Immigration - more means less for all
Mr. Nice Guy
In the editorial area of the Rocky Mountain News there was a
speakout article by the Democratic former Colorado Governor
Richard Lamm, now director of the Center for Public Policy and
Contemporary Issues at Denver U. This post is a excerpt from this
article.
The average American woman has 2.1 chaldean in her lifetime which
will stabilize the U.S. population by the year 2040 at
approximately 305 million. Whether the population grows to 400 or
500 million depends largely on immigration. America must ask what
the public policy reasons for immigration are:
Do we need more people in the US? Are we underpopulated?
Do we really want an America of 500 million people? Immigration
will decide whether we stabilize of whether we continue to grow.
Do we have insufficient labor to run our economy? Do we need more
unskilled labor?
Will immigration ease the problems in our health care system?
Will it help improve our education system? Will it help reduce
crime in America?
Do we have too much affordable housing? Does our environment need
more people? does our quality of life need more people?
Does immigration help us to develop a more fair, egalitarian
society? Does it advance the interests of America's minorities?
Our society must look at the long term domestic impacts of
immigration and answer the public's hard questions, It is not
enough to answer in slogans.
California has 32 million people and largely because of
immigration it will have 50 million people by the year 2010. Some
400,000 people have left California since 1990 because they feel
the quality of life has diminished. Do we really want 50 million
Californians?
Our own birth rate will stabilize the US population; immigration
will cause it to double. Which of these do we want for our
grandchildren?
The US no longer is a empty continent which can absorb large
pools of labor. We are a cash wage society which requires tens of
thousands of dollars to create a job. As conditions change so
should our policy change. It is time to close down the age of
immigration.
Twenty-five years ago ago, a presidential commission spent a lot of
time and money looking at reasons for population growth. The
Commission on Population Growth and the American Future found:
"We have looked for, and have not found any continuing economic
argument for continued population growth. The health of our
country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business,
nor the welfare of the average person."
Since that time we have added 60 million new Americans. Inquiring
minds want to know why.
--
Rod Anderson aka Mr. Nice Guy o o
rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu _/\-\__/* \\__/\___
(*) o (*) * o
The wind doesn't blow, it sucks Lightning P-38 DeFelice
Levin Armwood
It goes with out saying that all Americans either came to this country in the last few hu
the last few hundred years or in the case of Native Americans thousands of
years.
Who are we to say that the door should be closed to others. Maybe the better
option is to remove the reasons that so many want to flee their own country.
Mark G.
by people who risked their lives to get here. The closer we are to our
immigrant roots, the more we will cherish freedom in America. The
liberals that want to burn the American flag are rarely among the Cubans
and Mexicans and Chinese and Irish whose parents were fleeing oppression
and tyranny in other countries.
While I understand the problems that immigration causes in terms of
welfare and employment, I also think that closing off our borders is a
bad idea for America in the long run. This won't go over very well in
this group, I know. Perhaps the answer is to only allow immigrants who
already have families or sponsors in the US to lessen the impact on our
resources.:)
--
|\ The pen is mightier than the sword. |http://www.shadow.net/
[|%%%%%%%%%>========================--------------- |~markg
|/ But the sword sure hurts a lot more. |
Mark G.
: It goes with out saying that all Americans either came to this country in the last few hu
Good luck on that. But, if we can then that _would_ be the better
solution. That is the rationale for helping Mexico. The question is
whether Mexico can end their own corruption.
Reuben Logsdon
> We cannot possibly accept all the tired, poor, huddled masses from all
> over the world. To even consider the possibility is as idiotic as
> it is well-meaning.
Note that the "tired, poor, huddled masses" quote was inscribed upon
the Statue of Liberty by a foriegner (French) at a time when France was
selling its state-supported orphans to the United States as indentured
servants.
The Statue of Liberty, besides being ugly as sin, is fundamentally un-
American. The "poor, huddled masses" that come to the US today live as
wage slaves working in sweatshops and grape fields. (the rich, unhuddled
masses do much better)
Reuben
John P. Sarreal
doors to immigrants. While I am strong advocate of immigration (although
not to the extent that Julian Simon is) I don't think that we would be
able to stop immigration, especially illegal immigration, to this country
even if we wanted to. Does the DEA stop all drug use here in America? Or
do our local police prevent all crime? Yet why do some belive that by
spending more on the Border Patrol or by implementing anti-immigration
policy we will somehow be ridden of "those pesky immigrants"?
Immigrants are a significant and vital part of our culture and
economy. We cannot seriously consider closing our borders in the
interests of protecting the "natives".
-John Sarreal
Student at Swarthmore College
Travis C. Porco
>In article <3nf84i$9...@agate.berkeley.edu> po...@violet.berkeley.edu (Travis C. Porco) writes:
>>We live here now and can make policy based on what is best for ourselves
>>and our children, not based on slavish adherence to a past in which the
>>country was sparsely inhabited and undeveloped.
>>
>>--Travis
>>(my opinions, not those of UCBerkeley)
>
>Yes we can, of course, make any policy we wish. However, for most of
>its history, the US has continually taken in large waves of immigrants
>so that one factor which makes the US what it is (I'm thinking here
>particularly of openness to new ideas, readiness to change, self-
>reliance) may be precisely because of this. My greatest fear of
>reduced immigration is that this society will atrophy and lose its
>uniqueness.
>
>Philip V. Hull.
Philip,
there is some truth to what you say. It concerns me that the qualities
you speak of cannot be preserved within our own society, but need to
always be imported from abroad. And yet there is no doubt that to
some extent this is true. There can be little doubt that the
spoiled native-born generation we have today, who take all for
granted and despise hard work as leading only to "chump change",
"dead-end lives", and so forth, have less of the work ethic and
self-reliance that used to be universally accepted in America.
It is possible that the sort of people who would pull up all stakes
and travel to a distant land are a special sort. I do believe,
though, that most immigration is for economic reasons ultimately;
nevertheless, during times of rapid expansion, this benefits all of
us. Plus, many immigrants if not most intended to stay and become
fully naturalized. Yesterday the plaint of the immigrant was that
they were as American as anyone else--today?
There is a distinctive quality to Americans and to America itself,
as there is to all other nations. My concern is that too high an
immigration rate will lead not to assimilation, but to Balkanization,
multicultural fragmentation,
and the scapegoating of those of us of White European ancestry
(you know, we "ice people", patriarchal world devourers who have
benefited from the enslavement of the whole world and all that).
Unfortunately, any mention of White people causes one to be accused
of Naziism, of all things! There was a time when any mention of
the rights of labor or of working conditions got one accused of
Communism.
Thanks for your response.
>
>--
>INTERNET: hu...@cogsci.berkeley.edu
>BITNET: hu...@cogsci.berkeley.bitnet
>UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp
--Travis
(my opinions--not those of UCBerkeley)
hu...@cogsci.berkeley.edu
>We live here now and can make policy based on what is best for ourselves
>and our children, not based on slavish adherence to a past in which the
>country was sparsely inhabited and undeveloped.
>
>--Travis
>(my opinions, not those of UCBerkeley)
Yes we can, of course, make any policy we wish. However, for most of
its history, the US has continually taken in large waves of immigrants
so that one factor which makes the US what it is (I'm thinking here
particularly of openness to new ideas, readiness to change, self-
reliance) may be precisely because of this. My greatest fear of
reduced immigration is that this society will atrophy and lose its
uniqueness.
Philip V. Hull.
--
hu...@cogsci.berkeley.edu
Yes. I share your concern. However, I see the solution as lying in
instituting domestic policies that might prevent such Balkanization,
rather than in restricting immigration. Another issue is that, although
relatively underpopulated compared to many (most?) areas of the
world.
Philip V. Hull
Travis C. Porco
John P. Sarreal <jsar...@sccs.swarthmore.edu> wrote:
> Immigrants are a significant and vital part of our culture and
>economy.
>-John Sarreal
John, in the childhood of America, when there were large frontier areas
and massive industrial expansion, we could easily afford to absorb large
numbers of immigrants from all over the world. Today, in the era of
shrinking budgets and national decline, this unlimited immigration does
not help people who are currently Americans. Some immigration, of
talented people, should always continue, but we cannot keep absorbing
such large numbers of immigrants anymore. Are people coming here to
be Americans as in the past, or to recreate the language, culture,
and beliefs of another country--coming here for $ only?
(I'm all for cultural preservation, but if someone wants to preserve
the culture of the homeland, perhaps the homeland is the best place
to do so. When someone immigrates to America, they choose to become
Americans, like my ancestors from Italy. Excessive immigration converts
portions of America to a foreign land, forcing Americans, of all races and
ethnicities, to live in a foreign country.)
Unfortunately, some people are willing to bury the important issues here
in a hysterical squawk of racism, so that reasonable and candid discussion
of national policy, and whether that national policy benefits Americans
who live here today, has become impossible.
We cannot possibly accept all the tired, poor, huddled masses from all
over the world. To even consider the possibility is as idiotic as
it is well-meaning.
--Travis
Travis C. Porco
Mark G. <ma...@anshar.shadow.net> wrote:
>Levin Armwood (gd...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>
>: It goes with out saying that all Americans either came to this country in the last few hu
>: the last few hundred years or in the case of Native Americans thousands of
>: years.
>
>: Who are we to say that the door should be closed to others.
We live here now and can make policy based on what is best for ourselves
Pete Lienemann
>From: rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
>Subject: Immigration - more means less for all
>Date: 23 Apr 1995 08:53:55 -0600
My suggestion is that you ask any Native American if immigration means
"less."
Shit, we better close the borders now!
+---------------------------------------------------------+
|Pete Lienemann Jr. / cnc...@cybernetics.net / Raleigh NC|
|"Normal does not exist, it is a myth!" PTL, 1984. |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Jay Hanson
>
>Immigration is invaluable to America. This country was built and powered
>by people who risked their lives to get here. The closer we are to our
>immigrant roots, the more we will cherish freedom in America. The
>liberals that want to burn the American flag are rarely among the Cubans
>and Mexicans and Chinese and Irish whose parents were fleeing oppression
>and tyranny in other countries.
I just thought of something (probably stupid)! We could solve the
overpopulation-by-immigration problem if every time we allowed one
of those "invaluable" immigrants into America, we deported one of
those "unvaluable" crooks who presently hold public office.
This could be seen as an alternative to term limits! <G>
Good idea?
Jay
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The real questions are: What is the name of the political theory
that allows "artificial people" (corporations) to kill "natural
people" (your kids) in order to make profit (larger numbers)?
And does this political theory derive its philosophical premise
from the teachings of our beloved John Locke or Adam Smith?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Finley
>Travis C. Porco wrote:
>> We cannot possibly accept all the tired, poor, huddled masses from all
>The Statue of Liberty, besides being ugly as sin, is fundamentally un-
>American. The "poor, huddled masses" that come to the US today live as
>wage slaves working in sweatshops and grape fields. (the rich, unhuddled
>masses do much better)
Their Children, though, do tend to succeed. The case of the Chinese /
Vietnamese / Soviet-Jewish High-School Valedectorian has become so
common as to be something of a cliche! Immigration is as "American" as
Apple Pie or Chop Suey!
--
The Big D
Patrick Gainer
Mark G. <ma...@anshar.shadow.net> wrote:
>While I understand the problems that immigration causes in terms of
>welfare and employment, I also think that closing off our borders is a
>bad idea for America in the long run. This won't go over very well in
>this group, I know. Perhaps the answer is to only allow immigrants who
>already have families or sponsors in the US to lessen the impact on our
>resources.:)
Legal immigration causes no problems in terms of unemployment and
welfare.
Look at the statistics for the makeup of those receiving unemployment
and welfare. The vast majority are natural Americans.
An amazing bit of propoganda: claiming the unemployment and welfare problems
are due to immigrants rather than deadbeat Americans.
Pat
t. hirata
yeah. it's become so much of a cliche that we call it a "stereotype".
there are African American and Latino valedictorians every year, too, but
we don't hear these people touted as "welfare" success stories, or
"immigrant achievement" do we?
folks don't realize that SE Asians have one of the highest welfare
persistence rates of any ethnic group. and since they share
characteristics of other welfare-dependent groups like low education,
limited economic and social resources, and a lack of living-wage jobs
it's a wonder that anyone works their way out of poverty.
just because *any* one person *may* "make it", it doesn't mean that
*every* one *can* make it.
--Th.
Peter Nelson
>From: ma...@anshar.shadow.net (Mark G.)
>Subject: Re: Immigration - more means less for all
>Date: 23 Apr 1995 15:20:29 -0400
>Immigration is invaluable to America. This country was built and powered
>by people who risked their lives to get here. The closer we are to our
>immigrant roots, the more we will cherish freedom in America.
One third of all "US" Nobel prize winners were foreign born. If
we cut off immigration we will be cutting off a major source of
talent, creativity, drive, and brains.
> The liberals that want to burn the American flag are rarely among
> the Cubans and Mexicans and Chinese and Irish whose parents were
> fleeing oppression and tyranny in other countries.
"Liberals"? Why pick on the liberals when, right now it's the
conservatives (Wilson, Buchanan) who are the most stridently
anti-immigration.
---peter
Mark G.
: Another aspect to consider is whether or not it is feasible to close our
: doors to immigrants. While I am strong advocate of immigration (although
: not to the extent that Julian Simon is) I don't think that we would be
: able to stop immigration, especially illegal immigration, to this country
: even if we wanted to. Does the DEA stop all drug use here in America? Or
: do our local police prevent all crime? Yet why do some belive that by
: spending more on the Border Patrol or by implementing anti-immigration
: policy we will somehow be ridden of "those pesky immigrants"?
: economy. We cannot seriously consider closing our borders in the
: interests of protecting the "natives".
Considering that immigrants are willing to risk their lives to come here
i don't think you can stop them no matter how well you close the borders.
Mark G.
: In article <3ne99t$h...@anshar.shadow.net>, ma...@anshar.shadow.net says...
: >
: >Immigration is invaluable to America. This country was built and powered
: >and Mexicans and Chinese and Irish whose parents were fleeing oppression
: >and tyranny in other countries.
: I just thought of something (probably stupid)! We could solve the
: overpopulation-by-immigration problem if every time we allowed one
: of those "invaluable" immigrants into America, we deported one of
: those "unvaluable" crooks who presently hold public office.
: This could be seen as an alternative to term limits! <G>
Or send some spoiled-brat flag-burning UC -Santa Cruz liberal arts major. :)
Dennis Mai
: folks don't realize that SE Asians have one of the highest welfare
: persistence rates of any ethnic group. and since they share
: characteristics of other welfare-dependent groups like low education,
: limited economic and social resources, and a lack of living-wage jobs
: it's a wonder that anyone works their way out of poverty.
Hey, shut the fuck up. When my parents just arrived here,
they were on welfare, but we shortly after got ourselves out of it,
and now we're good old middle-class citizens. So go piss on your
pants or something.
// Dennis the Proletarian
kruise
>Mark G. <ma...@anshar.shadow.net> wrote:
>>Levin Armwood (gd...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>>
>>: It goes with out saying that all Americans either came to this country in the last few hu
>>: the last few hundred years or in the case of Native Americans thousands of
>>: years.
>>
>>: Who are we to say that the door should be closed to others.
>
>We live here now and can make policy based on what is best for ourselves
>and our children, not based on slavish adherence to a past in which the
>country was sparsely inhabited and undeveloped.
>
>--Travis
>(my opinions, not those of UCBerkeley)
1) We have yet to right all the wrongs we did to the Native Americans.
2) Friends of mine from China always tell me how much wasted space we have.
They see much of our open space, ie. golf courses and parks, as wasted
and available for development. Immigrants bring with them their own
ideas as far as how many people this land can hold. Yes we could
fill more than a billion people in the US! But do we want to?
This democrate realizes the impact that population is having on our
resources. We'll have to shut the door some time. Now is better than later!
Randy
kru...@wln.com
Jeanne Kowalewski
Mai) wrote:
Yeah, shut the fuck up. Dennis has learned to talk American real good,
just like the other students at PSU. ;-)
Jeanne K.
t. hirata
>t. hirata (hir...@girtab.usc.edu) wrote:
>: folks don't realize that SE Asians have one of the highest welfare
>: persistence rates of any ethnic group. and since they share
>: characteristics of other welfare-dependent groups like low education,
>: limited economic and social resources, and a lack of living-wage jobs
>: it's a wonder that anyone works their way out of poverty.
>Hey, shut the fuck up. When my parents just arrived here,
>they were on welfare, but we shortly after got ourselves out of it,
>and now we're good old middle-class citizens. So go piss on your
>pants or something.
>// Dennis the Proletarian
look, friend, you don't have to cuss at me, since i didn't say
"Dennis Mai's family..." stats is stats. but stats is *only* stats.
i don't mean to demean SE Asians, or any other welfare recipients.
the whole point here is that the "model minority" supposedly uses
bootstraps, not welfare. well, we ain't nobody's model minority, 'k?
and guess what: the "model minority" uses welfare, too. so why don't
you put your knee-jerking leg in a sling and re-read the original post.
at the same time, there are reasons for welfare persistence beyond
mere laziness. if your family managed to get off welfare, then great.
everybody wishes that more people could do the same. but the truth is
that abolition of welfare ain't gonna help out many of the folks who
can't get off of it under the status quo. all it'll do is create more
poor folks. any "tax savings" will probably be eaten up in "emergency"
health needs anyway.
--Th.
Mark G.
And another thing, maybe slightly off the topic...as more proof of how
immigrants cherish this country, the Cubans detained in Guantanamo have
expressed their desire to help the victims in the OKC bombing and are now
donating blood. These ppl are not even here yet and they want to
contribute to this country.
Travis C. Porco
bromley blair pat <bro...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> A question I have regarding immigration is,
>
> where does it end?
>
It doesn't.
It seems highly desirable that Canada be changed completely. After all,
the population is sufficiently small that it would not be at all difficult
to alter the demography completely. Perhaps the official language could be
changed, and the people who live there now could be reduced to impotent
minority status themselves. After all, White people are just evil
conquerors and it will be nice to see them shrink into oblivion,
grandmothers, librarians, liberals, and all.
Only a bigot would oppose that, right?
Everyone is sure to live in harmony, right?
Right?
(For the irony-challenged, the above message is sarcastic. For the
humorless, _yes_ I do have to include this message. For the stupid,
note it is quite possible for a reasonable person of good will, who does not
hate anyone because of their race, to oppose unchecked immigration. For
the naive, it is not possible to do so without being accused of Naziism.
Finally, for the unimaginative, we already know someone is sure to quote
this message and add their own "For the" clause with some petty dig.)
--Travis
(speaking only for myself)
bromley blair pat
A question I have regarding immigration is,
where does it end?
A second question I have regarding immigration is,
why does everyone want to immigrate to Canada?
The third question I have relating to immigration is,
what would reduce the rate of immigration (absolute numbers,
and percentage of Canada's population), without closing
Canada's borders?
The fourth and final question is,
what would make non-immigrant Canadians emigrate to countries
from which Canada receives a significant share of its
immigrants?
Thanks
Blair
p.s. A non-immigrant Canadian is a Canadian who was born and
grown up, and resident in Canada for most (over 85%) of
his or her life, as I define it.
Steve Cheang
We should get rid of all immigrants to the United States, legal or illegal. We should
get rid of all of our presidents. After all, their ancestors were all immigrants from
other countries. We should get rid of Alexander Bell. After all, who needs a phone?
We can all use e-mail. :-) We should get rid of Thomas Edison. Why do we need
a light bulb? All we want is candle. We should get rid of Henry Ford. Why do we
want to stream line the industrial processes? We have already had enough cars
on the road. We should get rid of all Asians, Afro-Americans, Latintos, as well as
Caucasians. They are all immigrants from other places of the world. We should
get rid of all American Indians as well. The historians said they were Mongolian
descendants who came from another continent thousand years ago. Although we
don't know this for sure, to be safe, let's get rid of them too. We should get rid of
most animals in the zoo since most of them are not native to America.
Steve Cheang
speaking for the Native Species of America
Ramasubramanian Ramakrishnan
Well, that is a good idea. If you get rid of all the immigrants,
that would leave only a few red indians in the US.
Subu
Reuben Logsdon
> Hey, shut the fuck up. When my parents just arrived here,
> they were on welfare, but we shortly after got ourselves out of it,
> and now we're good old middle-class citizens.
>
Dennis, I agree with what you said to that guy, but... Would you and
your parents be in the same place now with or without welfare? Would
you have come to the US if welfare didn't exist?
I suspect both answers would be yes, but I'll wait for your answer.
If yes, then why defend the welfare state {assuming you're still
anti-government and were defending welfare}?
Reuben
Mark G.
:
: A question I have regarding immigration is,
: where does it end?
It doesn't really.
:
A second question I have regarding immigration is,
: why does everyone want to immigrate to Canada?
Everyone? The US gets its share too. Probably economics and politics.
Freedom in both.
: The third question I have relating to immigration is,
: what would reduce the rate of immigration (absolute numbers,
: and percentage of Canada's population), without closing
: Canada's borders?
Try to eliminate the reasons that ppl from other countries want to
immigrate. Joining the US against Cuba is a good start. :)
: The fourth
and final question is,
: what would make non-immigrant Canadians emigrate to countries
: from which Canada receives a significant share of its
: immigrants?
They can afford it.
:
Thanks
: Blair
: p.s. A non-immigrant Canadian is a Canadian who was born and
: grown up, and resident in Canada for most (over 85%) of
: his or her life, as I define it.
--
Travis C. Porco
Ramasubramanian Ramakrishnan <rama...@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>If you get rid of all the immigrants,
>that would leave only a few red indians in the US.
You mean, "descendants of immigrants". The argument "since we are
all descended from immigrants, we must allow all who desire to
immigrate to do so" is a childish distraction; America and the world
have changed a great deal since the heady days of a lifetime ago.
What was applied in the days of rapid
industrialization and the open frontier shouldn't be thoughtlessly
applied today.
We're not crowded at all, though, compared to China, you say? With
all due respect to China, let's keep it that way. I don't want to
see posters going up here that say, "You'd better have only one child."
The fact that nearly all Americans are descended from immigrants who
arrived in the last few hundred years makes us sympathetic to
immigration, but we must not let this romantic sentimentalism blind
us to the _real issue_--what is best for the people living here _now_,
who work and pay the taxes.
>Subu
--Travis
(opinions don't reflect UCBerkeley)
power_to_the_people
>
>
>In the editorial area of the Rocky Mountain News there was a
>speakout article by the Democratic former Colorado Governor
>Richard Lamm, now director of the Center for Public Policy and
>Contemporary Issues at Denver U. This post is a excerpt from this
>article.
>
>
>The average American woman has 2.1 chaldean in her lifetime which
>will stabilize the U.S. population by the year 2040 at
>approximately 305 million. Whether the population grows to 400 or
>500 million depends largely on immigration. America must ask what
>the public policy reasons for immigration are:
>
>Do we need more people in the US? Are we underpopulated?
>
>Do we really want an America of 500 million people? Immigration
>will decide whether we stabilize of whether we continue to grow.
>
>Do we have insufficient labor to run our economy? Do we need more
>unskilled labor?
>
>Will immigration ease the problems in our health care system?
>Will it help improve our education system? Will it help reduce
>crime in America?
>
>Do we have too much affordable housing? Does our environment need
>more people? does our quality of life need more people?
>
>Does immigration help us to develop a more fair, egalitarian
>society? Does it advance the interests of America's minorities?
>
>Our society must look at the long term domestic impacts of
>immigration and answer the public's hard questions, It is not
>enough to answer in slogans.
>
>California has 32 million people and largely because of
>immigration it will have 50 million people by the year 2010. Some
>400,000 people have left California since 1990 because they feel
>the quality of life has diminished. Do we really want 50 million
>Californians?
>
>Our own birth rate will stabilize the US population; immigration
>will cause it to double. Which of these do we want for our
>grandchildren?
>
>The US no longer is a empty continent which can absorb large
>pools of labor. We are a cash wage society which requires tens of
>thousands of dollars to create a job. As conditions change so
>should our policy change. It is time to close down the age of
>immigration.
>
>Twenty-five years ago ago, a presidential commission spent a lot of
>time and money looking at reasons for population growth. The
>Commission on Population Growth and the American Future found:
>
>"We have looked for, and have not found any continuing economic
>argument for continued population growth. The health of our
>country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business,
>nor the welfare of the average person."
>
>Since that time we have added 60 million new Americans. Inquiring
>minds want to know why.
>
>--
>Rod Anderson aka Mr. Nice Guy o o
>rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu _/\-\__/* \\__/\___
> (*) o (*) * o
>The wind doesn't blow, it sucks Lightning P-38 DeFelice
I can't understand why Americans are so Patriotic. You are not
even NATIVES !! You are all Immigrants! Unless , ofcourse, you are an
american Indian. You must search for your roots, whichever land you
have come from. In the case of Mr.Nice Guy, I think that is Disneyland!
PTTP
P.s. of course we don't want to see a us of 500 million. You already
cause enough havoc and destruction as it is!
Mark G.
By the way...I consider myself a Native-American. I was born in New
Jersey. :)
--
********************************* ********************************
* My views are not mine. They * * ma...@shadow.net *
* they belong to my dog. * * HTTP://www.shadow.net/~markg *
* ******************************* ********************************
Dinesh @ 415-326-9324
Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>us to the _real issue_--what is best for the people living here _now_,
>who work and pay the taxes.
>
I hope you didn't vote Republican. Since they have been aiming to cut
benefits of people who are (a) here legally, (b) pay their taxes BUT (c)
do not vote. A.k.a. "legal aliens".
May I also refer you to a front-page story in the last weeks WSJ(s) ? A
pretty cool, objective assessment of some of the popular "theories" on
immigration costs.
Live and let live.
--Dinesh
Alain Chammas
(Wun-chun Chau) wrote:
> Is there anyone know if a person have a job in US can
> become a PR in Canada and still live in US?
You will have to establish beyond any doubt that your center of life and
interest is in Canada, even if you are living in the US. This is possible
for instance for somebody whose wife and children live and go to school in
Canada, but who for business reasons has to live in the US, shuttling back
and forth to see his family. I know of one case where the situation
described above worked out and the landed immigrant status of the guy was
upheld, giving him even the possibility of applying for Canadian
citizenship after three years.
If you are single, though, things might not be as easy.
> Chun
Regards,
--
Alain Chammas
---
La vérité est révolutionnaire... (Lénine)
(or) Toute vérité n'est pas bonne á dire... (sens commun)
(donc) Toute révolution n'est pas bonne à faire!
Wun-chun Chau
Is there anyone know if a person have a job in US can
become a PR in Canada and still live in US?
Thanks
Chun
--
===============Do you want to die young? If you know what I mean :) ==========
Email :wun-...@cae.wisc.edu WWW: http://www.engr.wisc.edu/~wun-chun/homepage
Home :3164 Muir Field Rd., Apt#205, Madison, WI 53719 PHONE:(608)845-1551
Office:3652 Engr Hall, 1415 Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706 PHONE:(608)265-3826
Tom Lathrop
Peter Nelson <pne...@lagoon.ultranet.com> wrote:
>In article <3ne99t$h...@anshar.shadow.net> ma...@anshar.shadow.net (Mark G.) writes:
>>Immigration is invaluable to America. This country was built and powered
>>by people who risked their lives to get here. The closer we are to our
>>immigrant roots, the more we will cherish freedom in America.
> One third of all "US" Nobel prize winners were foreign born. If
> we cut off immigration we will be cutting off a major source of
> talent, creativity, drive, and brains.
Who says we have to cut off the talent? People like this make up a
rather small proportion of the total immigrant influx. Let them in,
and cut off the flood of unskilled labor. Problem solved!
--
===================================================================
Tom Lathrop | Politics: A strife of interests masquerading
tlat...@netcom.com | as a contest of principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
===================================================================
Tyler A. Cather
: In the editorial area of the Rocky Mountain News there was a
: speakout article by the Democratic former Colorado Governor
: Richard Lamm, now director of the Center for Public Policy and
: Contemporary Issues at Denver U. This post is a excerpt from this
: article.
: The average American woman has 2.1 chaldean in her lifetime which
: will stabilize the U.S. population by the year 2040 at
: approximately 305 million.
But, I thought that Babylonian culture disappeared long ago. Maybe that's
why they only have two per lifetime, they must be difficult to find; I
can't remember the last time I saw a chaldean, but I did see some Amish,
once.
Tyler
--
Tyler
tca...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu
Travis C. Porco
Dinesh @ 415-326-9324 <din...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3npl7f$6...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>> the _real issue_--what is best for the people living here _now_,
>>who work and pay the taxes.
>>--Travis
>I hope you didn't vote Republican.
Actually I believed Clinton's carefully marketed election propaganda and
thought Clinton really would do what he said he'd do, you know "new
Democrat:, turn the party back to the center away from the McGovernite
tree-hugger-"blame-America-first" crowd. HA! I'm a conservative Democrat,
but I voted Republican in the midterm election. Once bitten, twice shy.
...deletia...
>May I also refer you to a front-page story in the last weeks WSJ(s) ? A
>pretty cool, objective assessment of some of the popular "theories" on
>immigration costs.
In fact the WSJ is quite pro-immigration, since companies can pay
immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses. I don't think a large
rate of immigration is good for this country. We cannot possibly
assimilate so many people so fast. A few, skilled people who want to
become Americans is one thing; my relatives immigrated here from Italy.
Regarding immigration, the ONLY issue I am concerned with is whether it is
good for my country and the people who live here now. Turning America into
a giant soup kitchen or a huge nuclear Bosnia, where white people are
punished for the actions of their ancestors, is idiotic.
I urge _you_ to read the highly informative article in the May 1995
Atlantic Monthly, entitled The Diversity Myth.
>Live and let live.
We need MUCH LESS of this sort of vague fluffbunny
sentimentalism. No offense, but I'm exasperated by the inability to even
bring up the issue without someone breaking into a chorus of "Imagine"
or else squawking racism.
What we do need is a LOT MORE cold, realistic, serious assessment of what
is good for the long term interests of the USA--the whole USA and not just
the group of short-sighted businesses who influence the WSJ editorial page.
>--Dinesh
--Travis
(not speaking for Berkeley)
Michael Wenlock
writes:
>
>Tom Lathrop (tlat...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Who says we have to cut off the talent? People like this make up a
>: rather small proportion of the total immigrant influx. Let them in,
>: and cut off the flood of unskilled labor. Problem solved!
>
>
>the trend. They let the dirty whites to stay first. They got nothing
>but small pox from those white immigrants. They should have killed
them
>all as they land, and drive them back to the sea. They natives
>could have owned the whole place. But no. They tried to play nice
guys
>and allow those immigrants to stay. And what did they get for
allowing
>the white immigrants to stay: the whites stole their land, give them
>small pox which kills a lot of the natives, the whites wasted all the
>animals the natives need to survive. And after all that, they
themselves
>got murderred by the white immigrants.
>
>Yes, all immigrants should be sent back where they came from, starting
>with the whites.
>
>
And send the indians back across alaska to the Steppes?
Bring back cro-magnon man and we can hand the whole world over to
them....
Mike Beebe
: And send the indians back across alaska to the Steppes?
: Bring back cro-magnon man and we can hand the whole world over to
: them....
Get your protohuman scum outta here! America for the trilobits!
Mike "75 million years of evolution can't be wrong!" Beebe
--
A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45
Bryant
Michael Wenlock <bald...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <D7trE...@cuug.ab.ca> fu...@cuug.ab.ca (Kwok Fung 268-1854)
>writes:
>>
>>Tom Lathrop (tlat...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Who says we have to cut off the talent? People like this make up a
>>: rather small proportion of the total immigrant influx. Let them in,
>>: and cut off the flood of unskilled labor. Problem solved!
Part of the argument I hear from folks opposed to open immigration is
that immigrants displace American workers in the marketplace.
If this is so, then we should be *least* worried about unskilled workers
who pick apples and tend fields, shouldn't we? Few Americans indeed
depend on such jobs for their livelihood.
Bryant
Kwok Fung 268-1854
: Who says we have to cut off the talent? People like this make up a
: rather small proportion of the total immigrant influx. Let them in,
: and cut off the flood of unskilled labor. Problem solved!
I agree with you totally. It is all the Indians' fault. They started
the trend. They let the dirty whites to stay first. They got nothing
but small pox from those white immigrants. They should have killed them
all as they land, and drive them back to the sea. They natives
could have owned the whole place. But no. They tried to play nice guys
and allow those immigrants to stay. And what did they get for allowing
the white immigrants to stay: the whites stole their land, give them
small pox which kills a lot of the natives, the whites wasted all the
animals the natives need to survive. And after all that, they themselves
got murderred by the white immigrants.
Yes, all immigrants should be sent back where they came from, starting
with the whites.
--
Kwok L. Fung
bromley blair pat
>Tom Lathrop (tlat...@netcom.com) wrote:
When you say all immigrants should be sent back, does this include
the children and or descendents of immigrants who were born,
raised, and grown up in this country? I'm assuming not, since
these people are not immigrants at all. As for the first peoples
of this nation, in truth, only their ancestors were here first.
I agree with your argument that the native peoples should probably
have fought to keep the Europeans out, and if I had been a member
of one of the Iroquoian or Algonkian tribes, I would have done
my damndest to keep the Europeans out!
Blair
>--
>Kwok L. Fung
R. Tang
Travis C. Porco <po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>In fact the WSJ is quite pro-immigration, since companies can pay
>immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
>make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
>uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses.
This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
do not compete for the same jobs.
Competition helps ALL businesses.
> I don't think a large
>rate of immigration is good for this country. We cannot possibly
>assimilate so many people so fast.
Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
>is good for the long term interests of the USA--the whole USA and not just
>the group of short-sighted businesses who influence the WSJ editorial page.
On the whole, QUITE positive.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Mark G.
: If we're talking about the Wall Street Journal, I would suspect that
: the costs considered were purely economic, that is, calculated in
: dollars. But what about when immigration causes costs to rise.
: While the availabity of many commodities may expand due to
: immigration, others cannot.
: I am speaking, of course, of things like forest land, air, beach front
: property, and mountains, areas where one can see the stars without
: city lights ruining the view, and the simple feeling of not being
: crowded. Did the WSJ consider these costs? How much are they worth?
Immigrants tend to stay near large cities anyway. It is their kids (like
me) that tend to flee to the country. There is still a lot of land out
there at inexpensive prices. You oughta see the deal I got in Tennessee!
20 acres, 3 bed/2 bath, stream on property, wooded - $25,000 for the
whole shebang. Not bad for an American-born Cuban American, huh? :)
: >
: >Live and let live.
: >
: >--Dinesh
: --
: Brian L. Robinson "Gordon Way's astonishment at being suddenly shot
: dead was nothing to his astonishment at what
: bl...@Virginia.EDU happened next." - Douglas Adams
--
********************************* \ / ********************************
* My views are not mine. They * \ / * ma...@shadow.net *
* belong to my dog. * / \ * HTTP://www.shadow.net/~markg *
********************************* / \ ********************************
Brian L. Robinson
>In article <3npl7f$6...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>who work and pay the taxes.
>>
>>--Travis
>
>benefits of people who are (a) here legally, (b) pay their taxes BUT (c)
>do not vote. A.k.a. "legal aliens".
>
>pretty cool, objective assessment of some of the popular "theories" on
>immigration costs.
If we're talking about the Wall Street Journal, I would suspect that
the costs considered were purely economic, that is, calculated in
dollars. But what about when immigration causes costs to rise.
While the availabity of many commodities may expand due to
immigration, others cannot.
I am speaking, of course, of things like forest land, air, beach front
property, and mountains, areas where one can see the stars without
city lights ruining the view, and the simple feeling of not being
crowded. Did the WSJ consider these costs? How much are they worth?
>
Rebecca Romani
when _our_ grandparents came to this country, they came in _tremendous_
waves, much more than are currently coming now. They were not
particularly welcomed, especially if they were Catholics from southern
Europes (Italy, Spain, etc.), some people were not even sure if Southern
Europeans were White. However, there were schools set up for these
immigrants to learn English (many were illiterate in their own languages,
few were technically skilled) and these immigrants went to work and di
the best they could. Many were screwed royally by their employers,
landlords and fellow immigrants but they survived and became us. So why
should this current wave not turn out to be productive members of our
society as well?
Travis C. Porco
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <3nvpvm$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Travis C. Porco <po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>In fact the WSJ is quite pro-immigration, since companies can pay
>>immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
>>make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
>>uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses.
> This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
>do not compete for the same jobs.
But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
....
>> We cannot possibly
>>assimilate so many people so fast.
> Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
which have always unified America--the views and habits of the
White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I am against this recent
decrease of WASP hegemony.
Bear in mind this view is cultural, not racial. I'm not a
WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
into American culture. I am against the creation and
nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
>Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
> The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
...as if America was about money more than anything else.
Travis C. Porco
Rebecca Romani <sz8...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
:What many people fail to realize, and yes, Travis, you, too, is that
Most may. One of my gripes is that in the last few years, we have
been abandoning the ideal of assimilation into the dominant
WASP ethnicity in favor of multiculturalism (in the name of
"tolerance"). Some cultural and linguistic preservation is a
good thing; I think it's great that there are native-born
Americans who can speak practically every language on the
globe.
But it is intolerable that there be native-born Americans who
do not speak English. We absolutely must have a single common
language that unites everyone in the entire nation.
Strong ethnic loyalties destabilize a country. They increase
distrust, and in time, lead to government quotas and the
resultant bitterness and ossification of the marketplace. We
were doing well when we abolished discrimination by whites
against blacks--but we went way too far overboard. Now we are
moving down the multiculturalism road to Bosnia; I often hear
people say things like, "You as a White Western Male
Imperialist Chauvinist Scum-of-the-Earth, cannot possibly
understand what it is to be a member of my oppressed group, so
you have no right to speak on policy issues regarding my
group, though of course it is your responsibility to give us
money to partially atone for the crimes of other white
people." (Then again, I _do_ live in Berkeley :) This is a
far cry from the days when it was believed that we all shared
a common humanity and could understand each other if we took
each other seriously.
I saw an excellent article by Schwarz in the May 1995 issue of
the Atlantic Monthly, entitled The Diversity Myth, which
I commend to anyone interested in these matters.
Thanks for your response.
--Travis
(not speaking for UCBerkeley)
E.G.Engelbrecht
> I agree with you totally. It is all the Indians' fault. They started
> the trend. They let the dirty whites to stay first. They got nothing
> but small pox from those white immigrants. They should have killed them
> all as they land, and drive them back to the sea. They natives
> could have owned the whole place. But no. They tried to play nice guys
> and allow those immigrants to stay. And what did they get for allowing
> the white immigrants to stay: the whites stole their land, give them
> small pox which kills a lot of the natives, the whites wasted all the
> animals the natives need to survive. And after all that, they themselves
> got murderred by the white immigrants.
>
> Yes, all immigrants should be sent back where they came from, starting
> with the whites.
As a person born in Canada I consider myself a native of Canada. No
I have no aboriginal blood in me, and you would probably class me as
a WASP due to the fact that most of my blood originated in Britain
(although most of that was Celtic not Anglo Saxon). I am sick and tired
of hearing people call Canada the land of the immigrants. I share
very little in common with the British in culture, I am a Canadian.
Do not get me wrong I am not against immigration I am just sick of
Canadians putting Canada down.
Britain is no less a land of immigrants and yet the British do not
label their country as such. So, by the way, is every country in the
world except maybe Kenya. So CHILL on the immigrant stuff A FEW OF
US IN CANADA ARE CANADIANS!
Geoff
Mark G.
: What many people fail to realize, and yes, Travis, you, too, is that
: when _our_ grandparents came to this country, they came in _tremendous_
: waves, much more than are currently coming now. They were not
: particularly welcomed, especially if they were Catholics from southern
: Europes (Italy, Spain, etc.), some people were not even sure if Southern
: Europeans were White. However, there were schools set up for these
: immigrants to learn English (many were illiterate in their own languages,
: few were technically skilled) and these immigrants went to work and di
: the best they could. Many were screwed royally by their employers,
: landlords and fellow immigrants but they survived and became us. So why
: should this current wave not turn out to be productive members of our
: society as well?
Consider also that when Cubans first cam to Miami in the sixties there
were little if any schools for them to learn English. As a result, many
of the older Cubans never did learn. Yet, most of them that were under 10
years-old when they came to this country managaed to not only learn the
language, but also excel in it and even teach English to Americans. And
yet, there is still a myth that Cubans refuse to learn English due to
arrogance. Just remember that the next time you have a Cuba Libre
(Bacardi Rum and Coke) you are paying two Cuban CEO's. :)
R. Tang
>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3nvpvm$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>Travis C. Porco <po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>>In fact the WSJ is quite pro-immigration, since companies can pay
>>>immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
>>>make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
>>>uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses.
>> This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
>>do not compete for the same jobs.
>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
Wassamatter? Can't compete?
Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you. Either way, they
contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
>>> We cannot possibly
>>>assimilate so many people so fast.
>> Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
>These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
>mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
>which have always unified America--
Which are mostly coming from native born. Attitudes and cultural
norms of immigrants are EXTREMELY similar to mainstream America....which
is WHY THEY EMIGRATED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>the views and habits of the
>White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I am against this recent
>decrease of WASP hegemony.
>
>Bear in mind this view is cultural, not racial. I'm not a
>WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
>into American culture. I am against the creation and
>nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
>That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
No, it isn't. It's the REJECTION of other identities that's the
way to Bosnia and Belfast. Accept them....there's no problem.
You're contributing to the very problem you want to avoid.
--
Patrick R. Collins
: What many people fail to realize, and yes, Travis, you, too, is that
: when _our_ grandparents came to this country, they came in _tremendous_
: waves, much more than are currently coming now. They were not
Only the period 1900~1920 comes close to the present rate of immigraton.
: particularly welcomed, especially if they were Catholics from southern
: Europes (Italy, Spain, etc.), some people were not even sure if Southern
: Europeans were White. However, there were schools set up for these
: immigrants to learn English (many were illiterate in their own languages,
: few were technically skilled) and these immigrants went to work and di
: the best they could. Many were screwed royally by their employers,
: landlords and fellow immigrants but they survived and became us. So why
: should this current wave not turn out to be productive members of our
: society as well?
And you are forgetting that curent immigrants get access to social
services that did not exist then. Not to mention the fact that they are
eligible for affirmative action.
And of course, I'm not mentioning the fact that they cn bring their
parents and grandparents here to take advantage of SS and medicare.
Nor do I see the need to mention the many efforts to promote
"multiculturalism" and not assimilation.
--
Regards, Pat
I'll try, sir.
http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins
Timothy J. Lee
|R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
|>Travis C. Porco <po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
|
|>>In fact the WSJ is quite pro-immigration, since companies can pay
|>>immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
|>>make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
|>>uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses.
|
|> This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
|>do not compete for the same jobs.
|
|But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
To our benefit... highly competent software people are not easy to
find. Eliminating the immigration of software people would only
cause many job openings to remain unfilled, reducing the efficiency
of the companies that are looking for these people.
In any case, would you rather import a worker or export a job?
|>> We cannot possibly
|>>assimilate so many people so fast.
|
|> Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
|
|These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
|mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
|which have always unified America--the views and habits of the
|White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I am against this recent
|decrease of WASP hegemony.
Why? The USA has always been a diverse country from its beginnings
in the colonies. There were differences by region (much of the
early politics in the USA was out fo regional differences), national
origin, religion (differences between various Christians were viewed
as being much more important then than now), language (many of the
colonists spoke German or French), and Native American influences.
Such differences were probably part of the reason for writing freedoms
(of religion, speech, press, etc.) into the constitution, since everyone
was fearful that his own group might become a target of persecution.
Many of these differences remain today. In addition, the various
American cultures show significant differences from "Anglo Saxon"
(you mean English?) culture. Even the English language is slowly
diverging in the USA and England. This is due partly to American
cultures assimilating the cultural habits from various waves of
immigrants. Assimilation is _not_ one way.
|Bear in mind this view is cultural, not racial. I'm not a
|WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
|into American culture. I am against the creation and
|nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
|That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
Attempting to force assimilation or "cleanse" the culture is what is
most likely to produce resentment, separatism, and violence (as in
Bosnia). A more laisser faire (am I allowed to use a word of French
origin?) policy, neither encouraging or nor discouraging
multiculturalism, but accepting the presence of various cultures that
exist, is more likely to result in _mutual_ assimilation, where the
people of the next generation assimilate into the larger culture, which
in turn assimilates some of the culture brought by the newcomers.
|--Travis
|(not speaking for Berkeley)
Berkeley wouldn't be the same without its selection of ethnic food...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee tim...@netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Timothy J. Lee
|do not speak English. We absolutely must have a single common
|language that unites everyone in the entire nation.
Is this a problem? The vast majority of native born USA citizens
who are children of immigrants speak English, whether or not they
also speak some other language.
|Strong ethnic loyalties destabilize a country.
What makes you think that discriminating against people who
choose to practice different cultural habits will be of any
help? If anything, discrimination against people tends to
increase the ethnic tribalism that you are trying to stop.
Of course, trying to force everyone into some culture that
is not their own is itself a form of ethnic tribalism.
Travis C. Porco
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <3o4vje$k...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
Ah, yes. The celebrated "white idiot" argument. I was wondering when this
would come up. Let me tell you something. I am for Americans who are born
in this country and educated here. I don't expect them to be discriminated
against for this. I forget who said it, but the statement "I don't want to
compete with the desperation of the whole world to get a job" is one we
should remember in choosing policy. I am against using foreign workers to
bid down wages at home; the idea is to see the world improve its wages and
living conditions, not to see American workers reduced to Third-World
status.
> Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you. Either way, they
>contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
Better? I doubt it. Americans pay taxes too.
>>>> We cannot possibly
>>>>assimilate so many people so fast.
>>> Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
>>These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
>>mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
>>which have always unified America--
> Which are mostly coming from native born. Attitudes and cultural
>norms of immigrants are EXTREMELY similar to mainstream America....which
>is WHY THEY EMIGRATED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Fair enough. Again, I have no problems with immigrants as such; as I say,
my family immigrated here as well. I am against using immigrants to lower
wages, against the loss of a single unifying culture, and against groups
using historical conditions to jockey for special privileges and
set-asides.
>>the views and habits of the
>>White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I am against this recent
>>decrease of WASP hegemony.
>>Bear in mind this view is cultural, not racial. I'm not a
>>WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
>>into American culture. I am against the creation and
>>nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
>>That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
> No, it isn't. It's the REJECTION of other identities that's the
>way to Bosnia and Belfast. Accept them....there's no problem.
No, it does not at all. The reason is that the WASPs and those other
acculturated whites are numerically strong enough to enforce unity if they
choose to do so, before the alternative loyalties create separatist
enclaves. Despite great immigration and regionalisms, we never had
this problem in the past--except once, and catastrophically. The problem was
not solved by tolerance and harmony, but by sheer force. Strong ethnic
loyalties within a nation create distrust and chaos--and never so much as
when one group has a legitimate historical grievance.
I feel that if immigrants wish to live with us, they should expect to
become one of us. If I wished to move to Japan, and they wished to allow
me to do so, I certainly wouldn't expect them to learn English and
celebrate the fourth of July. I would study the history and customs of Japan
and try to learn them; I would learn their language and try to speak it
properly, and raise my children to do the same. I wouldn't move there if I
didn't want to do this.
I commend to your attention the recent May 1995 cover article in the
Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Diversity Myth".
--Travis
Travis C. Porco
>|Strong ethnic loyalties destabilize a country.
:What makes you think that discriminating against people who
:choose to practice different cultural habits will be of any
:help? If anything, discrimination against people tends to
:increase the ethnic tribalism that you are trying to stop.
:Of course, trying to force everyone into some culture that
:is not their own is itself a form of ethnic tribalism.
Timothy, I never approved of any sort of discrimination. My own family
experienced discrimination for being DAGOes when we immigrated.
Nevertheless we wanted to be Americans completely, and eagerly learned the
language and customs. That does not mean despising our Italian heritage;
we still like Italy, its language, literature, and food--but we are
completely American in outlook and language. I would be completely out of
place living in Italy.
Nevertheless, there should be pressure to acculturate. Ideally, this would
come about because to do so brings advantages, not because of punishment.
In a thousand little ways we don't understand each other any more; we rely
more and more on the law to set the rules for our way of life. We need a
common language, culture, set of norms and social expectations. But again
ironically, it is immigrants who are most likely to agree with me--as has
been pointed out, they did choose to come and live in America. It is
self-hating Americans who, depressed at what Schwarz calls the "brutal
realities of nation building", forget they ever had real enemies and no
longer want their country to live.
>Timothy J. Lee
--Travis
J. Knecht
(Travis C. Porco) thought this:
>In article <3nmdbc$k...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
>Ramasubramanian Ramakrishnan <rama...@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>If you get rid of all the immigrants,
>>that would leave only a few red indians in the US.
>
>The fact that nearly all Americans are descended from immigrants who
>arrived in the last few hundred years makes us sympathetic to
>immigration, but we must not let this romantic sentimentalism blind
>us to the _real issue_--what is best for the people living here _now_,
>who work and pay the taxes.
Immigration is very American. Immigrant bashing is also very American.
Let's not forget too that legal and illegal immigrants work and pay taxes.
Just like "us".
-jk
--
| We preserve our freedoms using four boxes: soap, ballot, jury and |
| cartridge. --- Myron A. Calhoun |
| Whoami: kne...@ritz.mordor.com |
J. Knecht
>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3nvpvm$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>>assimilate so many people so fast.
>
>> Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
>
>These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
>mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
>White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I am against this recent
>decrease of WASP hegemony.
This "attack" on our prevailing standards can not be traced to
the increase in ethnic diversity in our population. The questions
over which "values" our country ought to be following began in
academia. Cultural assimilation occurs daily.
>Bear in mind this view is cultural, not racial.
Culture changes. America has many regional cultures. Some
areas are more "waspy" than others. To claim that the US is
culturally "waspy" is an oversimplification.
>WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
>into American culture. I am against the creation and
>nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
>That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
Essentially I agree. But, I would rephrase it to say that the
establishment of strong ethnic identities that are not American in
outlook is what we must guard against.
Peter R Cook
: In a previous article, gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
: ->
: -> Competition helps ALL businesses.
: ->
: Yup, but very FEW people. There's something wrong with that ideology
Spoken like a true believer in outcome based education.
Competition makes products better and often cheaper. That
helps everyone.
--
Peter R. Cook "I feel vindicated." Software Engineer
p...@world.std.com -President Clinton on Drummer, Blue Steel
PRC Records McNamara's recent admission. evil Republican
Mr. Nice Guy
gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
>In article <3o4vje$k...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <3nvpvm$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>>Travis C. Porco <po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>>>immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
>>>>make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
>>>>uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses.
>>> This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
>
> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
>
>contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
In a free market wages are based on supply and demand. When
programmers immigrate to the US they increase the supply and as a
result wages go down ( or don't increase as fast ). As a result
of the immigration and the lowering of wages for programmers it
becomes a less attractive profession for native born citizens to
enter. Immigration does harm native born Americans who want to
program. If immigration were stopped and wages for programmers
increased then more Americans would enter the profession and more
would remain in the field.
Immigration may benefit companies who hire programmers, it also
hurts economically the programmers who are working in this
country.
--
Rod Anderson aka Mr. Nice Guy o o
rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu _/\-\__/* \\__/\___
(*) o (*) * o
The wind doesn't blow, it sucks Lightning P-38 DeFelice
Mr. Nice Guy
gai...@gainer.engr.sgi.com (Patrick Gainer) wrote:
>In article <3ne99t$h...@anshar.shadow.net>,
>Mark G. <ma...@anshar.shadow.net> wrote:
>>While I understand the problems that immigration causes in terms of
>>welfare and employment, I also think that closing off our borders is a
>>bad idea for America in the long run. This won't go over very well in
>>this group, I know. Perhaps the answer is to only allow immigrants who
>>already have families or sponsors in the US to lessen the impact on our
>>resources.:)
>
>Legal immigration causes no problems in terms of unemployment and
>welfare.
Legal immigration by increasing the size of the labor pool drives
down wages. Legal immigration by increasing the demand for
housing increases the cost for housing. Legal immigration by
increasing the demand for education increases the cost of
education.
>Look at the statistics for the makeup of those receiving unemployment
>and welfare. The vast majority are natural Americans.
Well since a majority of Americans are native born it is only
logical that a majority of the welfare recipients be native born.
The question is should the citizens of the US allow anyone to
immigrate who will rely on welfare. There is a limit to the
amount of money the US can spend for welfare, if immigrants cost
more than the pay in taxes they will reduce the amount of
resources available for natural born citizens.
>An amazing bit of propoganda: claiming the unemployment and welfare problems
>are due to immigrants rather than deadbeat Americans.
Many of the problems _are_ aggravated by immigrants. There is a
limited demand for unskilled labor, immigrants increase the supply
and as a result wager are lower and unemployment higher. Why
should the US absorb other counties excess population? If other
countries can't control their population is it up to the residents
of the US to suffer increased crowding when they dump their excess
people on the US?
R. Tang
>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3o4vje$k...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
>> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
>would come up. Let me tell you something. I am for Americans who are born
>in this country and educated here. I don't expect them to be discriminated
>against for this. I forget who said it, but the statement "I don't want to
>compete with the desperation of the whole world to get a job" is one we
>should remember in choosing policy. I am against using foreign workers to
>bid down wages at home; the idea is to see the world improve its wages and
>living conditions, not to see American workers reduced to Third-World
>status.
Sorry, but since you're the one that brought up the "white idiot"
arguement, let me say that this is a STUNNING example of such idiocy at work.
In the software and other high tech industry, "desperation"
simply has no place. You either do the job or you don't; immigrants have
to be as competent and they have to contribute to the bottom line. You
show that you indeed are afraid of competition; immigrants in these areas
work at market wages---they don't bid down wages (not to mention that
since they are IMMIGRANTS, the economics are strictly internal).
It is in unskilled and manual labor situations where "desperate"
immigrants could indeed affect wages.....if native born Americans would
bother to compete for those jobs.
>> Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you. Either way, they
>>contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
>Better? I doubt it.
Then you're just basing this on xenophobia. Feh.
>>>>> We cannot possibly
>>>>>assimilate so many people so fast.
>>>> Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
>>>These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
>>>mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
>>>which have always unified America--
>> Which are mostly coming from native born. Attitudes and cultural
>>norms of immigrants are EXTREMELY similar to mainstream America....which
>>is WHY THEY EMIGRATED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>Fair enough. Again, I have no problems with immigrants as such; as I say,
>my family immigrated here as well
Ah. "I got mine, so the hell with the rest."
>. I am against using immigrants to lower
>wages,
Irrelevant in the high tech, high wage industries; not applicable
in low wage, unskilled labor industry.
>against the loss of a single unifying culture,
Irrelevant, since THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN (as you admit).
>and against groups
>using historical conditions to jockey for special privileges and
>set-asides.
More of a POTENTIAL problem, yet, you have not shown this to be a
significant problem.
>>>WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
>>>into American culture. I am against the creation and
>>>nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
>>>That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
>> No, it isn't. It's the REJECTION of other identities that's the
>>way to Bosnia and Belfast. Accept them....there's no problem.
>No, it does not at all. The reason is that the WASPs and those other
>acculturated whites are numerically strong enough to enforce unity if they
>choose to do so,
And they HAVE chosen to do so, not once, but MANY times over US
history. And as many others have noted, this is the same dynamic as
Bosnia, so your concerns are quite misplaced.
>I feel that if immigrants wish to live with us, they should expect to
>become one of us.
And if you bothered to listen to us and to immigrants, you'd know
that they indeed do so.
>I commend to your attention the recent May 1995 cover article in the
>Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Diversity Myth".
Tired anti-minority garbage.
R. Tang
>In a previous article, gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
>->
>-> Competition helps ALL businesses.
Incorrect.
R. Tang
J. Knecht <kne...@ritz.mordor.com> wrote:
>>WASP at all myself. Anyone, from _anywhere_, can be assimilated
>>into American culture. I am against the creation and
>>nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
>>That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
>establishment of strong ethnic identities that are not American in
>outlook is what we must guard against.
The irony in all this is that the ideas and values that are often
being argued over in BOTH sides of the multiculturalism debate are
essentially AMERICAN.
Generally, by the second generation, immigrant groups acculturate
quite rapidly; the core values are quite American and differ very little
from Iowa to El Paso to San Francisco to New York.
Pierre Kennepohl
for that country...]
In article <snwpvsnz...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr.
Nice Guy) wrote:
> In article <3nh5rp$1...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
> gai...@gainer.engr.sgi.com (Patrick Gainer) wrote:
> >Legal immigration causes no problems in terms of unemployment and
> >welfare.
> Legal immigration by increasing the size of the labor pool drives
> down wages.
Une force de travail qui est plus large et plus diversifiee promouvoit
l'etablissement d'industries nouvelles tout en augmentant la consommation
et la competition - ceci promouvoit la baisse des prix.
A larger and more diverse labour force promotes the establishment on new
industries and increases total comsumer power and competition - this
would promote lowering of prices.
> Legal immigration by increasing the demand for housing increases the cost
> for housing.
Dans un pays sous-peuple comme le Canada, l'augmentation des prix de logement
ne se ferait que dans les centres urbains tel que Toronto et non a cause
de l'immigration. On pourrait dire que puisque les immigrants
s'installent (majoritairement) dans des centres urbains qu'ils sont la
cause d'une hausse de prix de logement mais ceci est un probleme de la
dynamique de notre immigration et non de l'immigration elle-meme.
In a country which is underpopulated like Canada, increases in housing
costs would only occur in urban areas such as Toronto and not because of
immigration. One could argue that since immigrants choose (generally)
urban environments that they are the cause of increasing housing prices in
such areas but this is a problem of our immigration dynamics and not a
problem due to immigration itself.
> Legal immigration by increasing the demand for education increases the cost
> of education.
Les couts totaux d'education augmentent avec la population... mais en
meme temps, le nombre de contribuables aux depenses sur l'education
augmente aussi. Il faudrait voir les chiffres per capita et non les
totaux.
The total costs of educatin will increase with population... but at the
same time the number of those contributing to those expenses also
increases. You'd have to check numbers per capita and not totals.
> >Look at the statistics for the makeup of those receiving unemployment
> >and welfare. The vast majority are natural Americans.
> Well since a majority of Americans are native born it is only
> logical that a majority of the welfare recipients be native born.
> The question is should the citizens of the US allow anyone to
> immigrate who will rely on welfare. There is a limit to the
> amount of money the US can spend for welfare, if immigrants cost
> more than the pay in taxes they will reduce the amount of
> resources available for natural born citizens.
Ceci est une question specifiquement pour les Etats-Unis mais il serait
interessant de voir les chiffres exacts pour les immigrants (qui sont au
pays pour plus de 9-12 mois) et les comparer aux citoyens natifs.
I guess this is specific to the States but it would be interesting to see
the true stats for immigrants (who have been in the country for over 9-12
months) and to compare them to native citizens.
> >An amazing bit of propoganda: claiming the unemployment and welfare problems
> >are due to immigrants rather than deadbeat Americans.
> Many of the problems _are_ aggravated by immigrants. There is a
> limited demand for unskilled labor, immigrants increase the supply
> and as a result wager are lower and unemployment higher.
Voir ci-haut... vous presumez que tous les immigrants n'ont pas de
qualifications professionnelles... auriez-vous les statistiques a cet
egard?
See above... you also seem to presume that all immigrants have no
professional qualifications... would you happen to have stats in this
respect?
> Why should the US absorb other counties excess population? If other
> countries can't control their population is it up to the residents
> of the US to suffer increased crowding when they dump their excess
> people on the US?
Considerant que le monde est completement interdependant, je crois qu'il
faudrait prendre une approche un peu plus globale. De plus, les pays
'riches' sont en effet riches a cause de la pauvrete du reste du monde...
Considering that the world is interdependent, I think a more global
approach is warranted. Furthermore, the 'rich' countries of the world
today are actually rich because of the poverty in the rest of the world...
Salut!
Pierre
---
Pierre Kennepohl pie...@chemistry.stanford.edu
Chemistry Department "La liberte des uns devient
Stanford University la prison des autres..."
---
John Cooper
>From: pne...@lagoon.ultranet.com (Peter Nelson)
>Subject: Re: Immigration - more means less for all
>Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 19:29:12 GMT
>In article <3ne99t$h...@anshar.shadow.net> ma...@anshar.shadow.net (Mark G.) writes:
>>From: ma...@anshar.shadow.net (Mark G.)
>>Subject: Re: Immigration - more means less for all
>>Date: 23 Apr 1995 15:20:29 -0400
> One third of all "US" Nobel prize winners were foreign born. If
> we cut off immigration we will be cutting off a major source of
> talent, creativity, drive, and brains.
Amazing!!! I suppose you are suggesting that that without these immigrants
from places such as the Caribbean, Africa, S. America, and S.E. Asia that the
U.S. would be in some sort of trouble and be in danger of collapse? After all,
these immigrants come from wealthy, stable, & democratic countries that
really have their act together - NOT!
People should stay in their own screwed up countries and fix their own
problems. Bringing in immigrants from poor, undemocratic, uneducated
countries just helps to reduce the standard of living and quality of life in
the U.S.
R. Tang
>> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
>> Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you. Either way, they
>>contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
>programmers immigrate to the US they increase the supply and as a
>result wages go down ( or don't increase as fast ). As a result
>of the immigration and the lowering of wages for programmers it
>becomes a less attractive profession for native born citizens to
>enter. Immigration does harm native born Americans who want to
>program. If immigration were stopped and wages for programmers
>increased then more Americans would enter the profession and more
>would remain in the field.
This might be the case if demand were held constant.
This is not the case.
>Immigration may benefit companies who hire programmers, it also
>hurts economically the programmers who are working in this
>country.
It hurts the less proficient ones. Maybe.
Then again, nothing stops these programmers from starting their
own companies and offering their own products.
Again, this line of arguement is inherently anti-competition and
anti-capitalism. It's about as American as being anti-immigration.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
STILL just another theatre geek....
Timothy J. Lee
|>>>...do not compete for the same jobs.
|>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
|
|> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
|
|Ah, yes. The celebrated "white idiot" argument.
Sounds more like the free market argument.
| I am against using foreign workers to
|bid down wages at home; the idea is to see the world improve its wages and
|living conditions, not to see American workers reduced to Third-World
|status.
With skilled workers like software workers (your example), there is
a shortage of highly competent people, although there is a surplus of
people with low competency. Restricting immigration would simply mean
that job openings will remain unfilled, so domestic companies who hire
highly competent workers will become less efficient in the domestic and
global marketplace (reducing the number of jobs that they create), or
may be induced to export jobs. Neither is very desirable.
With respect to unskilled workers, there is a large surplus of them
here and aborad, and many of their jobs can be easily exported overseas.
Protectionism on the labor markets will not work for unskilled workers
in most industries, since their jobs will simply be exported to cheaper
places. Much better would be to improve the skills of the workforce
so that they can become highly competent skilled workers.
|> Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you. Either way, they
|>contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
|
|Better? I doubt it. Americans pay taxes too.
When someone works at a job in the USA, s/he pays taxes to the USA
national, state, and local governments. In addition, s/he creates
demand by buying goods and services in the USA, and, if s/he does a
good job at his/her work, makes his/her company better, allowing it
to expand and create additional jobs. This applies regardless of
whether the person is native born or immigrant.
When a job is exported, which is more likely if immigration is
restricted more, then the tax revenue, consumer spending, and other
favorable effects of a job being in the USA disappear.
Now, if you are going to espouse a general increase in trade protectionism
as a "solution" to the situation of exporting jobs, be aware that this
is likely to lead to an even worse situation as retaliatory trade
sanctions reduce exports and generally make all economies of the world
less efficient and less able to support jobs for everyone looking for
them.
Timothy J. Lee
|>po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco) writes:
|>|Strong ethnic loyalties destabilize a country.
|
|:What makes you think that discriminating against people who
|:choose to practice different cultural habits will be of any
|:help? If anything, discrimination against people tends to
|:increase the ethnic tribalism that you are trying to stop.
|:Of course, trying to force everyone into some culture that
|:is not their own is itself a form of ethnic tribalism.
|
|come about because to do so brings advantages, not because of punishment.
What type of pressure are you espousing? I'm asking for specifics,
not vague talk about "advantages" or "punishment".
|In a thousand little ways we don't understand each other any more; we rely
|more and more on the law to set the rules for our way of life. We need a
|common language, culture, set of norms and social expectations.
Why do you think there is such a problem? All it takes is a generation
or two for the descendents of immigrants to become culturally very
American (and for American cultures to assimilate aspects of their cultures
into the American cultures), unless there is some sort of pressure or
discrimination that creates resentment and separatism among the immigrant
group.
The USA has always been a culturally diverse country; it has done
reasonably well as such so far. A more laisser faire approach toward
immigrants' cultures would probably be in the best interests of both
existing American people and recent immigrants.
Travis C. Porco
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
...
> In the software and other high tech industry, "desperation"
>simply has no place. You either do the job or you don't; immigrants have
>to be as competent and they have to contribute to the bottom line. You
>show that you indeed are afraid of competition; immigrants in these areas
>work at market wages---they don't bid down wages (not to mention that
>since they are IMMIGRANTS, the economics are strictly internal).
No. The software industry sponsors foreign nationals for
immigration, and discriminates against the native-born. They
do this specifically to lower wages; I will find and post some
examples of this. I don't buy the piffle about "fearing
competition"; the world is a big place, and there are
certainly people out there who can do the job. I am against
finding foreign nationals to do a job when there are people in
this country who can do the job as well.
American policy should benefit Americans first, period.
> It is in unskilled and manual labor situations where "desperate"
>immigrants could indeed affect wages.....if native born Americans would
>bother to compete for those jobs.
Could indeed! Granted we're becoming a lazy nation who take
things for granted and shell out welfare.
> Then you're just basing this on xenophobia. Feh.
Feh yourself. I've said repeatedly that I'm in favor of
maintaining the WASP cultural hegemony in the US (and I hope
they do the same in the Anglophone parts of Canada, as well as
in England, Australia, and New Zealand.) I certainly have
nothing against people of any race, but I do have a problem
with seeing my country Balkanize into squawking interest
groups, with foreign loyalties and no sense of the common
weal. Believe me, not all immigrants are in favor of more
immigration.
...
>>my family immigrated here as well
> Ah. "I got mine, so the hell with the rest."
No, not to hell at all, unless their native country is hell.
I believe American policy must be designed to benefit
Americans first, who live here and pay the taxes here. This
includes immigrants too, who are after all Americans once they
take the oath. If astronomical immigration rates cease to
benefit America, I am against them. Call it xenophobia, call
it selfish, call it fearful--I call it common sense.
>>. I am against using immigrants to lower
>>wages,
> Irrelevant in the high tech, high wage industries; not applicable
>in low wage, unskilled labor industry.
Rubbish. Go learn a little bit of economics. I think many
people favor more immigration because they sense it will
enhance the power of their group, giving them more status and
bargaining power.
Again, increasing the supply of labor decreases the cost of
labor. When the whole world is the supply, the costs must
necessarily decrease, and that means wages.
>>against the loss of a single unifying culture,
> Irrelevant, since THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN (as you admit).
It has not happened yet, but it has begun, and again it is not
really immigrants who are driving it, but self-hating white
people.
>>and against groups
>>using historical conditions to jockey for special privileges and
>>set-asides.
> More of a POTENTIAL problem, yet, you have not shown this to be a
>significant problem.
We already have discussed Affirmative Action in detail.
...deletia...
--Travis
Travis C. Porco
workers to bid down American wages to third world levels.
Only when the world has developed to first world standards can
completely free job markets benefit us. I certainly would not
put the ideal of the free market above what is good for _this_
country. Other developed nations have the same problem.
--Travis
Steve Cheang
here? Or are you just being ignorant? I am from Macau - SE Asia, so I will speak
only for people from that area. I don't consider myself coming from a poor,
uneducated place (maybe not demorcratic). Don't tell that to those from Hong Kong,
Singapore, Japan, Taiwan etc. either. I can probably make more money if I go to
Macau or Hong Kong (Indeed, many of my friends do make more money there than
I do here). However, I love America. I love being an American. This is my country.
If you don't like what you are reading here, too bad. After all, we all have the
FREEDOM to use our choice of words. :-)
snowlock
: In article <3o2vtm$3...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
: R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
: >In article <3nvpvm$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: >Travis C. Porco <po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
: >>In fact the WSJ is quite pro-immigration, since companies can pay
: >>immigrants a lower wage. Competition for jobs, as well as unemployment,
: >>make the lives of most Americans more full of stress, worry, and
: >>uncertainty, but they sure help some businesses.
: > This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
: >do not compete for the same jobs.
: But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
That is quite a prejudiced thing to say --- I assume you mean
"third-worlders", i.e., Asians. What, alot of Asian immigrants want to
become members of the computer industry? What a stereotype.
: ....
: >> We cannot possibly
: >>assimilate so many people so fast.
: > Yes, we can. And have for the past 30 years.
: These have been years of increasing Balkanization and
: mistrust, and wholesale attack on the prevailing standards
: which have always unified America--the views and habits of the
: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I am against this recent
: decrease of WASP hegemony.
You are insinuating that the standards of immigrants are lower than
those of WASPS. Bear in mind that immigrants today probably work 2x harder,
keep family values as a higher priority, and obey the law more than most
native born Americans because they are afraid that not working hard, etc.
will cause either their families to break up or, in the case of crimes,
deportation back to their original country.
: Bear in mind this view is
cultural, not racial. I'm not a : WASP at all myself. Anyone, from
_anywhere_, can be assimilated
: into American culture. I am against the creation and
: nurturing of diverse strong ethnic identities within the USA.
: That is the road to Bosnia, to Belfast.
It is the road to opening up the minds of WASPs who still look
at non-white people like me and think, "Oh god, another damn immigrant"
or automatically come up with some stereotype, even though my family has
probably been here longer than theirs. The WASPs, who aren't even
the native people of the U.S. anyway and are immigrants themselves, will
at least be forced to be exposed to other cultures that are not as inferior
as they think they are.
: >Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
: > The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
: ...as if America was about money more than anything else.
That's mostly what it is. America, land of capitalism
and commercialism.
Patrick R. Collins
: You're forgetting other effects of stopping immigration:
: 1. Employers, unable to find enough high quality software workers
: (yes, there is a shortage if your standards are high, although
: there is certainly a glut of mediocrity) may export the jobs
: by opening up overseas research, development, and manufacturing
: plants instead of hiring more people within the USA.
This didn't happen in Japan, which has basically NO immigration policy.
I know they import some workers for low paying jobs. They also send them
home in a few years.
A more likely cause would be that more people would get the training to
become programmers, shifting current US wgae distribution to the high end.
: 2. Immigrants create and increase consumer demand for various
: products (including computers and software), thus creating new
: or greater business opportunities for companies to start up or
: expand, creating more jobs on the demand side of the labor
: market. These jobs counterbalance those jobs taken by immigrants
: and would disappear if the immigrants didn't exist.
The same effects would be created by moving current citizens from lower
paying jobs to higher paying jobs.
: |Immigration may benefit companies who hire programmers, it also
: |hurts economically the programmers who are working in this
: |country.
: As noted in 2. above, your analysis is missing the effect of immigrants'
: consumer spending that creates additional jobs to increase the demand
: side of the labor market.
I think I addressed this.
The real questions are these:
Do we really need 900,000 each year?
Should we change the mix by eliminating family preference and making
skills the criteria?
What's the benefit to the US?
Harold Brashears
: Tom Lathrop (tlat...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Who says we have to cut off the talent? People like this make up a
: : rather small proportion of the total immigrant influx. Let them in,
: : and cut off the flood of unskilled labor. Problem solved!
: I agree with you totally. It is all the Indians' fault. They started
: the trend. They let the dirty whites to stay first. They got nothing
: but small pox from those white immigrants. They should have killed them
: all as they land, and drive them back to the sea. They natives
: could have owned the whole place. But no. They tried to play nice guys
: and allow those immigrants to stay. And what did they get for allowing
: the white immigrants to stay: the whites stole their land, give them
: small pox which kills a lot of the natives, the whites wasted all the
: animals the natives need to survive. And after all that, they themselves
: got murderred by the white immigrants.
This is self-evidently true. Clearly you believe that you are are
very clever and sarcastic, putting down the previous poster, but
you have actually made his point guite forcefully. I do not agree
with him, but you have done a good job of presenting what can happen
when unrestricted immigration is allowed.
: Yes, all immigrants should be sent back where they came from, starting
: with the whites.
If this is your desire, I suggest we should start with the most recent
immigrants such as the boat people and the cubans. Then we go on the
jewish and eastern european imigrants before WWII, ending up by shipping
all the indians back to asia, where they came from. Then the land will
again be pretty and empty. The point is that even the indians are
immigrants. The land belongs to the people who will hold it and defend
it successfully.
Regards, Harold
Joe Hou
>services that did not exist then. Not to mention the fact that they are
>eligible for affirmative action.
>And of course, I'm not mentioning the fact that they cn bring their
>parents and grandparents here to take advantage of SS and medicare.
When the European settlers invaded America, they were offered extra lots of
land if they brought their children, wives, relatives, or another family along
with them. But hey, I'm not mentioning the fact that they can bring their
parents and grandparents here to take advantage of the Natives who were
already living here and all the precious minerals, resources, etc. which did
not belong to them.
>Nor do I see the need to mention the many efforts to promote
>"multiculturalism" and not assimilation.
What is your definition of assimilation? It would be interesting to hear YOUR
definition of an American. What _is_ American culture these days? Assimilate
into being what? American culture is definitely not defined by the white
Anglo-saxon male ideals of the past. Instead, we have realized (except for
the ignorant) that this country consists of various peoples, was built by
various peoples, and is for various peoples, not just one group.
What's with the large amount of ant-immigrant bashing that is going on? You
are presenting immigrants as outsiders who are coming into America and taking
over all the jobs and resources available. Why are they coming here?
Obviously to seek a better life. Is that not the reason why you ended up in
the US as well? We are all immigrants in some sense, to this nation. It
seems that again, in times of trouble, we seek out a scapegoat. And we have
found one.
==================================================
JoeHou; Brown University '98
E-mail: Ima...@Brown.edu
"Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
No hell below us, above us only sky..." - jlennon
==================================================
R. Tang
>workers to bid down American wages to third world levels.
Sorry. I'll admit this happens.
However, this is NOT as serious as you make it out to be. Again,
this is only a problem if you think of this strictly in terms of workers
as employees. Nothing stops (and nothing DOES) stop native born workers
from become their own owners and competing on that basis,
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
STILL just another theatre geek....
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Patrick R. Collins
: >And you are forgetting that curent immigrants get access to social
: >eligible for affirmative action.
: >And of course, I'm not mentioning the fact that they cn bring their
: >parents and grandparents here to take advantage of SS and medicare.
: When the European settlers invaded America, they were offered extra lots of
: land if they brought their children, wives, relatives, or another family along
: with them. But hey, I'm not mentioning the fact that they can bring their
: parents and grandparents here to take advantage of the Natives who were
: already living here and all the precious minerals, resources, etc. which did
: not belong to them.
Of course, America was a lot more empty then. And the natives replied by
killing those who were on lands they should not have been. Is that what
you suggest we do with illegal immigrants? Wow, you truly are a radical.
: >Nor do I see the need to mention the many efforts to promote
: >"multiculturalism" and not assimilation.
: What is your definition of assimilation? It would be interesting to hear YOUR
: definition of an American. What _is_ American culture these days? Assimilate
: into being what? American culture is definitely not defined by the white
: Anglo-saxon male ideals of the past. Instead, we have realized (except for
: the ignorant) that this country consists of various peoples, was built by
: various peoples, and is for various peoples, not just one group.
My working definition is :
Speak english;
Consider the best needs of the US, not how the US can best help the land
you came from;
: What's with the large amount of ant-immigrant bashing that is going on? You
: are presenting immigrants as outsiders who are coming into America and taking
: over all the jobs and resources available. Why are they coming here?
: Obviously to seek a better life. Is that not the reason why you ended up in
: the US as well? We are all immigrants in some sense, to this nation. It
: seems that again, in times of trouble, we seek out a scapegoat. And we have
: found one.
The above isn't really an argument, it's an emotional statement.
Why SHOULD the US accept a continuing large flow of immigrants? Every
past period had a peak followed by a long period of no or little
immigration. Now it is time to call a stop, just as happened in the past.
Timothy J. Lee
|>>> This applies more to native born Americans since many immigrants
|>>>do not compete for the same jobs.
|>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
|>
|>
|> Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for you. Either way, they
|>contribute to America, through taxes and through making a better product.
|
|program. If immigration were stopped and wages for programmers
|increased then more Americans would enter the profession and more
|would remain in the field.
You're forgetting other effects of stopping immigration:
1. Employers, unable to find enough high quality software workers
(yes, there is a shortage if your standards are high, although
there is certainly a glut of mediocrity) may export the jobs
by opening up overseas research, development, and manufacturing
plants instead of hiring more people within the USA.
2. Immigrants create and increase consumer demand for various
products (including computers and software), thus creating new
or greater business opportunities for companies to start up or
expand, creating more jobs on the demand side of the labor
market. These jobs counterbalance those jobs taken by immigrants
and would disappear if the immigrants didn't exist.
|Immigration may benefit companies who hire programmers, it also
|hurts economically the programmers who are working in this
|country.
As noted in 2. above, your analysis is missing the effect of immigrants'
consumer spending that creates additional jobs to increase the demand
side of the labor market.
--
Travis C. Porco
Steve Cheang <sch...@saonet.ucla.edu> wrote:
:However, I love America. I love being an American.
People like yourself are always welcome. Few white liberals
would ever say such a thing without qualification, or without
redefining "America" to mean, not the actual America, with all
its imperfections, but rather the embodiment of their
bloodless abstractions.
--Travis
R. Tang
Patrick R. Collins <pcol...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>Why SHOULD the US accept a continuing large flow of immigrants? Every
>past period had a peak followed by a long period of no or little
>immigration. Now it is time to call a stop, just as happened in the past.
That's part of the problem. In the past, anti-immigration
sentiment was fueled by bigotry and xenophobia with little justification.
What's different this time?
An-Jen Tai
factual fallacies, it is truly astonishing. Let's look at a few issues.
(Most of what follows are taken from G. Borjas' article in the Journal of
Economic Literature, 12/94)
First, are current levels of immigration high by historical standards?
The answer is a qualified yes. In absolute terms, legal immigration
during 1981-1990 was higher than during all previous decades except for
1901-1910. Not only that, but immigrant flow during that decade accounted
for 33.1% of our change in population and is near the historic high
reached during the early 1900s. In addition, INS estimates that there is
an additional flow of 200-300 thousand illegal immigrants. Another
indication of this is that after falling to a low of 4.7% in 1970, the
fraction of the population that is foreign born in 1990 is 7.9% and
rising. The only caveat here is that the population base is much higher
than at the start of the century. Nonetheless, the current levels of
immigration is very large compared to that which prevailed from 1920-1965.
Second, does immigration have an impact on native wages? As a theoretical
matter this depends on two things, the size of immigration and the mix of
skills among immigrants vis-a-vis the native born. It should be easy to
see that if we admitted immigrants with essentially the same pattern of
skills as natives, then even large scale immigration is unlikely to have
any significant impact on wages. (I am assuming that capital flows are
relatively frictionless.) But this is not the case. It is an empirical
fact that the post 1965 cohorts of immigrants are in fact less educated
and and less skilled than the natives. One example of this is that in
1990 the fraction of natives that are high school dropouts is 14% compared
to 36.9% for immigrants. In my opinion, this is due almost entirely to
the the change in the national origin mix of our immigrants pre and post
1965. Most of the existing studies on this matter have focused on wage
differentials of less skilled workers among urban areas with differing
levels of immigrants. Generally these studies have found a negative, but
very weak, correlation between the presence of immigrants and the earning
of natives. The problem is that these studies assume that the individual
local labor markets are in fact distinct and not subject to the migration
of natives (and immigrants) in search of higher wages. More
sophisticated, albeit preliminary, work suggest that immigration may be
partly (1/3) responsible the increasing wage differential between skilled
and unskilled workers. Another related issue is that we know there is a
very strong correlation between skills of the first generation of
immigrants and the second generation. Therefore, the large wage
differentials we observe today among different foreign born groups will
persist into the future as differences among American-born ethnic groups.
Third, do immigrants pay their way in the welfare state? This is a much
more difficult question, but I think the most reasonable estimates suggest
no. The key issue here is how to allocate to immigrants the costs of
non-means tested entitlement programs. Most studies that have found that
immigrants are net contributors assume that such expenditures are pure
public goods with zero marginal costs. Once you make more reasonable
assumptions about the marginal costs of providing these goods and services
(e.g. roads, parks, schools, etc.) to immigrants, you inevitably show that
immigrants take more out of the system than they put in. An interesting
fact concerning welfare participation is the great disparity among Asian
American immigrants. They range from 2.3% for Japan, 3.3% for Taiwan, and
3.4% for India to 25.8% for Vietnam, 46.3% for Laos, and 48.8% for
Cambodia (circa 1990).
Now what does this all mean? In my view, there is nothing particularly
sacred about the currently levels of immigration or how we decide who to
admit. I agree entirely with those who believe we should base admissions
on observable skills and talents rather than familial ties. (This, of
course, would probably have kept my family out, back in 1976.) Whatever
you may feel about the proper level of immigration, there is no logical
reason we should continue an immigration policy that worsens the income
distribution and creates additional burdens on the welfare state.
As for the cultural reasons for restricting immigration, I am obviously
less sympathetic to them. Furthermore, I believe that the real problem
are the so-called multi-culturalists (most of whom are white liberals)
that seem to dominate our educational establishments. These people have
succeeded in weakening the ability of both our public and private
institutions to assimilate new Americans. Not enough to really matter, in
my opinion, but enough to alarm many Americans. I think the answer is to
get rid of bi-lingual education and the assorted multicultural pablum that
passes for social science in our public schools, and we will be well on
our way to reversing the trend.
--
An-Jen Tai
at...@ida.org
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property"
Patrick R. Collins
: In article <3ob35n$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
: Patrick R. Collins <pcol...@prairienet.org> wrote:
: >Why SHOULD the US accept a continuing large flow of immigrants? Every
: >past period had a peak followed by a long period of no or little
: >immigration. Now it is time to call a stop, just as happened in the past.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: That's part of the problem. In the past, anti-immigration
: sentiment was fueled by bigotry and xenophobia with little justification.
: What's different this time?
There's justification.
Social services, such as SSI, Medicare, being burdened with parents and
grandparents of immigrants who paid little or nothing into the system;
Some immigrants are eligible for affirmative action, which if you think
of the basis for AA, makes no sense;
The US does not need unskilled people, which are a bulk of the current
wave of immigration;
Some immigrants can cause increased local spending in their localities;
We have had the inflow, now it's time for the pause.
R. Tang
An-Jen Tai <at...@ida.org> wrote:
Some comments....
>and unskilled workers. Another related issue is that we know there is a
>very strong correlation between skills of the first generation of
>immigrants and the second generation.
References for this? This has historically not been the case for
Asian American immigrants; pre-1965, the education and skills of the
second generation was markedly better than the first generation (markedly
so for Japanese and Chinese Americans, less so for Filipino).
As well, there's a tendency for highly educated parents to have
highly educated children; there is not as strong a tendency for poorly
educated parents....an emphasis on correlation is a bit misleading.
>immigrants take more out of the system than they put in. An interesting
>fact concerning welfare participation is the great disparity among Asian
>American immigrants. They range from 2.3% for Japan, 3.3% for Taiwan, and
>3.4% for India to 25.8% for Vietnam, 46.3% for Laos, and 48.8% for
>Cambodia (circa 1990).
Which is, of course, due to differentials of parental education.
However, talk about strain on the welfare system should be done iun the
context of length of stays on the system. If they get off and stay off in
a relatively quick time, then that is a MUCH different story than if they
are persistent welfare recipients.
>As for the cultural reasons for restricting immigration, I am obviously
>less sympathetic to them. Furthermore, I believe that the real problem
>are the so-called multi-culturalists (most of whom are white liberals)
>that seem to dominate our educational establishments. These people have
>succeeded in weakening the ability of both our public and private
>institutions to assimilate new Americans. Not enough to really matter, in
>my opinion, but enough to alarm many Americans. I think the answer is to
>get rid of bi-lingual education and the assorted multicultural pablum that
>passes for social science in our public schools, and we will be well on
>our way to reversing the trend.
I doubt it. Getting rid of bilingual education is no answer and
will not be done; Lau pretty much took care of that. However, an emphasis
on teaching English as a second language (which >IS< bilingual education)
may be more productive.
As for acculturating youngsters, I think you'll find mass media
to becoming a more and more effective tool as time goes by. The school
system has been gutted by ideologues from both the right and the left,
making it less effective than it has been in the past (though, once
again, critics of so-called multiculturalism forget that what they
critique is far more similar to mainstream American culture than they
realize).
David Finley
>po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco) writes:
>|R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>To our benefit... highly competent software people are not easy to
>find. Eliminating the immigration of software people would only
>cause many job openings to remain unfilled, reducing the efficiency
>of the companies that are looking for these people.
Reducing immigration drastically would likely cause a body blow to the
USA Software industry. As the companies find they are lacking people,
they would accelerate the move towards off-shore software production.
This would give offshore developers even more esperience, which they'll
use to go after the higher end parts of the software market.
Besides, many of the immigrant Technical people are the "Best and
Brightest", being sent for Graduate study. We should be looking for MORE
of those people, as they are the sort of people that can develop NEW
products and new markets!
>In any case, would you rather import a worker or export a job?
Agreed!
--
The Big D
AES
I do not understand how anyone can actually figure out
whether immigrants have done more BAD than GOOD to this
country (including its native citizens). I see how it
is easy to pick examples of the BAD stuff, but do you
ever think of the GOOD part (intellectual and cultural
advancement and diversification, taxes, investments, ...)
Joan Shields
>using historical conditions to jockey for special privileges and
>set-asides.
The only problem with the above is that there really isn't a "single
unifying culture" here in the US, well, not nearly as well-defined as
cultures are in other countries. US culture is very much an amalgamation
of hundreds of other cultures - everything from Japanese to Dutch and West
African and English. This kind of amorphous "culture" varies from region
to region. We can't loose a single unifying culture because we, in the US,
have never really had one. We do have a unifying history and we do have
the principles as outlined in the US Constitution and our freedoms - those
are what unify us, that is what makes us the US.
As for special privilages, I don't like that either but I am against
special privilages for anyone and I am for an even playing field. We may
not like to admit to this but the US is still very racist and sexist, it's
woven into our institutions.
>No, it does not at all. The reason is that the WASPs and those other
>acculturated whites are numerically strong enough to enforce unity if they
>choose to do so, before the alternative loyalties create separatist
>enclaves. Despite great immigration and regionalisms, we never had
>this problem in the past--except once, and catastrophically. The problem was
>not solved by tolerance and harmony, but by sheer force. Strong ethnic
>loyalties within a nation create distrust and chaos--and never so much as
>when one group has a legitimate historical grievance.
Just because someone appreciates and celebrates their ethnic background
doesn't mean that they're loyalties are divided. Do you believe that a
devout Catholic has divided loyalties between the US and the Vatican? How
about a Jew that is Orthodox - would you question their loyalty to the US?
How about those that would march in the St. Patrick's Day parade or who
participate in Highland games? How about the Iraquois or the Navahjo or
the Souix nations?
joan
Timothy J. Lee
|
|: 1. Employers, unable to find enough high quality software workers
|: (yes, there is a shortage if your standards are high, although
|: there is certainly a glut of mediocrity) may export the jobs
|: by opening up overseas research, development, and manufacturing
|: plants instead of hiring more people within the USA.
|
|I know they import some workers for low paying jobs. They also send them
|home in a few years.
Japanese companies also export research and development jobs from Japan
to the USA and other places by opening up subsidiaries or investing in
USA based startups.
|A more likely cause would be that more people would get the training to
|become programmers, shifting current US wgae distribution to the high end.
Software development is already more attractive than a very large
percentage of the jobs that exist in the USA. That native born
citizens of the USA are unable to even come close to meeting the
demand for _highly_competent_ software workers is more of a reflection
on the educational system in the USA than anything else. Even
counting both native born USA citizens and recent immigrants, the
supply of highly competent software workers is low, although mediocrity
is in surplus.
Given that software development is more attractive than most other
jobs in the USA (particularly the ones that pay less), what lower
paying jobs do you think people who might become software workers
in your hypothetical no-immigration scenario are doing now?
|The real questions are these:
|
|Do we really need 900,000 each year?
Is the current level of immigration harmful? Unlikely.
|Should we change the mix by eliminating family preference and making
|skills the criteria?
What skills criteria are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that
highly skilled immigrants be excluded, since you seem to fear
competition from them for high skill jobs like software development?
|What's the benefit to the US?
Jobs stay here, the tax base increases, and immigrants' consumer
spending stimulates the economy.
Plus better selection of ethnic food. :-)
Travis C. Porco
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <3o8vjo$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>workers to bid down American wages to third world levels.
> Sorry. I'll admit this happens.
This is a rare gesture, and I appreciate it.
> However, this is NOT as serious as you make it out to be. Again,
>this is only a problem if you think of this strictly in terms of workers
>as employees. Nothing stops (and nothing DOES) stop native born workers
>from become their own owners and competing on that basis,
This is a nice dream; I dream it too sometimes.
>Roger Tang
--Travis
---------------------------------
"...native born Americans are have expected to have stabilized
and even slightly reduced their numbers in the next century.
Environmentalists praise their restraint...but this restraint
by native born Americans is wasted anyway. The resulting gap
is more than filled by immigration policy."
Peter Brimelow, _Alien Nation_ (1995)
Brian L. Robinson
>In article <3o5hso$f...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3o4vje$k...@agate.berkeley.edu>,>>>>...do not compete for the same jobs.
>>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
>
>> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
>
Why do you call it the "white idiot" argument. The discussion is on
immigration, not race, no?
>I was wondering when this
>would come up. Let me tell you something. I am for Americans who are born
>in this country and educated here. I don't expect them to be discriminated
>against for this. I forget who said it, but the statement "I don't want to
>compete with the desperation of the whole world to get a job" is one we
>should remember in choosing policy. I am against using foreign workers to
>bid down wages at home; the idea is to see the world improve its wages and
>living conditions, not to see American workers reduced to Third-World
>status.
The problem is that the foreign workers can bid down the prices
whether they work here or abroad. In fact in many cases they can bid
prices even lower by staying abroad where the cost of living is lower.
By coming here they lose that competitive edge. This is particularly
true in the software industry where the cost of importing the final
product (data) is virtually nil.
The wages arguement might hold up when it comes to service jobs
though. For example, while we can import TVs without importing the TV
maker, we can't import bartending without importing the bartender.
The secret to keeping our wages up is to make sure we continue to
produce a superior product. We can do this by doing the things that
made us so successful in the first place, and which rapidly developing
countries do.
1. Put a high value on education (I personally think the only reason
we managed to stay a technologically competitive is that so many
foreigners who got a decent grade school and high school education
come here for graduate work and then stay)
2. Allow competition (do not over-regulate nor over-tax)
3. Require competition (for example, keep subsidies to individuals,
corporations, and industries to a minimum; enforce anti-trust laws
when appropriate)
>
>Fair enough. Again, I have no problems with immigrants as such; as I say,
>my family immigrated here as well. I am against using immigrants to lower
>wages,
>against the loss of a single unifying culture,
I've been lead to believe that regardless of where the immigrants are
from and how aquainted they are with American culture, their kids
learn English as perfectly as can be expected from Americans and don't
stick around in ethnic ghettos. The problems of cultural
fragmentation seem to be greater with groups that do not feel accepted
and choose to reject the culture they've grown up with. For
example, we see many black Americans trying to reject their culture in
favor of African cultures.
As long as immigrants and their children are not forming permanent
subcultures, where is the problem?
>and against groups
>using historical conditions to jockey for special privileges and
>set-asides.
This tends to happen more with native Americans than with immigrants.
--
Brian L. Robinson "Gordon Way's astonishment at being suddenly shot
dead was nothing to his astonishment at what
bl...@Virginia.EDU happened next." - Douglas Adams
Patrick R. Collins
: |Timothy J. Lee (tim...@netcom.com) wrote:
: |
: |: You're forgetting other effects of stopping immigration:
: |
: |: 1. Employers, unable to find enough high quality software workers
: |: (yes, there is a shortage if your standards are high, although
: |: there is certainly a glut of mediocrity) may export the jobs
: |: by opening up overseas research, development, and manufacturing
: |: plants instead of hiring more people within the USA.
: |
: |This didn't happen in Japan, which has basically NO immigration policy.
: |I know they import some workers for low paying jobs. They also send them
: |home in a few years.
: Japanese companies also export research and development jobs from Japan
: to the USA and other places by opening up subsidiaries or investing in
: USA based startups.
This is done for TWO reasons: keep down political pressure;
buy technology more cheaply than they can develop it. Other countries get
the same thing buy having local content laws, reinvestment laws. You
shold note that all the BEST (highest paid, leading edge) development is
done back home by Japanese firms. Their lack of immigration hasn't affect
that.
: |A more likely cause would be that more people would get the training to
: |become programmers, shifting current US wgae distribution to the high end.
: Software development is already more attractive than a very large
: percentage of the jobs that exist in the USA. That native born
: citizens of the USA are unable to even come close to meeting the
: demand for _highly_competent_ software workers is more of a reflection
: on the educational system in the USA than anything else. Even
: counting both native born USA citizens and recent immigrants, the
: supply of highly competent software workers is low, although mediocrity
: is in surplus.
This is going to be hard to prove, either way. It is more likely that the
newness of the industry has not yet develope the type of tools and
techniques that allow for higher qulaity stuff to be made more easily.
: Given that software development is more attractive than most
other : jobs in the USA (particularly the ones that pay less), what lower
: paying jobs do you think people who might become software workers
: in your hypothetical no-immigration scenario are doing now?
I am thinking with the CONTINUED long term shortage of such people, more
will prepare for that type of career.
: |The real questions are these:
: |
: |Do we really need 900,000 each year?
: Is the current level of immigration harmful? Unlikely.
It is helpful? Given that the US does not need more low or no skilled
people, the currret mix is not at all useful.
: |Should we change the mix by eliminating family preference and making
: |skills the criteria?
: What skills criteria are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that
: highly skilled immigrants be excluded, since you seem to fear
: competition from them for high skill jobs like software development?
I am suggesting that family preference be eliminated, and that the skills
imported be ones that are not likely to be developed over the short term.
: |What's the benefit to the US?
: Jobs stay here, the tax base increases, and immigrants' consumer
: spending stimulates the economy.
But if we had fewer immigrants, we would have fewer consumers and fewer
producers. Add in the lower costs for things like language education,
lower social costs for elderly that did not contribute to the tax base,
and it seems to be a net plus for less immigration.
: Plus better selection of ethnic food. :-)
Even I can make naan.
MASTE01
<deleted>
>Social services, such as SSI, Medicare, being burdened with parents and
>grandparents of immigrants who paid little or nothing into the system;
>
>Some immigrants are eligible for affirmative action, which if you think
>of the basis for AA, makes no sense;
>
>The US does not need unskilled people, which are a bulk of the current
>wave of immigration;
>
>Some immigrants can cause increased local spending in their localities;
>
>We have had the inflow, now it's time for the pause.
>
>--
>Regards, Pat
>
>pcol...@prairienet.org
>
>I'll try, sir.
>
>http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins
Pat,
Speaking of unskilled workers, the 1900-1910 wave of European
immigrants were even more unskilled. They were mostly peasants or
lower-class people who came to this country looking for opportunities.
But America didn't turn them back then.
Besides, most immigrants who come here today are hard-working people, and
many of them are highly educated and capable (and quite a number of them
from Asia are quite rich, even by American standards). Sure, there
is a significant percentage of those who take advantage of the system,
but are we then to turn all of them back just because there are some
rotten apples in their midst?
Personally, I favor some sort of screening (eg. screening out those who
have criminal records, etc), but overall, I think immigration is a good thing
for this country. It has provided the engine for progress and advancement
over the last centuries, and it will continue do so.
With all due respect,
"Master Chen"-proud immigrant class of 1981
USC MBA 1996
*SC #1!*
... by the way, my family owns a company with $200 million capitalization in
Taiwan, so you don't have to worry about my parents or grandparents
freeloading in this country... :-)
Travis C. Porco
Brian L. Robinson <bl...@mamba.cs.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3o7g65$9...@agate.berkeley.edu> po...@pathos.Berkeley.EDU (Travis C. Porco) writes:
>>In article <3o5hso$f...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
>>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <3o4vje$k...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>>>Travis C. Porco <po...@golden.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>>>>...do not compete for the same jobs.
>>>>But many do. Especially in, say, the software industry.
>>> Wassamatter? Can't compete?
>>Ah, yes. The celebrated "white idiot" argument.
>Why do you call it the "white idiot" argument. The discussion is on
>immigration, not race, no?
My usage was unclear here. The argument often comes up in
this context, as in affirmative action, when liberals realize
that they can use the "spoiled white crybaby" "argument" on
whites who oppose government discrimination against them.
Of course, no discussion of immigration can omit the crucial
topics of race and ethnicity, and as I've said before, I see
no good reason to change the ethnic mix of America through
astronomical immigration rates.
...deletia...
>The problem is that the foreign workers can bid down the prices
[of labor]
>whether they work here or abroad. In fact in many cases they can bid
>prices even lower by staying abroad where the cost of living is lower.
>By coming here they lose that competitive edge. This is particularly
>true in the software industry where the cost of importing the final
>product (data) is virtually nil.
It is true that foreign workers bid down wages even when
abroad. Your second example would argue that companies would
be better off keeping workers in foreign countries, and
sometimes companies do this.
>The wages arguement might hold up when it comes to service jobs
>though. For example, while we can import TVs without importing the TV
>maker, we can't import bartending without importing the bartender.
If present trends continue, perhaps bartending will be the
only thing going on in this country; we'll import the glass
and the booz :-)
...deletia...
>I've been lead to believe that regardless of where the immigrants are
>from and how aquainted they are with American culture, their kids
>learn English as perfectly as can be expected from Americans and don't
>stick around in ethnic ghettos. The problems of cultural
>fragmentation seem to be greater with groups that do not feel accepted
>and choose to reject the culture they've grown up with. For
>example, we see many black Americans trying to reject their culture in
>favor of African cultures.
And being heartily encouraged to do so by "multiculturalists"
and "afrocentrists". I am against anything that threatens the
unifying force of the splendid and generous culture of the
White Anglo-Saxons who founded the country. It was fine; we
don't need any new social experiments.
>As long as immigrants and their children are not forming permanent
>subcultures, where is the problem?
Such subcultures are forming now, and this will dramatically
increase. We can expect Mexican irredentism soon in
California and the other parts of "Aztlan".
>>and against groups
>>using historical conditions to jockey for special privileges and
>>set-asides.
>This tends to happen more with native Americans than with immigrants.
Ethnic diversity will lead to destabilization at home just as
it has abroad. Earlier groups of white immigrants blended in
fairly peacefully and rapidly to the mainstream, White Anglo-Saxon
culture--dissipating ethnic diversity, not preserving it.
Perhaps in fifty years a new totalitarian government, having
arisen to deal with massive ethnic strife, will mandate
intermarriage to solve the problem. After all, anti-racists
like to carp on statistical inequality as always indicating
a need for government intervention in private choices. I
won't bet on it, but stranger things have happened in this
world.
Whites who support ethnic diversity think their
magnanimity entitles them to be liked by the newly created
minorities. It hasn't occurred to them that multiculturalists
still denounce them as being beneficiaries of imperialism.
They don't realize that many of these multiculturalists really
hate them and really are looking for the day that immigration
policy has made whites into minorities themselves; then the
Jacobinite fury starts in earnest. They feel very cozy now; their
children will curse them for the wreckage of the nation.
Good bye, America. Hellooo Bosnia.
--Travis
--------------------------------------------------------------
"No immigration should be permitted from countries that do not
allow reciprocal emigration from the United States."
David Brimelow, _Alien Nation_, p. 261
Travis C. Porco
MASTE01 <MAS...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In article <3obkig$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, pcol...@prairienet.org (Patrick R. Collins) says:
><deleted>
>>Social services, such as SSI, Medicare, being burdened with parents and
>>grandparents of immigrants who paid little or nothing into the system;
>>Some immigrants are eligible for affirmative action, which if you think
>>of the basis for AA, makes no sense;
>>The US does not need unskilled people, which are a bulk of the current
>>wave of immigration;
>>Some immigrants can cause increased local spending in their localities;
>>We have had the inflow, now it's time for the pause.
>>
>>Regards, Pat
>>I'll try, sir.
>>http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins
>Pat,
>Speaking of unskilled workers, the 1900-1910 wave of European
>immigrants were even more unskilled. They were mostly peasants or
>lower-class people who came to this country looking for opportunities.
>But America didn't turn them back then.
But also, white Americans weren't as well educated either, so
the gap was lower and more easily closed.
>Besides, most immigrants who come here today are hard-working people, and
>many of them are highly educated and capable (and quite a number of them
>from Asia are quite rich, even by American standards). Sure, there
>is a significant percentage of those who take advantage of the system,
>but are we then to turn all of them back just because there are some
>rotten apples in their midst?
Why should we allow them in at all? Allowing them in will
change the ethnic mix of the country dramatically. I see no
justification whatever for such a wild experiment; the nation
was fine before--and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>Personally, I favor some sort of screening (eg. screening out those who
>have criminal records, etc), but overall, I think immigration is a good thing
>for this country. It has provided the engine for progress and advancement
>over the last centuries, and it will continue do so.
This is false. For instance, Japan has done excellently for
itself with almost no immigration at all.
>With all due respect,
>"Master Chen"-proud immigrant class of 1981
--Travis
----------------------------------------------------
"This pattern of pauses for digestion has recurred
throughout American history. Waves of immigration
have been followed by lulls right back into
colonial times."
Peter Brimelow, _Alien Nation_, p. 212
Brian L. Robinson
>>And you are forgetting that curent immigrants get access to social
>>services that did not exist then. Not to mention the fact that they are
>>eligible for affirmative action.
>
>>And of course, I'm not mentioning the fact that they cn bring their
>>parents and grandparents here to take advantage of SS and medicare.
>When the European settlers invaded America, they were offered extra lots of
>land if they brought their children, wives, relatives, or another family along
>with them.
There was a lot of land, and people did not understand the limitedness
of resources and the environmental destruction that large numbers of
people cause.
>But hey, I'm not mentioning the fact that they can bring their
>parents and grandparents here to take advantage of the Natives who were
>already living here and all the precious minerals, resources, etc. which did
>not belong to them.
Was this a good thing? Do we really want a repeat?
>Obviously to seek a better life. Is that not the reason why you ended up in
>the US as well? We are all immigrants in some sense, to this nation.
I believe the poster has mentioned that he was born here. To say that
"we are all immigrants in some sense" (I assume you mean due to our
ancestry) is to say that all people are immigrants in some sense,
because at some point someone in their ancestry decided to pick up and
move (if at no other point in time, at least from sea to land). Your
statement thus makes "immigrant" a pointless word.
But there is a point to it. There is a reason why we need to
distinguish between Americans and foreigners. That reason is that
every other country on the planet distinguishes between their own
people and Americans. Unfortunately the world is very much a "look
out for number one" environment. Other countries try to promote
the welfare of their own citizens and generally don't give a crap
about how their policies affect Americans. If America doesn't look
out for the interests of Americans, who will?
>It
>seems that again, in times of trouble, we seek out a scapegoat. And we have
>found one.
> ==================================================
> JoeHou; Brown University '98
> E-mail: Ima...@Brown.edu
>
> "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
> No hell below us, above us only sky..." - jlennon
> ==================================================
>
An-Jen Tai
(R. Tang) wrote:
>
> References for this? This has historically not been the case for
> Asian American immigrants; pre-1965, the education and skills of the
> second generation was markedly better than the first generation (markedly
> so for Japanese and Chinese Americans, less so for Filipino).
>
See Borjas, "The Intergenerational Mobility of Immigrants," Journal of
Labor Economics, 1993 and Borjas, "Ethnic Capital and Intergenerational
Mobility", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992. Note that Borjas's
estimate for intergenerational correlation in relative wages in on the
order of .5 and is an average over all ethnic groups he used. I don't
have the papers in front of me, but I do not believe that it included any
Asian groups because part of the data relied 1940 Census information for
first generation workers.
>
> >immigrants take more out of the system than they put in. An interesting
> >fact concerning welfare participation is the great disparity among Asian
> >American immigrants. They range from 2.3% for Japan, 3.3% for Taiwan, and
> >3.4% for India to 25.8% for Vietnam, 46.3% for Laos, and 48.8% for
> >Cambodia (circa 1990).
>
> Which is, of course, due to differentials of parental education.
> However, talk about strain on the welfare system should be done iun the
> context of length of stays on the system. If they get off and stay off in
> a relatively quick time, then that is a MUCH different story than if they
> are persistent welfare recipients.
which surely is the story if nearly 50% of a population group is on
welfare at any point in time.
--
An-Jen Tai
at...@ida.org
"... that the secret to happiness is freedom, and the secret to freedom a brave heart ..."
The Funeral Oration of Pericles.
Timothy J. Lee
|
|Of course, no discussion of immigration can omit the crucial
|topics of race and ethnicity, and as I've said before, I see
|no good reason to change the ethnic mix of America through
|astronomical immigration rates.
However, there is no good reason to fear a change of the ethnic
mix of the USA through greater or lesser immigration rates either.
|Brian L. Robinson <bl...@mamba.cs.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
|> The problems of cultural
|>fragmentation seem to be greater with groups that do not feel accepted
|>and choose to reject the culture they've grown up with. For
|>example, we see many black Americans trying to reject their culture in
|>favor of African cultures.
|
|And being heartily encouraged to do so by "multiculturalists"
|and "afrocentrists".
You've been listening to too many Berkeley radicals.
| I am against anything that threatens the
|unifying force of the splendid and generous culture of the
|White Anglo-Saxons who founded the country.
The founding fathers realized that they were diverse by the
standards of their time (diversity measured in regional attitudes,
national origins, and religions), so they wrote early amendments
to the constitution to attempt to require the government to respect
such diversity (freedom of religion, speech, press, etc.).
|>As long as immigrants and their children are not forming permanent
|>subcultures, where is the problem?
|
|Such subcultures are forming now, and this will dramatically
|increase. We can expect Mexican irredentism soon in
|California and the other parts of "Aztlan".
What makes you think that there is going to be any Mexican
irredentism soon (Berkeley radicals notwithstanding)?
|Ethnic diversity will lead to destabilization at home just as
|it has abroad. Earlier groups of white immigrants blended in
|fairly peacefully and rapidly to the mainstream, White Anglo-Saxon
|culture--dissipating ethnic diversity, not preserving it.
The "White Anglo-Saxon culture" (which already had a mixture
of French, German, Native American, and African American cultural
influences assimilated into it, if you are referring to American
cultures) also assimilated the cultural influences of the immigrants.
|They don't realize that many of these multiculturalists really
|hate them and really are looking for the day that immigration
|policy has made whites into minorities themselves; then the
|Jacobinite fury starts in earnest.
The people you are talking about are a fringe group of crackpot
hate mongers. But they will become stronger if you respond with
your own intolerance of other cultures. Bigotry as a response
to bigotry tends to be a self fulfilling prophecy.
Patrick R. Collins
: In article <snwpvsnz...@nyx.cs.du.edu>,
: Mr. Nice Guy <rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu> wrote:
: >In article <3nh5rp$1...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
: >gai...@gainer.engr.sgi.com (Patrick Gainer) wrote:
: >>An amazing bit of propoganda: claiming the unemployment and welfare problems
: >>are due to immigrants rather than deadbeat Americans.
: >
: >Many of the problems _are_ aggravated by immigrants. There is a
: >limited demand for unskilled labor, immigrants increase the supply
: >and as a result wager are lower and unemployment higher. Why
: >should the US absorb other counties excess population? If other
: >countries can't control their population is it up to the residents
: >of the US to suffer increased crowding when they dump their excess
: >people on the US?
: Look, I am not arguing for or against immigration. I am only saying
: I looked up a bunch of this information and found out that legal
: immigrants are not consuming unemployment or welfare monies to any
: significant degree. The consumers of these public monies are Americans.
: You can argue about housing and wages until you are blue in the
: face. I am just claiming the use-of-public-monies argument is bogus.
Did you see the US and NEWS article a few weeks ago? It covered the
significant burden placed on SSI and medicare by immigrants bring their
families (esp. parents and g-parents) .
IT is not at all a bogus isue.
--