Apart from the healthcare field which is severely understaffed, I don't see why it is supported.

Jobs, like anything else, are a limited resource. If you import population, there's less jobs for everyone.

As for migrants, crime is caused by people being poor, uneducated, and disadvantaged. To import people who are from this background is to import crime. Instead of doing this which costs a lot of money, why not work on the people here and increase funding for education?

A country should have a duty to protect it's own citizens before those of other countries.

Where do YOU think it's citizens originally came from?

>>2
And how'd that work out for the Native Americans?

>>3
They came from Asia.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747.php

>>4
Ooooooooh. Sick burn.

Europe. We share a common culture with Europe...England, Ireland, France, Germany, Scotland, some Greek and Italian. Mainly England.

Much of our culture, values, government, religion, holidays we inherited from them. That is why we speak English, use miles, feet and pounds for distance and measurement.

There isn't much at all our free, secular society has in common with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia etc. That culture is vastly different and treats women badly, minorities and overall their value is Islam and Allah. The West in infidels and devils that live a whoring, godless life that they abhor and are in opposition to.

Hence, this nation needs to keep the numbers of Muslims very low. It would be great if they'd abandon Allah, Islam and just fall in love with the west but anyone with eyes and common sense knows that's not how it goes.

Checkmate!

I largely agree with you, but I would note one correction:

Jobs, per se, are not a limited resource. They are actually potentially infinite. In such that the greater the population, the greater the number of jobs in society. Take India, for instance. Its economy employ vast more sums of people that the United States economy. That is due to the fact that immigrants bring potential economic demand along with them. And increased demand means increased supply* hence more jobs.

(* Those concepts are actual one in the same, but that's a separate argument.)

But what is, by definition, limited are actual resources. Natural resources. And it's resources per capita that is what there is less for everyone with population increases. And that metric is the key metric in determining the standard-of-living in a society. (That and how efficiently an economy utilizes and produces said resources.) And taking India again. Due to overpopulation, it's impossible for them to ever enjoy a commensurate standard-of-living that the West enjoys. Simply due to less potential resources available per capita.

So if you increase immigration, you will decrease resources available per capita.

Now, yes, in the past, the population has grown tremendously and resources have been able to increase alongside that growth. Mainly due to the fact that efficiencies and other innovations producing and utilizing said resources outpaced population growth. So those productivities have more than offset the population gains therefore standard of living was able to increase despite population increases. *

(* I would be remiss to point out that even with those standard-of-living gain there are unseen potential further gains that were not realized due to the increased population. Meaning, we'd today potentially enjoy even a greater standard-of-living if the population had been held otherwise in check.)

But, alas, the past is not prelude - and continued efficiency and productivity gains are far from a certainty going forward. In fact, it's very unlikely to continue and eventually peak resource utilization will be breached. Then, at that point and time, there will be a direct negative correlation/causation feedback to standards-of-living in conjunction with increased populations. Meaning, things will get progressively worse.

That is why it would be prudent for society to be forward thinking and control population increases before that actually happens. Otherwise, once it happens, it's too late. It's not really possible to whittle down the population. I mean, who's going to volunteer to leave? And we become India. (Maybe not that bad, but definitely worse off than we otherwise could have been.)

By the bye, to the argument we were once immigrants therefore we need to continue to take immigrants indefinitely. Nonsense! Because that argument ignores the reality of peak resource utilization. You know, it ignores the argument that we could be full up now.

And by the bye bye, to the argument that only immigrants will do certain jobs. Or only immigrants are qualified for certain jobs. The former is not so. Wages will adjust higher to attract the necessary labor if there were no immigrants. And to the latter, that means our education system has failed the economy and that is where the fix needs to come from.

I would have thought you would have been in favour of immigration. Free movement of people and the state not interfering with labour supply etc...

Well, the economic/empirical realities of the finite nature of natural resources trumps the desire for open borders. Now if resource utilization could be depended on to grow commensurately alongside population increases, then open borders would not be a problem. But alas they cannot be so depended on.

Basically, nature sux and we have to deal with it. And the only way I know how to deal with it, is to support limiting population increases.

I think a lot of libertarians would fail to agree with you on that one

The US and Canada have vast natural resources - they can't be anywhere near their limit of production/consumption.

Well, it's vital to limit population increases well before you reach peak resource utilization. Because you cannot easily undue population increases after the fact.

Also, it's not just peak resource utilization that is key. It's also peak efficient resource utilization that determines standards-of-living. For instance, we obviously make use of the best lands to grow crops currently, the cheapest oil to drill, etc. etc. If population increases force us to delve deeper, to use less efficient land and/or drill deeper that leads to increased costs which lessens the standards-of-living.

But as far as your point that we still possess vast unused resources, that's not true for every resource. Think about California and the recent water crisis.

Hasn't technology always adapted to those population increases though? You could argue that worldwide standards of living have increased despite a massive rise in population.

I don't know the figures, but I assume the US has seen consistent population increases. Would you consider your standard of living better than 50 or 100 years ago?

Not that I disagree with anything you've said. I believe England is over populated and that has had a negative effect on standard of living. Perhaps a slightly different angle from yours, but until there is greater economic parity between countries I don't think open borders can work. The EU demonstrates that rather nicely I believe.

Yes. In the past productivity increases and innovation gains have more than offset the growing population. That's why standards-of-living have been able to increase despite population increases.

But the past is not prelude and eventually it's likely, even predictable, that productivity will not continue at the same rapid pace going forward. It too may reach its limit. Or further gains might constitute diminishing returns. I mean, there is only so much crop yield you can get out of an acre of land, for example. And if you look back in time, history is riddled with long periods of stagnation.

Unconditional immigration? No - that's why the U.S. has at least three agencies dedicated to that issue. (USCIS, ICE, and CBP)

However, the idea is similar to importing/exporting goods. Certain areas have different qualities that are useful, trading allows everyone involved to acquire what they cannot create domestically. Same goes for people. A homogenous culture/education can be enriched by different perspectives and ideas. Just because something has always been done this way doesn't mean that's the optimal way.

Immigrants can spark new jobs as well. Someone from Country A in Country B can open a new restaurant, for example, creating jobs and offering new products to the local market.

If a person has no marks against him/her and can benefit the host nation, why not?

As I understand it, one doesn't want 100% employment anyways, as that means there's no available resources to call upon to create new businesses, there's no one to hire. An expanding workforce helps with that.

How many businesses are those Syrian refugees gonna open?

As a legal immigrant who is now a citizen, I disagree with you. In fact, by one measure, I'm a more desirable citizen than you. I am here by choice. With you, it was an accident of birth.

Hitler was from Austria.......

"I'm a more desirable citizen than you. I am here by choice. With you, it was an accident of birth."

How's that even related to each other, how your own, personal motivations, whatever they are, and how you calling somebody that you know nothing about, an accident of birth, make you a more desirable citizen.

You're not to be trusted, your choices are not to be trusted, many others like you have made the same choice until they left for Syria to join ISIS. Are they too more desirable citizens?

What's wrong with you?

Someone who chooses to come to the USA (legally) and go through the process of becoming a citizen probably has a better perspective on the differences between the USA and whatever country they came from. They probably cherish their citizenship more than those who didn't have to work for it and by virtue of the test they had to take, probably know more about how the government works than those who are born here. It's rare that something that's given to you is valued as much as something you have to work for.

Do you imagine that if you grew up in the States and then moved to China as an adult that you'd know more about China than the Chinese?

It is true that being an immigrant gives you a different perspective, which means you probably never fully develop an American mindset.

If people genuinely had to work hard for American citizenship, then they would value it more, but getting a high school diploma is more taxing than the citizenship process.

Do you imagine that if you grew up in the States and then moved to China as an adult that you'd know more about China than the Chinese?

I was being critical of native born Americans, who seem supremely ignorant of their own country and take for granted things that legal immigrants do not. I imagine I'd find the average Chinese knows their own country better than the average native born American knows the USA.

Aren't you aware of the level of censorship in China?

Ironically, it's previous waves of legal immigrants to the United States that have muddied the waters about what the United States is all about. Perhaps you're one of those who thinks the Statue of Liberty was supposed to be called the Statue of Immigration?

Do you know someone who works for an insurance agency?

for two reasons

1. It makes them feel as if they care about others

2.(the more important reason) They like lower wages. There are plenty of reasons why people might like lower wages. It may mean that they can get their lawn mowed for a better price. It might mean lower prices at the store. It might mean higher profits or at the very least make it easier to find people willing to work for the wage you can AFFORD to pay. In my case(and yours if I remember correctly) it might mean more people needing to rent a place to live(or buy)

What drives me nuts about this debate is how people make it all about race. If it were an influx of Russians, French, Greek, French Canadian, Japanese, Danish, Spanish.....people would be just as frustrated. People who have problems with immigration don't care if they are brown, black or yellow or white.

I do think language does play a part. In some communities people need to learn spanish for entry level work and because of the number of immigrants from Mexico we are seeing more issues related to the language barrier and make it easier for them to at the very least keep English as their 2nd language(if they choose to learn it at all). We have capitalism to blame for that.(a lot of spanish speaking people leads to companies hiring folks to cater to those clients as well as us having spanish language radio and TV)

but people would have the same frustrations if it were Russian or French of German....

if we saw in influx of white collar workers from Canada people might not complain as much, in part because it wouldn't be as easy to distinguish who is the immigrant and who isn't. Because of that and because the culture in most places in the US isn't that different from Canada would make it less of a problem in certain ways but even at that if it caused wages to be lower in certain professions or made it more difficult to get work it would be a major issue

There isn't much at all our free, secular society has in common with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia etc. That culture is vastly different and treats women badly, minorities and overall their value is Islam and Allah. The West in infidels and devils that live a whoring, godless life that they abhor and are in opposition to.

Hence, this nation needs to keep the numbers of Muslims very low. It would be great if they'd abandon Allah, Islam and just fall in love with the west but anyone with eyes and common sense knows that's not how it goes.

Checkmate!

A recent study (can't be arsed to look for the link now) showed that immigrants to the UK over the last 10 years contributed more to the economy than they took out, and there are still about 700,000 unfilled vacancies.

Whatever you think about immigrants though, I know you will agree that refugees are another matter.

Anyone who goes through the difficult legal immigration process is a net plus to the country.

contributed more to the economy than they took out

ENGLAND IS IN DEBT! Even the natives take out more than they put in. Scientists are worse liars than journalists.

Well, I don't want my country to degenerate into a xenophobic, inbred shithole like Japan.

It makes zero sense. Illegal immigration makes even less.

By the same token you could argue against the current birth rate.