What should the standards for immigration be?

[Dexter]

At a time when we're 21 trillion in debt I see no reason why we should be accepting anybody that's not successful enough to be mandated to pay into the federal income tax. Hint: farm hands don't make that kind of money. Artificial intelligence is on the verge of decimating the need for unskilled labor. We have no need for more unskilled people. I want useful immigrants that are going to bring the average IQ of this country up, not down. If Japan wants to send us a bunch of their geniuses I'm all about it. When the U.N wants us to accept a bunch of people that are a direct loss to the quality of our society I am not about it. 

[TomSea]

As usual,  @Dexter makes good points BUT, there aren't the votes, the wherewithal to do this.

[Dexter]

As usual,  @Dexter makes good points BUT, there aren't the votes, the wherewithal to do this.

Yeah, this isn't something that can be done right now. I think a lot of Republicans aren't openly conservative enough about this issue. I also want to see if anybody here will disagree with my extreme approach.

[HoustonSam]

I also want to see if anybody here will disagree with my extreme approach.

I tend to agree with what you've stated thus far in this thread.  In earlier days, when agricultural and manufacturing work was widely available and generally valued, people with limited education could come here and succeed, and in succeeding, make the country stronger.  Now we rely on "the knowledge economy"; unfortunately there are far too many native-born Americans who cannot compete in that economy; the last thing we need is to bring in additional people who also can't compete in it, and who further tax public services not only with their numbers, but with different languages and cultural beliefs, the impacts of which are now exaggerated by our refusal to expect assimilation to a distinctly American culture.

In my opinion we should retain significant openness to immigration, but we must become more selective in how we administer it.  It is a simple economic fact that "government as provider" cannot afford to enlarge the proportion of people who rely on government provision.

[roamer_1]

I will agree in the main, except that 'farm hand' shtick. seasonal farm hands and orchard pickers are not the problem.

[Dexter]

I will agree in the main, except that 'farm hand' shtick. seasonal farm hands and orchard pickers are not the problem.

A lot of people that don't have any skills get citizenship. I really just meant anybody that's not making enough to be part of the half that pays federal income taxes. An immigrant that gets citizenship and then applies for food stamps while working at Walmart or as some farm hand is a loss to the cost of the federal government. Somebody has to pay for all of those expensive programs.

[Dexter]

It is a simple economic fact that "government as provider" cannot afford to enlarge the proportion of people who rely on government provision.

This is really the crux of the issue. Good post.

[roamer_1]

A lot of people that don't have any skills get citizenship. I really just meant anybody that's not making enough to be part of the half that pays federal income taxes. An immigrant that gets citizenship and then applies for food stamps while working at Walmart or as some farm hand is a loss to the cost of the federal government. Somebody has to pay for all of those expensive programs.

Or you get rid of the expensive programs, which would be the sane and economically viable thing to do.

The problem is illegal aliens, not immigrants, and not seasonal migrant workers.

While you are right, somebody has to pick the crops too. There is a cultural norm that is a hundred years old wrapped around those migrant pickers. They come for the harvests and roundups, and go home again. Nothing wrong with that.

[Dexter]

The problem is illegal aliens, not immigrants, and not seasonal migrant workers.

I think legal and illegal immigrants are the problem. No more people that are a net loss to the cost of the federal government. If you don't pay federal income taxes you are a net loss to the cost of the federal government. We have enough needy people already.

While you are right, somebody has to pick the crops too.

Technology is quickly removing the need for crop pickers. Carlos is nearly obsolete. We DO NOT need to import farm workers.

! No longer available

[Dexter]

Also I don't think it's good for our economy when a bunch of seasonal workers take money out of the United States to be spent in Mexico's economy.

[roamer_1]

I think legal and illegal immigrants are the problem. No more people that are a net loss to the cost of the federal government. If you don't pay federal income taxes you are a net loss to the cost of the federal government. We have enough needy people already.

No, the primary problem is internal, and is driven by single parent households - Read unwed or divorced women with bastard children.

Technology is quickly removing the need for crop pickers. Carlos is nearly obsolete. We DO NOT need to import farm workers.

Your exuberance is misplaced. There are still many kinds of crops that do not fit well in mechanized harvests...

[roamer_1]

Also I don't think it's good for our economy when a bunch of seasonal workers take money out of the United States to be spent in Mexico's economy.

While you are right, that money going to Mexico is rather negligible coming from migrant pickers. There ain't enough money in it. Migrant famiies work the harvests and live on the money made here to get them through till the next harvest, just like all of farmwork does.

Cut them out of the services, trades, and factories if you really want to do something.

[Absalom]

Re: Immigration Standards.
Since this matter is front and center in the public eye, suggest
anyone seriously interested, acquaint and inform themselves about
the Principle of Sovereign Right (Westphalia Sovereignty of 1648),
a bedrock concept of international law relating to immigration.
Otherwise this will become another extended urinary contest! 

[Oceander]

At a time when we're 21 trillion in debt I see no reason why we should be accepting anybody that's not successful enough to be mandated to pay into the federal income tax. Hint: farm hands don't make that kind of money. Artificial intelligence is on the verge of decimating the need for unskilled labor. We have no need for more unskilled people. I want useful immigrants that are going to bring the average IQ of this country up, not down. If Japan wants to send us a bunch of their geniuses I'm all about it. When the U.N wants us to accept a bunch of people that are a direct loss to the quality of our society I am not about it. 

If that’s the driver, then why not throw out the native-born as well who aren’t carrying their load?

[HoustonSam]

If that’s the driver, then why not throw out the native-born as well who aren’t carrying their load?

I believe @Dexter is suggesting it as the driver for determining naturalization policy, not for determining citizenship generally.

That we should not, and cannot, expel non-productive native-born citizens does not imply that we must accept for naturalization other non-productive people.

[Oceander]

I believe @Dexter is suggesting it as the driver for determining naturalization policy, not for determining citizenship generally.

That we should not, and cannot, expel non-productive native-born citizens does not imply that we must accept for naturalization other non-productive people.

To play devils advocate: why shouldn’t we expel unproductive native-borns?  They are as much a drag on the economy as unproductive non-native-borns.

[Dexter]

If that’s the driver, then why not throw out the native-born as well who aren’t carrying their load?

That's taking it too far, at least for me.

[Dexter]

To play devils advocate: why shouldn’t we expel unproductive native-borns?  They are as much a drag on the economy as unproductive non-native-borns.

There's nowhere for them to go. People that were born in another country have somewhere else they can be sent. We have to deal with unproductive natives. We don't have to deal with unproductive immigrants.

[Dexter]

That we should not, and cannot, expel non-productive native-born citizens does not imply that we must accept for naturalization other non-productive people.

It's mostly that we cannot expel natives because there's nowhere to send them, but yes, exactly.

[Oceander]

There's nowhere for them to go. People that were born in another country have somewhere else they can be sent. We have to deal with unproductive natives. We don't have to deal with unproductive immigrants.

Strip them of their citizenship and put them on the next plane to wherever.  Once they land, they’re no longer “our” problem, and if they come back, the aircraft that brought them will be forced to take them back, just as happens now with people denied entry to the US.

[Oceander]

It's mostly that we cannot expel natives because there's nowhere to send them, but yes, exactly.

Put them on the next plane to wherever.  What do you care what happens to ‘em when they arrive in wherever?

[Dexter]

Put them on the next plane to wherever.  What do you care what happens to ‘em when they arrive in wherever?

There is no "wherever" for them to be sent to. I'm not trying to sentence poor people to death. I'm trying to minimize their impact on our society. The two things are clearly different and you know it.

[HoustonSam]

To play devils advocate: why shouldn’t we expel unproductive native-borns?  They are as much a drag on the economy as unproductive non-native-borns.

Well I can only answer for myself, but my thought is that our ideals of citizenship must include acknowledging that some people are not capable of being productive - children, the infirm, elderly, etc.  Some of these non-productive people will become productive, others used to be productive, all can add value to our society beyond the creation of goods and services.  Stated differently, human relationships, including citizenship, are about more than economic productivity.

At the same time, if we are to continue with the idea of "government as provider", we cannot afford to increase disproportionately the number of people who are supported by those who are productive.  Reasonable people can differ on the extent to which government is now expected to be a provider, but I think it's inarguable that the proportion of government spending on "entitlements" is larger, almost infinitely larger, than when mass immigration occurred in the 19th century and gave rise to the "nation of immigrants" concept.  To consider immigration policy now without that consideration would be at best naive and more likely malfeasant, in my opinion.

I would further argue that entitlement spending itself should be seriously re-considered from the same perspective.  Whether supporting resident alien, naturalized, or native-born, there is a limit to the degree of support John Q. Taxpayer can provide to those around him; $20 trillion in federal debt alone suggests to me that we are beyond that limit.

[Oceander]

Well I can only answer for myself, but my thought is that our ideals of citizenship must include acknowledging that some people are not capable of being productive - children, the infirm, elderly, etc.  Some of these non-productive people will become productive, others used to be productive, all can add value to our society beyond the creation of goods and services.  Stated differently, human relationships, including citizenship, are about more than economic productivity.

At the same time, if we are to continue with the idea of "government as provider", we cannot afford to increase disproportionately the number of people who are supported by those who are productive.  Reasonable people can differ on the extent to which government is now expected to be a provider, but I think it's inarguable that the proportion of government spending on "entitlements" is larger, almost infinitely larger, than when mass immigration occurred in the 19th century and gave rise to the "nation of immigrants" concept.  To consider immigration policy now without that consideration would be at best naive and more likely malfeasant, in my opinion.

I would further argue that entitlement spending itself should be seriously re-considered from the same perspective.  Whether supporting resident alien, naturalized, or native-born, there is a limit to the degree of support John Q. Taxpayer can provide to those around him; $20 trillion in federal debt alone suggests to me that we are beyond that limit.

Fair enough. 

[Dexter]

Well I can only answer for myself, but my thought is that our ideals of citizenship must include acknowledging that some people are not capable of being productive - children, the infirm, elderly, etc.  Some of these non-productive people will become productive, others used to be productive, all can add value to our society beyond the creation of goods and services.  Stated differently, human relationships, including citizenship, are about more than economic productivity.

At the same time, if we are to continue with the idea of "government as provider", we cannot afford to increase disproportionately the number of people who are supported by those who are productive.  Reasonable people can differ on the extent to which government is now expected to be a provider, but I think it's inarguable that the proportion of government spending on "entitlements" is larger, almost infinitely larger, than when mass immigration occurred in the 19th century and gave rise to the "nation of immigrants" concept.  To consider immigration policy now without that consideration would be at best naive and more likely malfeasant, in my opinion.

I would further argue that entitlement spending itself should be seriously re-considered from the same perspective.  Whether supporting resident alien, naturalized, or native-born, there is a limit to the degree of support John Q. Taxpayer can provide to those around him; $20 trillion in federal debt alone suggests to me that we are beyond that limit.

 

Liberals are almost never interested in talking about our limitations. That's extremely foolish.