered the rest of Mexico and then you would have had a far more defensible border in the south. 

Thanks. I'll print that as a hand out to the guys who are washing my boat tomorrow.

[gowlerk 1,912]

16 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Thanks. I'll print that as a hand out to the guys who are washing my boat tomorrow.

Just make sure to let them know that it gets pretty cold in the winter north of Kansas or so.

[grimmie 173]

I did. Will be eight years this November.

Pura Vida!

I’ll be back from the boogies April 16. Sail in up!

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Remember that fear thing? Fear of being overwhelmed is real, and at least partially justified. This is the nature of nation states and is the source of anxiety about a global government. God didn't create nations or borders did She? If your nation hadn't of been so unwilling to take on so many non-Europeans after the Spanish American war it could have conquered the rest of Mexico and then you would have had a far more defensible border in the south. 

Pfft.

Much of Mexico is "European colonizers". Descendents of the Spaniards who conquered it. Or the French, who ruled it for a while.

Lots and lots of Mexicans are 'not brown'.

Besides, if the US had taken over Mexico (and subsequently gone down into Central America), and then treated the native population the same way they handled that 'problem' in what is now the US, then there'd be very few 'brown people' left.

[billvon 2,400]

15 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Remember that fear thing? Fear of being overwhelmed is real, and at least partially justified.

I think it is easily created, but that doesn't mean justified.  Illegal immigrants have lower rates of all types of crime, from property to violent, and more than half regularly pay income taxes.

We've been hearing about immigrant fear for centuries.  Even back in the 1700's none other than Ben Franklin lamented that Pennsylvania would soon  "become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."  He was worried that in his hope to make this "side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People?"

As it turns out, Germans had no problem being "Anglified."  And weren't even all that dark-skinned.

In the late 1800's it was the Irish, who were known to be all drunks and criminals.  "Irish need not apply."

In the 2000's it was the Muslims, who were going to create a "caliphate" and implement Sharia Law.

Today it's immigrants who are literally insane criminals like Hannibal Lecter - rapists and MS-13 and thieves, o my.

None of that has ever been true as a whole.  Indeed, today if you tried to ban hamburgers, frankfurters, Budweiser and kindergarten you'd hear howls of protest from the conservatives, who would ponder just how much you hated America to try to ban those quintessentially American things.

So justified?  No.

[gowlerk 1,912]

35 minutes ago, billvon said:

I think it is easily created, but that doesn't mean justified.

When I say partially justified mostly I mean that sheer numbers could get quite high if nothing is done to control them. How high is really unknown and that is what scares even those with more tolerance for immigration. If there truly were an "open border" how many people would flood across it? Seriously I don't know but likely several 10s of millions per year. That supposed number justifies an amount of concern that runs into fear. It could cause large scale disruptions of economies, even more extreme housing shortages than now, possibly 3rd world style slums and other unknown changes. I do know for sure that any political party that does not call for control of immigration will never win any elections.

Edited March 6 by gowlerk

[normiss 622]

This is how we ALL ended up here anyway.

[lippy 771]

As Jon Stewart pointed out this week: if you're not big on the incoming immigrants, having Hannibal Lecter types amongst them might not be the worst thing ever...

[billvon 2,400]

25 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

When I say partially justified mostly I mean that sheer numbers could get quite high if nothing is done to control them. 

Yep.

Quote

That supposed number justifies an amount of concern that runs into fear. 

Yes, you could make people afraid of that (and republicans are doing the very best.)  But you can do the same thing with fear of blacks, or fear of Muslims.  

There is nothing inherently wrong with immigration.  During the period 1880-1910 immigration populations were hitting 14.8% of the population.  Now it's 13.9%.  If it goes up to 14.8% - or even higher - we'll survive.

Indeed, the people we want here in the US are the people who are willing to work (leave their homes, travel/walk hundreds of miles, endure hardships) to get here.  From a prosperity perspective they are much better people to have than people who don't work and just expect someone to take care of them.

The biggest problem we're having now is that the economic and climate refugees that come here end up (legally) in the US - but are not allowed to work for years.  That means they end up being illegal because eventually they have to get a job to survive.  Criminalizing people who want to work (rather than just sit here on public assistance) is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

Quote

It could cause large scale disruptions of economies, even more extreme housing shortages than now, possibly 3rd world style slums and other unknown changes

.

Or - get them to work.  Let them build that housing, and work in the fields to grow more food, and work at all the service industries that are now failing due to lack of labor.  That would be a huge boost to our economy.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with immigration.  During the period 1880-1910 immigration populations were hitting 14.8% of the population.  Now it's 13.9%.  If it goes up to 14.8% - or even higher - we'll survive.

Absolutely. The US and Canada are both greatly underpopulated compared to other parts of the world with large areas of arable land. However, the people already settled here don't really want larger cities and more population. Do you? Do you want large scale immigration to be the new normal? 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Indeed, the people we want here in the US are the people who are willing to work (leave their homes, travel/walk hundreds of miles, endure hardships) to get here.  From a prosperity perspective they are much better people to have than people who don't work and just expect someone to take care of them.

It would seem like you are not happy with the current inhabitants of the nations then. Is it really so filled with slackers that you think newcomers are the only answer? In a way it is, but not for that reason. Population growth would be negative without immigration. And yes, once again I only have questions not answers. 

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

However, the people already settled here don't really want larger cities and more population. Do you?

I personally don't want larger cities.  However I'd be fine with more cities.

Quote

It would seem like you are not happy with the current inhabitants of the nations then. Is it really so filled with slackers that you think newcomers are the only answer?

Nope.  Better education/vocational training is another answer.

Quote

Population growth would be negative without immigration. 

And our economy would collapse without population growth, since we are now a debt based economy.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

55 minutes ago, billvon said:

And our economy would collapse without population growth, since we are now a debt based economy.

This is the part people seem to be missing. Our countries are basically Ponzi schemes. If you want to keep it going, you need new people.

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

This is the part people seem to be missing. Our countries are basically Ponzi schemes. If you want to keep it going, you need new people.

I do believe that is the plan here for managing the public debt. GDP growth seems to be the sum of population growth and inflation. Population growth for Canada in 2021 was 0.5% compared to 0.1% in the US. Maybe it is time for a new wave of immigrants.

Edited March 6 by gowlerk

[Phil1111 911]

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I do believe that is the plan here for managing the public debt. GDP growth seems to be the sum of population growth and inflation.

Well not necessarily;

Canada had 1.2 million immigrants last year. "Canada is caught in a “population trap” for the first time in modern history and needs to limit immigration to escape it, say economists with the National Bank of Canada.

A population trap, according to Oxford dictionary, is when the population is growing so fast that all available savings are needed to maintain the existing capital–labour ratio, making any increase in living standards impossible." The federal government is now forced to allocate money for housing rather than measures that contribute directly to GDP growth.

“Indeed, third-quarter GDP data came in below economists’ consensus expectations, showing outright contraction, notably due to a drop in private domestic demand.”

“Consumption stagnated for the second quarter in a row, a stinging setback in the current demographic context characterized by record population increases.”

The recalculated GDP per capita is at an annualized contraction of 4.4% during the third quarter. Domestic demand is now the main concern for business owners in Canada."

 

[kallend 1,623]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

 

Indeed, the people we want here in the US are the people who are willing to work (leave their homes, travel/walk hundreds of miles, endure hardships) to get here.  From a prosperity perspective they are much better people to have than people who don't work and just expect someone to take care of them.

 

I guess the US wanted me here because I came at the explicit invitation of the US Department of Energy.  I arrived, at USDoE expense, on a Boeing 747 (they wouldn't pay for Concorde).

[ryoder 1,384]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

I personally don't want larger cities.  However I'd be fine with more cities.

Nope.  Better education/vocational training is another answer.

And our economy would collapse without population growth, since we are now a debt based economy.

Our birthrate is below replacement level. We need immigration just to maintain the status quo. Else the working population declines and is less able to pay for Social Security & Medicare which the retired population is depending on.

[ryoder 1,384]

There is an episode of Adam Conover's old series "Adam Ruins Everything" titled "Adam Ruins Immigration".

In it, he made an interesting point: Before border enforcement became a big deal, and sneaking across the border was easier, migrant farm workers made frequent border crossings to work on US farms. Then when the work was done, they went back home. This had a number of advantages:

1. US farms got low cost temporary workers when they needed them, e.g. at harvest time.

2. Those same farms were able to sell at lower prices and still make a profit, so US consumers got lower grocery prices.

3. Poor Mexican citizens made made more money than they could make at home.

4. The Mexican economy got an infusion of cash when the migrant workers returned.

So then the US ramped up border enforcement, and it became too risky for the migrant workers to cross the border, so their best option was to either stay in the US, or not come at all.

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

41 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well not necessarily;

Canada had 1.2 million immigrants last year. "Canada is caught in a “population trap” for the first time in modern history and needs to limit immigration to escape it, say economists with the National Bank of Canada.

A population trap, according to Oxford dictionary, is when the population is growing so fast that all available savings are needed to maintain the existing capital–labour ratio, making any increase in living standards impossible." The federal government is now forced to allocate money for housing rather than measures that contribute directly to GDP growth.

“Indeed, third-quarter GDP data came in below economists’ consensus expectations, showing outright contraction, notably due to a drop in private domestic demand.”

“Consumption stagnated for the second quarter in a row, a stinging setback in the current demographic context characterized by record population increases.”

The recalculated GDP per capita is at an annualized contraction of 4.4% during the third quarter. Domestic demand is now the main concern for business owners in Canada."

 

In all fairness, you two are comparing two different things. GDP and GDP per capita are two different measurements.

The federal government agrees it has overdone it and has adjusted immigration targets downward, they appear to be on the upper range of what the National Bank report (which the above is based on) deems viable to escape this "population trap".

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I do believe that is the plan here for managing the public debt. GDP growth seems to be the sum of population growth and inflation. Population growth for Canada in 2021 was 0.5% compared to 0.1% in the US. Maybe it is time for a new wave of immigrants.

2023 saw the largest influx of immigrants since we allowed Newfoundland to join Canada.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

2023 saw the largest influx of immigrants since we allowed Newfoundland to join Canada.

I do believe that more Canadians are starting to feel that the rate is now too high. The housing shortage is really pinching hard and goodwill is wearing a little thin in places. The whole country can feel the pendulum swinging to the right.

[ryoder 1,384]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

2023 saw the largest influx of immigrants since we allowed Newfoundland to join Canada.

Well, I just learned about the 1948 Newfoundland referendums.

I had no idea it joined Canada that recently.

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, ryoder said:

Well, I just learned about the 1948 Newfoundland referendums.

I had no idea it joined Canada that recently.

We bribed them to join. I'm not really sure why, but there it is.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Well, I just learned about the 1948 Newfoundland referendums.

I had no idea it joined Canada that recently.

I was born in Canada, but raised in Europe and moved back about 25 years ago. Soon after I had resettled in Canada, I worked with a gentleman who was born in Newfoundland prior to 1948 and I used to rib him how I was more Canadian than he was....