A Common Sense Approach to Middle East Refugees.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Well I just employed two refugees this week.

Suck on that Brownback

[MoValley John]

Alright, I've gone over everything now :D This is just for ShockTalk, so everyone else feel free to ignore the wall of text.

I reject Roy Beck's thesis: the idea that immigration is about humanitarianism. His fundamental argument is that immigration is a means of humanitarian aid to the world -- and yes, if you're viewing it from that perspective, then he's correct. Our immigration policies do not make other countries better. They make us better.

Look at immigration from India. Do I need to give numbers for the plethora of Indian immigrants filling STEM positions in the United States? Here's one fun number: the median annual income of US households headed by an Indian immigrant is $103,000, twice the US median. Does that immigration make India better? Unquestionably not -- there is clearly, without question, a brain drain from India into the United States, and India is losing brilliant doctors, engineers, and leaders who could be used to make India a far greater, more prosperous, safer, and stronger nation. Not every single immigrant from India is making the United States a better place, but on average, there is no question that the United States is far better off from the addition of large numbers of Indian immigrants.

The argument made against immigration is always the idea that "we're not getting the best and brightest." That is both true and untrue -- many of the illegal immigrants to the United States from Mexico and other countries are poor and uneducated. Are we really at the point that we don't believe uneducated immigrants make the United States better, though? How many of our families came to the United States because they were educated, wealthy members of their home countries and just decided to leave out of boredom? My great-great-grandparents came to the United States as uneducated, poor German farmers, far, far from the "best of the best" from their home countries. I would wager that 90%+ of people on this forum had their families come to this country under similar circumstances. If immigrants who are not the best and brightest of their home countries make our country worse, then how did the United States get to this point in the first place? The idea that poor, uneducated immigrants are bad for our future completely, absolutely rejects the entire history of the United States, which has become the greatest country on earth on the back of uneducated, poor immigrants.

His other thesis, from the video you posted, is that US population growth is alarming and dangerous. I reject this as well.

Population growth isn't just normal, economically it's actually necessary, in much the same way that inflation is necessary -- we worry about inflation, but deflation would be profoundly damaging to our economy. Stagnating population growth is actually very, very bad. Here's one simple explanation of why: look at our social security system, where current workers support retired workers with their incomes. The reason social security is in trouble is because life expectancy and birthrates are increasing the numbers earning social security relative to the numbers supporting social security with their incomes.

As a starker example of the impact population growth has on economic growth, look at Japan. Do you remember when people were throwing a fit about how Japan was going to overcome us and take over the world? For a while there in the 80s Japan was the villain in tons of Box Office movies -- check out Robocop again ;) Their economic growth is over essentially, and has been since the early 90s, in large part due to the fact that they just stopped having children. Their birth rate is below the replacement rate, people are living longer and longer, and they've become an elderly civilization. Not a winning combination. Similar issues are afflicting Europe now, and are in part why Europe is having economic problems long-term, and in fact this is why China has finally stepped away from their One Child Policy -- not because they had a change of heart on the morality of the decision, but because China was reaching a breaking point where their population would begin declining by 2040-50, leaving them with an elderly civilization similar to Japan's, with the accompanying economic stagnation.

One of the reasons that immigration growth is going to become such an important part of the US' population growth isn't just because of the number of immigrants we're letting in -- it's because non-immigrants aren't having children. Without immigration, our own fertility rate has dropped below the replacement rate, meaning that if you stop immigration, as you suggested, our population is actually shrinking. And, again, this means we become Japan. Our fertility rate is on a clear downward trend.

There's a lot of fear-mongering about how the United States is going to become predominantly Hispanic, but this is always couched in terms of immigration being to blame. It's not, at least not completely. It's because white Americans are not having children! White Americans are to blame for this, not immigration. And this is not going to change -- the younger generation is not going to suddenly go back to embracing child-bearing any time soon, and possibly not ever. When people want to get into this "we're going to be the minority!" mindset, the reason is because "we" have stopped breeding. And unless "we" are going to go back to embracing breeding, either "we" will become the minority, or "we" will watch our country become Japan, and stagnate for decades, if we're lucky.

Immigration isn't the threat to American culture -- our increasing xenophobic antagonism of immigration, and our declining birthrate, is. If you're one that defines American culture as "white," then yes, be afraid. If you're one that defines American culture by our shared morals, our shared work ethic, and so on, then no, the threat would come from rejecting the immigrants that are already here and not embracing them, because when you reject immigrants and refuse to absorb them into the overall culture, you end up with the way France is now: "French" culture, and a disaffected, angry, violent minority population that knows they can never "become French," and thus reject all aspects of French culture, including Western morality.

Beck makes an interesting point about how much larger our population is today over the ~80 million when Roosevelt fought to protect lands. What he does not acknowledge is the dramatic influence of the population growth following that point, which he is clearly criticizing, on the massive economic gains the United States had following it. When Roosevelt went to protect those lands, the US was a relatively minor world power. That population growth (both through immigration and through strong domestic fertility) had a HUGE influence on the economic growth that drove the US to being the premier world economy.

We have two solutions for the economic disaster a fertility rate below the replacement rate represents: either get current American citizens ****ing more, or work harder to indoctrinate immigrants into American culture regardless of race or country of origin.

This is already long. If I was going to continue, I would make a case for worldwide brain-drain due to the brilliance of American universities, which ends up with the world sending their best and brightest to go to school in the US, and many of those students choosing to stay here. I'd also make a case that the very large percentage of world leaders educated in America imparts American culture and values on other countries far better than our military has ever been able to. Soft power's a hell of a strength to have.

Long term there will have to be a solution to the major reliance of capitalism on population growth, and I suspect it'll be through a fundamental change brought on by technology -- but we aren't there yet, and we might not be in our lifetime. The real concerning trend is that there is an undeniable correlation between economic prosperity and declining fertility rates, which means that, eventually, worldwide economic prosperity is going to peak and decline, unless we can fundamentally change the game between the world fertility rate falls under the replacement rate.

None of that is to say that I completely reject any idea at evaluating what is an appropriate level of immigration for the US. That's not my point at all -- that's a debate definitely worth having, and continued illegal immigration has to be stopped, because it limits our ability to evaluate and control that appropriate level. My response is to your statement that "I am opposed to immigration at this time." All evidence shows that halting immigration would severely damage the US economy.

Some interesting reading, although I can suggest quite a bit more research as evidence:

http://news.usc.edu/45490/shrinking-...ges-for-state/

Too freaking long. I probably agree with most. Maybe I'm off base, I quit reading when my ADD kicked in. The biggest problem is that we, as a society, are too polarized on the issue. I agree we need immigration, I agree we need a modest population growth. I agree that immigration brings both the greatest and the least to our shores.

At the same time, we need to control our borders. We need to be careful. While we need to not hate and stereotype people, we need to weigh threat levels and when there are refugees that are laced with radicals and terrorists, I'm sorry, we can't let them in. While not an isolationist, I don't believe we are capable of solving all of the world's problems.

[Rlh04d]

send illegals back to Central America.

I didn't respond to this yet, but I'll be quicker:

I fully support ending illegal immigration. I do not support sending illegal immigrants back, though, because of the impact to our economy.

Deporting all current illegal immigrants, just from the standpoint of physically removing them, would cost an estimated $93,993,400,000, per the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's claim that it would cost an estimated $8,318 per person to deport the current 11.3 million undocumented workers..

From a study written by Hinojosa-Ojeda, a UCLA professor (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/1/cj32n1-12.pdf#reform):

Mass deportation reduces U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent annually. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation. (2) Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers, but would decline for higherskilled natives, and would lead to widespread job loss. California would lose 3.6 million jobs under this scenario and its economy would shrink $302 billion. Los Angeles County would suffer 1.3 million job losses at a cost of $106 billion to the county economy. In Arizona, mass deportation would amount to 581,000 lost jobs and a $48.8 billion contraction of the state economy

There is very, very little doubt in economic sectors that mass-deportation would be very damaging to the overall US economy. And that is strictly in regards to deportation, not factoring in the gains to the US economy from amnesty programs, particularly in increased tax revenue.

Which, again, doesn't mean illegal immigration doesn't have to be stopped. It absolutely does. But economically, mass-deportation would be very bad. It also doesn't get into the fact that US-Mexico immigration levels have now reversed, and we are now operating at a net-deficit to Mexico since 2009.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

[Rlh04d]

Too freaking long. I probably agree with most. Maybe I'm off base, I quit reading when my ADD kicked in. The biggest problem is that we, as a society, are too polarized on the issue. I agree we need immigration, I agree we need a modest population growth. I agree that immigration brings both the greatest and the least to our shores.

At the same time, we need to control our borders. We need to be careful. While we need to not hate and stereotype people, we need to weigh threat levels and when there are refugees that are laced with radicals and terrorists, I'm sorry, we can't let them in. While not an isolationist, I don't believe we are capable of solving all of the world's problems.

This is just for ShockTalk, so everyone else feel free to ignore the wall of text.

I didn't intend for you to read it. I made my point very quickly -- he asked me to expound on it, so I went into detail.

[Rlh04d]

I'm a little late to this party but I think that Kung Wu's viewpoint has just as much validity as yours. Actually, we don't know for sure what would have happened if we wouldn't have pulled out of Iraq. It's probably between you and KW. It is safe to say that ISIS wouldn't be what it is today.

I didn't say that it would be. I only disagreed with the idea that the Iraq War was a success, on the basis that it created ISIS.

Leaving Iraq was probably a mistake, and it definitely made ISIS stronger. But the Iraq invasion essentially traded AQ for ISIS, which, even prior to us leaving, was essentially a wash. The ISIS that exists today, which is far stronger than AQ was, definitely takes a lot of blame from our departure.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kung Wu essentially believes that a permanent US force in Iraq, designed to continuously act as a beacon to extremists to come and fight us there, is an effective strategy. I agree with that. But unfortunately I think that's a temporary solution that would exist permanently.

[shockmonster]

I didn't say that it would be. I only disagreed with the idea that the Iraq War was a success, on the basis that it created ISIS.

Leaving Iraq was probably a mistake, and it definitely made ISIS stronger. But the Iraq invasion essentially traded AQ for ISIS, which, even prior to us leaving, was essentially a wash. The ISIS that exists today, which is far stronger than AQ was, definitely takes a lot of blame from our departure.

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think Kung Wu essentially believes that a permanent US force in Iraq, designed to continuously act as a beacon to extremists to come and fight us there, is an effective strategy. I agree with that. But unfortunately I think that's a temporary solution that would exist permanently.

With hindsight, I think it is difficult to say that Iraq was a success because we found out that they didn't have the weapons we thought they did and Saddam was a *****. But I don't argue with the rationale for going to Iraq because we thought that they did have weapons of mass destruction and SH stonewalled the UN personnel access to inspect their facilities (This is what will happen in Iran too, you can bet on it). Saddam didn't think that the US would call him on his bluff when he stonewalled. He ended up not being a smart man.

[Rlh04d]

With hindsight, I think it is difficult to say that Iraq was a success because we found out that they didn't have the weapons we thought they did and Saddam was a *****. But I don't argue with the rationale for going to Iraq because we thought that they did have weapons of mass destruction and SH stonewalled the UN personnel access to inspect their facilities (This is what will happen in Iran too, you can bet on it). Saddam didn't think that the US would call him on his bluff when he stonewalled. He ended up not being a smart man.

Kung Wu wasn't arguing for the success of the Iraq war on it's justification, but as an effective piece of military strategy.

I'm only disagreeing with the clear success of it as a military strategy against Islamic extremism :D

[shocka khan]

Common sense has never been a staple of the left.

Not just me. There are a number of conservatives, one I believe is Jack Kean, who is a retired general who agree with me. My drinking buddy, who is from Indiana whose granddad was friends with Dick Lugar (meaning his family are generational republicans) who lived in Saudi Arabia as a teen also agrees.

Fear and loathing must be in great supply in Wichita, Kansas. Me, I think our country is great and there isn't anything we can't do. I believe our leaders, is they would have an honest discussion could do this.

Evidently you don't. But just keep in mind that Japanese, Latinos, Jews and other ethnic or racial minorities are watching and they may be cancelling your votes out in a couple of years. You conservative types seem to be all but ready to see Hillary get elected. You'll piss and moan when it happens, but seriously, the rate that conservatives are insulting these folks, it's going to bappen. And I won't be happy, either. You guys will have screwed the pooch for the rest of us.

[wufan]

@Rlh04d: can take his hate speech somewhere else. All this talk about increasing the population by breeding is an obvious attack on gay and lesbian couples who aren't capable of reproducing.

[Rlh04d]

@Rlh04d can take his hate speech somewhere else. All this talk about increasing the population by breeding is an obvious attack on gay and lesbian couples who aren't capable of reproducing.

I almost wonder if gay and lesbian couples adopting from foreign countries might increase our population more than heterosexual couples in the future ;)

I'm just working on my "more breeding" argument for my own benefit here. Test it out on you guys and then throw it to the wife. "But we'll be saving America!"

[WstateU]

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What rate would be acceptable?

Every race, group, nationality, etc. has at least 1 in 100 million as a terrorist. I'd say 1 in 100 million is acceptable.

I'd accept 1 in 50 million. I'd accept 1 in 10 million. I'd accept 1 in a million

I don't know where I'd draw the line. Somewhere less than 1 in a million, I know that.

My only point here is that it irks me when people imply that no rate is acceptable. Not saying that you were implying that for sure, as I can't read your mind and you haven't explicitly said as much. However, others have effectively made that case, and it bothers me. Of course some rate is acceptable, we are just going to find disagreement in determining where to draw the line.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

No.

M&Ms are a nice little treat with minimal value.

Human beings are, well, human beings. Saving lives has enormous value.

I'm all for a good debate on this topic, but I hate the memes reducing human life down to the level of candy.

A fair evaluation doesn't just judge the risk, it also judges the potential gain.

[ShockBand]

I almost wonder if gay and lesbian couples adopting from foreign countries might increase our population more than heterosexual couples in the future ;)

I'm just working on my "more breeding" argument for my own benefit here. Test it out on you guys and then throw it to the wife. "But we'll be saving America!"

Make love, then war?

[MoValley John]

Every race, group, nationality, etc. has at least 1 in 100 million as a terrorist. I'd say 1 in 100 million is acceptable.

I'd accept 1 in 50 million. I'd accept 1 in 10 million. I'd accept 1 in a million

I don't know where I'd draw the line. Somewhere less than 1 in a million, I know that.

My only point here is that it irks me when people imply that no rate is acceptable. Not saying that you were implying that for sure, as I can't read your mind and you haven't explicitly said as much. However, others have effectively made that case, and it bothers me. Of course some rate is acceptable, we are just going to find disagreement in determining where to draw the line.

One in less than a million puts Wichita squarely in the bullseye of a catastrophy.