I know this could be controversial, but in some countries immigration is quite a problem, there isn’t enough work for everyone and the crime just gets higher an higher plus they do it illegally, not quite the same even though I get y’all sentiment
I always hated the legal argument. No landmass was ever historically conquered /populated / taken over / whatever through “legal immigration” except by indigenous peoples of those lands.
These immigrants are trying to find better lives for themselves and their families and it’s horrible that people refuse to show any empathy for their struggles or dreams
I’m just not going to talk to someone who thinks he’s morally superior just because he will never admit he’s wrong even if he is plus you don’t know our situation
Immigrants induce demand for goods and services, thus jobs
Except when the highest demand is for land. So they end up illegally occupying land, often government-maintained land that it usually allocates to agricultural projects.
Perhaps it shouldn’t be illegal
If you’re a third world country with a dense population and the population overflow is coming from an even more densely populated country that seems to have no motive to control it, then it damn right should be illegal. I’m not sacrificing my demographic if you can’t take any right steps to regulate yours.
First of all, migrants not only generate jobs, but they also work the jobs that most native people don’t want. Most farms and construction works nowadays are occupied by inmigrants, because they don’t steal your job, they take the ones that you didn’t like.
Second of all, most countries are not populated to their fullest. There’s a lot of space, both horizontal and vertical, and Europe can perfectly house the inmigrants that it gets. And if space is such a big problem, then you should look at why we are letting entities like banks and “governments” have lots (thousands) of empty houses.
Not well-versed about the situation in the West. Read my comment again, especially the last part; I’m talking about densely populated third-world countries like mine.
It’s not controversial, it’s just wrong. Immigration never takes jobs away, it always allows to create more jobs by inflating the local economy. Miami absorbed Cuban migrants after Mariel, and went richer. It has been widely studied now: immigrants took first low paying jobs that were understaffed, it injected more money in the local economy and it allowed spouses who were not working because they were doing the low paying jobs for free (nannying for instance) to get back to high paying jobs, it injects more money…
Same in Germany with Syrian intake
It isn’t always true tho it is true for developed countries with low birth rates. For many developing countries immigrants taking low level jobs is a negative because there isn’t enough high level jobs. And I am saying this as someone who is supportive of immigration
And the USA is in that group now. We have about 1.78 births per women in the us and that number is declining. You need a birth rate of over 2 per women in order to sustain a population without immigration. If a place does not sustain their population their economy cannot grow and if your birth rate is lower than 2 immigration is the only viable option to sustain it. Less people = less specialized jobs = less overall jobs = worse economy.
@git@drolex that seems to assume that individuals born in a particular geographic region should have better access to employment than those born somewhere else. Am I understanding you correctly?
It doesn’t always work out man, I live it in first person, they don’t integrate don’t work because we need every last job we have and distrust public peace
I know this could be controversial, but in some countries immigration is quite a problem, there isn’t enough work for everyone and the crime just gets higher an higher plus they do it illegally, not quite the same even though I get y’all sentiment
Immigrants induce demand for goods and services just like anyone else, thus the jobs to render those goods and services.
Technically depends on the country but this is usually false.
Law is not morality. Perhaps it shouldn’t be illegal.
I always hated the legal argument. No landmass was ever historically conquered /populated / taken over / whatever through “legal immigration” except by indigenous peoples of those lands. These immigrants are trying to find better lives for themselves and their families and it’s horrible that people refuse to show any empathy for their struggles or dreams
I’m just not going to talk to someone who thinks he’s morally superior just because he will never admit he’s wrong even if he is plus you don’t know our situation
Except when the highest demand is for land. So they end up illegally occupying land, often government-maintained land that it usually allocates to agricultural projects.
If you’re a third world country with a dense population and the population overflow is coming from an even more densely populated country that seems to have no motive to control it, then it damn right should be illegal. I’m not sacrificing my demographic if you can’t take any right steps to regulate yours.
First of all, migrants not only generate jobs, but they also work the jobs that most native people don’t want. Most farms and construction works nowadays are occupied by inmigrants, because they don’t steal your job, they take the ones that you didn’t like.
Second of all, most countries are not populated to their fullest. There’s a lot of space, both horizontal and vertical, and Europe can perfectly house the inmigrants that it gets. And if space is such a big problem, then you should look at why we are letting entities like banks and “governments” have lots (thousands) of empty houses.
Not well-versed about the situation in the West. Read my comment again, especially the last part; I’m talking about densely populated third-world countries like mine.
It’s not controversial, it’s just wrong. Immigration never takes jobs away, it always allows to create more jobs by inflating the local economy. Miami absorbed Cuban migrants after Mariel, and went richer. It has been widely studied now: immigrants took first low paying jobs that were understaffed, it injected more money in the local economy and it allowed spouses who were not working because they were doing the low paying jobs for free (nannying for instance) to get back to high paying jobs, it injects more money… Same in Germany with Syrian intake
It isn’t always true tho it is true for developed countries with low birth rates. For many developing countries immigrants taking low level jobs is a negative because there isn’t enough high level jobs. And I am saying this as someone who is supportive of immigration
And the USA is in that group now. We have about 1.78 births per women in the us and that number is declining. You need a birth rate of over 2 per women in order to sustain a population without immigration. If a place does not sustain their population their economy cannot grow and if your birth rate is lower than 2 immigration is the only viable option to sustain it. Less people = less specialized jobs = less overall jobs = worse economy.
Any citations of this effect? (not calling you a liar, your argument passes the logical sniff test, just looking for actual data if you know of any)
@git @drolex that seems to assume that individuals born in a particular geographic region should have better access to employment than those born somewhere else. Am I understanding you correctly?
It doesn’t always work out man, I live it in first person, they don’t integrate don’t work because we need every last job we have and distrust public peace