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

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.

Both sexy too

[<cena1}
 
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.
You can, but the modern GOP has fought this. They aren't opposed to illegal immigration, it's specifically immigration of non-white people that tends to get them upset. The GOP has blocked increases to immigration quotas more than once in the past several years. And again, swapping illegal labor for legal labor will significantly increase the costs of groceries and construction and increase government expenditures. There's no two ways about it, that would be a clear give and take for the country.
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.
And that's really dumb. Imagine if we limited the production of cars to ensure that the price of used cars doesn't decrease. It's a market that punishes younger generations so that existing homeowners can live above their means (ie tax benefits like Prop 13). Buying a house is primarily its own reward. Put it this way: Tokyo, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, has significantly lower housing costs than most of California's urban centers.
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.
It's a pretty miserable society that punishes lower income Americans the most (aka people who tend to work jobs that you physically can't sustain until your 75) and leads to an even worse safety net for one of the lowest performers in the developed world in that respect. You're asking for an America that never existed since the country has always relied on immigration to fuel growth.
What happens when even Somalia and Mali have a fertility rate below replacement and an aging population?
You'd ideally rely on automatization and other advances. But frankly speaking, you're more likely to run into other problems before that related to societal distributions of wealth.
What happens when there is no agricultural land left because everywhere where you can place a water main has a metropolis built over it?
Pretty much impossible given the size of the earth. You'll run into much bigger economic problems first. Or colonize other planets, take your pick (I'm joking somewhat).
At least, that's how it seems like it would play out. What do you think?
I think you can find a middle ground. I'm personally almost on the open boards side of the argument, but that's an outlier in the Democratic Party. Like I mentioned earlier, most immigration is driven by economics. So once there's less economic growth to squeeze out, immigration usually falls on its own. You see this during recessions.

It also doesn't really make sense to put more weight on rather out there hypotheticals that may happen a couple hundred years from now versus crippling problems that are happening here and now. Humans are far too flawed to do that kind of policy making.
 
Albanians are top of all crime charts in Britain, even ahead of those from lawless shitholes.

It’s clearly not everyday citizens fleeing from Albania. They are economic migrants; not refugees.
Completely irrelevant to what I said.
 
Racist climate change is the reason, if we just would give more tax money to the gov to fix this, this wouldn't of happened.
 
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.
You'd be hard pressed to find a country that was never colonized even the places like the states and Canada. It boils down to corruption in the govt with no checks and balances. The few at the top taking all of the money and giving none to infrastructure. At some point countries will be what they are and if they do have natural resources like the states and Canada they can reach much more potential than they do.
 
You made out it was poor little citizens fleeing war torn countries.

It’s not; it’s criminals from countries not at war.
Except that's not what I said. I rarely try to explain things to people who insist on thinking that I'm saying what they want to argue about. But I'll give you a shot.

First, I said destabilized regions yield more migrants. And that illegal immigration in the US hasn't changed it's rate significantly. None of that is specific to war torn countries. The conflicts in the Middle East destabilize the region but not everyone fleeing a destabilized region is in a war zone...which is why I never made that claim or one like it.

Then you followed up by asking about Albania. I pointed out the numerous, non-war related, reasons that Albanians are leaving Albania and that it has been going back to the 1990s. Again...not about war torn anyone or anywhere. However, the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism definitely destabilized a lot of Eastern European countries. Destabilized regions.

Then you followed up by making statements about what some Albanians in the UK are doing. It's irrelevant because my initial posts were about why people leave their countries.

So, in multiple posts you completely failed to follow what was said and instead decided to argue a point that I never made...even when it came to your personal choice of Albania. That's a pretty sign of someone who started an argument without reading what they were arguing with and without having a decent grasp of the facts they wanted to argue.
 
Except that's not what I said. I rarely try to explain things to people who insist on thinking that I'm saying what they want to argue about. But I'll give you a shot.

First, I said destabilized regions yield more migrants. And that illegal immigration in the US hasn't changed it's rate significantly. None of that is specific to war torn countries. The conflicts in the Middle East destabilize the region but not everyone fleeing a destabilized region is in a war zone...which is why I never made that claim or one like it.

Then you followed up by asking about Albania. I pointed out the numerous, non-war related, reasons that Albanians are leaving Albania and that it has been going back to the 1990s. Again...not about war torn anyone or anywhere. However, the end of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism definitely destabilized a lot of Eastern European countries. Destabilized regions.

Then you followed up by making statements about what some Albanians in the UK are doing. It's irrelevant because my initial posts were about why people leave their countries.

So, in multiple posts you completely failed to follow what was said and instead decided to argue a point that I never made...even when it came to your personal choice of Albania. That's a pretty sign of someone who started an argument without reading what they were arguing with and without having a decent grasp of the facts they wanted to argue.
Nope. You claimed they were all fleeing war, I informed you that the majority of illegal migrants in Britain come from a country not at war, you then moved the goalposts and claimed Albania - a developed country - has 'issues', so they still count as refugees.

America has 'issues'. Are Americans who moved to Europe refugees?
 
Nope. You claimed they were all fleeing war, I informed you that the majority of illegal migrants in Britain come from a country not at war, you then moved the goalposts and claimed Albania - a developed country - has 'issues', so they still count as refugees.

America has 'issues'. Are Americans who moved to Europe refugees?
Show me where I said that "they were all fleeing war".
 
Nope. You claimed they were all fleeing war, I informed you that the majority of illegal migrants in Britain come from a country not at war, you then moved the goalposts and claimed Albania - a developed country - has 'issues', so they still count as refugees.

America has 'issues'. Are Americans who moved to Europe refugees?
Just a reminder that I'm waiting for you to find where I said that they were fleeing war.

I suspect that you've found the phrase "Every time a region gets destabilized, you're going to see increased migration." and are coming realize that I never said everyone was fleeing a war zone.

But I'll continue to patiently wait for you to show me what you think I said.
 
Just a reminder that I'm waiting for you to find where I said that they were fleeing war.

I suspect that you've found the phrase "Every time a region gets destabilized, you're going to see increased migration." and are coming realize that I never said everyone was fleeing a war zone.

But I'll continue to patiently wait for you to show me what you think I said.
Albania isn't destabilised.
 
You can, but the modern GOP has fought this. They aren't opposed to illegal immigration, it's specifically immigration of non-white people that tends to get them upset. The GOP has blocked increases to immigration quotas more than once in the past several years. And again, swapping illegal labor for legal labor will significantly increase the costs of groceries and construction and increase government expenditures. There's no two ways about it, that would be a clear give and take for the country.

And that's really dumb. Imagine if we limited the production of cars to ensure that the price of used cars doesn't decrease. It's a market that punishes younger generations so that existing homeowners can live above their means (ie tax benefits like Prop 13). Buying a house is primarily its own reward. Put it this way: Tokyo, one of the most densely populated cities in the world, has significantly lower housing costs than most of California's urban centers.

It's a pretty miserable society that punishes lower income Americans the most (aka people who tend to work jobs that you physically can't sustain until your 75) and leads to an even worse safety net for one of the lowest performers in the developed world in that respect. You're asking for an America that never existed since the country has always relied on immigration to fuel growth.

You'd ideally rely on automatization and other advances. But frankly speaking, you're more likely to run into other problems before that related to societal distributions of wealth.

Pretty much impossible given the size of the earth. You'll run into much bigger economic problems first. Or colonize other planets, take your pick (I'm joking somewhat).

I think you can find a middle ground. I'm personally almost on the open boards side of the argument, but that's an outlier in the Democratic Party. Like I mentioned earlier, most immigration is driven by economics. So once there's less economic growth to squeeze out, immigration usually falls on its own. You see this during recessions.

It also doesn't really make sense to put more weight on rather out there hypotheticals that may happen a couple hundred years from now versus crippling problems that are happening here and now. Humans are far too flawed to do that kind of policy making.
It seems we don't see eye to eye on the finite/infinite nature of housing which limits agreement on anything downstream from that. With that empass aside, to your point on the system punishing the young who work physical jobs - hopefully automation does save us on this one, though if it doesn't I imagine society would develop towards a model where physical laborers transition to less demanding roles. When I was a kid working at McDonald's my manager was a 70 year old dude who had previously spent 40 years as a brick layer. Perhaps a glimpse into the future. In my experience it's already kinda a thing in small towns full of boomers with few young people.
 
GMOs preventing starvation in the third world, thus leading to overpopulation combined with "GDP must go up" policies to import cheap labor/warm bodies with no regard for second order effects.
 
Climate change -> famine -> (Edit:) displacement -> strife -> violence -> escape.

That would be my first guess.
 
Last edited:
Jesus Christ the right just yeeted themselves into full retard mode since the election. This thread is one of the most densely packed with stupid posts I’ve ever seen.
 
The World Economic Forum is orchestrating it to eventually implement a one world government.

To do this they must destroy the sovereignty of nations, as well as the patriotism of its people, to ultimately make a one world government palatable.

yep, this is basically it.
 
Back
Top