Tyndmyr wrote:Probably not a coincidence that every rich and well off country develops fairly strict immigration limitations.
This line of argument assumes that your goal is to increase the power and wealth of the United States and its citizens specifically, rather than to, say, achieve the maximum possible reduction in the number of people living in poverty, regardless of what nationality those people happen to hold.
That's a pretty bloody big assumption, and one that I suspect isn't being made by everyone in this thread, hence the arguing at cross-purposes.
In practice, most countries seem to optimize for their national interest first. Oh, sure, they might also prioritize the well being of other citizens, but it's generally not entirely equal.
Thesh wrote:So, again, large corporations are inefficient, therefore we should ban immigrants? Seriously, the only reason any company in America sponsors immigrants is because it's cheaper than the American labor they would otherwise have to pay. If it wasn't immigrants, it would be college graduates, or code monkeys fresh out of vocational school. You just find foreigners to be a convenient target to blame your problems on.
Immigration isn't super important to corporations. They're over-represented in areas such as farming, construction and service industries where they can work for tiny firms, avoid documentation and other difficulties. Large corporations tend to have more paperwork and documentation, and are less likely to skip I-9 forms or the like. Immigrants, legal or not, are far less likely to be in a professional environment overall. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf
H1-Bs are a thing, but they're a non-immigration visa. Sure, it still results in someone being allowed here, but it's not super related to the current border troubles. It's a parallel problem. It's also a highly regional problem. It might matter to the silicon valley, etc, but it's just not an issue for much of America. Coal mining jobs or farming jobs are not being taken by this program. So, it sort of makes sense that Trump cares a good deal less about this. The coal miners and farmers are folks he got backing from. Silicon valley, not so much.
The fundamental problem is related to the social safety net. If folks are allowed in freely, folks who need assistance are likely to make up a disproportionate amount. This is costly. So, our, and most other immigration systems are arranged to select the least costly/most beneficial immigrants. This is also true of countries such as Canada, who are perhaps less Trump-like in general.
Now, one potential solution that *would* allow fairly open immigration is to axe the safety net in general. Not really a lot of direct costs, then, and incentives are pretty well aligned. You can have either an expansive safety net and strict immigration, or very little safety net and open immigration, and either system ought to work out. Democrats and republicans have both picked an odd pair of the above, though.
Your real anecdotal example is actually very hard to prove. Wages have been flat in the US for decades, and nobody knows why. Smart money* is on the decline of unions, and the rising power of psuedomonopolistic companies seeking rents. Aka, they are using their power to slow wage growth.
*They aren't confident either. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... arket.html
There's tons of links out there, but nobody can prove it.
It's a common complaint among the slashdot crowd. Doesn't bother me so much, because, hey, libertarian. Competition is also for markets that I happen to be in, such as the tech industry. In fairness, I may be less worried because I'm confident that the quality of education provided to Indian, etc coders is vastly inferior to my own, so despite them being priced lower, it's not a huge threat.
sardia wrote:Trpmb6 and tyndmyr are misinformed about the imaginary immigration corner they are backed into. They don't want immigrants, and are trying to square that with being nonbad people.
Nah, I don't have anything against immigration. At most, illegal immigration is a problem. Given my preference, significantly improving the legal system would, I think, greatly reduce the weight of the illegal problem. Unfortunately, that's not in the cards for any party.
My arguing here is mostly to point out the level of partisanship and hyperbole from the left on this particular issue.