@ 3:29 every human being on earth is 99.9% identical to every other human being on earth
Everyone wants food, housing, and the fair opportunity to make a decent living for themselves and their families. When you are denied that in your homeland why wouldn't you want to come to the land of milk and honey? I mean, come on, it isn't rocket science, although, some of those coming here from other countries are probably rocket scientists.
I wasn't, so I looked it up. And just as the "neo" prefix doesn't add much to Nazism or Colonialism or Expressionism, it doesn't add much to Malthusianism. At least according to Wikipedia the major difference is that neo-Malthusians support birth control.
If there is something about the prefix that makes Malthus less wrong I've yet to hear it; maybe you could enlighten me. If it follows the basic outline Malthus proposed then there really isn't anything you could sprinkle on it that wouldn't make it a steaming pile.
Neo-Malthusian used the way I have seen it in academic literature refers to regional situations where high population growth rates lead to a situation where the economy cannot absorb sufficient numbers of young workers. People eat themselves out of house and home but locally, not globally. People resort to crime and violence to obtain resources. So some would argue this is what we observe in places like El Salvador, Honduras, and the eastern provinces of the DRC.
Naturally you would view all this as a steaming pile. You are a self-styled libertarian. You come from a possessive individualism perspective. You are comfortable with us versus them narratives. You do not understand common property and do not understand economic property rights. You seem to be believe that conquering a people gives you the justification to pursue self-loathing policy.
Take US immigration policy which results in some of the same issues that Neo-Malthusians will point to. There are all kinds of resource conflicts that result but if the impacted parties are not "your people", then perhaps it does not matter.
Immigrating to the U.S. is a long and arduous process. This model focuses on the legal hurdles faced by migrants coming from Central America seeking protection and economic opportunity. We seek to demonstrate the impact that current or previous policies have had on immigrants. As with real life, outcomes are affected by both the choices you make and the luck of the draw.
If you were given the opportunity for a better life, could you immigrate?
Reforming and Humanizing Our Immigration System
The goal of this game is to give people a concrete glimpse of how current and past policies impact immigrants in life-changing ways. Check out the links below to learn more about how we can improve specific policies to streamline the immigration process.
Providing jobs for temporary workers: The H-2B Visa
As the global economy heats up and tries to put the pandemic aside, a battle for the young and able has begun. With fast-track visas and promises of permanent residency, many of the wealthy nations driving the recovery are sending a message to skilled immigrants all over the world: Help wanted. Now.
In Germany, where officials recently warned that the country needs 400,000 new immigrants a year to fill jobs in fields ranging from academia to air-conditioning, a new Immigration Act offers accelerated work visas and six months to visit and find a job.
Canada plans to give residency to 1.2 million new immigrants by 2023. Israel recently finalized a deal to bring health care workers from Nepal. And in Australia, where mines, hospitals and pubs are all short-handed after nearly two years with a closed border, the government intends to roughly double the number of immigrants it allows into the country over the next year.
The global drive to attract foreigners with skills, especially those that fall somewhere between physical labor and a physics Ph.D., aims to smooth out a bumpy emergence from the pandemic.
Covidâs disruptions have pushed many people to retire, resign or just not return to work. But its effects run deeper. By keeping so many people in place, the pandemic has made humanityâs demographic imbalance more obvious â rapidly aging rich nations produce too few new workers, while countries with a surplus of young people often lack work for all. (...)
The key here Lazy8 is to read carefully. Neo-Malthusian.
If you are unfamiliar with the concept, please say so.
I wasn't, so I looked it up. And just as the "neo" prefix doesn't add much to Nazism or Colonialism or Expressionism, it doesn't add much to Malthusianism. At least according to Wikipedia the major difference is that neo-Malthusians support birth control.
If there is something about the prefix that makes Malthus less wrong I've yet to hear it; maybe you could enlighten me. If it follows the basic outline Malthus proposed then there really isn't anything you could sprinkle on it that wouldn't make it a steaming pile.
If it's any consolation Malthus was so wrong that we need a new category of wrongness to contain just how wrong he was. Unfortunately his theory is so beautifully simple and compact that it remains appealing today, at least among people who prefer an elegant theory to an untidy reality.
The key here Lazy8 is to read carefully. Neo-Malthusian.
If you are unfamiliar with the concept, please say so.
P.S. Private Refugee Resettlement in U.S. History was a good read too. Here are my thoughts are far more depressing. Neo-Malthusian crises here and there around the world but particularly in Central America will cause a flood of refugees that no combination of welcoming rich countries can accommodate. Too bad so many radical leftists in Latin America and Africa have embraced Roman Catholic labour supply policies....
If it's any consolation Malthus was so wrong that we need a new category of wrongness to contain just how wrong he was. Unfortunately his theory is so beautifully simple and compact that it remains appealing today, at least among people who prefer an elegant theory to an untidy reality.
Thanks for posting this Lazy8. I read it quickly. Nice to some actual 'data'. Three thoughts:
1) US immigration policy is still a mess.
2) Like the USA, Canada is allowing in allowing in large numbers of family reunification candidates. Like the USA, one gets the impression here in Canada that most Canadians do not understand Canada's immigration policies and flows very well. (They certainly do not understand the poor economic performance of Canadian immigrants.)
3) It is rare that one sees the term 'path dependent' in a policy article. Sweet.
P.S. Private Refugee Resettlement in U.S. History was a good read too. Here are my thoughts are far more depressing. Neo-Malthusian crises here and there around the world but particularly in Central America will cause a flood of refugees that no combination of welcoming rich countries can accommodate. Too bad so many radical leftists in Latin America and Africa have embraced Roman Catholic labour supply policies....
My comment was about sponsors / sponsorship. Try paying attention for a change.
You had two comments, one aimed at the actual issue and the other an irrelevant poo-fling at the wall.
I posted the history to point out that it's quite clear how we got away from sponsored refugee resettlement, but the article I linked to wasn't explicit about when the end of privately-sponsored refugee resettlement came about. This article (that I posted earlier the same day) is explicit on that topic.
Sponsorship has come and gone thru our history. The refugee system in place now came about in legislation enacted between 1965 and 1980, which might explain why your civics class didn't get you up to speed on it. Ronald Reagan reintroduced sponsored refugee immigration after the 1980 act by executive order, which Clinton let lapse.
And no, it does not and never did have anything remotely to do with sanctuary cities.
Evidently you know nothing about it even though it has been a part of the immigration policy since basically day one of this country and still is. I was taught about it in school, in California for that matter, in both history and civics (civics is not taught anymore), as how the immigration process worked and why. It is a key part in assuring the success for a new immigrant into the country. Obviously it involves legal immigration. Something you find limiting and distasteful.
Yeah, total ignoramus here. Glad I've got you to school me, or I'd never catch up!
My comment was about sponsors / sponsorship. Try paying attention for a change.
Your link only mentioned the word once in the entire article.
In the United States, Congress was so indifferent to the refugee crisis that it defeated a 1939 proposal that would have facilitated the migration of 20,000 children from Nazi Germany, even though all of the children had U.S. familysponsors.
That is it. One word.
Evidently you know nothing about it even though it has been a part of the immigration policy since basically day one of this country and still is. I was taught about it in school, in California for that matter, in both history and civics (civics is not taught anymore), as how the immigration process worked and why. It is a key part in assuring the success for a new immigrant into the country. Obviously it involves legal immigration. Something you find limiting and distasteful.
Hey, bro! Us unprincipled, stupid cowards gotta stick together! Solidarity!
