3 ms·

And when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. I think UBI's e

by ng12 10y ago

And when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. I think UBI's effect on immigration is an interesting topic and one I don't see discussed in most articles. What does it mean to be a citizen of a country when, statistically speaking, you're a drain on the economy? How does immigration fit into that model? In my mind UBI doesn't require changing how we view work, it requires changing how we view citizenship and statecraft.

gotofritz 10y ago
> And when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. That's because the evidence points at them being racists
chris_va 10y ago
I think your explanation on the racist name calling shows why this is such a difficult topic. There is a incorrect assumption that people often make, without malice, about economics being a zero sum game. It really is not, almost by definition. The more people in an area, usually the more opportunity people have for employment over a long time period, and the higher the economic output. Also, there is a difference between refugees (i.e. people who might otherwise die) and economic immigrants. It's hard to fault someone for their perception that other people might take their jobs, correct or not. It is easier to fault someone for taking the same stance when the alternative for the immigrants is potentially far more catastrophic. Especially when the arguments are more about culture and race than employment.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > taking the same stance when the alternative for the immigrants is potentially far more catastrophic refugees also tend to be better off economically in coming to the US. There are a lot of people in the world that can be saved from death by granting them asylum, but who don't get it. To what extent can, and should, the US help the world outside its borders?

by ng12 10y ago

gotofritz 10y ago

> And when they voiced anger about the government accepting immigrants when there already wasn't enough work to go around they got called racist. That's because the evidence points at them being racists

chris_va 10y ago

I think your explanation on the racist name calling shows why this is such a difficult topic. There is a incorrect assumption that people often make, without malice, about economics being a zero sum game. It really is not, almost by definition. The more people in an area, usually the more opportunity people have for employment over a long time period, and the higher the economic output. Also, there is a difference between refugees (i.e. people who might otherwise die) and economic immigrants. It's hard to fault someone for their perception that other people might take their jobs, correct or not. It is easier to fault someone for taking the same stance when the alternative for the immigrants is potentially far more catastrophic. Especially when the arguments are more about culture and race than employment.

Chris2048 10y ago
> taking the same stance when the alternative for the immigrants is potentially far more catastrophic refugees also tend to be better off economically in coming to the US. There are a lot of people in the world that can be saved from death by granting them asylum, but who don't get it. To what extent can, and should, the US help the world outside its borders?