Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opin ... columnists

A logical position, I thought - and then in the comments section (which I usually read until my ignorance overflow relief valve goes off) I saw this:

"Part of a rational analysis of immigration is its effect on world poverty. While it gives people a feeling of helping, does it really? Overpopulated countries have poor people that seek a better life elsewhere. When these people leave it reduces stress on those countries. But instead of taking advantage of this, their populations continue to grow, no changes occur, and populations continue to grow. And most likely the need for people to emigrate will also increase.

I don't see how our taking in the poor of the world is helping anything long term. As the world population increases to ten billion, along with global warming, our First World lifeboats will also sink at some point. The question needs to be how can we help the world to stabilize its population."

This guy gets it. We think we are having an immigration debate, when in reality what we are seeing is the infancy of a global population debate. And it is going to hold some very uncomfortable truths for both sides. And neither side will be honest about it, and then we'll decamp to our own sides and nothing substantive will happen.

In short, as with climate change, national debt, and other things, if there are in fact negative effects wew ill suffer them in full. And we will do nothing until our decisions are made for us by a much less tolerant and uncaring government: Mother Nature.

The problem with that comment is the assumption that immigration policy has any kind of humanist motivation to it. With the Democrats it's a means of changing the demographics of the electorate, and with (some) of the GOP it's about changing the demographics of workers. Our immigration policies are not and haven't in quite a long time been about what's good for America or the planet.

Pwns wrote:The problem with that comment is the assumption that immigration policy has any kind of humanist motivation to it. With the Democrats it's a means of changing the demographics of the electorate, and with (some) of the GOP it's about changing the demographics of workers. Our immigration policies are not and haven't in quite a long time been about what's good for America or the planet.

So are the illegals voting or are citizen conservative latino voters being swayed by pro-immigration policy suggestions. What are the numbers like?

BTW, CID...totally agree with your analysis.

kalm wrote:
So are the illegals voting or are citizen conservative latino voters being swayed by pro-immigration policy suggestions. What are the numbers like?

BTW, CID...totally agree with your analysis.

Illegals aren't voting, but...



That's not happening because the stork is running out of white paint. And I do get the Hispanic vote is more elastic than the black vote, but only to an extent. I don't believe the GOP has ever carried a Hispanic majority unless it's some district where most of them are Cubans.

Pwns wrote:The problem with that comment is the assumption that immigration policy has any kind of humanist motivation to it. With the Democrats it's a means of changing the demographics of the electorate, and with (some) of the GOP it's about changing the demographics of workers. Our immigration policies are not and haven't in quite a long time been about what's good for America or the planet.

Thats the commenters point - the political considerations don't matter

The Dems could be open borders or not - the fact is that immigration is going to be population driven

It is no coincidence that birthrates in countries from which we have the most immigration pressures are also countries with significantly higher birthrates than ours. Immigrant birthrates generally go down when they come to the US, but that doesnt matter - countries like Mexico do nothing to try to retain and improve the lots of this class of people




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good op-ed, with some valid points raised.

Some of those points are raised generationally in the United States: The Germans, then Irish, then Italians, then Eastern Europeans, et al aren't like REAL Americans, and are destroying/changing "American" culture and identity. And they did. Just like Hispanic immigrants are changing American culture today.

Whether this is good or bad depends on your viewpoint.

dbackjon wrote:Good op-ed, with some valid points raised.

Some of those points are raised generationally in the United States: The Germans, then Irish, then Italians, then Eastern Europeans, et al aren't like REAL Americans, and are destroying/changing "American" culture and identity. And they did. Just like Hispanic immigrants are changing American culture today.

Whether this is good or bad depends on your viewpoint.

That's not what the commenter is talking about, though -

One of two things will have to happen in the future if the United States is going to stay economically viable -

either external immigration pressures will have to be relieved (other countries taking better care of their citizens) or the US is going to have to curb large immigration blocs. Either way - there is going to be a population based immigration crisis, and the longer we conflate immigration control with racism or cultural change or voting groups (the debate over Islam has been similarly poisoned) the more adversely it is going to affect our own standards of living - not just for 4th generation European immigrants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Good op-ed, with some valid points raised.

Some of those points are raised generationally in the United States: The Germans, then Irish, then Italians, then Eastern Europeans, et al aren't like REAL Americans, and are destroying/changing "American" culture and identity. And they did. Just like Hispanic immigrants are changing American culture today.

Whether this is good or bad depends on your viewpoint.

That's not what the commenter is talking about, though -

One of two things will have to happen in the future if the United States is going to stay economically viable -

either external immigration pressures will have to be relieved (other countries taking better care of their citizens) or the US is going to have to curb large immigration blocs. Either way - there is going to be a population based immigration crisis, and the longer we conflate immigration control with racism or cultural change or voting groups (the debate over Islam has been similarly poisoned) the more adversely it is going to affect our own standards of living - not just for 4th generation European immigrants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is part of his op-ed, and colors the immigration debate. One portion left out is the role of immigration in keeping the USA growing - as the baby boomers retire, need more services, etc, the increasing labor force is kept afloat by immigration - see what is happening in Japan now, with little immigration. Restricting immigration will lead to a marked increase in pressure on the labor markets - again, good or bad depending on your viewpoint.


The USA has done a great job of destroying other countries economies (Central America, for example) - so building those economies back up so there is not the pressure for mass migration.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
That's not what the commenter is talking about, though -

One of two things will have to happen in the future if the United States is going to stay economically viable -

either external immigration pressures will have to be relieved (other countries taking better care of their citizens) or the US is going to have to curb large immigration blocs. Either way - there is going to be a population based immigration crisis, and the longer we conflate immigration control with racism or cultural change or voting groups (the debate over Islam has been similarly poisoned) the more adversely it is going to affect our own standards of living - not just for 4th generation European immigrants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is part of his op-ed, and colors the immigration debate. One portion left out is the role of immigration in keeping the USA growing - as the baby boomers retire, need more services, etc, the increasing labor force is kept afloat by immigration - see what is happening in Japan now, with little immigration. Restricting immigration will lead to a marked increase in pressure on the labor markets - again, good or bad depending on your viewpoint.


The USA has done a great job of destroying other countries economies (Central America, for example) - so building those economies back up so there is not the pressure for mass migration.

Jon, those are canned talking points but they are immaterial nonetheless -

Japan is a very poor example (they have nearly ZERO immigration, nobody is arguing for that). Central American economies can as easily be blamed on Spain as they can the US- they have NEVER been vibrant, and the labor force which is fed by immigration (both legal and illegal) is largely giving way to automation - and the push for a "living wage" is driving that more than anything.

- and they ignore the central point of the comment I highlighted, not the article itself - which is that what we are seeing today is the population approach to immigration in its infancy. It will eventually morph into that, possibly within our lifetimes. Whether we choose to address it or whistle past the graveyard (the more likely outcome) will be when we let go of these short term, petty justifications for open borders or immigration restrictions and start looking past the next 4-8 years.

As a side note: My impression is that part of the economic theory we live by is that we have to have essentially infinitely increasing population growth. My understanding is that within the United States native birth rate is not enough to sustain the population. So immigration is necessary to sustain what's needed according to the economic theory. And I don't think it's all immigration by really smart people like software engineers. I thought about doing links but I think you can Google around and see what I'm talking about.

I personally don't agree with it. I think the idea of basing everything on an infinitely increasing population is insane. But I think that's the theory we're living by.

BTW my impression is that politics is a factor in Democrats favoring lots of immigration. I think it does favor them politically. I think the situation for Republicans is more complicated. They know that increased immigration is bad for them because immigrant populations that become citizens that can vote tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. But at the same time business interests that tend to favor Republicans need immigrants. Some industries need cheap labor from unskilled workers. Some need highly skilled workers from places like Asia for engineering and such. And whether you're talking about unskilled labor coming from Mexico or highly skilled workers coming from Asia both groups tend to vote by at least 2:1 margins for Democrats once they become eligible to vote. It's a tough situation for Republicans.

CID1990 wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opin ... columnists

A logical position, I thought - and then in the comments section (which I usually read until my ignorance overflow relief valve goes off) I saw this:

"Part of a rational analysis of immigration is its effect on world poverty. While it gives people a feeling of helping, does it really? Overpopulated countries have poor people that seek a better life elsewhere. When these people leave it reduces stress on those countries. But instead of taking advantage of this, their populations continue to grow, no changes occur, and populations continue to grow. And most likely the need for people to emigrate will also increase.

I don't see how our taking in the poor of the world is helping anything long term. As the world population increases to ten billion, along with global warming, our First World lifeboats will also sink at some point. The question needs to be how can we help the world to stabilize its population."

This guy gets it. We think we are having an immigration debate, when in reality what we are seeing is the infancy of a global population debate. And it is going to hold some very uncomfortable truths for both sides. And neither side will be honest about it, and then we'll decamp to our own sides and nothing substantive will happen.

In short, as with climate change, national debt, and other things, if there are in fact negative effects wew ill suffer them in full. And we will do nothing until our decisions are made for us by a much less tolerant and uncaring government: Mother Nature.

Fascinating article. Immigration is as much of a population/economic issue as it is a humanitarian issue. I won't repeat what you and others have said, b/c I agree. Thanks for sharing.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
That's not what the commenter is talking about, though -

One of two things will have to happen in the future if the United States is going to stay economically viable -

either external immigration pressures will have to be relieved (other countries taking better care of their citizens) or the US is going to have to curb large immigration blocs. Either way - there is going to be a population based immigration crisis, and the longer we conflate immigration control with racism or cultural change or voting groups (the debate over Islam has been similarly poisoned) the more adversely it is going to affect our own standards of living - not just for 4th generation European immigrants


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is part of his op-ed, and colors the immigration debate. One portion left out is the role of immigration in keeping the USA growing - as the baby boomers retire, need more services, etc, the increasing labor force is kept afloat by immigration - see what is happening in Japan now, with little immigration. Restricting immigration will lead to a marked increase in pressure on the labor markets - again, good or bad depending on your viewpoint.


The USA has done a great job of destroying other countries economies (Central America, for example) - so building those economies back up so there is not the pressure for mass migration.

I thought nation building was wrong.

Btw, I get the premise - build up those countries so they can support their populations.

As far as the immigration/population debate, we have people who aren't (or are considering) not having children, or only 1, due to to 'climate change'
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/clim ... ldren.html

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

It is part of his op-ed, and colors the immigration debate. One portion left out is the role of immigration in keeping the USA growing - as the baby boomers retire, need more services, etc, the increasing labor force is kept afloat by immigration - see what is happening in Japan now, with little immigration. Restricting immigration will lead to a marked increase in pressure on the labor markets - again, good or bad depending on your viewpoint.


The USA has done a great job of destroying other countries economies (Central America, for example) - so building those economies back up so there is not the pressure for mass migration.

I thought nation building was wrong.

Btw, I get the premise - build up those countries so they can support their populations.

First step is to NOT destroy the country in the first place. But as I know you are aware of, the US has done a great job of meddling/ruining Central American countries for our own economic and political interests. Some of it was intentional, others, like destroying the value of Mexican corn by flooding the country with Cheap US corn, was a side effect of larger trade deals (NAFTA), etc.

So now that we have done that, we have variations on two choices: Let them in here, or figure out ways for them to be content enough to stay.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I thought nation building was wrong.

Btw, I get the premise - build up those countries so they can support their populations.

First step is to NOT destroy the country in the first place. But as I know you are aware of, the US has done a great job of meddling/ruining Central American countries for our own economic and political interests. Some of it was intentional, others, like destroying the value of Mexican corn by flooding the country with Cheap US corn, was a side effect of larger trade deals (NAFTA), etc.

So now that we have done that, we have variations on two choices: Let them in here, or figure out ways for them to be content enough to stay.

Ah my grandfather used to talk about the good old days when Guatemala and El Salvador were preferable to Florida for those swanky vacations

They were the original shining cities on the hill

Your two choices are a logical fallacy

Your homework: identify the fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
First step is to NOT destroy the country in the first place. But as I know you are aware of, the US has done a great job of meddling/ruining Central American countries for our own economic and political interests. Some of it was intentional, others, like destroying the value of Mexican corn by flooding the country with Cheap US corn, was a side effect of larger trade deals (NAFTA), etc.

So now that we have done that, we have variations on two choices: Let them in here, or figure out ways for them to be content enough to stay.

Ah my grandfather used to talk about the good old days when Guatemala and El Salvador were preferable to Florida for those swanky vacations

They were the original shining cities on the hill

Your two choices are a logical fallacy

Your homework: identify the fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL - no one is saying that they were great. But to get to the point where you pack up and leave everything behind means that your place has become a shithole, far worse than it originally was.

The US meddling, supporting the wealthy land-owners and military at the expense of the agarian poor is the source of much of the troubles/demand for emigration.

Your homework: Learn some history.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Ah my grandfather used to talk about the good old days when Guatemala and El Salvador were preferable to Florida for those swanky vacations

They were the original shining cities on the hill

Your two choices are a logical fallacy

Your homework: identify the fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL - no one is saying that they were great. But to get to the point where you pack up and leave everything behind means that your place has become a shithole, far worse than it originally was.

The US meddling, supporting the wealthy land-owners and military at the expense of the agarian poor is the source of much of the troubles/demand for emigration.

Your homework: Learn some history.

Jon - "history" isn't bobbing your head at a TED Talks lecture

the areas that are now Guatemala and El Salvador became what they are the minute the Conquistadores set foot here

As much as the blame America mantra is ensconced in your (and many liberals') world view, those countries have had elite landowners killing off the indigenos since before the US was even a country - if we ranked ordered the list of parties responsible for their lot, those countries themselves would be at the top of the list, and they are to this day intentionally creating the conditions that force people out

We made already bad places very marginally worse - by trying to manipulate bad places

BTW thou shalt not use fallacious logic and then get mad, bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Ah my grandfather used to talk about the good old days when Guatemala and El Salvador were preferable to Florida for those swanky vacations

They were the original shining cities on the hill

Your two choices are a logical fallacy

Your homework: identify the fallacy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL - no one is saying that they were great. But to get to the point where you pack up and leave everything behind means that your place has become a shithole, far worse than it originally was.

The US meddling, supporting the wealthy land-owners and military at the expense of the agarian poor is the source of much of the troubles/demand for emigration.

Your homework: Learn some history.

THE MAGIC WORD!

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
LOL - no one is saying that they were great. But to get to the point where you pack up and leave everything behind means that your place has become a shithole, far worse than it originally was.

The US meddling, supporting the wealthy land-owners and military at the expense of the agarian poor is the source of much of the troubles/demand for emigration.

Your homework: Learn some history.

THE MAGIC WORD!

dback is clearly a racist.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
LOL - no one is saying that they were great. But to get to the point where you pack up and leave everything behind means that your place has become a shithole, far worse than it originally was.

The US meddling, supporting the wealthy land-owners and military at the expense of the agarian poor is the source of much of the troubles/demand for emigration.

Your homework: Learn some history.

Jon - "history" isn't bobbing your head at a TED Talks lecture

the areas that are now Guatemala and El Salvador became what they are the minute the Conquistadores set foot here

As much as the blame America mantra is ensconced in your (and many liberals') world view, those countries have had elite landowners killing off the indigenos since before the US was even a country - if we ranked ordered the list of parties responsible for their lot, those countries themselves would be at the top of the list, and they are to this day intentionally creating the conditions that force people out

We made already bad places very marginally worse - by trying to manipulate bad places

BTW thou shalt not use fallacious logic and then get mad, bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a buddy who's spent the last month in Costa Rica and I've heard it's a popular spot for Americans to move to. Why did they escape the fate of the rest?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Jon - "history" isn't bobbing your head at a TED Talks lecture

the areas that are now Guatemala and El Salvador became what they are the minute the Conquistadores set foot here

As much as the blame America mantra is ensconced in your (and many liberals') world view, those countries have had elite landowners killing off the indigenos since before the US was even a country - if we ranked ordered the list of parties responsible for their lot, those countries themselves would be at the top of the list, and they are to this day intentionally creating the conditions that force people out

We made already bad places very marginally worse - by trying to manipulate bad places

BTW thou shalt not use fallacious logic and then get mad, bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a buddy who's spent the last month in Costa Rica and I've heard it's a popular spot for Americans to move to. Why did they escape the fate of the rest?

Demographics

Costa Rica was the most sparsely populated area in Central America when the Spanish came along

So instead of enslaving and subjugating the indigenos which largely weren’t there, Costa Ricans were pretty much left to themselves to develop without conflict.... and they essentially did so on a European model

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Jon - "history" isn't bobbing your head at a TED Talks lecture

the areas that are now Guatemala and El Salvador became what they are the minute the Conquistadores set foot here

As much as the blame America mantra is ensconced in your (and many liberals') world view, those countries have had elite landowners killing off the indigenos since before the US was even a country - if we ranked ordered the list of parties responsible for their lot, those countries themselves would be at the top of the list, and they are to this day intentionally creating the conditions that force people out

We made already bad places very marginally worse - by trying to manipulate bad places

BTW thou shalt not use fallacious logic and then get mad, bro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a buddy who's spent the last month in Costa Rica and I've heard it's a popular spot for Americans to move to. Why did they escape the fate of the rest?

My family prefers Honduras... But, whatever

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
I have a buddy who's spent the last month in Costa Rica and I've heard it's a popular spot for Americans to move to. Why did they escape the fate of the rest?

My family prefers Honduras... But, whatever

Ok, I’ll pass the word on to my friend.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
My family prefers Honduras... But, whatever

Ok, I’ll pass the word on to my friend.

To be exact

Cayos Cochinos and Roatan