To be fair, they were at all time highs before Biden’s administrative action. GOP is still going to be complaining about the border regardless, but the documented numbers were pretty high.
What a shitty situation we're in where this is 'good' news. 70%+ of Americans have forgotten what's inscribed on Lady Liberty's base. Give me your tired, your poor...
Any other situation, I would say that this is terrible news. Our immigration system is fucking broken, and if putting extra weight on the break makes it more noticeable, than put the fucking weight on it. Not to mention the moral duty to provide refuge for those fleeing any kind of circumstance.
But we're also staring down a double-barrel shotgun of fucking fascism at the moment, so the opinions of our 70% of 'very concerned individuals' have to fucking matter in policy choices.
What the ever-loving fuck is that absolutely inane dogshite?
I can see why they turned comments off. You really buy into that? Like, that's the kind of thing my youth pastor in an evangelical church would've shown to all the kids when I was in 6th grade. "The GLOBALIST ELITE are TRICKING US into TAKING IN IMMIGRANTS who DESTROY OUR GOOD GODLY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (that we also want to defund for the poor, but ignore that for now)"
"Just numbers" in the same way Ben Shapiro saying "Facts don't care about your feelings" has any validity - ie in the abstract, but not in context. But hey, if you're convinced because "One gumball small, many gumballs LARGE", God forbid I be the one to break you of your happy, simplified world.
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
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?
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries?
Material conditions. Like the continued issue of emigration of skilled workers. That's... that's what the quote is getting at.
Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too?
... yes. That's why the emigration causing investment in the country of origin to create a supply in the local labor market is counted as a positive in this analysis.
So, you’re really not talking about permanent immigration, you’re talking about training.
... no, that's literally the opposite of what was said. The country of ORIGIN is driven to invest in their education system by this, not the country of DESTINATION.
You're really not getting it. Sending aid, even with strings attached as to what it's used for, is not even close to the same as an internal decision by the national government of the country of origin to change their investment priorities.
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.
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.
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
Honestly, hard to say. Maybe, maybe not… those guys had a weird disconnect between ‘nice black man I met on the street’ and ‘slaves I own’. But even if he wouldn’t want them, what he said is still true. America should be open to everyone. Pretty much all of us are immigrants here, our families coming in search of a better life. We should be opening our doors to the world, not closing them.
My issue is how they pick and chose what they like and ignore the rest. The issue with opening our doors to the world is that we have a gigantic welfare system that they have access to. If that were closed I can see the option being good to some level.
‘Gigantic welfare system’? What alternate-universe US are you living in? Our welfare system is shit. We don’t even have universal healthcare!
Welfare should be to help support struggling people. Helping those who are struggling improves not only their lives, but all of society as well. This has been proven over and over again—just look at UBI programs. We should be offering more support, not less.
These people pay taxes same as legal Americans, through their employer. They should therefore get access to every American system except voting.
You are not aware of how the system works... If you are poor there is a huge amount of money and services you get including healthcare. Since the War on Poverty began, the US has spend something like $20 trillion.
The ones who consider themselves American in the sense of belonging to the USA? Absolutely.
The ones who consider themselves belonging to sovereign (or semisovereign) nations that are under treaty with the USA, and do not consider themselves a part of the USA? Their opinions are not particularly relevant to the discussion, so I would see no reason to say that to them.
Colonization of the 16th-18th centuries consisted of organized groups of people under the authority of a state arriving in a land without a central government, seizing territory for a new settlement, carrying on their own ways with an intent to do so indefinitely, and extend the reach of the monopoly of force of their mother state over the surrounds.
Immigration of the 19th-21st centuries consists of individuals or small groups outside of the context of a state-sanctioned expedition being accepted in by the authority of the native state already exercising a monopoly of force over the area, and in doing so, renouncing other loyalties either implicitly or explicitly, arriving in settlements already dominated by the majority ethnicity, assimilating, and participating in upholding the social contract between government and citizens.
You will note, I hope, that colonization necessarily excludes the prospect of the colonizers joining the settlements of the pre-existing majority ethnicity of the land, that colonizers set up a state or an extension of a state that is non-native, explicitly refuse the prospect of assimilating into the majority ethnicity of the area (though to be entirely fair, there were few places with a true 'majority' ethnicity that managed to be colonized - that's another discussion entirely, though), and that colonizers do so in the form of organized groups seeking a collective gain for the group, not individuals and their families or small social circles seeking individual gain.
June's migrant apprehension tally was also the fourth consecutive monthly drop, continuing an unexpected downward trend in illegal border crossings that started in the early spring.
Migrant crossings dropped across border regions, including in remote and rugged stretches of Arizona and California that had become the busiest sectors for illegal entries.
The sustained decrease in unauthorized border entries has also occurred against the backdrop of a months-long campaign by Mexican officials to slow U.S.-bound migration by carrying out more deportations to southern Mexico and preventing migrants from boarding trains and buses.
The aggressive operation began after a meeting between top American and Mexican officials in December, when migrant apprehensions at the U.S. border reached a quarter of a million, a record.
U.S. border officials have continued to process and admit roughly 1,500 migrants each day at these legal entry points, using a smartphone app known as CBP One to coordinate their arrivals.
While it's unclear whether it will continue in the coming months, the migration lull is a political reprieve for Mr. Biden ahead of his presidential contest in November with former President Donald Trump, who has again made a immigration a pillar to his White House bid.
The original article contains 969 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
