3 ms·
I think there are differences. However over the last 20 years, most immigration, of both kinds, have been about one thing: reduced labor costs. At the risk of
by Bucephalus355 8y ago
I think there are differences.
However over the last 20 years, most immigration, of both kinds, have been about one thing: reduced labor costs.
At the risk of downvotes, I’m going to include something Steve Bannon said on MSNBC last night about legal immigration. He made this point that it makes no sense for America to keep letting the best and brightest of the world in / draining them from everywhere else. Why aren’t we refusing the really good immigrants if anything? Those are the people we want in their home countries setting up fair and stable systems. Having them here is, after a certain point, kind of greedy.
Also free trade was supposed to fix this by also requiring companies to adhere to strict safety and labor laws, which would make labor prices more even. It never happened.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> Why aren’t we refusing the really good immigrants if anything? Steve Jobs' father was a Syrian immigrant [1]. It is doutbtful that Steve Jobs--or Elon Musk or Satya Nadella--would have been as successful in their original countries as they've been here. As a species, we all win from giving our best and brightest access to America's stable institutions and rich economy. More to the point, I find it difficult to believe Steve Bannon suddenly cares about other countries. His line about the overabundance of brown-skinned executives in Silicon Valley is telling enough.
- conanbatt 8y ago> However over the last 20 years, most immigration, of both kinds, have been about one thing: reduced labor costs. You mean to increase them. Thats the only point of restricting immigration, to increase the salaries of a few, at the cost of the many.