5 ms·

Not only that but it provides no social services, so there’s no government cost or burden to immigration. Similar to how the US was in its early history but con

Not only that but it provides no social services, so there’s no government cost or burden to immigration. Similar to how the US was in its early history but contrast to how the US and Europe is now.

diminoten 7y ago
It is a myth that immigration creates a burden on the US government. I'm so sick of "two side"ism taking over every conversation. There is an opinion on this based in the weighing of all relevant facts, and there is an opinion about this based on the creative selection of only some facts. Decide for yourself, but what I've seen is that the full body of facts is much more supportive of the idea that immigrants are a net positive to the US than it is the opposite. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigrants-drain-government-resources/571582/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigr... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-ab... https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-drain-on-us-resources https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-d... https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-immigrants-fact-check https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-imm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigrants-are-not-the-fiscal-burden-native-born-americans-are https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigr... https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-contributors-immigrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/ https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-... https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-immigrants-and-why-theyre-mostly-wrong-a808952839c6 https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-...
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree with that. Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences? That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded. Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem. There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves! Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out. The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff. Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. Nobody is filtering out the undocumented, and yet here we are, still net gaining from their existence in the US. Further, no one is asking you to make that tradeoff, it is not at the expense of lower runs of our society, because immigrants are the lower runs of our society, at least they are right now, due to how we treat them. Also, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? You say it's not a tradeoff you're willing to make, but why not? People are people, regardless of where their birth town is. Why do you value natives higher than non-natives, despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives? You want to keep America small, its economy small, and its people worse off, all because you believe there's a false tradeoff. That's a problem. To put this another way, if there "magically" were no tradeoff at all, if the "lower runs of American native society" weren't "negatively impacted", would you change your position?

diminoten 7y ago

It is a myth that immigration creates a burden on the US government. I'm so sick of "two side"ism taking over every conversation. There is an opinion on this based in the weighing of all relevant facts, and there is an opinion about this based on the creative selection of only some facts. Decide for yourself, but what I've seen is that the full body of facts is much more supportive of the idea that immigrants are a net positive to the US than it is the opposite. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigrants-drain-government-resources/571582/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/are-immigr... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-ab... https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-drain-on-us-resources https://psmag.com/news/research-shows-immigrants-are-not-a-d... https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-immigrants-fact-check https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213888/trump-undocumented-imm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigrants-are-not-the-fiscal-burden-native-born-americans-are https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-30/immigr... https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-contributors-immigrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/ https://immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-... https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-immigrants-and-why-theyre-mostly-wrong-a808952839c6 https://medium.com/s/story/the-bad-economics-used-to-target-...

dev_dull 7y ago
Of course it has a cost. Everything has a cost. Maybe you meant the net benefit of immigration is greater than the initial cost burden in the long term? I agree with that. Or do you really believe that tripling the amount of software engineers in the Bay Area wouldn’t have any negative consequences? That’s the fallacy of an open border. At the very least we moderate and control immigration to mitigate short term costs and maximize long term benefit. And also for basic precautions, such as criminal history checks and vaccinations.
- diminoten 7y ago
  It's not relevant to talk about the cost of something without also talking about over what period of time, and the myth that immigrants are a net negative to the US is completely ungrounded. Further, the notion that something must not have any negative consequences to be a net positive is an insane one, and not how any rational thinker applies themselves to a problem. There is no fallacy of an open border, and the short term costs are lower with immigrants than they are with native born Americans (see the myriad of articles I linked if you don't believe me). Lower short term costs, similar-to-better long term benefits (again, a well supported idea), it is a no brainer; immigrants are a better investment for Americans to make than on themselves! Now obviously it's silly to say, "Kick out Americans, let immigrants take their place" but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > but pretending like there's a cost to be considered for letting immigrants in is hilariously selective in its application of fiscal responsibility, when we spend so much money trying to keep immigrants out. The reason immigrants are of benefit is because of the very borders you seek to remove. We apply a high barrier to entry which means we get more wheat and less chaff. Even if it was true that both legal and illegal immigrants are of advantage to "the economy," that argument acts as if the economy is the end-all-be-all of the nation-state. If allowing in cheaper immigrant labor allows for someone to get cheaper services at the expense of our lower runs of society through higher competition and lower wages, that's not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      That isn't true, because of how many undocumented immigrants come in and these numbers remain positive. Nobody is filtering out the undocumented, and yet here we are, still net gaining from their existence in the US. Further, no one is asking you to make that tradeoff, it is not at the expense of lower runs of our society, because immigrants are the lower runs of our society, at least they are right now, due to how we treat them. Also, why are native people better or more deserving than the immigrants to a better life? You say it's not a tradeoff you're willing to make, but why not? People are people, regardless of where their birth town is. Why do you value natives higher than non-natives, despite the clear indications that the non-natives are of a net benefit to you over the natives? You want to keep America small, its economy small, and its people worse off, all because you believe there's a false tradeoff. That's a problem. To put this another way, if there "magically" were no tradeoff at all, if the "lower runs of American native society" weren't "negatively impacted", would you change your position?