Immigration to the US and Europe in Historical and Social Context

[Love Mountain]

Seems like you are arguing against a point I didn't even make, so I'll write off "read a book" boomer-tier argument as a poor attempt at baiting.
In any case, it is quite clear that with technology moving forward a lot of currently existing jobs are becoming obsolete - and job pool can and will decrease as human jobs are going to be replaced by machines and AI.
So you are still yet to prove to us why would overpopulation be a good thing. Not to mention the environmental concerns.

Overpopulation isn’t a thing. There is no clear limit on how many humans the planet can support.

[Mithradates]

Well, anyone is theoretically employable at a certain price point. Is economic self sufficiency really the deciding factor here?

The main argument for migration is that migration is the answer for the low birthrates problem, so if we want to keep our social benefits and pensions, we are going to need more workers, more people to pay taxes. But this will only work if these new workers are as productive, or will become as productive as the locals, or else they would just drain the system even more.

It doesnt matter how cheap they are willing to work if they are simply unemployable because of their low/no education, functional illiteracy etc. its clear now that many of them will never contribute and people have a problem with that.

[Heathen Hammer]

Overpopulation isn’t a thing. There is no clear limit on how many humans the planet can support.

It is very much so a thing from both economic and environmental perspectives. The point is that having low birth rates isn't really that bad and we don't need to have as much people as possible. That would only benefit a small minority of corporate elites which seek cheaper labor. Objectively, economic and environmental concerns are more important.

[Love Mountain]

The main argument for migration is that migration is the answer for the low birthrates problem, so if we want to keep our social benefits and pensions, we are going to need more workers, more people to pay taxes. But this will only work if these new workers are as productive, or will become as productive as the locals, or else they would just drain the system even more.

Actually no. The overarching argument for free movement of people is that it's more economically efficient. In fact, enhancing mobility of individuals can have positive effects on their well-being. I.e. poor polish workers moving to UK for higher wages, as well as college-educated and entrepreneurial polish-British moving to Poland because there is less competition there. It works both ways.

But sure, population demographics are part of it.

It doesnt matter how cheap they are willing to work if they are simply unemployable because of their low/no education, functional illiteracy etc. its clear now that many of them will never contribute and people have a problem with that.

You don't need a lot of employability to mop floors for pennis under the table. That's contributing to subsidizing the average citizen's expenses. I.e. cheap mexican workers helping make American food cheap.

It is very much so a thing from both economic and environmental perspectives. The point is that having low birth rates isn't really that bad and we don't need to have as much people as possible. That would only benefit a small minority of corporate elites which seek cheaper labor. Objectively, economic and environmental concerns are more important.

The largest polluters in the world aren't the countries with the most people. Look at emissions per capita, or even total emissions, the list doesn't go in the order of most populous to least. Nor is the issue food production. The issue is inequitable distribution of resources and inadequate systems of distribution. We're not even close to maximizing food production either. In fact, I'm not worried about the total number of people whatsoever. Global fertility rates are decreasing. This is not just the "rich" countries, most countries are experiencing a fertility decline. This is consistent with the demographic transition model, which I have cited many times. There is reason to believe that the planet population will "top out" at some point. Probably something like 20-30 billion people, and I am more than confident in our ability to feed that many people. The greatest threat to world nutrition isn't going to come from a lack of resources, it's going to come down to global leadership.

Plus, some of the biggest threats to the environment can be solved by adopting much more efficient technologies. Of course that would actually require collective action. The invisible ass isn't going to do it's thing without a kick in the balls from Big Brother.

[Mithradates]

Actually no. The overarching argument for free movement of people is that it's more economically efficient. In fact, enhancing mobility of individuals can have positive effects on their well-being. I.e. poor polish workers moving to UK for higher wages, as well as college-educated and entrepreneurial polish-British moving to Poland because there is less competition there. It works both ways.

But sure, population demographics are part of it.



You don't need a lot of employability to mop floors for pennis under the table. That's contributing to subsidizing the average citizen's expenses. I.e. cheap mexican workers helping make American food cheap.

In Europe, the main argument is the low birthrate problem.
There is a difference between the "within the EU" and "from outside of the EU" migrations, those polish workers are the example of migration within the EU, they actually have a higher employment rate than those born in Britain, also they pay substantially more in taxes to the government than they took in benefits or public services, thats what I call contributing to a new country, and thats what I expect from everyone who wants to migrate to Europe.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I see you've never been to Rome then.
England in real life isn't a Victorian costume drama.
See Benidorm if you're looking for an example of 21st century English colonialism.

The idea was to offer a politically neutral hypothetical. Perhaps I should still have included a trigger warning.

The main argument for migration is that migration is the answer for the low birthrates problem, so if we want to keep our social benefits and pensions, we are going to need more workers, more people to pay taxes.

Right, and this makes sense economically. Most if not all first generation immigrants are going to be poorer and less skilled than native populations. People who are successful and well educated are less likely to be incentivized to leave their homes and take risks in a completely new environment fraught with linguistic and cultural barriers, a lack of social connections, and people who view them as intrusive outsiders. Successful immigration policy, at least in the US has historically focused on providing economic opportunity, rather than trying to select a certain kind of immigrant.


The question is, if an increasing proportion of new workers are from outside the country because of these lower native birth rates and aging populations, what impact does that have on the social and cultural fabric of said country, and should that impact political decision making the way economics clearly does?

While it is no doubt an interesting topic, I don't think it's that relevant politically speaking. The recent European migrant influx is caused by the regular migration pathways being overloaded through circumstance (the war in Syria, the chaos in Libya, primarily).

Circumstances are unlikely to change course any time soon, which makes the topic politically relevant. Even if world peace materialized tomorrow morning and disincentivized the increased migration from specific regions, climate change will pick up where war left off. Together, the two trends will feed into each other.

Since it was a door that was never 'opened' to begin with, closing it will require a whole new level of border control and a systems of rounding up, detaining and expelling illegal immigrants to close what was never closed. So, by all means ask your question, but the actual political choice we have to make is not 'do we want immigration or not', but 'do we accept our society to be changed by immigration or by the draconic countermeasures it would take to stop it'.

Pardon my lack of specific knowledge on the subject. The EU is a fairly recent experiment. If Brussels is committed to its dream of a United States of Europe, border enforcement is key to that goal, whether those borders are national or continental. The US has one of the most open immigration systems in the world, and we still have caps on immigration by national origin and profession, waiting lists, background checks, etc. Millions of people are trying to get in, hundreds of thousands get work and student visas and green cards every year, thousands more come illegally. It’s hardly draconian, and I’d imagine the EU and European countries already have similar if not more strict policy frameworks in place.

[Love Mountain]

In Europe, the main argument is the low birthrate problem.

Yeah, I don't think it is. In fact, my discourse with Swedish and British academia always steered away from birth rates and towards liberal diversity values.

There is a difference between the "within the EU" and "from outside of the EU" migrations, those polish workers are the example of migration within the EU, they actually have a higher employment rate than those born in Britain, also they pay substantially
more in taxes to the government than they took in benefits or public services, thats what I call contributing to a new country, and thats what I expect from everyone who wants to migrate to Europe.

So how many are unemployed?

[Cope]

Yeah, I don't think it is. In fact, my discourse with Swedish and British academia always steered away from birth rates and towards liberal diversity values.

Utterly naive lol.

[Aexodus]

What are liberal diversity values?

[Axalon]

Alright, some comments here...

Overpopulation isn’t a thing. There is no clear limit on how many humans the planet can support.

I have too say that I find that statement incredibly stupid... There are no clear limits established to what will wreck the global (or regional, or even local) environment either. However, that don't mean that we should or can afford ourselves to disregard it as a possible problem and serious matter due to the fact that the limit is not precisely known. Or that we should be reckless about it, due to the fact that it is an unknown. Only a complete idiot would suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, mankind is hardly the apex of creation/evolution but rather the vermin of it. We are the only species on the planet who have developed and acquired the capacity to destroy the planet and everything on it, many times over, as it stands. This is something that needs incredible stupidity in order to happen in the first place - considering that it is unquestionably a matter of self-annihilation as well. The more humans spawn in one place - the worse all things will get there (humans included!). It has always been like that, it is still like that, and it is going to be like that for long time ahead as well...

The largest polluters in the world aren't the countries with the most people.

This is simply a lie, fiction or wishful thinking - take your pick folks... There are zero doubt that countries with (excessively) large populations and sufficient levels of technology and infrastructure will typically spew out more emissions then any nations with small populations, and/or little technological development. Basically, every time... China, USA and India - the three most over-populated nations on the planet are also the three most over-polluting nations of the planet - by far. These three alone are responsible for almost 50% of current global emissions - now what do these three have in common? Excessively large populations and sufficient levels of technology, for starters... Here is an understatement - there is an obvious correlation between pollution, human numbers and technology. That is just how things are. No fiction or wishful thinking will ever change that reality. For further reference, see for instance here or here...

There is reason to believe that the planet population will "top out" at some point. Probably something like 20-30 billion people, and I am more than confident in our ability to feed that many people. The greatest threat to world nutrition isn't going to come from a lack of resources, it's going to come down to global leadership.

Lets hope that them 20-30 billion people will never ever come to pass - it would probably be a fat global disaster if it did. We barely have 8 billion as it stands, and yet the quantity and levels of global junk, problems and misery are essentially unmatched in world history. One has to be brain-dead not to see that there is a connection there somehow. The more humans spawn, the more problems we get. 8 billion is bad enough as it is, and mankind don't need more humans, it needs less humans. That at 8 billion... If nothing else, simply because each share of the cake will typically be larger for everyone, or at least for more people - and that is usually to be regarded as a good thing, on general terms...


***

The main argument for migration is that migration is the answer for the low birthrates problem, so if we want to keep our social benefits and pensions, we are going to need more workers, more people to pay taxes. But this will only work if these new workers are as productive, or will become as productive as the locals, or else they would just drain the system even more.

It doesnt matter how cheap they are willing to work if they are simply unemployable because of their low/no education, functional illiteracy etc. its clear now that many of them will never contribute and people have a problem with that.

Exactly... Or to be even more precise...

"The main supposed excuse for migration is that migration is supposedly the answer for the low birthrates problem, so if we want to keep our social benefits and pensions, we are going to supposedly need more workers, more people to pay taxes. But this will only work if these new workers are as productive, or will become as productive as the locals, or else they would just drain the system even more."

As it stands, it has not worked for some 20 years, and counting... In contrast, it has rather convincingly failed, and failed, and failed again - consistently, and with little deviation. Basically, its a lie that has little to do with reality. The ultimate proof for that would be something like Iceland - little immigration, small population to begin with, and the Icelanders are doing just fine all the same, despite all that. If it had been otherwise, we would have obviously seen some different results - we have not. Its as simple as that really...

- A

[Vanoi]

Iceland?

https://grapevine.is/mag/articles/20...getting-older/

Iceland is going to face the same problem many Western nations will expierence or are expierencing. An aging populace with a low birth rate that can't keep up.

[Love Mountain]

Alright, some comments here...



I have too say that I find that statement incredibly stupid... There are no clear limits established to what will wreck the global (or regional, or even local) environment either. However, that don't mean that we should or can afford ourselves to disregard it as a possible problem and serious matter due to the fact that the limit is not precisely known. Or that we should be reckless about it, due to the fact that it is an unknown. Only a complete idiot would suggest otherwise.

The environment in United States and many other communities is cleaner today than it was 50 years ago. Population is certainly a factor in pollution and resource consumption, but that factor, population, can be far outweighed by others. Like technology and social organization. Much like it’s been done before...

I also don’t see what’s reckless about my attitude. On the contrary, limiting population growth in a country on the basis of phony worries of “overpopulation” isn’t just reckless or stupid, it’s downright nefarious or apathetic.

Furthermore, mankind is hardly the apex of creation/evolution but rather the vermin of it. We are the only species on the planet who have developed and acquired the capacity to destroy the planet and everything on it, many times over, as it stands. This is something that needs incredible stupidity in order to happen in the first place - considering that it is unquestionably a matter of self-annihilation as well. The more humans spawn in one place - the worse all things will get there (humans included!). It has always been like that, it is still like that, and it is going to be like that for long time ahead as well...

Uh huh. Humans being “vermin” aside, human capacity for destroying the planet isn’t tied to a particular number of humans living on the planet. We’ve been capable of destroying the planet since 1960s and the risk of is doing so decreased with the explosion of population growth, not the other way around. So no, the biggest threat to the planet isn’t population growth, it’s technology, which is also its savior.

This is simply a lie, fiction or wishful thinking - take your pick folks... There are zero doubt that countries with (excessively) large populations and sufficient levels of technology and infrastructure will typically spew out more emissions then any nations with small populations, and/or little technological development. Basically, every time... China, USA and India - the three most over-populated nations on the planet are also the three most over-polluting nations of the planet - by far. These three alone are responsible for almost 50% of current global emissions - now what do these three have in common? Excessively large populations and sufficient levels of technology, for starters... Here is an understatement - there is an obvious correlation between pollution, human numbers and technology. That is just how things are. No fiction or wishful thinking will ever change that reality. For further reference, see for instance here or here...

America is overpopulated?

Why does Russia pollute almost as much as India? Why does it pollute moe than Indonesia? Why does the EU pollute more than India? Why do European countries pollute more than African countries?


I realize your commentary was probably off the tip of your tongue, but I dont see how I “lied” or misinformed. A cursory glance at pollution rankings clearly tells us that pollution isn’t determined by population alone, but is far more affected by industrialization and environmental standards.

Lets hope that them 20-30 billion people will never ever come to pass - it would probably be a fat global disaster if it did. We barely have 8 billion as it stands, and yet the quantity and levels of global junk, problems and misery are essentially unmatched in world history. One has to be brain-dead not to see that there is a connection there somehow. The more humans spawn, the more problems we get. 8 billion is bad enough as it is, and mankind don't need more humans, it needs less humans. That at 8 billion... If nothing else, simply because each share of the cake will typically be larger for everyone, or at least for more people - and that is usually to be regarded as a good thing, on general terms...

Can’t really respond to commentary that’s based on “feelz”. The cake can be larger for everyone while polluting less. I thought we killed off Malthusians after the Green Revolution.


***

Exactly... Or to be even more precise...

"The main supposed excuse for migration is that migration is supposedly the answer for the low birthrates problem, so if we want to keep our social benefits and pensions, we are going to supposedly need more workers, more people to pay taxes. But this will only work if these new workers are as productive, or will become as productive as the locals, or else they would just drain the system even more."

As it stands, it has not worked for some 20 years, and counting... In contrast, it has rather convincingly failed, and failed, and failed again - consistently, and with little deviation. Basically, its a lie that has little to do with reality. The ultimate proof for that would be something like Iceland - little immigration, small population to begin with, and the Icelanders are doing just fine all the same, despite all that. If it had been otherwise, we would have obviously seen some different results - we have not. Its as simple as that really...

- A

These last few posts are so laughably naive.

[The spartan]

What are liberal diversity values?

Ever watch Star Trek?

[Mithradates]

The question is, if an increasing proportion of new workers are from outside the country because of these lower native birth rates and aging populations, what impact does that have on the social and cultural fabric of said country, and should that impact political decision making the way economics clearly does?

Depends on the country, for example in Poland they have more than a million ukrainian workers but their culture/language is similar so their presence wont change the country, it works out well.
In case of Sweden I think its safe to say that they made a mistake by letting in so many culturally very different people and Sweden has changed for the worse because of it.
So yes, I believe the possibility of cultural change caused by migration should definitely impact political decisions.

Yeah, I don't think it is. In fact, my discourse with Swedish and British academia always steered away from birth rates and towards liberal diversity values.

The main argument for the voters, for the general populace, is the low birthrate problem. People hear this in the radio/newspapers/TV everywhere, this is how the politicians argue for migration.
"liberal diversity values" yeah... lets just say your discourse with them may not reflect how the rest of society feels about those "values"

No country in Europe would dare to hold a referendum on immigration because the results would be catastrophic.

So how many are unemployed?

4%

As it stands, it has not worked for some 20 years, and counting... In contrast, it has rather convincingly failed, and failed, and failed again - consistently, and with little deviation. Basically, its a lie that has little to do with reality.

Just like socialism haha
yeah, I dont believe in it either but people still fall for it.

[Muizer]

Pardon my lack of specific knowledge on the subject. The EU is a fairly recent experiment. If Brussels is committed to its dream of a United States of Europe, border enforcement is key to that goal, whether those borders are national or continental. The US has one of the most open immigration systems in the world, and we still have caps on immigration by national origin and profession, waiting lists, background checks, etc. Millions of people are trying to get in, hundreds of thousands get work and student visas and green cards every year, thousands more come illegally. It’s hardly draconian, and I’d imagine the EU and European countries already have similar if not more strict policy frameworks in place.

The 'migrant crisis' means those systems become over-loaded. There's simply insufficient capacity to process these numbers of people according to existing frameworks. These frameworks also do not enforce solidarity between the EU's nations on how to deal with this, with the biggest burden for processing immigrants falling on the countries where people enter and the biggest burden for integration rests with the countries that are their ultimate destination. A third group are countries that are in the EU, but not in the migratory path, and want to have no part in any solution. There you have a clear conflicts of interest, which despite their shared social conservatism, are greatest between the various populist movements that have arisen across Europe.

For this discussion though, the point is that 'is immigration good or bad' may be an interesting question, but it's not something relevant to these existing frameworks. What point is there in discussing which and how many migrants are desirable whithout assessing the cost of implementation? Note in the rhetoric how often it is being suggested that 'the EU left the gates open'. That's just a way of suggesting the solution is just to stop being negligent: easy and cost free. It's just a lie.

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually no. The overarching argument for free movement of people is that it's more economically efficient. In fact, enhancing mobility of individuals can have positive effects on their well-being. I.e. poor polish workers moving to UK for higher wages, as well as college-educated and entrepreneurial polish-British moving to Poland because there is less competition there. It works both ways.

But sure, population demographics are part of it.



You don't need a lot of employability to mop floors for pennis under the table. That's contributing to subsidizing the average citizen's expenses. I.e. cheap mexican workers helping make American food cheap.



The largest polluters in the world aren't the countries with the most people. Look at emissions per capita, or even total emissions, the list doesn't go in the order of most populous to least. Nor is the issue food production. The issue is inequitable distribution of resources and inadequate systems of distribution. We're not even close to maximizing food production either. In fact, I'm not worried about the total number of people whatsoever. Global fertility rates are decreasing. This is not just the "rich" countries, most countries are experiencing a fertility decline. This is consistent with the demographic transition model, which I have cited many times. There is reason to believe that the planet population will "top out" at some point. Probably something like 20-30 billion people, and I am more than confident in our ability to feed that many people. The greatest threat to world nutrition isn't going to come from a lack of resources, it's going to come down to global leadership.

Plus, some of the biggest threats to the environment can be solved by adopting much more efficient technologies. Of course that would actually require collective action. The invisible ass isn't going to do it's thing without a kick in the balls from Big Brother.

I recall China and India dealing with exactly that - growing population.
Also what makes you think that Big Brother would do anything or even care about environmental issues? Western globalist baizou elites share "we don't care what happens after us as long as we have a luxurious life" attitude that fly on their private jets to "climate conventions" of sorts to make empty pledges and collude with private businesses and countries that damage the environment. Out government here in Canada is a perfect example.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The 'migrant crisis' means those systems become over-loaded. There's simply insufficient capacity to process these numbers of people according to existing frameworks. These frameworks also do not enforce solidarity between the EU's nations on how to deal with this, with the biggest burden for processing immigrants falling on the countries where people enter and the biggest burden for integration rests with the countries that are their ultimate destination. A third group are countries that are in the EU, but not in the migratory path, and want to have no part in any solution. There you have a clear conflicts of interest, which despite their shared social conservatism, are greatest between the various populist movements that have arisen across Europe.


For this discussion though, the point is that 'is immigration good or bad' may be an interesting question, but it's not something relevant to these existing frameworks. What point is there in discussing which and how many migrants are desirable whithout assessing the cost of implementation? Note in the rhetoric how often it is being suggested that 'the EU left the gates open'. That's just a way of suggesting the solution is just to stop being negligent: easy and cost free. It's just a lie.

The different challenges you mention between “gateway” countries and settlement countries is precisely what I’m talking about when I say that maintenance of territorial integrity is a key component of any attempt by the EU to successfully create a super-national structure. The Schengen Area is a great idea economically. Meanwhile, backlash against the EU has lately centered on immigration and economic concerns as a result. As I said, the US has structures in place to deal with millions of people trying to get in by land, air and sea. Is it any wonder the far right in Europe has had success mostly by promising national border security and immigration enforcement that the EU lacks by comparison? If anything seems less relevant at this juncture, it’s whether the “gates” to Europe or European countries need to be built vs restored.


I’m also curious as to why discussion of the degree to which these gates should be opened or closed has taken on a political context in Europe that is similarly moralistic to the one in the US. The proverbial anti-immigration platform in Europe is centered on border security and immigration enforcement as far as I know, and its adoption on the political right wing is more a consequence of the left and center’s relative aversion to it than anything else. I’m less clear on what that aversion is supposed to be based on.

Depends on the country, for example in Poland they have more than a million ukrainian workers but their culture/language is similar so their presence wont change the country, it works out well.
In case of Sweden I think its safe to say that they made a mistake by letting in so many culturally very different people and Sweden has changed for the worse because of it.
So yes, I believe the possibility of cultural change caused by migration should definitely impact political decisions.

It’s interesting that the country of origin would matter. Assimilation is probably easier between neighboring countries than more distant ones. Similar controversy over stuff like this is what I’m really trying to understand.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think it is safe to say that ability of big businesses to pay lower wages isn't good reason enough to mass-import millions of foreigners at the expense of the rest of population.

[The spartan]

I think it is safe to say that ability of big businesses to pay lower wages isn't good reason enough to mass-import millions of foreigners at the expense of the rest of population.

Except that's not how economies work. Again, I don't see how some of the lowest food and grocery prices we have ever seen isn't a benefit for the working class.

[Love Mountain]

Depends on the country, for example in Poland they have more than a million ukrainian workers but their culture/language is similar so their presence wont change the country, it works out well.
In case of Sweden I think its safe to say that they made a mistake by letting in so many culturally very different people and Sweden has changed for the worse because of it.
So yes, I believe the possibility of cultural change caused by migration should definitely impact political decisions.

That's about as insensitive as you can get about Polish and Ukranian cultures. Though yes, they are more similar than Poles and Swedes. Great.

The main argument for the voters, for the general populace, is the low birthrate problem. People hear this in the radio/newspapers/TV everywhere, this is how the politicians argue for migration.
"liberal diversity values" yeah... lets just say your discourse with them may not reflect how the rest of society feels about those "values"

No country in Europe would dare to hold a referendum on immigration because the results would be catastrophic.

The only one I see obsessing about birth rates are right-wing pundits who are concerned with being "replaced" or having share of minorities grown.

4%

I don't find that unacceptable.

Just like socialism haha
yeah, I dont believe in it either but people still fall for it.

Pretty sure you live in a Socialist country as do the countries that take in the most refugees.

I recall China and India dealing with exactly that - growing population.
Also what makes you think that Big Brother would do anything or even care about environmental issues? Western globalist baizou elites share "we don't care what happens after us as long as we have a luxurious life" attitude that fly on their private jets to "climate conventions" of sorts to make empty pledges and collude with private businesses and countries that damage the environment. Out government here in Canada is a perfect example.

China's demographics are set to decline and their one child policy has had disastrous effects. Population growth is one of the biggest sources of economic growth. I'm not sure who Big Brother is referring to. There are significant differences between forms of government, not to mention how they work in practice. Your government in Canada is a good example of a country that takes good care of its environment. You're confusing with not being exceptional, with being bad. Canada has a lot of places where they can do better, or a lot better, like every other country on Earth.