You're viewing a single thread.
If only there were people in this world who would want to come to our country . Heck, we could set up a system where employers can post jobs that they have trouble filling and we could match up people outside country who can fill that need. Then, if those people turn out to be decent and moral, we can let them stay in the country permanently.
It is too bad that everyone outside of the country is a foreigner who wants to steal jobs.
Immigrants help out in the short term, but then they and their children realize the same thing that people who already live here do: that wages are too low, and that rent and cost of living is too high to support children.
Plus, corporations can use those immigrants to bust unions and keep wages down and rent prices up. Supply and demand, because we live in an oligrarchic dystopia that doesn't have enough social safety nets to make sure that new workers coming in don't sabotage the ones currently working.
I'm the children of immigrants and hang around with the children of other immigrants, and we're not having children ourselves, or ware waiting until increasingly later ages (minimum 30) because of how expensive it is to live, even without children. It only takes 1 generation to realize that new immigrants will just get stuck in the same rut that non-immigrants are already in.
Adding more people just increases the power of corporations (the real government) to treat workers as disposable objects. It's probably why corporate run governments don't try to stabilize unstable regions, but rather prefer to exploit them until there's a mass migration. More people to use for dangerous labor = more expendables that no one can afford to care about.
The very same reason NATO destroyed Libya's infrastructure including water pipelines and plunged all their inhabitants back to the dark ages back in 2011, and now NATO countries are complaining they are getting full of immigrants. Maybe if they hadn't commited war crimes there they would have stayed there. That waterway increased the country's carrying capacity and destroying it could arguably be classified as genocide.
Yeah, globalization is a bit of a trap. The short term gains are enticing but we're just pushing off the inevitable.
Plus, on a global scale, it's just people moving around. In the short term it may benefit one country or another, but it's just shuffling what we already have.
Then you're just committing them to taking low paying jobs. Don't you see what is going on? This is what happened after the black plague that ended feudalism. We need to stick to our guns and make them increase wages. Your argument to have immigration solve the baby crisis is EXACTLY what business owners want. They WANT to keep wages low with an infinite influx of people from poor countries because these immigrants won't know they are getting fucked in the ass with low pay.
Immigrants deserve a living wage too.
"if those people turn out to be decent and moral"
Who decides? Yikes.
Rephrase it to: fit for our justice system
‘Not a rapist, tax cheat, or murderer’ seems like a pretty low bar that most could manage to get over.
Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history of the way that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they've actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.
I dunno, if they can be elected president, maybe many people in the US would be OK with it. /s
I've started rolling my eyes at "Who decides?" prompts. Whether it's judging people, interpreting laws, etc.
PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person's immigration application.
This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.
Thank you for responding. My "who decides" comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don't have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.
My response to that clarification is the same as my first response. The institutions we use to represent our wills are made up of people, just like us. In the end, it comes down to distrust of other people; be it those you see as “Government people” or “Other side people”.
If your problem with a new system is that you don’t trust the decisions made by other people, I think ultimately that is the real issue - and it can either be considered an issue with your own levels of trust, or issues with people’s trustworthiness. One way or another, society will rely on systems run by itself.
Yes, the real issue is trust. Agreed. The Supreme Court is my example of mistrust. I don't believe every member is upholding their oath to do their job in the interests of the many vs. who is paying them on the side.
I hope you read this as a continuing discussion, not an argument.
Satire? I can't tell.
I would have suggested eating babies , but it would be counterproductive.
Pretty sure, but you never can tell anymore.
I mean immigration exists in every western country, I dunno what you’re complaining about.