by Bob Butler » Mon Jun 10, 2024 7:49 am
Guest wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 9:53 pm
For the record: Immigration at any noticeable level into a developed economy (any Western economy) is never a benefit of any kind.
Immigration always detracts from real wealth creation; It crowds out indigenous family formation, weakens social trust and bonds, lowers national competence and can only ever be sustained by public debt. Most importantly, the social costs are borne by those least able to bear them.
What you say there may be relatively true of modern immigration, but you may want to rethink the word ’never’. In North America of the colonial through Gilded Age period, the area developed significantly economically. Then again, that emigration was motivated by a desire for economic expansion. I have a distinct feeling that much modern motivation is that if a colonial or subjugated people helped a country exploit a foreign land there is owed a chance if it all goes south to for the people to immigrate to the mother country. For example, if a South American helped fight a drug cartels, he might have cause to expect asylum. That motivation is not economic expansion, and the result isn’t either.
I also get a racist overtone in many of your observations. A people is judged as having all the vices of the worst criminals among them. As an engineer, I encountered a few well educated and technically competent asian immigrants. Painting all immigrants with ugly stereotypes seems undeserving and tempts the disregarding of all you say as hateful prejudice. Still, there is some truth to it.
I am also anticipating global warming immigration. Those living in coastlands becoming submerged might wish to move to areas like northern Siberia and Canada which have been too cold in the past for significant development. The reason why a country decides to allow immigration would matter, though global warming immigration is to date hypothetical.
[quote=Guest post_id=87407 time=1717984403]
For the record: Immigration at any noticeable level into a developed economy (any Western economy) is never a benefit of any kind.
Immigration always detracts from real wealth creation; It crowds out indigenous family formation, weakens social trust and bonds, lowers national competence and can only ever be sustained by public debt. Most importantly, the social costs are borne by those least able to bear them.
[/quote]
What you say there may be relatively true of modern immigration, but you may want to rethink the word ’never’. In North America of the colonial through Gilded Age period, the area developed significantly economically. Then again, that emigration was motivated by a desire for economic expansion. I have a distinct feeling that much modern motivation is that if a colonial or subjugated people helped a country exploit a foreign land there is owed a chance if it all goes south to for the people to immigrate to the mother country. For example, if a South American helped fight a drug cartels, he might have cause to expect asylum. That motivation is not economic expansion, and the result isn’t either.
I also get a racist overtone in many of your observations. A people is judged as having all the vices of the worst criminals among them. As an engineer, I encountered a few well educated and technically competent asian immigrants. Painting all immigrants with ugly stereotypes seems undeserving and tempts the disregarding of all you say as hateful prejudice. Still, there is some truth to it.
I am also anticipating global warming immigration. Those living in coastlands becoming submerged might wish to move to areas like northern Siberia and Canada which have been too cold in the past for significant development. The reason why a country decides to allow immigration would matter, though global warming immigration is to date hypothetical.