4 ms·

"As a group they tend to be great Americans" There is not a single group of Central Americans that have positive fiscal impact over their lifetime. Their kids

"As a group they tend to be great Americans" There is not a single group of Central Americans that have positive fiscal impact over their lifetime. Their kids are also not becoming doctors and engineers.

ddd00001 3y ago
By the way, I'm totally fine with allowing some number of people that we know are going to be fiscal negatives (likely into perpetuity) come to the country. There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system. That being said, those left of center are just so naive about this topic. Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system. Agreed; glad you think so too. > Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window. The problem is that "common sense" often proves to be neither, because we're quite capable of grossly misjudging what constitutes valuable human capital. Recall that we used to deny adult citizens the right to vote, or to serve on juries or in public office, unless they were white male property owners over 21 years old — who knows how much society lost as a result by way of productivity, and how many such men were actually counterproductive.
  - ddd00001 3y ago
    Wow you convinced me, there is no difference between any group of people and we should just take in the entire population of Central America. There will be no negative effects whatsoever. In fact you could swap the population of Beijing with that of Guatemala and you would see no difference whatsoever. You are so smart dctoedt.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      You really think that's a compelling argument? "It's not A so it must be B by golly" — if that's what you think, it's an indictment of your schooling.
      - ddd00001 3y ago
        Your argument is "America did bad things in the past therefore we should adopt hard leftist policies even if its not in our best interest". That is the logic of unwashed, tattooed community college dropouts. A question dctoedt - I assume you're from DC (per your name). Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Why not? Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?
        dctoedt 3y ago
        > I assume you're from DC (per your name). If you'd clicked on my handle, you'd immediately see that's an unfounded assumption. (Although I did live in suburban Maryland for a few years in my early teens when my dad was stationed in downtown DC.) > Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Somehow I don't think you're a lawyer — please stop trying to play Perry Mason (you do know who that is, right?), because competent lawyers don't do what you're seemingly trying to do here, not even on cross-examination: Jurors see through the bullshit and it pisses them off. > Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from? Au contraire: I didn't grow up with money; while I'm not poor, I hardly qualify as a limousine anything. But as I've gotten older I've become less rigidly judgmental; less inclined to berate people for (what I regard as) their fuck-ups; more respectful of differences in viewpoints; and more tolerant of errors in judgment (of which I've made my share). I've also come to appreciate that more people need opportunities like the ones I had --- as well as those that I didn't have.
      - ddd00001 3y ago
        We have decades of hard evidence that only a certain type of immigrant is successful and increases overall productivity. You want to ignore the wealth of data because "America was bad in the past". Simple game theory: we have two choices - A. focus immigration on high skill or B. focus immigration on low skill. If by some possibility you're right, and all people are blank slates and genetics is fake, then either choice is correct. If I am correct (suggested by ~50 years of hard data), then choice A is a huge boon to the country, while choice B bankrupts the country. It is astonishing that you are pushing for choice B with this knowledge. Like I said before, the worst thing for those left-of-center is thinking that there may be some inherent differences in different populations. It's the worst thought that could enter their mind. They live their entire lives trying to prove to people that they don't think this. This (plus knowing that you have enough money to shield yourself if the ideas that you advocate end up being destructive), allows you to virtue signal without a care.

ddd00001 3y ago

By the way, I'm totally fine with allowing some number of people that we know are going to be fiscal negatives (likely into perpetuity) come to the country. There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system. That being said, those left of center are just so naive about this topic. Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window.

dctoedt 3y ago
> There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system. Agreed; glad you think so too. > Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window. The problem is that "common sense" often proves to be neither, because we're quite capable of grossly misjudging what constitutes valuable human capital. Recall that we used to deny adult citizens the right to vote, or to serve on juries or in public office, unless they were white male property owners over 21 years old — who knows how much society lost as a result by way of productivity, and how many such men were actually counterproductive.
- ddd00001 3y ago
  Wow you convinced me, there is no difference between any group of people and we should just take in the entire population of Central America. There will be no negative effects whatsoever. In fact you could swap the population of Beijing with that of Guatemala and you would see no difference whatsoever. You are so smart dctoedt.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    You really think that's a compelling argument? "It's not A so it must be B by golly" — if that's what you think, it's an indictment of your schooling.
    - ddd00001 3y ago
      Your argument is "America did bad things in the past therefore we should adopt hard leftist policies even if its not in our best interest". That is the logic of unwashed, tattooed community college dropouts. A question dctoedt - I assume you're from DC (per your name). Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Why not? Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        > I assume you're from DC (per your name). If you'd clicked on my handle, you'd immediately see that's an unfounded assumption. (Although I did live in suburban Maryland for a few years in my early teens when my dad was stationed in downtown DC.) > Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Somehow I don't think you're a lawyer — please stop trying to play Perry Mason (you do know who that is, right?), because competent lawyers don't do what you're seemingly trying to do here, not even on cross-examination: Jurors see through the bullshit and it pisses them off. > Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from? Au contraire: I didn't grow up with money; while I'm not poor, I hardly qualify as a limousine anything. But as I've gotten older I've become less rigidly judgmental; less inclined to berate people for (what I regard as) their fuck-ups; more respectful of differences in viewpoints; and more tolerant of errors in judgment (of which I've made my share). I've also come to appreciate that more people need opportunities like the ones I had --- as well as those that I didn't have.
    - ddd00001 3y ago
      We have decades of hard evidence that only a certain type of immigrant is successful and increases overall productivity. You want to ignore the wealth of data because "America was bad in the past". Simple game theory: we have two choices - A. focus immigration on high skill or B. focus immigration on low skill. If by some possibility you're right, and all people are blank slates and genetics is fake, then either choice is correct. If I am correct (suggested by ~50 years of hard data), then choice A is a huge boon to the country, while choice B bankrupts the country. It is astonishing that you are pushing for choice B with this knowledge. Like I said before, the worst thing for those left-of-center is thinking that there may be some inherent differences in different populations. It's the worst thought that could enter their mind. They live their entire lives trying to prove to people that they don't think this. This (plus knowing that you have enough money to shield yourself if the ideas that you advocate end up being destructive), allows you to virtue signal without a care.