6 ms·

This demonstrates a tragedy that happens all too often. How many talented people out there have their talents wasted because of barriers like this. How many p

This demonstrates a tragedy that happens all too often. How many talented people out there have their talents wasted because of barriers like this. How many people can't fulfil their potential because they're born into a poor family or on the wrong side of an arbitrary border?

huherto 11y ago
Sometimes a border is not a border, it is scar. An ethnic group was already living in that area and one day they find themselves at one side of the fence.
- MCRed 11y ago
  All to protect mafiosos who pretend to be organizing "unions" for the "workers" benefit (which is illogical if you think about it due to the Principle-Agent problem, and makes no sense economically- the bosses will cut deals best for the bosses, not for the union membership.) Keeping talented people down is just a side effect.
- winter_blue 11y ago
  You are actually right, historically speaking. After the United States victory in the Mexican-American War, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico.[1] The decision to not do so was based on racial concerns. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who opposed the annexation of Mexico, made this speech to Congress: We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement
- gedy 11y ago
  You are very right, especially places like colonial Africa. However in the context of California, Arizona, etc much of the immigration is from Guatemala, Central America, etc, not the true native tribes like the Chumash, Luiseño, et al who are still here. Just pointing this out because "division" gets bandied about a lot inaccurately.
  - huherto 11y ago
    I am thinking about "El Norte". http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in...
rtl49 11y ago
The number of such people is probably many orders of magnitude fewer than the number of ordinary people who benefit from economic migration to the potential detriment of citizens already living in the country. Existing immigration policies reflect this fact.
- mangamadaiyan 11y ago
  Do you have any basis for this claim of fact?
  - rtl49 11y ago
    Yes. Extraordinary people are significantly less common than ordinary ones. Therefore, admitting large numbers of people indiscriminately will result in admitting significantly larger numbers of ordinary people. Perhaps I was wrong to say "many" orders of magnitude, but other than that I stand by the remark.
    - mangamadaiyan 11y ago
      The last part of your claim doesn't follow from your justification. I think I'll leave it at that, however.
- lhopki01 11y ago
  I find it interesting that immigrants are blamed for this. Lets take the hypothetical situation of a baby boom. 5 years down the line our hypothetical city needs twice as many schools yet doesn't have them. Now do we blame the parents who had the babies or government that didn't build the schools. Or lets take another hypothetical example a certain part of the country gets a new factory and there's lots of internal migration of people coming to work in the new factory. Now this hypothetical location suddenly doesn't have enough hospital beds to cope. Do we blame the people that moved for the government that took all their income taxes yet failed to build a new hospital. TL:DR Governments take taxes from immigrants but don't spend the money improving services then complain that immigrants are overloading services. Blame the government not the immigrants.

huherto 11y ago

Sometimes a border is not a border, it is scar. An ethnic group was already living in that area and one day they find themselves at one side of the fence.

MCRed 11y ago
All to protect mafiosos who pretend to be organizing "unions" for the "workers" benefit (which is illogical if you think about it due to the Principle-Agent problem, and makes no sense economically- the bosses will cut deals best for the bosses, not for the union membership.) Keeping talented people down is just a side effect.
winter_blue 11y ago
You are actually right, historically speaking. After the United States victory in the Mexican-American War, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico.[1] The decision to not do so was based on racial concerns. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who opposed the annexation of Mexico, made this speech to Congress: We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_of_Mexico_Movement
gedy 11y ago
You are very right, especially places like colonial Africa. However in the context of California, Arizona, etc much of the immigration is from Guatemala, Central America, etc, not the true native tribes like the Chumash, Luiseño, et al who are still here. Just pointing this out because "division" gets bandied about a lot inaccurately.
- huherto 11y ago
  I am thinking about "El Norte". http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in...

rtl49 11y ago

The number of such people is probably many orders of magnitude fewer than the number of ordinary people who benefit from economic migration to the potential detriment of citizens already living in the country. Existing immigration policies reflect this fact.

mangamadaiyan 11y ago
Do you have any basis for this claim of fact?
- rtl49 11y ago
  Yes. Extraordinary people are significantly less common than ordinary ones. Therefore, admitting large numbers of people indiscriminately will result in admitting significantly larger numbers of ordinary people. Perhaps I was wrong to say "many" orders of magnitude, but other than that I stand by the remark.
  - mangamadaiyan 11y ago
    The last part of your claim doesn't follow from your justification. I think I'll leave it at that, however.
lhopki01 11y ago
I find it interesting that immigrants are blamed for this. Lets take the hypothetical situation of a baby boom. 5 years down the line our hypothetical city needs twice as many schools yet doesn't have them. Now do we blame the parents who had the babies or government that didn't build the schools. Or lets take another hypothetical example a certain part of the country gets a new factory and there's lots of internal migration of people coming to work in the new factory. Now this hypothetical location suddenly doesn't have enough hospital beds to cope. Do we blame the people that moved for the government that took all their income taxes yet failed to build a new hospital. TL:DR Governments take taxes from immigrants but don't spend the money improving services then complain that immigrants are overloading services. Blame the government not the immigrants.