Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Restrictive immigration policies literally kill people.

No, a few crazies on a boat kill people. Not the greater immigration policy. Hopefully all onboard will be packed off back home to face trial for murder in their native country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Christmas_Island_boat_disaster

I'm going to assume that your position is predicated on ignorance rather than malice.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Restrictive immigration policies literally kill people.

No, a few crazies on a boat kill people. Not the greater immigration policy. Hopefully all onboard will be packed off back home to face trial for murder in their native country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Christmas_Island_boat_disaster

I'm going to assume that your position is predicated on ignorance rather than malice.

First, I should note that my post was not completely finished; I meant "all onboard who were involved" but that somehow never made it into my post. So consider that part as "ignorance."

As for the deaths of migrants attempting to illegally enter any nation, I'd say the fault is entirely their own. It's illegal to jump onto trains and catch a ride for a reason, and when people get killed here in the states, the fault lies with the victim. Illegal immigrants are no different in that regard. If you take a risk to violate a nations laws, don't be surprised when you are injured or punished upon arrival-if they even make it.

I hold no malice for illegal immigrants, and I understand why they come in the face of the dangers, but I am not going to pin a medal on them for breaking immigration laws and risking their own life in the process.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Restrictive immigration policies literally kill people.

No, a few crazies on a boat kill people. Not the greater immigration policy. Hopefully all onboard will be packed off back home to face trial for murder in their native country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Christmas_Island_boat_disaster

I'm going to assume that your position is predicated on ignorance rather than malice.

First, I should note that my post was not completely finished; I meant "all onboard who were involved" but that somehow never made it into my post. So consider that part as "ignorance."

As for the deaths of migrants attempting to illegally enter any nation, I'd say the fault is entirely their own. It's illegal to jump onto trains and catch a ride for a reason, and when people get killed here in the states, the fault lies with the victim. Illegal immigrants are no different in that regard. If you take a risk to violate a nations laws, don't be surprised when you are injured or punished upon arrival-if they even make it.

I hold no malice for illegal immigrants, and I understand why they come in the face of the dangers, but I am not going to pin a medal on them for breaking immigration laws and risking their own life in the process.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but I'd certainly consider that to be a kind of malice. There's nothing inherently unethical or immoral about breaking the law: if a mother owned an illegal handgun in Europe or Latin America and used it to protect her children from an abusive father, I doubt you'd be proclaiming that her imprisonment "is the fault of her own". I could list of litany of examples. My claim is that laws create frameworks for behavior and action. Therefore, laws/statues and the enforcement of laws/statutes are indirectly responsible for a lot of death and misery throughout the world. This is why collective action matters.

So yes, I think you are filled with malice and hate towards undocumented immigrants. That or you're an amoral spergbot who cannot empathize with those who've experienced more suffering in a week than you'll experience in your entire life. It's one thing to suggest that immigration should be controlled and that undocumented immigrants should be deported. It's quite another thing to state that you have no sympathy for these people. That's bordering on sociopathy. I don't trust anyone who does not feel the slightest bit of sympathy for a person who has had their life ruined for reasons that are beyond that person's control.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You can believe what you want about this issue but don't expect me to respect your position.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Ah, where to begin with this gem of a post.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but I'd certainly consider that to be a kind of malice. There's nothing inherently unethical or immoral about breaking the law: if a mother owned an illegal handgun in Europe or Latin America and used it to protect her children from an abusive father, I doubt you'd be proclaiming that her imprisonment "is the fault of her own". I could list of litany of examples. My claim is that laws create frameworks for behavior and action. Therefore, laws/statues and the enforcement of laws/statutes are indirectly responsible for a lot of death and misery throughout the world. This is why collective action matters.

Your logic is flawed; the woman in the example that you gave me was defending herself from an aggressor. If there was no aggressive party, there would be no shooting. So let us take an illegal immigrant from Mexico as an example. Say this illegal immigrant wants to flee the drug war that is destroying his nation. He decides to risk his life by traveling illegally to the United States. How is it that breaking American laws help him fight off the aggressive party? I don’t believe that the problems of Mexico are the problems of America, and therefore, we as a nation have no stake in his problems. So why should we admit him to our country and allow him to reap the benefits of our country when he doesn’t even give the courtesy of allowing the government to know that he is existing in the country?

Illegal immigrants, if processed properly, are not illegal. I welcome migrant workers and support a path to citizenship. But anyone who refuses to go through the process and jumps ahead in the line is selfish, and yes, by definition of the law, criminal.

So yes, I think you are filled with malice and hate towards undocumented immigrants. That or you're an amoral spergbot who cannot empathize with those who've experienced more suffering in a week than you'll experience in your entire life. It's one thing to suggest that immigration should be controlled and that undocumented immigrants should be deported. It's quite another thing to state that you have no sympathy for these people. That's bordering on sociopathy. I don't trust anyone who does not feel the slightest bit of sympathy for a person who has had their life ruined for reasons that are beyond that person's control.

Spergbot? That’s almost as funny as making Mexican jokes, now is it? I’m glad you sink that low so quickly. I naturally will sympathize with those who *try* to do the right thing rather than selfishly skip ahead and enter the United States. Illegal immigrants make the choice to come to America. They don't have to make such a dangerous journey, but they choose too. You don’t have to trust me; you shouldn’t trust me, because I’d be happy to see any of these people deported in a heartbeat.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You can believe what you want about this issue but don't expect me to respect your position.

That’s fine. I don’t respect your position or you as a person. You are the moral equivalent of the ISI protecting Osama Bin Laden; you have no regard for the rule of law, and that is important for a truly free society. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm not going to respond to your post because it's incredibly delusional and callous. I'm sorry to hear that you want to deport my cousin but it's not happening. Thanks, Obama!

[Famous Mortimer]

Opposing illegal immigration but supporting unlimited legal immigration frankly seems bizarre to me. I get it on some level, one is legal and the other is not. But still, it would be like calling the cops on a neighbor who smokes weed. Who cares about the law that much?

Massive legal immigration is just as harmful, if not more harmful than illegal immigration economically.

We do not have enough jobs in the country to provide a living for the people born here. It's crazy to import a bunch of people who will work for less, who will bring wages down, who generally tend to have a bunch of children and need to go on welfare because of it.

At least with illegal immigration (which I'm still against), the people aren't drawing welfare and they are generally doing "jobs Americans don't want to do" but with legal immigrants, they mostly go into customer service fields that would otherwise be forced to go with American born applicants and pay more.

If you oppose businesses using scab workers, you should really oppose immigration as well. Yes, I am comparing immigrant workers to scabs but I don't think scabs are bad people.  It's the employers who are bad people.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Opposing illegal immigration but supporting unlimited legal immigration frankly seems bizarre to me. I get it on some level, one is legal and the other is not. But still, it would be like calling the cops on a neighbor who smokes weed. Who cares about the law that much?

Massive legal immigration is just as harmful, if not more harmful than illegal immigration economically.

We do not have enough jobs in the country to provide a living for the people born here. It's crazy to import a bunch of people who will work for less, who will bring wages down, who generally tend to have a bunch of children and need to go on welfare because of it.

At least with illegal immigration (which I'm still against), the people aren't drawing welfare and they are generally doing "jobs Americans don't want to do" but with legal immigrants, they mostly go into customer service fields that would otherwise be forced to go with American born applicants and pay more.

If you oppose businesses using scab workers, you should really oppose immigration as well. Yes, I am comparing immigrant workers to scabs but I don't think scabs are bad people.  It's the employers who are bad people.

Are you economically illiterate? You're from New York and you're making the claim that immigrants engender economic misery for the average person: the economic basis of New York is provided by immigrants, who create small businesses, provide needed human capital to firms and have children, who often become academic or private sector researchers that allow for economic growth. Immigration has allowed the American economy to be one of the most dynamic economies in the world.

[Famous Mortimer]

Opposing illegal immigration but supporting unlimited legal immigration frankly seems bizarre to me. I get it on some level, one is legal and the other is not. But still, it would be like calling the cops on a neighbor who smokes weed. Who cares about the law that much?

Massive legal immigration is just as harmful, if not more harmful than illegal immigration economically.

We do not have enough jobs in the country to provide a living for the people born here. It's crazy to import a bunch of people who will work for less, who will bring wages down, who generally tend to have a bunch of children and need to go on welfare because of it.

At least with illegal immigration (which I'm still against), the people aren't drawing welfare and they are generally doing "jobs Americans don't want to do" but with legal immigrants, they mostly go into customer service fields that would otherwise be forced to go with American born applicants and pay more.

If you oppose businesses using scab workers, you should really oppose immigration as well. Yes, I am comparing immigrant workers to scabs but I don't think scabs are bad people.  It's the employers who are bad people.

Are you economically illiterate? You're from New York and you're making the claim that immigrants engender economic misery for the average person: the economic basis of New York is provided by immigrants, who create small businesses, provide needed human capital to firms and have children, who often become academic or private sector researchers that allow for economic growth. Immigration has allowed the American economy to be one of the most dynamic economies in the world.

The New York economy is not set up very well and should not be a model for anyone.

Immigrants come here and set up small businesses which can barely afford to stay afloat  and employ their family members and maybe a few other immigrants with sub-minimum wage jobs. All while charging $5 a gallon for milk to everyone else (immigrants and non-immigrants included).

[Famous Mortimer]

If you support unlimited immigration to the US, there are only two realistic options:

1. Either you support a permanent underclass of sub-living wage workers.

2. You support giving a guaranteed income to foreign born workers who can't find a job because a) immigrant owned business can't afford to pay $15 an hour b) Chains aren't going to pay $15 to people who can't speak English

If you support option 2, why wouldn't the vast majority of people in third world seek to move to America. How would we afford to provide a guaranteed income to basically every poor Latin American? What becomes of the few who remain in depopulated Latin America?
 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If you support unlimited immigration to the US, there are only two realistic options:

1. Either you support a permanent underclass of sub-living wage workers.

2. You support giving a guaranteed income to foreign born workers who can't find a job because a) immigrant owned business can't afford to pay $15 an hour b) Chains aren't going to pay $15 to people who can't speak English

If you support option 2, why wouldn't the vast majority of people in third world seek to move to America. How would we afford to provide a guaranteed income to basically every poor Latin American? What becomes of the few who remain in depopulated Latin America?
 

Your assumption is utterly wrong. If you don't think immigrants would join labor unions or demand higher wages, you clearly don't understand Latin America. If you think that people in Latin America are a mooching horde, you clearly don't understand Latin America. There's no evidence to suggest that we'd be flooded with immigrants if we allowed for unlimited immigration. Certainly, more immigrants would come to the US than without unlimited immigration but you're reducing the motivations of immigrants to maximizing income, which is not really a priority.

There was a long period in which nearly unlimited numbers of Mexicans could migrate to the US legally. Did they stay in the US? No, the majority of these migrants came back and forth across the border in response to economic changes. Even without economic fluctuations, migrants would oscillate from the US to Mexico because their families remain in Mexico. This changed once we cracked down on migrant flows and militarized the border.

[ingemann]

I hate the term 'religion of peace' as its only ever used to attack Islam and it's followers. It's not fair to generalize about billions of people.

It was not original used to attack Islam, but to defend Muslims after 9/11, but you can't expect people not to use the term sarcastic. While I get why American politicians adopted it un-ironic in 2001 (and I to some degree support it, as anything which kept worked against hate crimes following the Attacks was a good thing). You can not use such a bombastic and clearly false neologism without other people adopting a sarcastic version of it. Both as a attack against what they see as apoligists for Islam, but also as a defence against what they see as historical revisionism. The fact that you write something like you did in the quote are a clear sign that they have won that war, and the term now only exist as ridicule.

[Famous Mortimer]

If you support unlimited immigration to the US, there are only two realistic options:

1. Either you support a permanent underclass of sub-living wage workers.

2. You support giving a guaranteed income to foreign born workers who can't find a job because a) immigrant owned business can't afford to pay $15 an hour b) Chains aren't going to pay $15 to people who can't speak English

If you support option 2, why wouldn't the vast majority of people in third world seek to move to America. How would we afford to provide a guaranteed income to basically every poor Latin American? What becomes of the few who remain in depopulated Latin America?
 

Your assumption is utterly wrong. If you don't think immigrants would join labor unions or demand higher wages, you clearly don't understand Latin America. If you think that people in Latin America are a mooching horde, you clearly don't understand Latin America. There's no evidence to suggest that we'd be flooded with immigrants if we allowed for unlimited immigration. Certainly, more immigrants would come to the US than without unlimited immigration but you're reducing the motivations of immigrants to maximizing income, which is not really a priority.

There was a long period in which nearly unlimited numbers of Mexicans could migrate to the US legally. Did they stay in the US? No, the majority of these migrants came back and forth across the border in response to economic changes. Even without economic fluctuations, migrants would oscillate from the US to Mexico because their families remain in Mexico. This changed once we cracked down on migrant flows and militarized the border.

"but you're reducing the motivations of immigrants to maximizing income, which is not really a priority. "

No, it is the main priority.

"the majority of these migrants came back and forth across the border in response to economic changes"

As you admit a paragraph later yourself.

[Famous Mortimer]

and if immigrants under an open immigration system form unions, it doesn't matter.

They can demand higher wages from their immigrant employers but 1) it's usually their family members so they won't 2) their employers can't afford to pay and will just go out of business, as I said before.

and unions will never gain traction with chains like WalMart as long as their is a constant stream of low skilled non-English speakers coming in who are desperate for work, too desperate to risk their tenuous employment on forming a union.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If you support unlimited immigration to the US, there are only two realistic options:

1. Either you support a permanent underclass of sub-living wage workers.

2. You support giving a guaranteed income to foreign born workers who can't find a job because a) immigrant owned business can't afford to pay $15 an hour b) Chains aren't going to pay $15 to people who can't speak English

If you support option 2, why wouldn't the vast majority of people in third world seek to move to America. How would we afford to provide a guaranteed income to basically every poor Latin American? What becomes of the few who remain in depopulated Latin America?
 

Your assumption is utterly wrong. If you don't think immigrants would join labor unions or demand higher wages, you clearly don't understand Latin America. If you think that people in Latin America are a mooching horde, you clearly don't understand Latin America. There's no evidence to suggest that we'd be flooded with immigrants if we allowed for unlimited immigration. Certainly, more immigrants would come to the US than without unlimited immigration but you're reducing the motivations of immigrants to maximizing income, which is not really a priority.

There was a long period in which nearly unlimited numbers of Mexicans could migrate to the US legally. Did they stay in the US? No, the majority of these migrants came back and forth across the border in response to economic changes. Even without economic fluctuations, migrants would oscillate from the US to Mexico because their families remain in Mexico. This changed once we cracked down on migrant flows and militarized the border.

"but you're reducing the motivations of immigrants to maximizing income, which is not really a priority. "

No, it is the main priority.

"the majority of these migrants came back and forth across the border in response to economic changes"

As you admit a paragraph later yourself.

Wow sick burn dude!

Admittedly, that post was not worded in a manner that reflects my viewpoint: immigrants are motivated by a complex array of variables that influence their decision. While I'd argue that material/economic factors are the primary motivation for immigration, this drive is balanced against economic opportunity at home, the economic cost of migration, the desire for spiritual/cultural needs to be met and the desire to remain embedded within a community. Again, I think you're an ignoramus who doesn't understand American history. For decades, we allowed for nearly unlimited immigration with free "handouts" given to immigrants in the form of land grants in the Great Plains and the West. Did all of Europe flock to the US? No.

There are other examples: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay etc. Your argument is inane and your claim is preposterous. Very of my relatives in Mexico have any desire to live in the US.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

and if immigrants under an open immigration system form unions, it doesn't matter.

They can demand higher wages from their immigrant employers but 1) it's usually their family members so they won't 2) their employers can't afford to pay and will just go out of business, as I said before.

and unions will never gain traction with chains like WalMart as long as their is a constant stream of low skilled non-English speakers coming in who are desperate for work, too desperate to risk their tenuous employment on forming a union.

1. That isn't true and there's no evidence to support this point.
2. I don't think you understand how collective bargaining works. Unions don't flippantly demand higher wages because "it's fair!" There's a bargaining process in which both parties reach an agreement.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States

Apparently, your understanding of American history is so shallow that you're unaware of the fact that the American labor movement was driven by immigrants. The American labor movement became a powerful force in the US because of immigrants with "low skills", who often "couldn't speak English". This happened during the Great Depression.

[Famous Mortimer]

You're saying that because people from Europe didn't flock to America before the invention of the airplane, people who share a border with us wouldn't come today? I think anyone can see the flaw in that logic.

Also, yes, the United States did allow massive immigration in the past. That was at the turn of the previous century. The age of robber barons and working conditions as described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Again, not an economic model to emulated.

When America became the richest country in the world, when we had the strongest middle class, the strongest unions, that was right after WWII when we basically didn't allow any immigration.

As I said, massive immigration necessitates a permanent sub-living wage underclass. The American history you love to point to proves that.

[Famous Mortimer]

"1. That isn't true and there's no evidence to support this point."

I'm using your beloved New York as an example. Do you really think the bodegas in the New York City that often have the owners underage children working the counter can provide living wage jobs to anyone? Most immigrant businesses here are a subsistence level, despite the fact that they overcharge and pay their workers under the table or,  in the case of family, not at all.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You're saying that because people from Europe didn't flock to America before the invention of the airplane, people who share a border with us wouldn't come today? I think anyone can see the flaw in that logic.

Also, yes, the United States did allow massive immigration in the past. That was at the turn of the previous century. The age of robber barons and working conditions as described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Again, not an economic model to emulated.

When America became the richest country in the world, when we had the strongest middle class, the strongest unions, that was right after WWII when we basically didn't allow any immigration.

As I said, massive immigration necessitates a permanent sub-living wage underclass. The American history you love to point to proves that.

Are you a WASP? If not, your rhetoric is moronic because you're an example of the benefits of mass immigration. My point isn't that the benefits of mass immigration accrue immediately but rather that they accumulate over time. I don't deny that mass immigration resulted in a deprived working class but it also allowed for tremendous economic growth on a scale that was unmatched by any nation in the world, which created the conditions for American prosperity in the post-war era. Your argument is strange because it supposes that mass immigration is some kind of terrible calamity but it also seems to support the prosperity of immigrants once they're here. Do immigrants reduce living standards or don't they? The Americans who benefited from the compression of the income distribution were not necessarily born here and many of their parents certainly weren't.

This argument is moot because America will never accept "unlimited immigration" but we'll continue to receive substantial numbers of immigrants. Your children or grandchildren will marry immigrants or the children of immigrants and your descendants may very well be part Black or part "brown". It's best to accept these changes rather than cry about it like a petulant granny who has discovered that her grandchild smokes marijuana or whatever.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

"1. That isn't true and there's no evidence to support this point."

I'm using your beloved New York as an example. Do you really think the bodegas in the New York City that often have the owners underage children working the counter can provide living wage jobs to anyone? Most immigrant businesses here are a subsistence level, despite the fact that they overcharge and pay their workers under the table or,  in the case of family, not at all.

Is it the job of business owners to provide living wage jobs to anyone? No, of course not. I'm a leftist but I recognize that small businesses face budget constraints. I don't think that immigrant businesses being on a "subsistence level" is particularly harmful so long as they receive adequate necessities and services from the government. Bodegas aren't the only businesses opened up by recent immigrants: ethnic restaurants are a key contribution to the fabric of American existence.

Anyways, there's no evidence to support your claims. There's an ample economic literature that suggests that immigration contributes to economic prosperity. Although income distributions may be effected within nations, income distributions around on a global remain unaffected by immigration. Also, increases in income inequality need not necessarily be a by-product of immigration.

By the way, I haven't responded to your claim about airplanes because it's stupid.

[ingemann]

Let imagine a purely theorectical group in a purely theorectical country, completely theorectical.

This group are almost purely a immigration group from a non-European illiberal democracy.

In 1973 they made up around 0,2% of the population

In 2013 they make up 1,2% of the population, mostly as result of them bringing family to the country and natural increase. Until a immigration stop around the late 90ties.

They have a employment rate for first generation (for age 18-64) of 51,1% (versus 73,4 for the "natives"). 37% males and 56% among women in this group live of financial assistance from the state (19/26 among the "natives").

5% have commited a serious crime (2% among the natives).

Here's the thing this group is real (I'm sure you're all shocked by that fact), and it's one of non-western groups which do well in the country in question compared to other non-western groups, and the most interesting fact, is that these numbers are quite similar for descendents of non-western immigrants in employment rate and public support rate, but the crime rate is much lower for 1st generation.

[Famous Mortimer]

You're saying that because people from Europe didn't flock to America before the invention of the airplane, people who share a border with us wouldn't come today? I think anyone can see the flaw in that logic.

Also, yes, the United States did allow massive immigration in the past. That was at the turn of the previous century. The age of robber barons and working conditions as described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Again, not an economic model to emulated.

When America became the richest country in the world, when we had the strongest middle class, the strongest unions, that was right after WWII when we basically didn't allow any immigration.

As I said, massive immigration necessitates a permanent sub-living wage underclass. The American history you love to point to proves that.

Are you a WASP? If not, your rhetoric is moronic because you're an example of the benefits of mass immigration. My point isn't that the benefits of mass immigration accrue immediately but rather that they accumulate over time. I don't deny that mass immigration resulted in a deprived working class but it also allowed for tremendous economic growth on a scale that was unmatched by any nation in the world, which created the conditions for American prosperity in the post-war era. Your argument is strange because it supposes that mass immigration is some kind of terrible calamity but it also seems to support the prosperity of immigrants once they're here. Do immigrants reduce living standards or don't they? The Americans who benefited from the compression of the income distribution were not necessarily born here and many of their parents certainly weren't.

This argument is moot because America will never accept "unlimited immigration" but we'll continue to receive substantial numbers of immigrants. Your children or grandchildren will marry immigrants or the children of immigrants and your descendants may very well be part Black or part "brown". It's best to accept these changes rather than cry about it like a petulant granny who has discovered that her grandchild smokes marijuana or whatever.

As I already said, Non-WASP immigrants were only able to improve their social standing because between 1921 and 1965, we didn't allow very much immigration.

If there is a constant, steady flow of desperate, unskilled workers, the desperate unskilled workers already here will never have a chance to seriously organize because they can always be replaced by new people coming in.

Also, I was going to stick to just facts but your tactic of calling people an idiot or stupid in every damn post is childish and not helping you.

[Famous Mortimer]

Bodegas or Chinese restaurants, there's not much difference. Neither provide a living wage and you admit this. How is this different from admitting that massive free immigration necessitates a permanent underclass?

[Famous Mortimer]

"so long as they receive adequate necessities and services from the government."

Also, what does this mean? So now you're advocating for BOTH a permanent underclass AND some form of guaranteed income.

Again, what is to stop 100 million people from coming to claim these benefits, how do we afford this?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

You're saying that because people from Europe didn't flock to America before the invention of the airplane, people who share a border with us wouldn't come today? I think anyone can see the flaw in that logic.

Also, yes, the United States did allow massive immigration in the past. That was at the turn of the previous century. The age of robber barons and working conditions as described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Again, not an economic model to emulated.

When America became the richest country in the world, when we had the strongest middle class, the strongest unions, that was right after WWII when we basically didn't allow any immigration.

As I said, massive immigration necessitates a permanent sub-living wage underclass. The American history you love to point to proves that.

Are you a WASP? If not, your rhetoric is moronic because you're an example of the benefits of mass immigration. My point isn't that the benefits of mass immigration accrue immediately but rather that they accumulate over time. I don't deny that mass immigration resulted in a deprived working class but it also allowed for tremendous economic growth on a scale that was unmatched by any nation in the world, which created the conditions for American prosperity in the post-war era. Your argument is strange because it supposes that mass immigration is some kind of terrible calamity but it also seems to support the prosperity of immigrants once they're here. Do immigrants reduce living standards or don't they? The Americans who benefited from the compression of the income distribution were not necessarily born here and many of their parents certainly weren't.

This argument is moot because America will never accept "unlimited immigration" but we'll continue to receive substantial numbers of immigrants. Your children or grandchildren will marry immigrants or the children of immigrants and your descendants may very well be part Black or part "brown". It's best to accept these changes rather than cry about it like a petulant granny who has discovered that her grandchild smokes marijuana or whatever.

As I already said, Non-WASP immigrants were only able to improve their social standing because between 1921 and 1965, we didn't allow very much immigrant.

If there is a constant, steady flow of desperate, unskilled workers, the desperate unskilled workers already here will never have a chance to seriously organize because they can always be replaced by new people coming in.

Also, I was going to stick to just facts but your tactic of calling people an idiot or stupid in every damn post is childish and not helping you.

Is there any evidence to suggest that any of this is the case? If necessary, I'll respond with a list of my sources but I don't trust anything that you're saying because it flies in the face of the data I've seen.

Anyways, your hatred of immigrants is childish and your bigotry is repulsive. I think ingemann and yourself are irritants that belong on Stormfront rather than this forum. Of course, you and ingemann also contribute to this forum, which is more than I can say for other posts, but I reserve the right to call you names and, in general, treat you with utmost disrespect. After all, you're implicitly attacking my mother's existence in the US. How is that any less disrespectful?

[Famous Mortimer]

There's lots of data that suggest immigration is good for the economy because it is good for the rich man's economy, the 1%, the sector of the economy which does studies the most.

That's why during the robber baron era, robber barons wanted free immigration. That's why pro-business leaders still want pretty much unrestricted immigration.

Rich people love immigrants because they are desperate and can get away with paying them less than a living wage/minimum wage.

Good for rich people = "good for the economy" that you see in all your studies.