3 ms·
>Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than
by fromthestart 8y ago
>Every credible study has shown that immigrants are net contributors to the economy contributing far more to the tax base (and hence to the infrastructure) than they take in terms of services
But all of those studies were conducted in countries with regulated borders. Your entire argument is flawed and, ironically, emotionally biased. I have no personal attachment to immigration either way, there is a rational argument to be made here: would a billion uneducated third worlders dumped on a country like England over the span of a month overwhelm the infrastructure?A million? Look at NYC, for example. Our subways are packed at rush our already. Same with Japan. Rationally, there is obviously some rate of influx that a city cannot accommodate, and this rate is probably not impossible in today's world.
Your friends are terrible examples.
- davidgould 8y agoWould those billion immigrants to England be made out of straw perchance? This is not a strong argument for a rational basis to oppose immigration. Further your original claim that you are not opposed to the immigrants for cultural or racial reasons is undermined by your repetition of the phrase "uneducated third worlders". It is not the case that third world persons are inherently uneducated. Further, specifying "third world" is itself culturally or racially motivated. It is hard to believe the that you are arguing in good faith and not merely seeking to disclaim the cultural and racial basis of your prejudice.