International Can someone explain to me what started this whole worldwide immigration crisis?

[HomeCheese]

i don't follow this stuff too closely so this is very possibly a stupid question. But what was it that started this whole mess? i mean immigration issues have always been a thing, sure, but the last several years it has ramped up majorly all over the world. Entire cultures being herded around like cattle. What started this?

You can make an argument that closed borders caused the immigration crisis. Used to be migrant farm workers crossed into the US for growing season then would go home afterwards. Then in the 80's we began to militarize the border in order to stop this. So the migrants would enter now and are tooo afraid if they leave they won't be able to get back in. So these people started staying here full time and having kids so now we have the dreamer problem.

 

[avenue94]

not really, imo.

All they have to do is put different people in charge of each continent (or country) but those people all answer to one person or organization.

Or another way to do it is to have a person or org hide out of public sight but still control all other world leaders through economics or coercion or whatever.

i think this WILL eventually happen. For all we know it's already happening.

You've clearly never worked in a large organization or the government if they think this is feasible.

Apparently millions of people are keeping a secret successfully, despite the consistent inability of governments and large companies to keep secretes historically lol.

Obviously Covid played a role, for the Muslim migrants it was all the war and bombing in the middle east Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq...

And all the downstream problems that Western imperialism contributed too. You can't colonize countries and repeatedly sabotage them, and then complain when those folks show up on your doorstep seeking a better life.

 

[Cajun]

You've clearly never worked in a large organization or the government if they think this is feasible.

Apparently millions of people are keeping a secret successfully, despite the consistent inability of governments and large companies to keep secretes historically lol.

And all the downstream problems that Western imperialism contributed too. You can't colonize countries and repeatedly sabotage them, and then complain when those folks show up on your doorstep seeking a better life.

Japan has done well as did Germany after WWII. At some point you have to cut them loose and let them do the right thing..Mexico is top 20 in natural resources yet still super poor..it starts at the top imo.

 

[Kassitus]

Housing is not finite, you can literally build more houses to expand supply. That's what America has failed to do for decades.

Show me how the cost of migrants exceeds their economic contributions in the US. You've provided zero evidence and keep talking about other countries.

The US is much better at assimilating immigrants asnd has a much longer history of doing so. On a structural level, the US also much more heavily limits benefits access for migrants than other developed countries.

Lack of new housing construction. This isn't hard to track. Notice the huge drop after the recession that has yet to rebound? The US already wasn't keeping up pre-recession. Also where are illegal immigrants getting the money to buy houses in California and compete with natives? Seriously, where do they find enough to cover the down payment on a million dollar home.

When I say housing is finite I of course am referring to the limitations on the rate at which homes can be built, the strain on infrastructure caused by more housing and building, and the limited amount of land on which it can be built. Neglecting these considerations leads us to a real estate developers dictatorship where more and more 300 Sq ft boxes are built higher and higher into the sky to cram more and more people into.

But besides that, we have made some progress. We are now at the stage of addressing how America's special traits may or may not mitigate the issues.

I accept your point that America has a better system for preventing leeching, but Canada has just as long a tradition of assimilating immigrants. Canada even removed its ethnic quotas 5 years before America did.

So will less leeching be enough to make the difference? I think not alone. America can ease its growing pains by growing slower. It's a simple matter of supply and demand where the importance of neither can be neglected.

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

they can just do crimes in syria, you neanderthal. why would they travel all the way to europe to do shit they could be doing there?

Edit -- i made a joke here but it was really crass and i didn't feel right leaving it up.

 

[Lycandroid]

well this is precisely the proverbial wall you've been walking into banging your head on. people say "it wasn't real communism" when it wasn't "real" communism. "real" communism is what's detailed in the works of marx. you can't do something completely different, call yourself a communist, and have that be correct.

there have also been some great examples of successful implementation of marxism. cuba, chile, burkina faso, yugoslavia. hell even the local communism of the black panther party did wonders for their neighborhoods. and every one of these communist/socialist regimes was either directly overthrown by, or collapsed due to western intervention (sanctions, funding opposition) and outright coups/assassinations.

in that case, there's literally no democracy anywhere. walked right into that one, didn't you?

If human rights violations are you goal I guess you could say those countries have been successful. Really doesn't help your argument when two of your countries is are 3rd world shitholes, 1 doesn't exist anymore due to collapse and one is run by a dictator. Only a fucking nutcase would point to those countries as an example how to run things.

To your second nonsensical point, that would only make sense if the government also had control of the opposition parties.

You make so many posts calling everyone a Nazi while at the same time being a communist, downplaying the atrocities of Stalin and Mao. You are just as dangerous of a person as an Nazi. You follow an ideology that has killed millions of people just like any Nazi.

 

[chardog]

You can make an argument that closed borders caused the immigration crisis. Used to be migrant farm workers crossed into the US for growing season then would go home afterwards. Then in the 80's we began to militarize the border in order to stop this. So the migrants would enter now and are tooo afraid if they leave they won't be able to get back in. So these people started staying here full time and having kids so now we have the dreamer problem.

they only went back for vacationing(1-2 month) similar to how wealthy folk flock to florida during the winter, to avoid the cold...... only to go back when the weather is nice.

 

[avenue94]

Japan has done well as did Germany after WWII. At some point you have to cut them loose and let them do the right thing..Mexico is top 20 in natural resources yet still super poor..it starts at the top imo.

Neither were colonized and faced the peculiar challenges a lot of Latin America or the Middle East face. It's not a judgment, it's just a simple statement of fact. Same as when assessing the causes of migration from those regions I mentioned. Part of the reason they are less economically developed is because of the kind of leaders and economies the US encouraged and at time forced upon them.

And yeah, resource rich countries tend to develop poorly, particularly ones with larger populations. Or to be more specific, resources encourage rentier governments who pilfer the country or neglect long term development.

When I say housing is finite I of course am referring to the limitations on the rate at which homes can be built, the strain on infrastructure caused by more housing and building, and the limited amount of land on which it can be built. Neglecting these considerations leads us to a real estate developers dictatorship where more and more 300 Sq ft boxes are built higher and higher into the sky to cram more and more people into.

Building housing is a matter of months or a few years, it's the actual zoning and permitting process that takes a lot of time. There's no economic or structural reason we have the housing shortage we due, it's purely artificial. We pick policies that reduce the supply of housing and homeowners tend to lobby against more housing because it devalues (at least relatively) the value of their own house long term.

There's not really a limit on land or infrastructure. Plenty of land (even if just looking at changing zooming to multifamily) and infrastructure can be expanded.

America can ease its growing pains by growing slower. It's a simple matter of supply and demand where the importance of neither can be neglected.

It cannot grow that much slower for several obvious reasons:
-Americans do not want to pay more for housing and groceries, which means you need migrants willing to work at wages that natives aren't willing to work out. It's the ugly truth of how America has outperformed other countries, access to cheaper labor, whether slavery, legal migrants, illegal migrants, etc.
-Social safety nets: Excepting immigrants, America has far more people exiting the workforce than entering it. That means the calculus for benefits is going the wrong way, and either Americans have to pay more into social safety nets or you cut benefits for old people.
-Workforce shortages: We're pretty much at full employments, and we still have shortages in a wide variety of jobs, from low skilled to high skilled. Surely it hasn't been lost on you that part of the reason's for Silicon's Valley's dominance and American supremacy in tech is H1B and immigrants in general, no?

So will less leeching be enough to make the difference?

Immigrant pay more into government coffers and the economy than they get back in spending.

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

You've clearly never worked in a large organization or the government if they think this is feasible.

Apparently millions of people are keeping a secret successfully, despite the consistent inability of governments and large companies to keep secretes historically lol.

Naive nonsense.

For example, who was really running the US for the last couple years? It sure as shit wasn't Biden. Or Kamala. So who was it? Thaaaaat's right nobody knows.

 

[avenue94]

Naive nonsense.

For example, who was really running the US during the last couple years? It sure as shit wasn't Biden. Or Kamala. So who was it? Thaaaaat's right nobody knows.

Biden coupled with his staff. AKA same premise as every other US president, just to varying degrees throughout history.

Just give me a ball park estimate: For your one world secret cabal, how many people would know about it? Like how many people are required to run it or have knowledge of it so it can exist.

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

Biden coupled with his staff. AKA same premise as every other US president, just to varying degrees throughout history.

Oh you sweet summer child...

 

[avenue94]

Oh you sweet summer child...

Let me ask you this: Who do you think contributed to decisions when Wilson was incapacitated post-stroke? Do you also assume it was some mysterious cabal we don't know about?

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

Let me ask you this: Who do you think contributed to decisions when Wilson was incapacitated post-stroke? Do you also assume it was some mysterious cabal we don't know about?

Woodrow Wilson? From 100 years ago? i have no idea lol

 

[avenue94]

Woodrow Wilson? From 100 years ago? i have no idea lol

Well considering he was far less present than Biden, and we have a good idea of who helped him govern (shocker, it wasn't secret cabals), why do you assume Biden had a secret cabal calling the shots?

Shit, why should we even trust your assessment of a presidency since you aren't even familiar with the history of the office.

Just give me a ball park estimate: For your one world secret cabal, how many people would know about it? Like how many people are required to run it or have knowledge of it so it can exist.

Also you ducked the question: How many people would need to be involved in your conspiracy theory to pull off a one-word government?

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

If human rights violations are you goal I guess you could say those countries have been successful.

the first black person born with equal rights in this country is 60 years old. if you wanna talk human rights violations, it's probably not best to do it in defense of the country with the most prisoners on earth, who kept slavery longer than anyone else with a centralized government.

Really doesn't help your argument when two of your countries is are 3rd world shitholes, 1 doesn't exist anymore due to collapse and one is run by a dictator. Only a fucking nutcase would point to those countries as an example how to run things.

literally all of those countries were crushed by western sanctions or western countries funded assassins and death squads to overthrow them lmfao

To your second nonsensical point, that would only make sense if the government also had control of the opposition parties.

you think the governments in the west don't control which political parties are allowed to participate and therefore exist? are you fucking high?

You make so many posts calling everyone a Nazi while at the same time being a communist, downplaying the atrocities of Stalin and Mao. You are just as dangerous of a person as an Nazi. You follow an ideology that has killed millions of people just like any Nazi.

to be fair, i'm not a stalinist or a maoist, not even really a full-blown communist. i'm a marxist, and a titoist. tito's greatest enemy was arguably stalin. i don't like stalin.

regardless, the atrocities you attribute to mao and stalin is literally people starving due to poor economic planning. if you think that's the same as gassing and executing millions of jews, i don't know what to tell you.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Naive nonsense.

For example, who was really running the US for the last couple years? It sure as shit wasn't Biden. Or Kamala. So who was it? Thaaaaat's right nobody knows.

it was biden, serving the interest of western neoliberals. that's why literally nothing out of the ordinary regarding domestic or foreign policy happened. quite literally the most inconsequential president in probably a century.

 

[BFoe]

Let me ask you this: Who do you think contributed to decisions when Wilson was incapacitated post-stroke?

Would she be called a “DEI hire” today? She was sort of just there because of her sex and gender.

 

[avenue94]

Would she be called a “DEI hire” today? She was sort of just there because of her sex and gender.

Honestly she and Jill Biden probably are actually fairly similar in how dedicated they were to their partners political career. You don't see that level of engagement very often for first wives.

 

[BFoe]

Honestly she and Jill Biden probably are actually fairly similar in how dedicated they were to their partners political career. You don't see that level of engagement very often for first wives.

Agree, and also Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

[Kassitus]

Neither were colonized and faced the peculiar challenges a lot of Latin America or the Middle East face. It's not a judgment, it's just a simple statement of fact. Same as when assessing the causes of migration from those regions I mentioned. Part of the reason they are less economically developed is because of the kind of leaders and economies the US encouraged and at time forced upon them.

And yeah, resource rich countries tend to develop poorly, particularly ones with larger populations. Or to be more specific, resources encourage rentier governments who pilfer the country or neglect long term development.

Building housing is a matter of months or a few years, it's the actual zoning and permitting process that takes a lot of time. There's no economic or structural reason we have the housing shortage we due, it's purely artificial. We pick policies that reduce the supply of housing and homeowners tend to lobby against more housing because it devalues (at least relatively) the value of their own house long term.

There's not really a limit on land or infrastructure. Plenty of land (even if just looking at changing zooming to multifamily) and infrastructure can be expanded.

It cannot grow that much slower for several obvious reasons:
-Americans do not want to pay more for housing and groceries, which means you need migrants willing to work at wages that natives aren't willing to work out. It's the ugly truth of how America has outperformed other countries, access to cheaper labor, whether slavery, legal migrants, illegal migrants, etc.
-Social safety nets: Excepting immigrants, America has far more people exiting the workforce than entering it. That means the calculus for benefits is going the wrong way, and either Americans have to pay more into social safety nets or you cut benefits for old people.
-Workforce shortages: We're pretty much at full employments, and we still have shortages in a wide variety of jobs, from low skilled to high skilled. Surely it hasn't been lost on you that part of the reason's for Silicon's Valley's dominance and American supremacy in tech is H1B and immigrants in general, no?

Immigrant pay more into government coffers and the economy than they get back in spending.

Many immigrants do indeed pay in more than they take out from the government, but alas as I mentioned the greater impact of high migration levels is in making worse the scarcity of housing, jobs in certain already saturated markets, and other finite resources. I agree with you other job markets benefit from migration, but you could easily double the amount of immigrants brought in through programs meant to fill these markets and still greatly reduce the overall immigration to the country keeping all the benefits but paying less of the costs.

The reason I addressed your last point first is because all the other points you brought up ask us not only to look at this specific issue, but the organization of 21st century society as a whole. I think it's an interesting question, though if you find it boring feel free to ignore the rest of my post lol

On the one hand we can be NIMBYists/protectionists who want to limit the amount our homes are devalued, both as an asset and as a community we enjoy living in with less traffic, more social trust, etc. As you mentioned if immigrants are kept out wages will not be suppressed and therefore the price of commodities will go up. A higher proportion of people will be elderly which will mean retirement age will be much higher and people will generally have to work until they are 75.

On the other hand is the liberal/libertarian solution, where millions of immigrants are imported to make sure there are always a large proportion of young people relative to old people, there are always poor people willing to work for dirt cheap, the retirement age and the prices of commodities both stay low. Communities face all the standard problems of urbanization, people have to deal with a hypercompetitive labor market even if they only want to flip burgers or push a broom, but on the flip side we can poach the smartest Indians from India and get a great tech industry. Essentially the late 20th century trends just continue onwards.

Certainly there are appeals of the second option, but what I like about the first option is that it has no loose ends. It comes with the harmony of a new order with its own internal logic. It sets a new standard which can be maintained no matter what external factors it might have to deal with. The 2nd option on the other hand has to answer the question of what happens when it doesn't work anymore. What happens when even Somalia and Mali have a fertility rate below replacement and an aging population? What happens when there is no agricultural land left because everywhere where you can place a water main has a metropolis built over it? What happens when people lose a sense of purpose and identity as they commute to their ratrace job and back to their sleep pod 100 ft in the sky? I think the answer is that the second path society would eventually have to restructure itself in the image of the first society. At least, that's how it seems like it would play out. What do you think?