Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Immigration

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 3:32:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm leaning towards relative nativism... what are your thoughts on immigration?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
pakicetus
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 4:28:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Probably similar to yours, though it would vary depending on the country. I do hold a somewhat ethnonationalist stance in the case of *most* nations, though, so it'd generally be highly restrictive.
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:20:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

Open boarders would destroy the societies that are so attractive to millions of immigrants from societies that don't provide , hope, opportunity or freedom. Frankly, I don't want millions of people streaming into my country, especially ones who don't share the same values. And I don't want the millions of welfare leaches that would be inevitable. Open borders is a ridiculous pie in the sky self annihilating idea. Never.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:21:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

Agreed
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:31:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 4:28:23 AM, pakicetus wrote:
Probably similar to yours, though it would vary depending on the country. I do hold a somewhat ethnonationalist stance in the case of *most* nations, though, so it'd generally be highly restrictive.

Cool. I feel that nativism gets a bad rep because of the Trail of Tears... However, relative nativism quantifies as a *better* view with a better connotation and less extreme denotation.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:32:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

I disagree. This has proved detrimental time and time again. It'd be an inherently bad idea.
For further reading: http://www.debate.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:34:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:20:47 PM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

Open boarders would destroy the societies that are so attractive to millions of immigrants from societies that don't provide , hope, opportunity or freedom. Frankly, I don't want millions of people streaming into my country, especially ones who don't share the same values. And I don't want the millions of welfare leaches that would be inevitable. Open borders is a ridiculous pie in the sky self annihilating idea. Never.

I agree. It's not that immigration itself is inherently bad, it's the subsequent societal degradation and economic fractures of unbridled immigration that deems it unacceptable.
If you'd like to explore the topic more... http://www.debate.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:35:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Open borders made America great.

In the beginning there wasn't a highly developed large modern society with security and economic issues to protect, and I'm not just talking about the U.S..
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Open borders made America great.

http://www.debate.org...

Besides, when you consider the political agenda of the parties pushing for open border/increased immigration, it's a double standard. Their aim can be viewed as being to restrict freedoms, the same freedom immigrants hope to gain via immigration.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:36:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Open borders made America great.

http://www.debate.org...

Not sure why you linked this. The person arguing against open borders makes terrible, faulty arguments. I'm not an official debater so I don't know if he "won" by debate rules, but he sure didn't make any logical arguments.

Besides, when you consider the political agenda of the parties pushing for open border/increased immigration, it's a double standard. Their aim can be viewed as being to restrict freedoms, the same freedom immigrants hope to gain via immigration.

I don't really care about freedom. Freedom can be great or it can be terrible, it isn't automatically some shining ideal that we should automatically want more of. Should women have the freedom to kill their unborn children? Should Bernie Madoff and Enron have the freedom to swindle people with immunity? Should cigarette companies have the freedom to target children with ads so they become lifelong heavy smokers?

I would say no to all of those questions. However, should people have the freedom to come to this country, just like your ancestors did, in order to work hard, make a living and send their kids to good schools to get educated? I say yes.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:49:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:36:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Open borders made America great.

http://www.debate.org...

Besides, when you consider the political agenda of the parties pushing for open border/increased immigration, it's a double standard. Their aim can be viewed as being to restrict freedoms, the same freedom immigrants hope to gain via immigration.

Look at the misery Europe is in from all the Muslim (sorry to peace loving Muslims ) immigration. The great continent is losing itself because they have capitulated to a group that on the whole, will not compromise or give. The Islamists will eventually suck the life out of the Europeans, because of political correctness strangling whitey. If this is what can happen even with controlled immigration, imagine open borders.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't care about the policies of other countries except for those in Europe. Here, I favour limited immigration, and a strong native population presence relative to foreigners. I make an exception for the current refugees whose lives are in misery, and because the Western European countries have a duty to take care of them due to their participation in wars.
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:12:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:32:38 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

I disagree. This has proved detrimental time and time again. It'd be an inherently bad idea.
For further reading: http://www.debate.org...

That debate contradicts your position. RoyLatham did a great job of showing that Pro's specific open borders proposal would be a bad idea, but Pro's evidence nonetheless shows (quite definitively) that a liberalized immigration policy would be beneficial. RoyLatham barely even contested that evidence. He won the debate by exploiting the disconnect between Pro's case and the resolution (i.e. the difference between liberalized immigration and open borders).
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:16:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:46:52 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:36:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Open borders made America great.

http://www.debate.org...

Not sure why you linked this. The person arguing against open borders makes terrible, faulty arguments. I'm not an official debater so I don't know if he "won" by debate rules, but he sure didn't make any logical arguments.

This is entirely false. Until you can specifically and feasibly point out particular instances in which "faulty" arguments are made, and explain why they are such, this critique holds absolutely no water. I can think of a lot of reasons why they are good, applicable, and pragmatic arguments... and until you at least attempt to disprove that, I'm in no position to change my opinion.

Besides, when you consider the political agenda of the parties pushing for open border/increased immigration, it's a double standard. Their aim can be viewed as being to restrict freedoms, the same freedom immigrants hope to gain via immigration.

I don't really care about freedom.

Immigrants do

Freedom can be great or it can be terrible, it isn't automatically some shining ideal that we should automatically want more of.

Actually, I'm really glad you said this... it could add to the discussion of a thread I made earlier, I'd really enjoy it if you participated :)

Here's a link: http://www.debate.org...

Should women have the freedom to kill their unborn children? Should Bernie Madoff and Enron have the freedom to swindle people with immunity? Should cigarette companies have the freedom to target children with ads so they become lifelong heavy smokers?

I would say no to all of those questions.

As do I.

However, should people have the freedom to come to this country, just like your ancestors did, in order to work hard, make a living and send their kids to good schools to get educated?

"My" ancestors (American settlers) didn't come to work hard, make a living, and send their kids to school.. they came to escape oppression from a land that was perceived unsettled. I actually think the European conquest of Native lands was justified... More on that: http://tinyurl.com...

It's one thing when the land is relatively unknown and the immigrants are under a veil of ignorance. It's another when there demonstrable evidence of the harm that can be inflicted on society and economy when immigration goes unbridled. I'm not against immigration as a whole, but I think it should definitely be regulated.

I say yes.

Relative nativism -- regulate immigration
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:19:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:12:12 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:32:38 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

I disagree. This has proved detrimental time and time again. It'd be an inherently bad idea.
For further reading: http://www.debate.org...

That debate contradicts your position. RoyLatham did a great job of showing that Pro's specific open borders proposal would be a bad idea, but Pro's evidence nonetheless shows (quite definitively) that a liberalized immigration policy would be beneficial. RoyLatham barely even contested that evidence. He won the debate by exploiting the disconnect between Pro's case and the resolution (i.e. the difference between liberalized immigration and open borders).

I was referring to the debate to exemplify that open borders were not a good idea... that's what Roy proved.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:21:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:58:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
I don't care about the policies of other countries except for those in Europe. Here, I favour limited immigration, and a strong native population presence relative to foreigners.

Finally, someone without radical liberal views. Lol. +1 Mirza :)

I make an exception for the current refugees whose lives are in misery, and because the Western European countries have a duty to take care of them due to their participation in wars.

Agreed.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:22:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:49:12 PM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:36:26 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:22:06 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Open borders made America great.

http://www.debate.org...

Besides, when you consider the political agenda of the parties pushing for open border/increased immigration, it's a double standard. Their aim can be viewed as being to restrict freedoms, the same freedom immigrants hope to gain via immigration.

Look at the misery Europe is in from all the Muslim (sorry to peace loving Muslims ) immigration. The great continent is losing itself because they have capitulated to a group that on the whole, will not compromise or give. The Islamists will eventually suck the life out of the Europeans, because of political correctness strangling whitey. If this is what can happen even with controlled immigration, imagine open borders.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of problems stemming from immigration especially in Europe. :/
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:23:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:19:14 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:12:12 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:32:38 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

I disagree. This has proved detrimental time and time again. It'd be an inherently bad idea.
For further reading: http://www.debate.org...

That debate contradicts your position. RoyLatham did a great job of showing that Pro's specific open borders proposal would be a bad idea, but Pro's evidence nonetheless shows (quite definitively) that a liberalized immigration policy would be beneficial. RoyLatham barely even contested that evidence. He won the debate by exploiting the disconnect between Pro's case and the resolution (i.e. the difference between liberalized immigration and open borders).

I was referring to the debate to exemplify that open borders were not a good idea... that's what Roy proved.

Yes, and 16kadams proved that liberalized immigration policy IS a good idea.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:25:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:23:47 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:19:14 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:12:12 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:32:38 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

I disagree. This has proved detrimental time and time again. It'd be an inherently bad idea.
For further reading: http://www.debate.org...

That debate contradicts your position. RoyLatham did a great job of showing that Pro's specific open borders proposal would be a bad idea, but Pro's evidence nonetheless shows (quite definitively) that a liberalized immigration policy would be beneficial. RoyLatham barely even contested that evidence. He won the debate by exploiting the disconnect between Pro's case and the resolution (i.e. the difference between liberalized immigration and open borders).

I was referring to the debate to exemplify that open borders were not a good idea... that's what Roy proved.

Yes, and 16kadams proved that liberalized immigration policy IS a good idea.

The resolution and debate was about open borders, so Roy wasn't supposed to dispute liberalized immigration. If 16k/JMK wanted to debate liberalized immigration, the resolution should have specified as such.

Regardless of your qualms with the debate and my referencing it, what are your views on immigration? I'd be interested in hearing. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:26:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:21:36 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Finally, someone without radical liberal views. Lol. +1 Mirza :)
Liberals are stupid when it comes to this issue. There's literally not a single European country that hasn't experienced a rise in crime, issues with integration, and economic detriment from non-European immigrants. Not a single one. Statistics in favour of immigrants in the vast majority of cases involves Europeans; e.g., Polish workers in the UK, where they are very beneficial. Obviously random migration has *some* benefits, but they can be achieved through selective migration as well as temporary, and also by other means - for example, higher retirement age so that social programmes can be funded.
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:33:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:25:59 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:23:47 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:19:14 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:12:12 AM, Insignifica wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:32:38 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/22/2015 12:34:59 PM, Hoppi wrote:
Should be open borders like the olden days. People should be able to live and work wherever they want.

I disagree. This has proved detrimental time and time again. It'd be an inherently bad idea.
For further reading: http://www.debate.org...

That debate contradicts your position. RoyLatham did a great job of showing that Pro's specific open borders proposal would be a bad idea, but Pro's evidence nonetheless shows (quite definitively) that a liberalized immigration policy would be beneficial. RoyLatham barely even contested that evidence. He won the debate by exploiting the disconnect between Pro's case and the resolution (i.e. the difference between liberalized immigration and open borders).

I was referring to the debate to exemplify that open borders were not a good idea... that's what Roy proved.

Yes, and 16kadams proved that liberalized immigration policy IS a good idea.

The resolution and debate was about open borders, so Roy wasn't supposed to dispute liberalized immigration. If 16k/JMK wanted to debate liberalized immigration, the resolution should have specified as such.

I don't disagree that RoyLatham won the debate fair and square. I'm just observing that the debate you referenced contains all the evidence necessary to debunk your personal stance on immigration.


Regardless of your qualms with the debate and my referencing it, what are your views on immigration? I'd be interested in hearing. :)

I'm all for liberalizing immigration policies. In all developed countries. The empirical evidence clearly points towards immigration being generally good for the economy. Social harms obviously exist, but they're outweighed by higher standards of living for everyone.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:41:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:33:20 AM, Insignifica wrote:
The resolution and debate was about open borders, so Roy wasn't supposed to dispute liberalized immigration. If 16k/JMK wanted to debate liberalized immigration, the resolution should have specified as such.

I don't disagree that RoyLatham won the debate fair and square. I'm just observing that the debate you referenced contains all the evidence necessary to debunk your personal stance on immigration.

Okay, I see. How can something debunk a personal stance? Lol ;P I'm kidding, I see what you mean.

Regardless of your qualms with the debate and my referencing it, what are your views on immigration? I'd be interested in hearing. :)

I'm all for liberalizing immigration policies. In all developed countries.

Okay...

The empirical evidence clearly points towards immigration being generally good for the economy. Social harms obviously exist, but they're outweighed by higher standards of living for everyone.

Not necessarily... Especially in Europe (of which most are developed nations), there are significant harms economically, politically, and socially.

"A report studying 4.4 million Swedes between the ages of 15 and 51 during the period 1997-2001 found that 25% of crimes were committed by foreign-born individuals while and additional 20% were committed by individuals born to foreign-born parents. In particular, immigrants from Africa and South & Western Asian were more likely to be charged of a crime than individuals born to two Swedish parents by a factor of 4.5 and 3.5 respectively" https://ofpsychandsociety.wordpress.com...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 12:43:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:26:40 AM, Mirza wrote:
Liberals are stupid when it comes to this issue. There's literally not a single European country that hasn't experienced a rise in crime, issues with integration, and economic detriment from non-European immigrants. Not a single one. Statistics in favour of immigrants in the vast majority of cases involves Europeans; e.g., Polish workers in the UK, where they are very beneficial. Obviously random migration has *some* benefits, but they can be achieved through selective migration as well as temporary, and also by other means - for example, higher retirement age so that social programmes can be funded.

I tend to agree with virtually everything you mention here.
Do you have evidence handy to support that, though? I'd be interested in seeing it for potential use. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 1:36:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:26:40 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:21:36 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Finally, someone without radical liberal views. Lol. +1 Mirza :)
Liberals are stupid when it comes to this issue. There's literally not a single European country that hasn't experienced a rise in crime, issues with integration, and economic detriment from non-European immigrants. Not a single one. Statistics in favour of immigrants in the vast majority of cases involves Europeans; e.g., Polish workers in the UK, where they are very beneficial. Obviously random migration has *some* benefits, but they can be achieved through selective migration as well as temporary, and also by other means - for example, higher retirement age so that social programmes can be funded.

This is because Europeans are too stupid and racist to accept immigrants. Unlike Europe, America knows how to benefit from immigration. We have built the greatest nation in the world by accepting people from all over the world, even the $hithole known as Europe. We are a nation of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, and we have dominated Europe economically, militarily, and politically. It's no coincidence.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 3:42:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 1:36:51 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:26:40 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/23/2015 12:21:36 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Finally, someone without radical liberal views. Lol. +1 Mirza :)
Liberals are stupid when it comes to this issue. There's literally not a single European country that hasn't experienced a rise in crime, issues with integration, and economic detriment from non-European immigrants. Not a single one. Statistics in favour of immigrants in the vast majority of cases involves Europeans; e.g., Polish workers in the UK, where they are very beneficial. Obviously random migration has *some* benefits, but they can be achieved through selective migration as well as temporary, and also by other means - for example, higher retirement age so that social programmes can be funded.

This is because Europeans are too stupid and racist to accept immigrants. Unlike Europe, America knows how to benefit from immigration. We have built the greatest nation in the world by accepting people from all over the world, even the *censored* known as Europe. We are a nation of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, and we have dominated Europe economically, militarily, and politically. It's no coincidence.

American government is based on liberty and freedom, that's the only reason we perceive benefits from immigration. We don't have any effective policy to dissuade illegals from entering the US.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Insignifica
Posts: 285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 4:38:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:41:26 AM, ColeTrain wrote:

The empirical evidence clearly points towards immigration being generally good for the economy. Social harms obviously exist, but they're outweighed by higher standards of living for everyone.

Not necessarily... Especially in Europe (of which most are developed nations), there are significant harms economically, politically, and socially.

"A report studying 4.4 million Swedes between the ages of 15 and 51 during the period 1997-2001 found that 25% of crimes were committed by foreign-born individuals while and additional 20% were committed by individuals born to foreign-born parents. In particular, immigrants from Africa and South & Western Asian were more likely to be charged of a crime than individuals born to two Swedish parents by a factor of 4.5 and 3.5 respectively" https://ofpsychandsociety.wordpress.com...

That's not a problem with immigration. It's a problem with how well European societies integrate their immigrants. They tend to be xenophobic, which hurts immigrants' prospects of being able to live life normally (and stay away from crime). Why doesn't the US have this problem? It's because American society does a good job of social integration, allowing immigrants to have the same opportunities and lifestyles as natives.

"According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born. This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 4:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 12:43:29 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I tend to agree with virtually everything you mention here.
Do you have evidence handy to support that, though? I'd be interested in seeing it for potential use. :)
For those claims I have sources here: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 4:56:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 1:36:51 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
This is because Europeans are too stupid and racist to accept immigrants. Unlike Europe, America knows how to benefit from immigration. We have built the greatest nation in the world by accepting people from all over the world, even the $hithole known as Europe. We are a nation of immigrants and descendants of immigrants, and we have dominated Europe economically, militarily, and politically. It's no coincidence.
First of all, your better military is a result of a larger population than than of every single European country, *including Russia*. If we were to unite, we'd beat you in pretty much all aspects. As for racism being the cause of failed multiculturalism - if you don't know anything about this, keep your mouth shut. Immigrants have *every* opportunity handed to them to integrate, assimilate, educate, work, stay out of crime - yet, many don't. That's THEIR fault. And it is the fault of the older generations for not better preparing the newer ones for the challenges in their society. When a family decide to move to an area with high crime, low income, dense immigrant population with their children, THEY are to be blamed for failed migration and other progress - NOT the society. I live in Denmark most of my life and immigrants, all of them, have all means to fare well. They have mental aid if they need, they have social programmes to help them out (even permanently); free education INCLUDING university - nobody stands in the way of immigrants to achieve success. Nobody and nothing.

Have a nice day. :)