The goal of immigration is to have people move to a better place then they were in. It has nothing to do with poverty other than a large amount of people emigrate because of poverty. They come to America because of the opportunity to not be in poverty anymore.
Immigration and poverty are two separate issues that you are trying to smash into one issue, in order to make one seem like it’s bad or worse than it is.
It would be more beneficial for them to change where they are at. We have a way to do this through foreign aid. For instance, a medical doctor can immigrate to the US, but their home country needs doctors too. Yet, we wait until there is desperate need and then step in.
This only works when aid is allowed to be delivered. Just look at what isreal is doing to Palestinians. They are denying international aid and killing international aid workers.
And in many cases people immigrate to the US to learn how to be a doctor, for example, then go back to their home country to practice and teach there. Not all immigration is permanent too.
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn’t about that.
Oh, it’s NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That’s definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don’t have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you’re a California taxpayer, you’re paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is ‘tricking’ people into having empathy to cause ‘damage’ to social services.
The statement that most people that apply for immigration are the more active and engaged in their own countries. So, if you find that to be true, it may also be true that it’s in everyone’s best interest if they remain in their countries to change them. The idea is that the US should encourage this.
Emigration can alleviate unemployment in origin countries by reducing the labor pool and decreasing competition for scarce jobs. Between 2000 and 2007, unemployment rates in Central and Eastern Europe dropped by as much as 50 percent, in part because of increasing migrant outflows from these countries.
(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)
Successful emigration of skilled workers can sometimes encourage more investment in education, potentially raising a country’s overall skill level. Migration opportunities associated with nursing led to the development of a private education system in the Philippines that provides low-income women with career opportunities. Large numbers of nurses remain in country after completing their education, and as a result, the Philippines has more trained nurses per capita than some wealthier countries, such as Greece and Malaysia.
The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just… not backed up by evidence.
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries? Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too? And when they are needed and not there, will we send some?
So, you are going to pigeon hole data because you have no data to refute it. Plus,one wonders if you understand the data in the first place.
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn’t about that. It makes two points.
If the goal of immigration is to affect world poverty it will fail due to the scope of the problem.
In order to fight world poverty, attack it where it’s at.
Both of these data sets are Not contradictory
The goal of immigration is to have people move to a better place then they were in. It has nothing to do with poverty other than a large amount of people emigrate because of poverty. They come to America because of the opportunity to not be in poverty anymore.
Immigration and poverty are two separate issues that you are trying to smash into one issue, in order to make one seem like it’s bad or worse than it is.
It would be more beneficial for them to change where they are at. We have a way to do this through foreign aid. For instance, a medical doctor can immigrate to the US, but their home country needs doctors too. Yet, we wait until there is desperate need and then step in.
This only works when aid is allowed to be delivered. Just look at what isreal is doing to Palestinians. They are denying international aid and killing international aid workers. And in many cases people immigrate to the US to learn how to be a doctor, for example, then go back to their home country to practice and teach there. Not all immigration is permanent too.
Oh, it’s NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That’s definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.
Are you even trying?
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don’t have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you’re a California taxpayer, you’re paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
So now you are admitting that the video discusses American immigration and economics, great. Glad we could clear up that much. Perhaps the next step should be “How many of those people want to move to the US?” or “What are the effects of emigration on the countries who they are emigrating from?”
You’re taking an issue mentioned in passing as the total embodiment. I’m sure that you think you won something.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is ‘tricking’ people into having empathy to cause ‘damage’ to social services.
The statement that most people that apply for immigration are the more active and engaged in their own countries. So, if you find that to be true, it may also be true that it’s in everyone’s best interest if they remain in their countries to change them. The idea is that the US should encourage this.
As the link I posted notes:
(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)
The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just… not backed up by evidence.
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries? Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too? And when they are needed and not there, will we send some?