Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How to Not Be an Idiot on Immigration

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:22:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Use economics, logic, and facts. This talk is one of many that blew my mind from Bryan Caplan.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:24:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:22:03 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Use economics, logic, and facts. This talk is one of many that blew my mind from Bryan Caplan.


Just buy a S 744 bumper sticker and call it a day
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

2. To overcome this presumption, you'd have to show that free immigration has consequences so awful that they clearly overshadow the horrible consequences of restriction. And you'd have to show that there isn't any cheaper, more humane way to avert these consequences.

3. The best social science finds that the alleged downsides of immigration are greatly overstated at best, and often the opposite of the truth. For starters: Immigrants make Americans and the world richer, and they pay about as much in taxes as they use in benefits.

4. Even in worst-case scenarios, there are cheaper, more humane remedies. If immigrants are really a fiscal burden, you don't have to prevent immigration. Just make them ineligible for benefits. If that seems cruel, it's far less cruel than forcing them to live in Haiti.

http://econlog.econlib.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:37:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm hesitant about completely open borders because I worry about population expansion -- I guess I'm a bit Malthusian in that regard -- but generally I agree with you: there isn't much reason not to liberalize immigration policy, especially when immigrants provide a boon to the US economy.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:34:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Good thread to keep an eye open for the racists. Brown people ya know, coming in from the south. And the nerve of them, they'll be asking for minimum wage protection next thing ya know! Uppity!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 4:30:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, immigration makes countries filthy rich. That's why America restricted immigration to include only Europeans until the sixties and was the economic power-house of the World for all of that time.

Oh and btw the wall street movement turned more people away from liberalism than ever. Good job guys, lol.
WheezySquash8
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 8:15:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 4:30:42 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Yes, immigration makes countries filthy rich. That's why America restricted immigration to include only Europeans until the sixties and was the economic power-house of the World for all of that time.

Oh and btw the wall street movement turned more people away from liberalism than ever. Good job guys, lol.

True.
Pacifist Since 3/12/14
Wheezy
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

2. To overcome this presumption, you'd have to show that free immigration has consequences so awful that they clearly overshadow the horrible consequences of restriction. And you'd have to show that there isn't any cheaper, more humane way to avert these consequences.

Around 40% of the population of poor countries say that they would emigrate if they could. So that gives us an idea of how people would behave. If migration happened on anything approaching that scale, the living standards of host societies would be reduced dramatically. Spain's experiment with open borders is an abject failure. The consequences are soaring unemployment, overstretched social services, rising crime, and rioting in the streets.

3. The best social science finds that the alleged downsides of immigration are greatly overstated at best, and often the opposite of the truth. For starters: Immigrants make Americans and the world richer, and they pay about as much in taxes as they use in benefits.

This is the biggest falsehood concerning immigration. Immigrants tend to be less educated. The average illegal immigrant in the U.S. is educated to about the 10th grade level. While well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors, less educated households are net tax consumers -- they receive more government benefits than they pay in taxes.

4. Even in worst-case scenarios, there are cheaper, more humane remedies. If immigrants are really a fiscal burden, you don't have to prevent immigration. Just make them ineligible for benefits. If that seems cruel, it's far less cruel than forcing them to live in Haiti.

http://econlog.econlib.org...
This is a weak appeal to emotion. If people are fleeing their country to avoid persecution, then they can be granted refugee status.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 7:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 6:37:38 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I'm hesitant about completely open borders because I worry about population expansion -- I guess I'm a bit Malthusian in that regard
If your concern is global, note that migration reduces global birth rates (because wealth does, and probably because less time for hanky panky on the road). Sure, US population goes up, but Mexico's population goes down.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 7:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

How the f*** do you derive that one?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:03:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 7:09:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

How the f*** do you derive that one?

Is it really that far-fetched? It is the right to defend your territory and not be invaded. All societies assert this right. Without that right, no country is sovereign.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:14:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 8:03:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Is it really that far-fetched? It is the right to defend your territory and not be invaded. All societies assert this right. Without that right, no country is sovereign.

Jean-Claude wants to be a shoeshiner, so he comes from Haiti to the US to work. He gives business people value in the form of shined shoes and in return he is compensated.

Where do you get the moral right to violently remove Jean-Claude from the US, the most heterogeneous country on Earth? Why are the lines that politicians draw on maps of such value to you? Why do you support the destructive violence of a coercive state over the net-benefit of a worker?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:15:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:24:41 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Just buy a S 744 bumper sticker and call it a day

Good argument.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:19:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 4:30:42 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Yes, immigration makes countries filthy rich.

It makes the emigrating country richer and the immigrating country richer. Puerto Rico went from a third world country to a first world country with open borders with the US.

That's why America restricted immigration to include only Europeans until the sixties and was the economic power-house of the World for all of that time.

Laws in 1965 ended the quota system that favored European immigrants. It wasn't European-only. Chinese, Mexicans, and others entered.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:57:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 8:03:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/5/2014 7:09:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

How the f*** do you derive that one?

Is it really that far-fetched? It is the right to defend your territory
What makes the territory yours?
and not be invaded.
Immigration isn't rape. YOU aren't being invaded.

All societies assert this right.
You said human right. A "society" is not a human.

Without that right, no country is sovereign.
What is sovereignty and why do you believe it a good thing?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:13:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How the fvck does immigration benefit anything? Providing language services to people from Government funds helps your country's economy how?

OP must be a filthy immigrant to believe that sh1t.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:13:04 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
How the fvck does immigration benefit anything?
Ask the people who hire immigrants.

Providing language services to people from Government funds helps your country's economy how?
"Helps your country's economy" is an invalid concept. It is, however, in the interest of the government to be able to communicate with those south of its border. If you are referring to free English lessons, I also oppose such a provision.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:10:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:57:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:03:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/5/2014 7:09:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

How the f*** do you derive that one?

Is it really that far-fetched? It is the right to defend your territory
What makes the territory yours?

The fact that your family has fought for it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:15:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:10:58 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:57:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:03:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/5/2014 7:09:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

How the f*** do you derive that one?

Is it really that far-fetched? It is the right to defend your territory
What makes the territory yours?

The fact that your family has fought for it.
There's a lot of people in this country whose family historically fought for slavery. Clearly, then, they are still the rightful owners of every last slave, by your reasoning?

I mean, that reasoning is gangsta as f***. Fight for it and it's yoaz.

You realize every time someone fights for something, they were fighting AGAINST an incompatible claim? You realize therefore that a contradiction can be dervied from this?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:57:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:57:19 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:03:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/5/2014 7:09:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/5/2014 6:23:29 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:10:54 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Open Borders in 4 Easy Steps

1. Immigration laws deny very basic human rights: The right to accept a job offer from a willing employer and the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord. The predictable result for people born on the wrong side of the border is severe poverty and worse. This creates a strong moral presumption against immigration restrictions.

The control of immigration is a human right. It is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property.

How the f*** do you derive that one?

Is it really that far-fetched? It is the right to defend your territory
What makes the territory yours?
In the context of the United States, it is an independent state, governed by American citizens and controls its own affairs. Therefore, the U.S. and its territory belongs to the people.

and not be invaded.
Immigration isn't rape. YOU aren't being invaded.

Human rights can obviously extend beyond the limits of the physical body.

All societies assert this right.
You said human right. A "society" is not a human.

Just as the shareholders of a corporation are its legal owners under law, a society is a human's "property" in the collective sense of ownership.
Without that right, no country is sovereign.
What is sovereignty and why do you believe it a good thing?
Sovereignty (n): The quality or state of being sovereign, or of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme power; dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly divided into many sovereignties.

Without sovereignty, a nation cannot have independence, democracy or self-determination. There would be no independent nation-states with the right and ability to set their own laws according to the preferences of their residents.

Open borders must be opposed by all people that want to preserve themselves as a free nation with their own culture, traditions, and laws.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:05:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't support opening the borders so that anyone can relocate to our country, but I do generally favor a more liberal immigration policy.

Immigration mostly benefits our country.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 10:40:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:57:14 AM, 1Percenter wrote:

What makes the territory yours?
In the context of the United States, it is an independent state governed by American citizens and controls its own affairs.
You're just rephrasing, not explaining. "The territory belongs to X" and "X is independent and controls the territory" mean basically the same thing, one can't explain why the other is okay.

Therefore, the U.S. and its territory belongs to the people.
There is no such entity as "the people." I know of several people who hire immigrants though.


and not be invaded.
Immigration isn't rape. YOU aren't being invaded.

Human rights can obviously extend beyond the limits of the physical body.
Yes, with a set of reasoning. You haven't given one, and the "you were invaded" reasoning obviously only applies to, well, an invasion of YOU.

Just as the shareholders of a corporation are its legal owners under law, a society is a human's "property" in the collective sense of ownership.
Shareholders are volunteers who all agreed on a single decisionmaking mechanism. Thus, it is possible to speak of a shareholder's decision as a consequence of the decision of every last individual shareholder to agree to that mechanism.
With a society, that never happened, contra Rousseau. Never. At no time in human history. The two are in no way analogous. You and I are both Americans, yet we disagree, and we never agreed on a dispute resolution mechanism. One was imposed, but I never agreed to it, and if you didn't either, it will still be imposed. There is no way to speak of our joint will on the matter we disagree on-- it doesn't exist.

Without that right, no country is sovereign.
What is sovereignty and why do you believe it a good thing?
Sovereignty (n): The quality or state of being sovereign
Did you never learn how to define words? Rule 1: Never use another part of speech of the same word in the definition. Rule 2: Don't use a synonym either. Rule 3: Make the definition something that makes your word actually goddamn useful for people to start using.

Without sovereignty, a nation cannot have independence
So?

democracy
Democracy is incompatible with sovereignty. The only genuine democracy, genuine rule by the majority, has no respect for borders-- a global democracy.

Not that I'm a fan of democracy or anything, but you seem to be.

or self-determination
Sovereign nations do not exist to let you determine things for yourself. They exist to impose determinations upon you. (Nations don't have a self, only individual humans do).

There would be no independent nation-states
I don't give a good goddamn about an independent nation-state that relies on removing the independence of individuals.

with the right and ability to set their own laws according to the preferences of their residents.
I am a resident of a nation you claim to be sovereign. The laws do not match my preference, QED, they do not match the preferences of the residents, since I am one of those residents. Therefore, your argument fails the uniqueness criterion, which means it is worthless.


Open borders must be opposed by all people that want to preserve themselves as a free nation
I'm not a nation. Myself is a human.

with their own culture, traditions, and laws.
I don't have my own laws. Why should I give a damn about "own culture and traditions?" I want my own decisions about how to live my own life.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All those opposing immigration should fall in with the *line up of those who support discrimination against **others and opposers of a minimum wage.

*there are only two lines

**usually known as racists
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 12:05:20 PM, monty1 wrote:
All those opposing immigration should fall in with the *line up of those who support discrimination against **others and opposers of a minimum wage.

*there are only two lines

**usually known as racists
All those who support the initation of force against businessmen should fall in line with their brethren who support the initiation of force against immigrants.

Annoying, innit?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 4:05:53 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I don't support opening the borders so that anyone can relocate to our country, but I do generally favor a more liberal immigration policy.

Immigration mostly benefits our country.

Why do you favor a more liberal immigration policy?
Why do you not favor open borders?
Where do you get the moral right to deny someone the ability to accept a job and rent an apartment?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 4:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:57:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 5/7/2014 4:05:53 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I don't support opening the borders so that anyone can relocate to our country, but I do generally favor a more liberal immigration policy.

Immigration mostly benefits our country.

Why do you favor a more liberal immigration policy?

The U.S. Immigration system is broken; permitting needed immigrants into our nation can help build the economy and their income can be taxed to provide the U.S. government with revenue, to pay down the national debt and reduce the deficit. This would be a huge benefit for everyone in this nation!

Why do you not favor open borders?

In a perfect society, we wouldn't need borders. But we don't live in a perfect society; we live in a world where law and order are required to optimize the quality of living. If we open the borders to everyone, we'll get not only producers but burdensome takers and people that want to hurt our nation rather than contribute to it. Opening the borders to everyone would be a huge policy mistake.

Where do you get the moral right to deny someone the ability to accept a job and rent an apartment?

We live in a nation of laws. There are employers out there that illegally pay wages below the legal minimum and this attracts undocumented immigrants into the country, hurts wage increases for other workers, and reduces the the quality of life for all working America's. This is wrong.

We have stamp out this illegal behavior so that we endorse the need to provide all workers with an adequate wage for life; when we fail to do this, low-paid workers are forced to survive off of the revenue of tax payers, which is wrong.

American tax payers should not subsidize businesses that pay illegally low wages or that don't provide workers with the bare minimum just to get by.
WheezySquash8
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2014 6:46:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:22:03 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Use economics, logic, and facts. This talk is one of many that blew my mind from Bryan Caplan.


Amen.
Pacifist Since 3/12/14
Wheezy
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2014 2:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 4:00:21 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 5/7/2014 2:57:12 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 5/7/2014 4:05:53 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I don't support opening the borders so that anyone can relocate to our country, but I do generally favor a more liberal immigration policy.

Immigration mostly benefits our country.

Why do you favor a more liberal immigration policy?

The U.S. Immigration system is broken; permitting needed immigrants into our nation can help build the economy and their income can be taxed to provide the U.S. government with revenue, to pay down the national debt and reduce the deficit. This would be a huge benefit for everyone in this nation!

So you agree that immigration benefits the US economy. Keep this in mind, because you completely flip your generic politician rhetoric in the next few paragraphs.

Why do you not favor open borders?

We live in a world where law and order are required to optimize the quality of living.

What about immigration uproots law and order? Almost all studies on this topic find that immigrants have lower levels of incarceration than the native population. And by native population I mean the immigrants that have lived in America for generations.

If we open the borders to everyone, we'll get not only producers but burdensome takers and people that want to hurt our nation rather than contribute to it.

This line of thinking is something that gets rooted out of economics students in their first semester. You can focus on the negatives, but that isn't good social science. You have to add up the negatives and the positives to get a net result, then make your decision based on that result. Most economists agree that immigration is a good thing, and most studies into the effects of immigration find enormous net benefits. The real question is why you would use governmental violence to keep people in poverty in other countries when they could be 10x richer in this country, or any other developed nation, which would benefit all parties involved?

Opening the borders to everyone would be a huge policy mistake.

Saying "a bad thing can happen, so no open-border immigration despite the fact that it would double world GDP and is the right thing to do" (allowing people to take a job and rent an apartment without violently interfering) is incredibly selfish, immoral, and irrational.

Where do you get the moral right to deny someone the ability to accept a job and rent an apartment?

We live in a nation of laws. There are employers out there that illegally pay wages below the legal minimum and this attracts undocumented immigrants into the country, hurts wage increases for other workers, and reduces the the quality of life for all working America's. This is wrong.
We have stamp out this illegal behavior so that we endorse the need to provide all workers with an adequate wage for life; when we fail to do this, low-paid workers are forced to survive off of the revenue of tax payers, which is wrong.
American tax payers should not subsidize businesses that pay illegally low wages or that don't provide workers with the bare minimum just to get by.


There is nothing in this paragraph that addresses this assumed moral right to violently disallow people to be employed or to rent. Try again, or send me a debate request.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.