6 ms·

Why ever would you compare children and immigration? I love my parents and I’d have solidarity for my country fellows (France here). Immigrants don’t generally

Why ever would you compare children and immigration? I love my parents and I’d have solidarity for my country fellows (France here). Immigrants don’t generally earn much, let alone work legally and pay taxes. They are not paying our retirement. They require doctors and produce our “medical deserts” (the name we use in France where social security fails because of lack of practicians). They also wouldn’t fight for us if, say, Islam invaded us — in fact they are fighting full-force against us here. Immigrants are not de-facto children. They do not love us, and no-one asks them this question on the path to immigration.

wannadingo 1y ago
He is not saying immigrants are like children, he means that as the population ages and is not replenished by children, there will be nobody left to work unless the country accepts immigrants.
_qbxi 1y ago
In the US, immigrants often do pay taxes, and use up fewer benefits[1]. Moreover, our social security relies on perpetual growth to sustain itself. So if we can't grow our population via children, we must grow it via immigrants, to remain solvent. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-used-less-welfare-native-born-americans-2022 https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-used-less-welfare-nativ...
- lttlrck 1y ago
  Hence "natalist" popping up in some corners of the political spectrum.
  - _qbxi 1y ago
    I certainly support efforts to shape US society into one where people might want children. Universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, free education, etc. Not to mention one where land is used in a conscientious way to build community, with walkable spaces, public third spaces, and strong public transit.
    - immibis 1y ago
      The politics are more like: ban abortion, ban birth control, and assign every woman to a man...
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - _qbxi 1y ago
        I'm pro-natalist and pro-freedom.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > Universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, free education, etc. No such thing as free anything. Somebody's gotta work to pay for it. Those somebodies are the children and young healthy adults who are economically active. They are the ones who will pay the taxes which in turn fund services for everyone else. So it's impossible to create a welfare system in order to encourage families. People need to have children first so that they can be made to pay for it.
      - supplied_demand 1y ago
        == So it's impossible to create a welfare system in order to encourage families. People need to have children first so that they can be made to pay for it.== This ignores some important facts. First, lots of immigrants already pay taxes and don’t receive government benefits. Second, we already run a continuous deficit. Third, we could choose to shift existing spending priorities to more pro-family spending. It would cost about 1/3 of our military budget to pay for universal pre-K 3/4. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/6/2/total-cost-of-universal-pre-k https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/6/2/total-...
        matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > immigrants already pay taxes Immigrants function as imported children in this context. People wouldn't have the children that would grow into economically active adults, so the country had to import those adults from some other country whose people did have children. > we already run a continuous deficit Which is unsustainable. > we could choose to shift existing spending priorities to more pro-family spending Absolutely. Protecting and promoting families as a national policy is the right solution in my opinion.
xienze 1y ago
I think you’re missing the point. Modern societies with things like welfare, free healthcare, the concept of “retirement”, etc. require a growing population in order to function. But if the natives aren’t reproducing, either the natives have to accept a lower standard of living (ha ha) or you need to import warm bodies to keep the game going. We’re assured, of course, that importing anyone and everyone has absolutely no negative effects, but, well, we’ll see.
idiotsecant 1y ago
What exactly does it mean to be 'invaded by Islam' in your head? That's a fascinating sentence.
- exoverito 1y ago
  Living up to your username I see. If you still don't know what it means, or are pretending you don't, that's a major red flag. If you're asking honestly, try reading Soumission by Houellebecq.
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    If it's so obvious and simple you should be able to sum it up instead of telling me to read a crackpot book about it. The fact that you can't is telling.
skissane 1y ago
> Immigrants don’t generally earn much, let alone work legally and pay taxes. They are not paying our retirement. They require doctors and produce our “medical deserts” (the name we use in France where social security fails because of lack of practicians). My mother is a doctor and her father was a doctor before, and both are immigrants (from Scotland to Australia) - my grandfather was already a doctor when he immigrated, my mother was only 3 or 4 at the time but she ended up doing medicine too. Our children’s paediatrician did medicine in Sri Lanka and then immigrated to Australia post-graduation; my psychiatrist likewise graduated from medicine in India. My psychologist was born in Czechia, grew up there, moved to Australia as an adult and did his psychology degrees here. My closest personal friend is a lawyer who was born in Peru, grew up in Australia - but he isn’t Peruvian, his ancestry is Argentine-Uruguayan. One of my coworkers I work closely with immigrated to Australia only 2-3 years ago, from Argentina-he already worked for our employer in Argentina, but got an intra-company transfer to here. I don’t know any poor immigrants-I’m sure they exist, but I just don’t know any of them personally-I know lots of immigrants but they are all university-educated professionals Of course, I am talking about Australia, you are talking about France - but France has a great many middle class or better immigrants (and their descendants) too. The big difference is France also has huge numbers of socially disadvantaged immigrants, while Australia has significantly less (proportionally speaking). But the problem then isn’t immigration, it is mismanaged immigration-who, not how many
- xp84 1y ago
  > France also has huge numbers of socially disadvantaged immigrants, > mismanaged immigration-who, not how many Until I got here I was going to post to suggest that you were allowing yourself to believe that because some of the immigrants were of the successful type that there wasn’t a vast number of immigrants who are very poor and of the type GP was talking about. But I, you and GP agree on the “mismanagement of who.” I believe Western countries, especially the Left in Europe, UK, and US, are in a very awkward state right now because it’s obvious that we are losing the very things that make our countries attractive to these economic immigrants if we keep the de facto open borders policies (meaning most professionals can’t immigrate to the UK without years of paperwork and just the right job offer, but if someone with no marketable skills and a long criminal record and no ID shows up on a dinghy he gets free hotel for several years while they prepare to adjudicate his claim that he faces danger at home). Anyway anyone not in utter denial knows the above is unsustainable but they also are uncomfortable knowing that the people of hundreds of completely failed countries are suffering, and in theory if we could let one of them come to France, Australia, USA, UK, he/she would be better off. But they don’t know how to reconcile “can save a few” with “can’t literally bring all poor people here without destroying our country.”
matheusmoreira 1y ago
I'm not comparing children with immigrants. I'm pointing out the demographic fact that Japan has a low birth rate, far below replenishment. This implies the number of economically active individuals will only ever decrease over time. Without economically active people, collapse is inevitable. Therefore, they must either promote new families or accept immigration. Attempts to raise birth rates don't seem to be bearing fruit in any developed country. Therefore, acceptance of immigration is merely a matter of time. They have no choice.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Shrinking population only leads to collapse if the economy is built like a Ponzi scheme. This is most Western economies, but it doesn't have to be this way.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Shrinking population leads to zero population. Surely this truth is self-evident. There is no economy without people. There is no nation without natalism. > it doesn't have to be this way Absolutely. If the nation can maintain a proper replacement birth rate, the population will be stable. Decline and uncontrolled exponential growth are both undesirable.
    - HPsquared 1y ago
      It's balance of forces. The population didn't rise forever, it won't fall forever. Even at 50% replacement that takes decades to manifest. The current conditions (overcrowding and a feeling of 'stress' in the population) are temporary. And besides, what problem is it if there's half as many people in the country 50 years from now? It's more space for everyone else. The Black Death is a historic example; living standards improved drastically after the population fell a bit.
saagarjha 1y ago
Islam, of course, is not you. It is the "other".

wannadingo 1y ago

He is not saying immigrants are like children, he means that as the population ages and is not replenished by children, there will be nobody left to work unless the country accepts immigrants.

_qbxi 1y ago

In the US, immigrants often do pay taxes, and use up fewer benefits[1]. Moreover, our social security relies on perpetual growth to sustain itself. So if we can't grow our population via children, we must grow it via immigrants, to remain solvent. [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-used-less-welfare-native-born-americans-2022 https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-used-less-welfare-nativ...

lttlrck 1y ago
Hence "natalist" popping up in some corners of the political spectrum.
- _qbxi 1y ago
  I certainly support efforts to shape US society into one where people might want children. Universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, free education, etc. Not to mention one where land is used in a conscientious way to build community, with walkable spaces, public third spaces, and strong public transit.
  - immibis 1y ago
    The politics are more like: ban abortion, ban birth control, and assign every woman to a man...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - _qbxi 1y ago
      I'm pro-natalist and pro-freedom.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    > Universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, free education, etc. No such thing as free anything. Somebody's gotta work to pay for it. Those somebodies are the children and young healthy adults who are economically active. They are the ones who will pay the taxes which in turn fund services for everyone else. So it's impossible to create a welfare system in order to encourage families. People need to have children first so that they can be made to pay for it.
    - supplied_demand 1y ago
      == So it's impossible to create a welfare system in order to encourage families. People need to have children first so that they can be made to pay for it.== This ignores some important facts. First, lots of immigrants already pay taxes and don’t receive government benefits. Second, we already run a continuous deficit. Third, we could choose to shift existing spending priorities to more pro-family spending. It would cost about 1/3 of our military budget to pay for universal pre-K 3/4. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/6/2/total-cost-of-universal-pre-k https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/6/2/total-...
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > immigrants already pay taxes Immigrants function as imported children in this context. People wouldn't have the children that would grow into economically active adults, so the country had to import those adults from some other country whose people did have children. > we already run a continuous deficit Which is unsustainable. > we could choose to shift existing spending priorities to more pro-family spending Absolutely. Protecting and promoting families as a national policy is the right solution in my opinion.

xienze 1y ago

I think you’re missing the point. Modern societies with things like welfare, free healthcare, the concept of “retirement”, etc. require a growing population in order to function. But if the natives aren’t reproducing, either the natives have to accept a lower standard of living (ha ha) or you need to import warm bodies to keep the game going. We’re assured, of course, that importing anyone and everyone has absolutely no negative effects, but, well, we’ll see.

idiotsecant 1y ago

What exactly does it mean to be 'invaded by Islam' in your head? That's a fascinating sentence.

exoverito 1y ago
Living up to your username I see. If you still don't know what it means, or are pretending you don't, that's a major red flag. If you're asking honestly, try reading Soumission by Houellebecq.
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  If it's so obvious and simple you should be able to sum it up instead of telling me to read a crackpot book about it. The fact that you can't is telling.

skissane 1y ago

> Immigrants don’t generally earn much, let alone work legally and pay taxes. They are not paying our retirement. They require doctors and produce our “medical deserts” (the name we use in France where social security fails because of lack of practicians). My mother is a doctor and her father was a doctor before, and both are immigrants (from Scotland to Australia) - my grandfather was already a doctor when he immigrated, my mother was only 3 or 4 at the time but she ended up doing medicine too. Our children’s paediatrician did medicine in Sri Lanka and then immigrated to Australia post-graduation; my psychiatrist likewise graduated from medicine in India. My psychologist was born in Czechia, grew up there, moved to Australia as an adult and did his psychology degrees here. My closest personal friend is a lawyer who was born in Peru, grew up in Australia - but he isn’t Peruvian, his ancestry is Argentine-Uruguayan. One of my coworkers I work closely with immigrated to Australia only 2-3 years ago, from Argentina-he already worked for our employer in Argentina, but got an intra-company transfer to here. I don’t know any poor immigrants-I’m sure they exist, but I just don’t know any of them personally-I know lots of immigrants but they are all university-educated professionals Of course, I am talking about Australia, you are talking about France - but France has a great many middle class or better immigrants (and their descendants) too. The big difference is France also has huge numbers of socially disadvantaged immigrants, while Australia has significantly less (proportionally speaking). But the problem then isn’t immigration, it is mismanaged immigration-who, not how many

xp84 1y ago
> France also has huge numbers of socially disadvantaged immigrants, > mismanaged immigration-who, not how many Until I got here I was going to post to suggest that you were allowing yourself to believe that because some of the immigrants were of the successful type that there wasn’t a vast number of immigrants who are very poor and of the type GP was talking about. But I, you and GP agree on the “mismanagement of who.” I believe Western countries, especially the Left in Europe, UK, and US, are in a very awkward state right now because it’s obvious that we are losing the very things that make our countries attractive to these economic immigrants if we keep the de facto open borders policies (meaning most professionals can’t immigrate to the UK without years of paperwork and just the right job offer, but if someone with no marketable skills and a long criminal record and no ID shows up on a dinghy he gets free hotel for several years while they prepare to adjudicate his claim that he faces danger at home). Anyway anyone not in utter denial knows the above is unsustainable but they also are uncomfortable knowing that the people of hundreds of completely failed countries are suffering, and in theory if we could let one of them come to France, Australia, USA, UK, he/she would be better off. But they don’t know how to reconcile “can save a few” with “can’t literally bring all poor people here without destroying our country.”

matheusmoreira 1y ago

I'm not comparing children with immigrants. I'm pointing out the demographic fact that Japan has a low birth rate, far below replenishment. This implies the number of economically active individuals will only ever decrease over time. Without economically active people, collapse is inevitable. Therefore, they must either promote new families or accept immigration. Attempts to raise birth rates don't seem to be bearing fruit in any developed country. Therefore, acceptance of immigration is merely a matter of time. They have no choice.

HPsquared 1y ago
Shrinking population only leads to collapse if the economy is built like a Ponzi scheme. This is most Western economies, but it doesn't have to be this way.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Shrinking population leads to zero population. Surely this truth is self-evident. There is no economy without people. There is no nation without natalism. > it doesn't have to be this way Absolutely. If the nation can maintain a proper replacement birth rate, the population will be stable. Decline and uncontrolled exponential growth are both undesirable.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    It's balance of forces. The population didn't rise forever, it won't fall forever. Even at 50% replacement that takes decades to manifest. The current conditions (overcrowding and a feeling of 'stress' in the population) are temporary. And besides, what problem is it if there's half as many people in the country 50 years from now? It's more space for everyone else. The Black Death is a historic example; living standards improved drastically after the population fell a bit.

saagarjha 1y ago

Islam, of course, is not you. It is the "other".