• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we be letting in more or less immigrants?

Should we be letting in more or less immigrants?

  • More

    Votes: 16 27.6%
  • Less

    Votes: 31 53.4%
  • Keep it the same

    Votes: 11 19.0%

  • Total voters
    58
no stealing required
the smart ones arrive of their own free will
with any luck, to help our nation 'rape and pillage' more efficiently


the population sector of US citizens which is harmed by the presence of immigrants is that under-skilled cohort
that should then tell us the immigration of underskilled immigrants should be ended

for skilled prospective immigrants, the doors should be opened widely, as their expanded presence will contribute to our nation's advancement

Nonsense. A lack of understanding of Nature contributes to the thinking that more development equals "advancement." Man is a guest in this world... a parasite who thinks he's a dog and not a flea. People... LEARNED people are now speaking regularly of an end to all life on the planet within a hundred years (I would've guessed 10.) Perhaps "more" is no longer the answer, whaddya think?
 
Refuses to address the counterpoint, we are seeing a lack of wage gains while profits are high. Read a newspaper...or something.

Profits have context in the labor market only in the broadest sense. That products will not be produced if price of goods sold is less than manufacturing costs. In that case value of labor goes down or manufacturing goes elsewhere.

In third grade terms. If 10 people are needed and 20 qualified apply, wages will be low. If 20 are needed and 10 apply, wages will be high. (notice how the word profit doesn't show up}

EC 101 textbooks are available on line.
 
Fine. You are. But go stand over there...OK?
Where, precisely?... Oh... I see, the lobby of that lovely low-income housing development next to the highway... Sly boots.. It brings up another question though... who exactly do you speak for?
 
Profits have context in the labor market only in the broadest sense.
Yes, in the "sense", ie context, that US wage gains have been low, and profits (revenue-costs) are way up.
That products will not be produced if price of goods sold is less than manufacturing costs.
Ergo, that is not the case, since profits are high.
In that case value of labor goes down or manufacturing goes elsewhere.
Again, not applicable.

In third grade terms. If 10 people are needed and 20 qualified apply, wages will be low. If 20 are needed and 10 apply, wages will be high. (notice how the word profit doesn't show up}
Because you changed the goalpost, the context....we are seeing low unemployment, corporations claiming "we can't find employees".

EC 101 textbooks are available on line.
So are newspapers....and FRED.
 
We don't have a welfare state. Furthermore, what little welfare we do have has a restriction on who can access it. Contrary to popular belief living on welfare is not an amazing life, and people do not uproot their entire family and life to move thousands of miles to be on it.

Are you sure that doesn't happen...California and I believe New York allows welfare to illegal aliens and I am sure that contributes to an influx of people.
If welfare is so degrading why are their generational welfare families dating back to LBJ 'Great Society'?
 
Are you sure that doesn't happen...California and I believe New York allows welfare to illegal aliens and I am sure that contributes to an influx of people.
You mean SNAP..TANF? No, they do not.
If welfare is so degrading why are their generational welfare families dating back to LBJ 'Great Society'?
Oh my, the "welfare Queen" argument. US families living in poverty is very complicated, there is lots of churn....and frankly it is off topic.
 
Where, precisely?... Oh... I see, the lobby of that lovely low-income housing development next to the highway... Sly boots.. It brings up another question though... who exactly do you speak for?
Me.

Do you realize that immigrants represent 36% of all new startup small businesses in this country and they they provide income not only for themselves but for others?
 
Yes, in the "sense", ie context, that US wage gains have been low, and profits (revenue-costs) are way up. Ergo, that is not the case, since profits are high. Again, not applicable.

Because you changed the goalpost, the context....we are seeing low unemployment, corporations claiming "we can't find employees".

So are newspapers....and FRED.

Again, profits have nothing to do with the economics of labor. Labor competes with labor. Toothpaste competes with toothpaste.

Again profits have nothing to do with labor. Profits are high in some industries, low in others. Only when cost of goods sold exceeds potential market price, then something must change, Labor is a cost of goods sold, not a depository for profit. Why is that so difficult to understand?

That labor is a function of the labor market only and has no relationship to profit except in a broad sense is simple economics. Obviously not simple enough for some.

When companies can't find employees suitable in quality and quantity at say 15 bucks, they will offer 16 bucks, or 20 bucks. Until the balance point is reached. The reverse is also true. Too many people looking for work and not enough jobs, wages go down.

I read newspapers. Don't know who Fred is. I played poker with a Fred once. We didn't discuss economics. Does he count?
 
Again, profits have nothing to do with the economics of labor. Labor competes with labor. Toothpaste competes with toothpaste.
Um, the context was "wages", try reading for context.

Again profits have nothing to do with labor. Profits are high in some industries, low in others. Only when cost of goods sold exceeds potential market price, then something must change, Labor is a cost of goods sold, not a depository for profit. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Once again, the context was the contrast between the lack of wage gains versus profit gains.

That labor is a function of the labor market only and has no relationship to profit except in a broad sense is simple economics. Obviously not simple enough for some.
Again, for those ignoring the argument, the context was wage gains, and wages are a component of costs, which are directly related to profits.

When companies can't find employees suitable in quality and quantity at say 15 bucks, they will offer 16 bucks, or 20 bucks. Until the balance point is reached. The reverse is also true. Too many people looking for work and not enough jobs, wages go down.
The discussion was about the lack of wage gains in a high profit environment....while UE is low.

I read newspapers.
Sure you do.
Don't know who Fred is.
"I'm talking macro, but I don't know (what) FRED is!"
I played poker with a Fred once. We didn't discuss economics. Does he count?
I would assume most who play poker can count.
 
For me, this question is fairly simple. The fact hat so many people are here illegally proves that there's a demand for them. Why not make all, if not most, immigration legal? What's so bad about an open border like the one found in Europe (Schengen)?

Edit: This is a repost as the original didn't have a poll included.

More immigration will not be an issue if a system can be implemented to take advantage of the labor force they can provide. This can be extremely beneficial to revival of the economy as immigrants can be given a chance before deportation to establish themselves at (very)low wage jobs such as factory work and maintenance. In exchange for peaceful living,certain benefits, and basic housing the immigrants can provide substantial economic influx and may even be drafted and trained to serve the nation's army. I believe many look at immigrants as a burden on an already overweight system yet they can be a definite pressure relieving ailment which is plainly a uneducated worker. The same worker that built America and was the foundation of a variety of nations can now be used and manipulated to serve as a further backbone and development of the nation. Without doubt they should pass a certain examination as to prevent extremism and terrorism,but then can be utilized for the progress of the nation overall. Later yet the children of immigrants will either return to the home countries or enlarge either the labor or educated sectors of the nation. The immigration phenomenon must be utilized while it still can be!
 
I'm not arguing "unchecked" immigration, but I'm glad to see you dropped the whole "famil(ies) having endless numbers of children they cant support or sustain" when the fact is we have below replacement birthrates.

Who says we need to maintain current population rates? Who says that's a good idea? We have too many people. Let the population drop. With current technology, we simply don't need that many humans running around.
 
Who says we need to maintain current population rates? Who says that's a good idea? We have too many people. Let the population drop.
Depopulation is a very tricky act to pull off in macro terms.
With current technology, we simply don't need that many humans running around.
Have you been watching Logan's Run lately? Or is it Soylent Green?
 
For me, this question is fairly simple. The fact hat so many people are here illegally proves that there's a demand for them. Why not make all, if not most, immigration legal? What's so bad about an open border like the one found in Europe (Schengen)?

Edit: This is a repost as the original didn't have a poll included.

My answer is more nuanced: More... legally.
 
Um, the context was "wages", try reading for context.

Once again, the context was the contrast between the lack of wage gains versus profit gains.

Again, for those ignoring the argument, the context was wage gains, and wages are a component of costs, which are directly related to profits.

The discussion was about the lack of wage gains in a high profit environment....while UE is low.

Sure you do. "I'm talking macro, but I don't know (what) FRED is!" I would assume most who play poker can count.

You tied labor or wages if you prefer to profit. Not I.

And you did it again. Profits gains are not related to wage gains. Profits belong to the company owners. Wages belong to labor producers.

Wages are related to costs. True. And profits are related to costs, and also to market price. This does not make wages a direct correlation to profit.

If you assume most poker players can count and understand math, I'd love to have you in my game.

Your bottom line is the belief that profits somehow belong to labor. They don't. Any more than wages belong to business owners. They don't.

That's an incorrect assumption.
 
You tied labor or wages if you prefer to profit. Not I.
Uh, I tried to get through to you that "WAGES" was the context, WAGES have not had good GAINS while PROFIT have....and that WAGES are a component of COSTS....and COSTS are a component of PROFITS.

Profits gains are not related to wage gains.
They can be compared....which is what I did. If you don't want to compare them, you don't have to.

Wages are related to costs. True. And profits are related to costs, and also to market price. This does not make wages a direct correlation to profit.
Again, this is so weird how you create these rules. Yes, profit gains and wage gains CAN BE compared, you can compare them to one another to make a point.

If you assume most poker players can count and understand math, I'd love to have you in my game.
Yer playin games right now, I see how dishonest your game is.

Your bottom line is the belief that profits somehow belong to labor. They don't. Any more than wages belong to business owners. They don't.

That's an incorrect assumption.
WTF? Is that the ASSumption you have been operating on? Good grief.
 
Yes Canada does, and it is based on a points system, but does allow for family members to be sponsored as well. That said as a % of population Canada allows in double the number of legal immigrants that the US does at this time

Only 50 people? Lol
 
Our lack of decent wage gains, while we have low UE, is a matter of employers not giving raises.

Yer getting close to making an argument of "there is a limited amount of work to be done", the lump of labor fallacy.

Further, this is starting to sound like the things Albert Johnson argued.

We both agree that automation is the primary cause of the lack of manufacturing jobs. Who is the primary victim of automation? It is unskilled labor. As technology continues to outpace our pathetic education system the problem will only get worse as more and more jobs become automated leaving very few service/manufacturing jobs. As long as a company has a surplus of people willing to work for what they offer then they have no need to raise wages. Bringing in more people to compete for a shrinking market is idiotic. We would simply be compounding am issue that could eventually cripple this country if steps aren't taken immediately.
 
no stealing required
the smart ones arrive of their own free will
with any luck, to help our nation 'rape and pillage' more efficiently

Telling. The US steals everything, even the truth and mixes it into the most vile propaganda the world has ever seen. A big favorite with the Nazis. Birds of a feather ... .


the population sector of US citizens which is harmed by the presence of immigrants is that under-skilled cohort
that should then tell us the immigration of underskilled immigrants should be ended

The US is all about unskilled immigrants. There is a good chance that your immigrant ancestors were poor, dumb folks looking for a better life.
 
Only 50 people? Lol

The US allowed in 1 million for 2015, if I am not mistaken Canada allowed in 2016 approx 226 thousand

The US population is just over 9 times that of Canada. So on a proportional basis Canada would have had to take 116 thousand to match that of the US. The Raise Act which is being promoted for immigration reform in the US is proposing to allow in 500 000 per year. Just double that of Canada
 
Gimmesometruth;1067606896 WTF? Is that the ASSumption you have been operating on? Good grief.[/QUOTE said:
Your bottom line is the belief that profits somehow belong to labor.

Is that what you believe? If not then why do you make the connection that labor is entitled to profits?

Your starting to babble. I'm starting to repeat. Time to move on.
 
Explain please how the behavior you describe became "evil?" Who appended that word?... More importantly, who determined that the opposite is the "good?" Is some sort of guilt implied?... Is "morality" as you suggest, a finite set of rules?... By whose definition? ...


By and large the USA's at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.

But we should feel guilty about that?... Pfffft...

You have turned the US's war crimes/terrorism/raping and pillaging the poor countries into a screed about charity. It is about that, right now, it is about the US stealing the world's poor's wealth and murdering tens of millions to do so. All, I must remind you in total opposition to the bull**** US propaganda about being a kind, generous, warm nation that advances freedom and democracy.

At least many of you have been honest enough to allow that that is the long huge lie that has brainwashed vast numbers of USians.
 
We both agree that automation is the primary cause of the lack of manufacturing jobs.
No, that is your assumption, we have seen a massive decline in manufacturing employment in the US since 2000, automation is not the primary cause.
Who is the primary victim of automation? It is unskilled labor.
Manufacturing actually requires more than HS level, this isn't 1900.
As technology continues to outpace our pathetic education system the problem will only get worse as more and more jobs become automated leaving very few service/manufacturing jobs.
Good grief, services is the top growing sector.
As long as a company has a surplus of people willing to work for what they offer then they have no need to raise wages. Bringing in more people to compete for a shrinking market is idiotic.
Most "immigrants" are not going into manufacturing, you missed the mark.
We would simply be compounding am issue that could eventually cripple this country if steps aren't taken immediately.
The primary cause of the loss of jobs in manufacturing since 2000 has been from import penetration, particularly in textiles and electronics. Those jobs are not coming back, but then as percent of total jobs they have been in decline since 1950. So the idea that ceasing immigration will cause manufacturing to return is so off the mark, it is not even funny.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-23-manufacturing.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom