1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why I am Opposed To Immigration

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Zardnaar, Feb 21, 2017.

  1. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Refugees yes, economic migrants not so much. Most of the western countries now have their own problems, running up deficits etc.
    No kids working part time/seasonal. We lived like students to the age of 30 to get the house and got it cheap due the the financial crash and a divource. We also used a 20% deposit and short term mortage. No kids double income at the time and room mates until I was 32.

    Rich immigrants are pricing the natives out of the housing stock.

    Maybe its also desirable to live here because of our culture. We are getting internal migration now to get away from the new migrants/insane house prives. Things like cops and teachers who are well paid are struggling as well McDonalds is offering $19 an hour in Auckland and thats not enough.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  2. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    The same as now? Don't be ridiculous. Illegal immigrants now face deportation, are not allowed to have a regular job, have precarious or no access to public services, etc etc... All of those are strong factors dissuading illegal immigration. It still happens, in a large scale, but it's not even comparable to what would happen if these factors were eliminated. Developed countries would be flooded overnight and simply cease to exist. People respond to incentives, you know.

    It's simple. Enforced borders are necessary for security and for the running of a viable state apparatus. When you have a trusted neighbor with a reasonable level of development you can have more or less open borders - but at our stage of development open borders with the whole world would simply mean collapse.
     
  3. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,764
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I think you're the one who's being ridiculous. As Owen pointed out we had functionally unenforced borders quite recently yet the apocalyptic outcomes you're predicting didn't materialize. One must wonder why this is. My theory is that more open borders wouldn't fundamentally change the incentives that exist for people who immigrate illegally to Europe or the US - to the extent that they're even making rational, informed calculations about these incentives in the first place, which is, in my view, a questionable assumption.
     
    really likes this.
  4. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    You think illegal immigrants don't know they face deportation, no formal jobs and etc? You think that doesn't affect their decision? They have brains too, you know. Just look at the countries they choose in Europe and you'll see they very much respond to legal and economic obstacles. Remove those obstacles and they'll respond too.

    As I pointed out to Owen, different regions and countries in difference circumstances can absorb a different number of immigrants with no problems. When the US was basically empty, which was the case until the 19th Century (and much later in some other states), it could absorb an enormous amount of people. There was no problem in tripling Arizona's population every decade, because the starting base was so low. Now that's no longer possible. And this is even more true in Europe, where the countries are already very crowded and could never double or triple their population without severe consequences.

    And that's why... shocking, I know!... different countries manage their immigration differently. Canada, with it's low population density and lots of land and natural resources, is relatively liberal. Switzerland is quite strict. It makes absolutely no sense to imagine every country should or could pursue the same immigration policy. But notice that even the most liberal countries still place many restriction. Even Canada can't absorb an illimited number of people.
     
  5. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,764
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Of course they do, it's just that when the alternative is being killed by a gang or the government, or simply unemployment and starvation because there are, quite literally, no jobs at home and no social safety net, these things matter a lot less to people than you might think. The main barriers are the expense and physical difficulty of getting here, not the legal restrictions which in the US anyway are virtually impossible to enforce properly in any case.

    Well, you keep insisting it's impossible but I think Europe and North America are probably pretty far below their literal carrying capacity of humans.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
  6. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,429
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    I read that as "Great Unicorn War" at first and honestly, I'd prefer that. You know whatever war happens on Poland's soil is likely to destroy the whole country again. But not if unicorns are involved
     
  7. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,429
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    I mean, most immigrants who come here end up in one of the 3 major urban centres. Toronto is the most popular destination by far last time I checked, there's 6+ million people living in the metro there, it's a very crowded place. So it's not like any substantial number of immigrants who come here end up settling in a rural setting. I'm pointing this out because.. well, just because we have a lot of "room" in our country, doesn't mean that our urban centres aren't already packed with people to the rim. It doesn't really matter how much empty space we have, the question we have to ask ourselves when deciding how many immigrants to accept is "Will they fit in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal?" and not "Will they fit in Saskatoon?"

    We might have a lot of natural resources, but we have some of the highest electricity prices on the planet. Gas sure is cheap though (compared to Europe), but not nearly as cheap as in the U.S. So I don't think our natural resources really matter as a variable here.

    Our main benefit really is that we only have a land border with one other country, one with a fairly high GDP per capita. We don't have any "Poor" parts of the world nearby, so it's a lot harder for immigrants from poor countries to end up here. We're also a country built on immigration, so we're all used to the country accepting a certain amount of new immigrants each year. It's not a huge amount by any means, it seems very manageable, at least compared to some of the numbers from European countries I've seen.

    But I agree with you that each country has its own set of circumstances and should therefore have its own set of immigration laws. Excluding the EU, that whole bloc should have one immigration policy for all, so that the external borders of the union are secure, and the internal borders can be a lot more lax.
     
  8. luiz

    luiz Trendy Revolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    19,977
    Refugees are but a small minority among the general migrant population. Most people don't migrate to escape persecution, or even starvation, but merely to search for a better life. The legal restrictions are a huge barrier to these people who would rather stay home than face deportation or a life of informal jobs and no public services. As I said, this is clearly demonstrated by immigration patterns in Europe, where immigrants will largely choose countries with less legal obstacles (e.g., Sweden over Denmark).

    So incentives matter, duh.

    Literal carrying capacity? Probably, certainly. Capacity while maintaining order and high living standards? Much less margin (varies a lot by country to country, naturally). But note how Sweden had to reverse its refugee policy, and it never even had an open borders policy to begin with, merely a liberal asylum policy. So no, open borders are not even near feasible.
     
  9. HannibalBarka

    HannibalBarka We are Free

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,946
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Immigration should indeed be controlled, the least reason being for the State to be able to "organise" it as any demographic matter. Immigration can be beneficial, almost vital in some cases. Japan stagnation in the last 30years are in a big part due to its too stricts immigration policies. If the population of the country was growing like that of France for example, the country would still be the second economy in the World today. It may pose short term problems, and may be put to a minimum during a certain period but all in all a reasonable immigration is usually beneficial as immigrant are usually young and very often the one who immigrate are usually "better" than the one who stay (a recent article showed that in the french case a couple of days ago).
    Stock market price are going up in NZ maybe just because there is no tax on the capital gain indeed.
     
  10. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,026
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    I'm not saying we should have 0 immigration just slow it down so we can actually integrate them. It tok around 100 (700 if you count the Maori) years to get the 1st 2 million, 70 to get the next and we might get the next in 30-50 years.

    ANd they all want tio live in 1 city who is population has doubled since the 1970's with 40% of the people born over seas. We're getting housing problems, overcrowding+ health problems related to it, unemployment, and an increasing number of homeless. Hell the entire country has perhaps 200 homeless people as recently as the 1990's.

    3.1 million 1980, 4.7 now.
     
  11. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    35,118
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    The best way for the US to stop illegal immigration is to prosecute those who employ them. Heavy fines and jail time would shut it down pretty quickly. Of course, such a move would have other consequences....

    It all depends upon what one's goals are.
     
  12. Wrymouth3

    Wrymouth3 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,069
    Location:
    Fort Lauderale, Florida
    Isn't youth (18-late 20's) suicide rate and depression in NZ one of the highest in the first world? Something tells me what you listed above might be a key reason, especially since this is a populace that is filled with a lot of college-educated people who have seen good jobs go by the wayside.
     
  13. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,429
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    I'd bet a lot of those who profit from this have ties to the politicians who are speaking out against it.
     
  14. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,734
    Location:
    Versailles City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
    I'm largely opposed to immigration and accepting refugees into the US, at this point in time, is that we need to focus our resources on helping Americans, not immigrants and refugees when we have homeless Americans on the street (and worse that some of the homeless are US Armed Forces Veterans). It may be a harsh reality, but it's a tough choice when dealing with limited resources.
     
  15. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    49,429
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    If you closed the borders for new immigrants until every single person homeless and/or poor person in the U.S. is looked after, they'd never be open again.
     
  16. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,764
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Is your proposition actually that there is not enough real wealth in the United States to both take in many times more refugees than we do now and house all our homeless?
    I find such a proposition to be utterly ridiculous.
     
  17. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    new alhambra
    This is a false choice and doesn't have to be a limitation in any way.
     
    really and MagisterCultuum like this.
  18. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    18,399
    Location:
    Sydney
    Someone has to pay for all those tax cuts and unfunded botched military adventures
    At the rate Republicans are creating homeless veterans, slashing healthcare, dismantling the VA, slashing education, you might as well give up on the idea of immigration forever.

    I get your desire to help fellow americans, but its not a zero sum game.
    That Republican doublethink
     
  19. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Entangled Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    35,118
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Medium and large businesses for sure. The small local guys probably not so much. but going after employers would be a huge political problem. Employer illegal acts apparently are less important than those of poor brown people who cannot vote.
     
  20. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    9,117
    Location:
    Brazil
    How about you help both homeless people and immigrants. The US clearly doesn't lack the resources or infrastructure needed to do so
     

Share This Page