It is interesting to look back on about the first 150 years of Europeans in N. America (not counting the Vikings). People were moving freely back and forth across the borders. So you would think that the constitutional originalists would be on board with that. White people, anyway. These days Canada brings in far more refugees than the US, in spite of a much smaller population and economy.
I don't think there is an easy answer to how to frame the policies. The lines between economic, social, and political migrants are fuzzy. It is tricky in Australia with the proximity to some pretty awful places in Asia. We have a significant Sri Lankan-Tamil population but how much migration is it reasonable to accept when the Tamil area of India is right there? And probably over half of Afghanis would be better off here than there. Then there's Myranmar... As a pragmatist, I think the limiting factor on immigration is not as much about how many people could be absorbed but by the number that could be allowed in without a social backlash making for more restrictions in the long run.
Borders are an anachronism. We are one species on one finite planet. We need to start acting like it.
immigration is one of our super powers
allowing people to "move" to a country/system where they are free to peacefully produce and express is paramount
It is interesting to look back on about the first 150 years of Europeans in N. America (not counting the Vikings). People were moving freely back and forth across the borders. So you would think that the constitutional originalists would be on board with that. White people, anyway. These days Canada brings in far more refugees than the US, in spite of a much smaller population and economy.
I don't think there is an easy answer to how to frame the policies. The lines between economic, social, and political migrants are fuzzy. It is tricky in Australia with the proximity to some pretty awful places in Asia. We have a significant Sri Lankan-Tamil population but how much migration is it reasonable to accept when the Tamil area of India is right there? And probably over half of Afghanis would be better off here than there. Then there's Myranmar... As a pragmatist, I think the limiting factor on immigration is not as much about how many people could be absorbed but by the number that could be allowed in without a social backlash making for more restrictions in the long run.
I went to a thing where "liberals" were paired up with "conservatives" and you know which side I was recruited for but when the immigration subject was universally agreed to be a matter of degree, I dropped a Lazyism on them (I think) with "what right does a government have to restrict a person's freedom of movement?" and that was fun.
immigration is one of our super powers
allowing people to "move" to a country/system where they are free to peacefully produce and express is paramount
I went to a thing where "liberals" were paired up with "conservatives" and you know which side I was recruited for but when the immigration subject was universally agreed to be a matter of degree, I dropped a Lazyism on them (I think) with "what right does a government have to restrict a person's freedom of movement?" and that was fun.
It's a system designed to fail. But fail slowly to keep people in limbo. But Legal Immigration! Right?
i'm going to say this again (and again)
immigration is one of our super powers
allowing people to "move" to a country/system where they are free to peacefully produce and express is paramount
And just what jobs are waiting for them ? We already have an over supply of unskilled workers in case you haven't noticed. And they still are not allowed to be employed legally.
The skilled workers that we need generally enter legally. At least as far as I can tell.
You not paying attention doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
I've lost count of how many businesses I used to frequent (mostly restaurants) that have closed in my area due to labor shortage. Getting help in the ag sector is driving farmers out of business and forcing a lot of consolidation. Tried to hire a truck driver lately? Burger-flipping wages are over $20/hour here.
And it isn't just here; entry-level jobs are going begging all over the country. How can you not notice this?
The US government makes it extraordinarily difficult for workers of any skill level to enter the country legally. Skilled workers who cross illegally end up in menial jobs because they don't have the documents to get work in their fields.
And no, we don't have anything approaching open borders—as has been explained to you countless times. If we ever do you'll hear me celebrating.
You are making the large, and historically wrong assumption these migrants will enter the welfare state and not the job market, further building the economy, and thereby supporting the welfare state
And just what jobs are waiting for them ? We already have an over supply of unskilled workers in case you haven't noticed. And they still are not allowed to be employed legally.
The skilled workers that we need generally enter legally. At least as far as I can tell.
Not fighting words. Just an observation of the facts available.
Regarding Sanders, I don't have the quote but I remember his remarks about the necessity of a closed system for a welfare state to function properly made several years ago.
The internal funding of the welfare state is a finite resource. It requires fixing the numbers of beneficiaries to the limits of the funds available. When more and more people are added into the system without increases of funding, it fails. How do you increase the funding ? Print more money ? Add to the debt with deficit spending ? Sooner or later, the bills will come due. The old Thatcher quote, socialism works until you run out of other peoples' money ...
You are making the large, and historically wrong assumption these migrants will enter the welfare state and not the job market, further building the economy, and thereby supporting the welfare state
I was trying to respond to a number of your claims that you spread across more than one post. One of your claims (Afaict) is that Biden and the Democrats want open borders to bring in more immigrants in order to boost the number of Democratic voters.
If you want to stick to this, so be it:
"How you can have a successful welfare state with an unlimited amount of participants entering into the system with no increase in resources ?"
If you had unlimited number of participants entering with no increase in resources (I take it you mean resources available to the welfare system), that situation would be untenable.
But that notion reads like a bad hypothetical in an introductory macroeconomic policy class dealing with basic models. We have nothing like that situation occurring in the US.
You're the king of buffoonery here, btw, so your cries that I've muddled your thoughts are pretty amusing. Still stuck in the pumpkin patch?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 18, 2022 - 9:09am
Lest it gets lost in this debate, the provision known as Title 42 (Title 42 is the title of the U.S. Code devoted to health provisions) is an emergency health provision authorized because of the pandemic. It is not meant to be â and cannot be â a permanent border control measure,. It has to be lifted at some point. One can debate whether that time is now, but one cannot legitimately argue that it should be permanent.
A successful welfare state which functions on the redistribution of wealth can only exist in a closed system, which you very well know. The "wealth" being redistributed is a finite resource. So tell me how you can have a successful welfare state with unrestricted access to the benefits.
1. We do not have open borders. Biden and the Democratic party do not want open borders.
2. Illegal immigrants in the US do not have "unrestricted access to the benefits."
3. Non-citizens in the US, including illegal immigrants, cannot vote in federal, state and most local elections.
3a. "This current snapshot shows that unauthorized Hispanic immigrants also lean more Democratic than Republican—though to a lesser degree than Hispanic immigrants who are currently eligible to vote. And it’s uncertain whether these unauthorized immigrants, many of whom are currently unaffiliated, would adopt similar political affiliations and voting patterns if given the chance to naturalize."https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... 4. Recent immigrants are less politically engaged and involved than US-born citizens. So letting more illegal immigrants into this country is not a clear electoral win for Democrats. Also, the perception that the Democratic party is lax on illegal immigration is one of the biggest reasons for increased GOP voter turnout and campaign donations.
Good grief, where to begin ?
I was making observations of what can negatively impact the welfare state as an entity.
Nothing in your responses addresses the question which was simply put ...
So tell me how you can have a successful welfare state with unrestricted access to the benefits ?????
2 does not answer the question. It just offers your take on the access to benefits by a specific group.
Maybe if I rephrase the question for you ...
How you can have a successful welfare state with an unlimited amount of participants entering into the system with no increase in resources ?
I'll address your point number 3 separately later as you have totally missed the boat on that one and ran to the wrong goal post.
Consensus smensuss. Pass all the laws you want. Biden will not enforce them, which is his Constitutional job. Biden wants opens borders. The democratic party as a whole wants open borders. And that is what we have right now. Problem is that a welfare state cannot function / exist for very long with open borders. Even a good socialist like Bernie Sanders knows that.
Sounds like fighting words. good luck
Not fighting words. Just an observation of the facts available.
Regarding Sanders, I don't have the quote but I remember his remarks about the necessity of a closed system for a welfare state to function properly made several years ago.
The internal funding of the welfare state is a finite resource. It requires fixing the numbers of beneficiaries to the limits of the funds available. When more and more people are added into the system without increases of funding, it fails. How do you increase the funding ? Print more money ? Add to the debt with deficit spending ? Sooner or later, the bills will come due. The old Thatcher quote, socialism works until you run out of other peoples' money ...
3a. "This current snapshot shows that unauthorized Hispanic immigrants also lean more Democratic than Republicanâthough to a lesser degree than Hispanic immigrants who are currently eligible to vote. And itâs uncertain whether these unauthorized immigrants, many of whom are currently unaffiliated, would adopt similar political affiliations and voting patterns if given the chance to naturalize."
4. Recent immigrants are less politically engaged and involved than US-born citizens.
So letting more illegal immigrants into this country is not a clear electoral win for Democrats. Also, the perception that the Democratic party is lax on illegal immigration is one of the biggest reasons for increased GOP voter turnout and campaign donations.
