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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:19:16 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims  (Read 13330 times)
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 17, 2015, 05:44:08 PM »

"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?

I'm advocating for a welfare state and what you've termed "unlimited" immigration. What is stopping 100 million people from claiming these benefits? I've already made my case. It's grounded in empirical evidence from every instance in which a nation has allowed for virtually "unlimited" immigration. It's also grounded in a pretty powerful model of variables that influence immigration. We can afford quite a bit of immigration because immigration contributes positively to economic growth, which has the ultimate effect of increasing tax revenue. It also solves the problem of paying for the "baby boom" generation. Without immigration, we'd face a much larger fiscal problem.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 17, 2015, 05:47:17 PM »

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.

I suggest that you take a few economic classes before you make bold statements about the totality of a large body of economic literature or anything about economics in general.

This conversation is going in circles. I'll wait until you actually gather evidence to refute my facts or demand evidence on my part, which will take me a while to gather if you desire it. I may or may not respond because I have a life outside of this forum.

Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 17, 2015, 06:05:15 PM »

Impressive

I'm going completely ignore basic supply and demand 101, use historical data from before USA had any real kind of "welfare state" to claim that of course poor people wouldn't immigrate for the benefits I suggest they get.

But you're a ignoramus

See you later Loser

 
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2015, 06:35:21 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2015, 07:03:14 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Impressive

I'm going completely ignore basic supply and demand 101, use historical data from before USA had any real kind of "welfare state" to claim that of course poor people wouldn't immigrate for the benefits I suggest they get.

But you're a ignoramus

See you later Loser

 

Supply and demand is the basis of my point. I don't really understand what you're trying to say because your English is pretty terrible but I suggest that you read the paper I've attached blow to understand my claim. It isn't very complex: liberalized immigration flows do not lead to "unlimited immigration" because the supply of labor responds to the demand of firms. Recent arrivals who become unemployed tend to leave their nation of choice because their primary objective is to earn money to send remittances abroad. In this case, welfare is quite irrelevant because the amount of money earned from welfare is  only sufficient for the purpose of basic subsistence. I'm not referencing some hypothetical model or theory: I'm referencing the experience of nations, from a wide variety of eras, that allowed for liberalized immigration flows. There's no absolutely evidence to suggest that migrants come to the developed world in pursuit of welfare benefits: there is an ample, incredibly broad literature that suggests that remittances are the primary objective of immigrants. This literature can be found indirectly by reading about the contributions of remittances to the developing or directly by reading sociological explorations of remittances.

I'm not only referencing academic publications. I'm also referencing my personal understanding of immigration, which is quite intimate. In my experience, I've never met a recent immigrant who was unemployed for long periods of time. Contrary to claims made by Willips, immigrants often make a little above the minimum wage and sometimes receive substantial amounts of overtime pay. The money earned from working more then 50 hours a week for a year is far more substantial than money received from welfare, which only covers very basic necessities. Although I'd like welfare to be expanded and support instituting a guaranteed minimum income, I'd also support instituting a waiting period for immigrants of at least one year and also support a gradual scale in which immigrants receive a proportion of this income, which approaches 100% as they're in the country for x amount of years.

As far as the labor market is concerned, I don't care if native-born Americans are unemployed while immigrants are employed. Unlike you and your prejudiced friend, I care equally about those from developing nations and those from developed nations. From an economic perspective, the potential dislocation caused by immigration could easily be remedied by creating a stronger social safety net or a framework that allows for full employment. At the very least, native-born Americans would have the opportunity to get a job.

I understand that Europe faces different conditions. I think there's a decent case to be made that immigration should be kept at current levels in Europe rather than further liberalizing flows. At this point, I don't really trust Europe to handle large flows of migrants. The only country that has done a good job at maintaining an open immigration system is Spain, which is peculiar. In principle, I support "open borders" or whatever but I recognize that most European nations have done a terrible job at promoting integration while maintaining tolerance for ethnic "others". Nevertheless, I think Spain proves my point: liberalized immigration flows do not imply that that every Latin American will flock to the US or that all of Syria will be living in Stockholm or Berlin. That's preposterous...
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/exceptional-europe-spains-experience-immigration-and-integration

edit: this was longer than I intended it to be. Whatever, the ball is in your court, hater. First thing first: I don't care all that much about the welfare of native born nationalities vis a v foreigners. Therefore, I think it would be acceptable if Bolivians or Nigerians escaped poverty if Americans had lower living standards. I don't think the hypothetical claim that I've raised above is true but it's worth making. Don't assume that I care about your ethnic nationalism: I don't. Frankly, I hope that Europe becomes a post-racial kaleidoscope of cultures that are far removed from tradition. Obviously, I have no say in what Europe will become but I don't think an effortpost that is along more conservative/traditional lines means much on this forum.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2015, 07:01:15 PM »

Here from the UK is a study which shows that between 1995 and 2010 migrants to the UK gave a 'positive fiscal contribution' to the UK treasury. That is, they gave more in taxes than received in benefits. This is just one of a large academic literature.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2015, 07:07:08 PM »

Staying in the UK and from the distant time of 2013, Here is an overview of some facts relating to migrants and state expenditure in the UK. It includes this graph below on comparing UK and non-UK residents number on state benefits.

Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2015, 07:12:10 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2015, 07:18:06 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Here from the UK is a study which shows that between 1995 and 2010 migrants to the UK gave a 'positive fiscal contribution' to the UK treasury. That is, they gave more in taxes than received in benefits. This is just one of a large academic literature.

Thanks Gully. For whatever reason, I opted to respond with words rather than links, which was short-sighted because I have a lot of links.

As demonstrate by Figure 1, the descendants of immigrants are not consigned to an economic underclass. Although second generation Latin Americans have low educational attainment by American standards, they significant outperform their parents. Because of the correlation between parental educational attainment and the educational attainment of children, I think this finding is important: it proves that immigrants do not form the basis of an "economic underclass".

Figure 2 is quite important. It demonstrates that the economic benefits of immigration do not only flow to the wealthy. Although scholars disagree about the distributional effect of immigration, it's quite clear that most native-born people benefit from it.

Figure 3 demonstrates that immigrants drive economic growth, in large part, due to their contributions to human capital. Although many immigrant bashers like to point out that they're in favor of doctors, engineers and the like migrating, this contradicts policy proposals, which tend to limit the flow of foreign post-grads to the labor market and pose prohibitive restrictions to the highly educated.

Figure 1.


Figure 2.




These images were pulled from a Brookings report.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/9/immigration-greenstone-looney/09_immigration.pdf
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2015, 07:47:29 PM »

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.
Genesis 4:9b:  “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2015, 08:28:00 PM »

Figure 2 is quite important. It demonstrates that the economic benefits of immigration do not only flow to the wealthy. Although scholars disagree about the distributional effect of immigration, it's quite clear that most native-born people benefit from it.

Figure 2.


You make a lot of good points but what this chart really says is economists don't have any reliable way of estimating this - which is unsurprising given the complexity of the inputs. One estimate would have a minor net lowering effect on HS graduates or less, the other would have a minor net benefit.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2015, 09:54:30 PM »

I'm am not a nationalist. I also do not mind if immigrants get a job over a native born American because they are more qualified. That's fair (and there's the additional benefit that the skilled immigrant is probably more assimilated). That's not why most immigrants get jobs in the United States though. Most immigrants are less qualified than native born Americans but they get the jobs because they are willing to work for less. That's unacceptable. They are coming into this country and bringing down wages, they are coming into the country and making the economic situation worse than it was before they got here for everyone.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2015, 10:30:40 PM »

I'm am not a nationalist. I also do not mind if immigrants get a job over a native born American because they are more qualified. That's fair (and there's the additional benefit that the skilled immigrant is probably more assimilated). That's not why most immigrants get jobs in the United States though. Most immigrants are less qualified than native born Americans but they get the jobs because they are willing to work for less. That's unacceptable. They are coming into this country and bringing down wages, they are coming into the country and making the economic situation worse than it was before they got here for everyone.

There's the slightest bit of evidence that supports that claim. You could claim that immigrants reduce living standards for the least educated Americans or for the poorest Americans, especially in the service industry or in manufacturing. There's no evidence to suggest that immigration reduces GDP or living standards for everyone. Even the most fatalistic arguments assert that the upper middle class and the wealthy benefit from immigration...

Do you really mean to suggest that a high school education is far superior than an eighth grade education? Educational attainment does not improve the productivity of custodians, burger flippers, construction workers and farmhands. Mexicans are far more qualified than Americans to pick crops: many of them were farmers. Mexicans are more qualified than Americans to work in restaurants: the vast majority of Mexican women cook. In fact, the informal sector of Mexico has a huge food-service component. Do you honestly mean to suggest that these people less qualified to flip burgers or fry food? Of course not! You're implying that immigrants have lower IQs or that they're beastly.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2015, 10:43:05 PM »

Poorer Americans and people in the service industry are most Americans.

and if minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour (unlikely with unlimited cheap immigrant labor) it would likely cause people making above the current minimum wage but below 15 to get a raise too and that really would be the vast majority of Americans.

and being able to communicate with the customers makes people more qualified.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2015, 10:47:41 PM »

By the way, this didn't get enough attention when you first posted it, direct quote:

"Is it the job of business owners to provide living wage jobs to anyone? No, of course not."
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 17, 2015, 11:16:38 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2015, 11:18:13 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

By the way, this didn't get enough attention when you first posted it, direct quote:

"Is it the job of business owners to provide living wage jobs to anyone? No, of course not."

My very left-wing/Marxist-tinged response to this is that I don't care for business owners. I don't expect anything from them because the incentive structure of our flawed economic system necessitates exploitative practices. I expect the state to create a strong regulatory framework, a strong safety net and a policy of full employment to meet material needs. In short, I expect nothing from the private sector because I have no faith in them. As a good democratic socialist, I have faith in democracy.

That being said, I don't see why I should care about working class bodega or food truck owners paying their family members sub-minimum wages: it's quite typical for business owners who employ family members to share profits with the family. This is a standard practice in cultures with strong filial bonds.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2015, 11:27:08 PM »
« Edited: April 17, 2015, 11:33:01 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

Poorer Americans and people in the service industry are most Americans.

and if minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour (unlikely with unlimited cheap immigrant labor) it would likely cause people making above the current minimum wage but below 15 to get a raise too and that really would be the vast majority of Americans.

and being able to communicate with the customers makes people more qualified.

By service industry, I meant "jobs requiring menial tasks", not "white collar jobs". That's far from most people. I'd estimate that roughly 30-35% of Americans' wages could be adversely effected by immigration. "Unskilled" immigrants compete for some blue collar jobs and some jobs in the service industry. There aren't many immigrant receptionists or immigrant clerical workers or immigrant librarians or immigrant bureaucrats or immigrant teachers, which fall into the "service industry", which is a strange category.

Immigrants can't speak English? That's certainly news to me. There aren't many immigrants in the US who can't speak passable English after 2-3 years of being in the country. The ones who can't are out of the labor market.

edit: this post makes it seem like I've conceded that the poor and working class are adversely effect by immigration, which is supported by no empirical evidence. I think that it's pretty difficult to measure the effects of immigration on the poor and working class. It would be a plausible claim that immigrants drove wages down for those with a high school education but it's equally plausible that they'd raise them, as demonstrated by these studies.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14188

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12956
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 17, 2015, 11:52:52 PM »

Human traffickers kill people by transporting them in small, sinkable boats and cramming far too many people into them.

If you are looking for structural factors reactionaries preventing family planning, wealthy Arabs promoting Jihadism around the world and lobbies preventing free access for African products to Western and Asian markets would be more obvious culprits.

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

That's a very curious interpetation of what he said

 Funny how it always goes back to, "I obviously don't want them to be killed, but I'd prefer it if there were less brown people in the world. Or people in general."
Logged
Velasco
andi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,684
Western Sahara


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2015, 01:19:13 AM »

The moral responsibility for their faith would still be on the human traffickers. No country is responsible for saving people in international waters.

This is broadly speaking true. Nevertheless...

Nevertheless Pope Francis summed up in one word what has to be said about the attitude of EU countries toward people drowning in international waters: vergogna (shame).

The quote below is for politicus and likeminded people on this issue.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130708_omelia-lampedusa.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2015, 04:51:57 AM »

Don't have time to read through all the posts and links here but I'll just note that while I believe Gully and TheDeadFlagBlues are broadly correct for the UK and the US, this isn't true in many other European countries.

Sweden, for example has very low employment rates among our immigrant population and the current policy certainly is a net cost to the country financially speaking.

Immigration also comes in different forms. High-skilled labour immigration tends to be pretty beneficial to the host country, traumatized war refugees not so much.

That is leaving aside the moral aspect of humanitarian duties to other people, which is a separate issue.

Since it is my first post I should probably add that the humanitarian disaster in the Mediterranean is a huge shame for Europe, no question about it.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2015, 02:44:21 PM »

Immigration also comes in different forms. High-skilled labour immigration tends to be pretty beneficial to the host country,

What effect does it have on the "donor" country, though?
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2015, 02:55:54 PM »

Immigration also comes in different forms. High-skilled labour immigration tends to be pretty beneficial to the host country,

What effect does it have on the "donor" country, though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2015, 03:31:29 PM »

Human traffickers kill people by transporting them in small, sinkable boats and cramming far too many people into them.

If you are looking for structural factors reactionaries preventing family planning, wealthy Arabs promoting Jihadism around the world and lobbies preventing free access for African products to Western and Asian markets would be more obvious culprits.

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

That's a very curious interpetation of what he said

 Funny how it always goes back to, "I obviously don't want them to be killed, but I'd prefer it if there were less brown people in the world. Or people in general."

A lot of African nations could cut their birth rate by half and there still wouldn't be "less Africans" as a result, because they're already having so many more children above the replacement rate.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2015, 09:10:34 PM »

Meanwhile another one capsized yesterday, with 700 (!?!) people on board. Apparently only 28 survivors have been found so far.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: April 20, 2015, 08:24:09 AM »

Human traffickers kill people by transporting them in small, sinkable boats and cramming far too many people into them.

If you are looking for structural factors reactionaries preventing family planning, wealthy Arabs promoting Jihadism around the world and lobbies preventing free access for African products to Western and Asian markets would be more obvious culprits.

Besides, at least in Europe free immigration would lead to massive civil unrest and possibly civil war, which would kill even more. You can not have free immigration into societies where the whole nation is ethnically defined without destabilizing them and most of the non-American world is ethnically defined. Mass migration is not a viable solution to population growth.

That's a very curious interpetation of what he said

 Funny how it always goes back to, "I obviously don't want them to be killed, but I'd prefer it if there were less brown people in the world. Or people in general."

First of all because people tend to mistake me for politicus, I'm not her.

But as for the whole population growth in the undeveloped world, I agree with her, through for other reasons (her reasons are mostly green). The problem with a population growth which double every generation, is that it also demand a doubling of GDP just to upkeep status quo. If we look at the last 55 years development in the third world, we see that the growth in developing countries have been eaten up by a growing population. Only in countries, where the population growth have been slowed down like in China, South East Asia and Latin America, we have seen the greatest improvement, as the growing population no longer eat up the growing economy, and that some of the growth now end up in rising wages and improvement in infrastructure and education.

I don't suggest that Africa or India adopt a one child policy, but it's a good idea to find way to limit population growth. The best ways historical have been to educate women, as it usual push their marriage a few years further into their lives, and enable them to be more choosy in choice of husbands.
Logged
swl
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 581
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2015, 09:46:09 AM »

Meanwhile another one capsized yesterday, with 700 (!?!) people on board. Apparently only 28 survivors have been found so far.
It may be the tragic event that changed the EU policies on refugees. The country concerned by the flow of irregular migrants (Italy, Greece, Bulgaria) have been complaining for years about the lack of European solidarity on this topic.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: April 20, 2015, 09:52:27 AM »

Meanwhile another one capsized yesterday, with 700 (!?!) people on board. Apparently only 28 survivors have been found so far.
It may be the tragic event that changed the EU policies on refugees. The country concerned by the flow of irregular migrants (Italy, Greece, Bulgaria) have been complaining for years about the lack of European solidarity on this topic.

No sarcasm here, I would like to hear your suggestion for a solution to the problem.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.