figmentPez
Staff member
I give up. I am completely baffled at how getting rid of people that the economy relies on somehow puts more money into the system.
Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Why, it's because of the perception that these so-called "people" supposedly drain more out of the system than they put in. When you add up the total cost of finding them, incarcerating them, lawyering them, deporting them, welfaring up all their anchor babies and relatives, plus all the wages they divert from actual Americans and the costs related to all the drug dealin' and murderin' that they sneak in here to do...why, it's a wonder there's any money left over to fill the potholes after it rains! Think of the money we would save if we didn't have to deal with all that mess!
Plus they're brown.
and because I apparently have to just in case... [/s]
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Depends on if you want america's hypothetical nordic style socialism to not immediately collapse under its own weight or not. That *is* the context of this discussion after all.
Again, like Ash, you both are trying to apply the current state under *capitalism* to how things run under a centrally planned socialist economy. Norway's leaders literally, out loud, on public record, justify their closed-door immigration policies by saying "we won't have jobs for unskilled labor."
So literally no reason why the US would suddenly change the system that we have right now and allow more people in than we are currently doing.
GasBandit
Staff member
Not sure where you're going with this. I was saying all along it'd be less. Perhaps even requiring emigration as opposed to immigration.
Canada is special, eh?
I still don't follow why we're jumping from relative to absolute numbers there. You could want a reduction in immigration, but I'm sure you could make better arguments (maybe relating to the cost to society per immigrant/dependent?) and, in any case, none of it justifies switching from talking about 0.0..X% of the population to X-thousand "because Norway".
Would legal immigrants to the U.S. become charges, on average, if their demographic didn't change from what it is now but safety nets increased? I don't have hard numbers in front of me, but I don't see why that'd be. Why not keep all the existing regulations already in place? I'm not allowed practically any public benefit (I think unemployment insurance excepted) until I have 40 quarters in Social Security (i.e. 10 years of paid work), else I risk being labelled a public charge, not to mention my ex-wife is legally bound to repay the state for any benefits I draw. I'm not sure what the other ways out of this are, but if this is how most/all family reunification immigration works in the U.S., it seems guaranteed that they're net contributors (either individually or as an aggregate family unit). I'd apply a similar argument to all employment-based visas, not to mention all the non-resident ones (tourist, business, education, ...).
It's worth mentioning here (as an example) that Norway's socialized healthcare scheme seems to be aimed at residents (who pay deductibles). Non-residents are expected to either get private health insurance or sign up for the healthcare scheme, with acceptance depending on existing treaties between their origin country and Norway.
So's Catalonia, I guess, both my preferred parties fit the bill ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not familiar with Canada's parties and their policies, I'm mostly talking about pro-labor/pro-nanny politicians being more skeptic of allowing increases in the labor pool (e.g. increasing job visa allotments) in a market economy. Not universal, hence the usually, but enough to have perceived it.
The pro nanny parties are definitely our leftist politicians. Well, if by pro-nanny you mean the ones wanting the more socialist policies. The universal healthcare, subsidized education, etc. And these are the parties that have been encouraging increased immigration and liberally accepting refugees (including the greater influx from the Syria crisis)
Our right wing politicians exercise their nanny-tendencies by legislating morals.
Impression I've gotten is that the left is for humanitarian immigration, while the right is split between capital wanting more exploitable workers and the masses wanting a scapegoat, but it's sounding like I may have been looking at outdated or hyper-local examples and gotten lost.
The nanny urge definitely transcends left and right
"No, YOU'RE a collusion!!!"
Your argument was that if we were to put in the kind of system Norway has we would also have a huge spike in immigration. Which makes no sense because the amount of immigrants allowed in has nothing to do with the amount of people that apply since the maximum amount of visas is decided based on certain criteria.
When I pointed that out you said that's the way it works now but under a centrally planned socialist economy (which Norway isn't) with no real attempt to justify why even a centralized economy would seek to bring in an overwhelming surge of immigrants.
Please click the video.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, it was that we would have to curtail existing immigration. Perhaps stop it. Even go the other way.
You're conflating points now. The centralized socialist economy point was for the claim that "immigrants start all the businesses." If immigrants magically made jobs, Norway wouldn't be so aggressive in barring immigration.
Look, you can just keep on being (deliberately?) obtuse, but I'm done ruining the "funny pictures" thread for everybody, and I hope you are too.
Yes it's "magic" that immigrants form 25% of new businesses. If you want to drop it don't lie about who is being deliberately obtuse. Maybe look up some facts?
figmentPez
Staff member
figmentPez
Staff member
So much build up to that joke for so little pay off. I want my 10 seconds back.
GasBandit
Staff member
BETTER NATE THAN LEVER
I've got a joke about a gorilla you're not supposed to touch that you're gonna love...
B
BErt
Better watch your ass, Pastor Jim!
