Immigration, Explained with Gumballs

[ivwshane]

So you accuse me of a straw man, and then use an appeal to authority.

Wait, full stop. Actually, you are now using an appeal to authority PLUS a straw man (I never said a damn thing about immigrants being bad for the economy).

I love how pissed off you are about the video, but I don't really give a shit about your economic non-argument. For the last 8 years all the funding has been coming from a very pro-immigration government. No surprise that money can get the results it wants.

And I still find it hilarious that you think the people who voted for Trump are responsible for Obama's election. You truly are clueless.

You really should just stop, you are embarrassing yourself on a level I've never seen here on P&N and that's quite a feat.

 

[greatnoob]

So you accuse me of a straw man, and then use an appeal to authority.

Wait, full stop. Actually, you are now using an appeal to authority PLUS a straw man (I never said a damn thing about immigrants being bad for the economy).

Appeal to authority? More like appeal to non-authority kinda like your vid. I'm asking for credible sources. Only a moron would believe an xenophobic journalist could understand the impact of the controversial topic of immigration, so thats why any rational person would leave that to the economists - you know, the people who actually know what they're researching and explaining. Anyways, you don't even know what a straw man is because you've made your own here in this thread and attacked them multiple times, lol.

I love how pissed off you are about the video, but I don't really give a shit about your economic non-argument. For the last 8 years all the funding has been coming from a very pro-immigration government. No surprise that money can get the results it wants.

LOL, this is by far the dumbest thing I've read all week. Bravo. Are you a member of the "willfully ignorant tards" like @Puffnstuff is by chance? You probably don't even understand what "peer-reviewed" actually means, do you?

And I still find it hilarious that you think the people who voted for Trump are responsible for Obama's election. You truly are clueless.

I don't think that and I've said it already, you're just very bad at comprehending what's written.

Again, are you done diverting? I'd like to see some peer reviewed articles, not some proven-xeonophobic journo playing with his balls. Maybe that's what you're in to but when it comes to actual economic and political discourse on the topic of immigration, this doesn't cut it. Hopefully you have a bit of self-awareness to see how dumb you look.

 

[Amused]

No "we" don't.

If you want to donate your home to immigrants, be my guest. But the majority of Americans don't even own a home. Can't share what you don't even have.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm

Considering the fact that immigrants are more likely than native born to be employed and on average employ more people and pay more taxes than native born, I'd say you have it exactly backwards. They're carrying your racist, bigoted ass. Not the other way around.

At this point, you couldn't be anymore wrong, or owned, or stupid. I'd stop while I'm behind if I were you.

Seriously.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our population growth rate is under 1% & likely to decline even further, even with immigration-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...6616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.5175203436aa

You pick a statistic that sounds small, but here's what that looks like.

May have slowed down with the economic disaster, but a more recent study extends that to a higher population 15 years later.
Not really a change in the trend line. Immigration propels us past 400m in 25 years.

The only way our rentier economy delivers to the little guy is through growth. As Bernie pointed out, we don't even get much out of it the way it is. W/o growth the little guy takes the high hard one because of the extractive effects of Capitalism itself.

Think that through. We do not have infinite resources for infinite growth. If you keep people dependent on said growth...
You think pollution and land exploitation is bad now? I mean, maybe not if we all revert back to living in mud huts...
At some point soon, quality of life is what is sacrificed to achieve greater population density.

Now I can appreciate if people see this, but disagree on whether it's a desired outcome...
But let's not skirt the consequences on our resources.

 

[agent00f]

Not an argument, just another empty insult.

Best of all, they're all strawmen since I haven't argued AGAINST all "diversity", but merely put you guys on the spot to actually define your precious buzzwords. So far, still no luck.

What I AM saying is that NOT ALL diversity is good. Plenty of genetic diseases and awful cultural practices a civilized nation is better off without.

The US can greatly increase its average IQ/edu by deporting trumpsters. Eg:

Nice try, you dirtbag liar.

Lets look at your post line by line. You tell me the part I am misinterpreting.

>The fault lies on inbreds like you who vote against their self interest by voting in an admin who has rich businessmen in his cabinet,
You are saying the fault of the low home-ownership is people who vote for Trump, right? Is there some other politician who you were describing?

>doesn't understand the policies he signs, has been cutting funds from education
I don't necessarily agree that all of this applies to Trump, but it sounds like the sort of garbage people spew about him. You were not talking about Obama were you?

>(a significant factor required for a good economy w/ high income per capita) and healthcare, instead redirecting them to
Much of the same BS from your mouth.

>the already bloated military and his now even richer lobbyist friends.
Not sure which lobbyist has gained money from Trump. And my understand is Trump has, thus-far, only saved the military money, thanks to some re-negotiation on prices of a few things.

That's all folks! It sure sounds to me like you are blaming Trump voters, now please explain where I am reading you wrong, or kindly apologize and GTFO of this thread.

So can canada for that matter w/ its right wingers, so maybe something you can propose up north, too.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I love the ignore feature on this site so I can weed through the low intellect posters who resort to personal attacks on anyone who might hold a different opinion than themselves.

 

[Chiropteran]

You really should just stop, you are embarrassing yourself on a level I've never seen here on P&N and that's quite a feat.

I think you are confused. That embarrassment you feel is for yourself. That is how feelings work, you don't feel other people's feelings.

It's crazy how you guys throw out insults about Trump supporters being dumb, and then spout off the most ignorant nonsense.

 

[Chiropteran]

Appeal to authority? More like appeal to non-authority kinda like your vid. I'm asking for credible sources.

No. You a very selectively demanding sources for anything pro-Trump, while taking a completely different stance for anything that paints him negatively.

Unless you can provide some links to posts of yours where you demand credible sources regarding the so-called "Russian connection", you are just proving yourself to be a hypocritical shill for the democrats.

Only a moron would believe an xenophobic journalist could understand the impact of the controversial topic of immigration, so thats why any rational person would leave that to the economists - you know, the people who actually know what they're researching and explaining. Anyways, you don't even know what a straw man is because you've made your own here in this thread and attacked them multiple times, lol.

Here you go making assumptions again. For someone so concerned about credibility, maybe you should realize you don't sound very credible when you make unverified claims about other people.

Please provide credible unbiased sources that prove the speaker in the video is xenophobic.

And I really don't give a shit about what economists think, because again the economic impact is a small drop in the bucket for the many reasons why unlimited open immigration is a terrible thing.

Hopefully you have a bit of self-awareness to see how dumb you look.

I am aware that you are not interested in honest debate, rather you jump to use any and every fallacy you can to try to shut down a conversation without actually making a single valid point.

I applaud your drive, if you could just focus on something productive like a job you might end up with a life worth living.

 

[Chiropteran]

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm

Considering the fact that immigrants are more likely than native born to be employed and on average employ more people and pay more taxes than native born, I'd say you have it exactly backwards. They're carrying your racist, bigoted ass. Not the other way around.

At this point, you couldn't be anymore wrong, or owned, or stupid. I'd stop while I'm behind if I were you.

Seriously.

If someone has a working home, by definition they are not a refugee.

"A refugee, generally speaking, is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely"

Also, lets pretend greatnoob isn't a biased shill, and he demanded you provide a source for that "fact", can you do that please?

Besides that, I'm not sure what you are even trying to argue. Wealthy immigrants coming over and buying homes is going to INCREASE average home costs. That is how supply and demand works- you increase demand, supply starts to run down and prices go up. That makes the situation even worse for the Americans who are struggling to buy their own home.

 

[Jhhnn]

You pick a statistic that sounds small, but here's what that looks like.

May have slowed down with the economic disaster, but a more recent study extends that to a higher population 15 years later.
Not really a change in the trend line. Immigration propels us past 400m in 25 years.



Think that through. We do not have infinite resources for infinite growth. If you keep people dependent on said growth...
You think pollution and land exploitation is bad now? I mean, maybe not if we all revert back to living in mud huts...
At some point soon, quality of life is what is sacrificed to achieve greater population density.

Now I can appreciate if people see this, but disagree on whether it's a desired outcome...
But let's not skirt the consequences on our resources.

Trumpsters don't care about any of that. They care about the fact that immigrants generally aren't White. Capitalism doesn't care, either, because it's sold on the concept of infinite resources in the first place.

 

[Chiropteran]

the fact that immigrants generally aren't White.

Lies

I bet some of these were immigrants:

 

[Jhhnn]

Lies

I bet some of these were immigrants:

I suppose I should have said non-hispanic White. Better now?

 

[theeedude]

For the rural rust belt, the coal belt, and soon the oil belt, having too many people is not going to be the problem, keeping people from leaving will. Especially educated young people with options.

 

[Jaskalas]

Trumpsters don't care about any of that. They care about the fact that immigrants generally aren't White. Capitalism doesn't care, either, because it's sold on the concept of infinite resources in the first place.

If we embrace global trade, automation, and basic income... we wouldn't have or need a system based on growth.
I believe cheap goods combined with a stable minimum income is the basis for reaching not just economic stability, but also sustainability.
Such a system would be strained by rapid growth, rather than require or demand it.

As for certain voters, I cannot speak for them. If they support the "right thing for the wrong reasons" it wouldn't change my position.

For the rural rust belt, the coal belt, and soon the oil belt...

UBI would not only sustain them if they choose to stay in run down locations, but provides the capital required to chase jobs.

Which has little to nothing to do with immigration.

 

[Jhhnn]

If we embrace global trade, automation, and basic income... we wouldn't have or need a system based on growth.
I believe cheap goods combined with a stable minimum income is the basis for reaching not just economic stability, but also sustainability.
Such a system would be strained by rapid growth, rather than require or demand it.

As for certain voters, I cannot speak for them. If they support the "right thing for the wrong reasons" it wouldn't change my position.



UBI would not only sustain them if they choose to stay in run down locations, but provides the capital required to chase jobs.

Which has little to nothing to do with immigration.

Anti-immigrant sentiment in this country has nothing to do with the issue of population growth. The ravers don't care about that. Many of them live in places where population density was higher in the past, places left in the dust by free range Capitalism.

 

[theeedude]

UBI would not only sustain them if they choose to stay in run down locations, but provides the capital required to chase jobs. Which has little to nothing to do with immigration.

Sustain, possibly, employ, not as much, especially with increasing automation of low value add jobs.

 

[greatnoob]

No. You a very selectively demanding sources for anything pro-Trump, while taking a completely different stance for anything that paints him negatively.

Lol what? I'm asking for reputable sources that doesn't come from an uneducated, partisan hack like you or your journalist ball fondler. Asking for credible sources for a politically and economically controversial topic like immigration isn't "selectively demanding" it's the bare minimum for nuanced discourse. Then again, you're probably one of those dumb folk who think Facebook memes, fake news and anecdotes from your aunt are credible sources, so not really surprising knowing where you're coming from.

Unless you can provide some links to posts of yours where you demand credible sources regarding the so-called "Russian connection", you are just proving yourself to be a hypocritical shill for the democrats.

For someone throwing around words they don't understand your little strawman here makes it very apparent how hard you want to avert everybody's attention from your ball fondler friend, 2nd grade reading (in)comprehension and the hole that you've been continuing to dig yourself in. This is another non sequitur. I don't even know how you brought Russian connections, Trump and the Democrats into this conversation or how it's even remotely related as nobody (save for you) seems to have mentioned it... but seeing as how you've shown everybody how dumb you really are in this thread, it's not hard to believe you'd be stupid enough to somehow make connections to unrelated topics and think that passes as a valid argument lol. (Psst, btw I'm not from the States)

Here you go making assumptions again. For someone so concerned about credibility, maybe you should realize you don't sound very credible when you make unverified claims about other people.


Please provide credible unbiased sources that prove the speaker in the video is xenophobic.

I wasn't the one passing off a video of a clueless journalist playing with his balls as a credible resource on immigration discussion now was I?

Plus, if you had actually bothered to read the thread and not relied on your selective memory, you'd have realized both ball fondler and NumberUSA's bias have been made apparent, here:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ed-with-gumballs.2503206/page-2#post-38832321
...here:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ed-with-gumballs.2503206/page-2#post-38832430
...and here:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ed-with-gumballs.2503206/page-3#post-38832475

Feel free to check the sources that were also included, you'll see it's significantly more credible than any source you have or ever will link to (not that you have as I'm still waiting for those peer reviewed papers!)

And I really don't give a shit about what economists think, because again the economic impact is a small drop in the bucket for the many reasons why unlimited open immigration is a terrible thing.

Another strawman. Who (apart from you and the ball fondler journo) in this thread is arguing for "unlimited open immigration"? What's even more shocking is your severe lack of understanding on how your government operates when you say "And I really don't give a shit about what economists think."
The fact that you think that "the economic impact is a small drop in the bucket" shows to me how little you actually know about the economics field itself since it's one of the strongest backbones of law and policy. You can't discuss wages, property rights or resource distribution without involving economics -- all very important to immigration discussions. If by dismissing the very high relevance of economics in immigration is your way of saying "I give up, you are right I can't find anything that says immigration is bad for the US" then I accept your defeat. If not, you're making yourself sound like a really clueless fuckwit.

I am aware that you are not interested in honest debate, rather you jump to use any and every fallacy you can to try to shut down a conversation without actually making a single valid point.

I applaud your drive, if you could just focus on something productive like a job you might end up with a life worth living.

Actually, you're projecting. You haven't come up with any actual argument throughout the entire thread, you haven't linked to any journal articles or any sort of academia that I've repeatedly asked you for in regards to your take on immigration, you've dismissed an entire field of study because it doesn't conform to your skewed politcal view, you can't grasp context of what's being said, you can't comprehend strings of words written on your screen, you don't even understand what a logical fallacy is but you accuse others of it and you've repeatedly resorted to making and attacking your own strawmen numerous times.

EDIT: I'm still waiting patiently for those peer reviewed articles in case you want to actually discuss this.

 

[Amused]

If someone has a working home, by definition they are not a refugee.

"A refugee, generally speaking, is a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely"

Also, lets pretend greatnoob isn't a biased shill, and he demanded you provide a source for that "fact", can you do that please?

Besides that, I'm not sure what you are even trying to argue. Wealthy immigrants coming over and buying homes is going to INCREASE average home costs. That is how supply and demand works- you increase demand, supply starts to run down and prices go up. That makes the situation even worse for the Americans who are struggling to buy their own home.

WTF are you even talking about? Because it's not about what I posted.

You truly are an example of the post fact era.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sustain, possibly, employ, not as much, especially with increasing automation of low value add jobs.

Which means we have to modify our "work for a living" model of how to distribute goods & services if such distribution is to occur. We have to redefine Ownership in the process.

 

[Chiropteran]

WTF are you even talking about? Because it's not about what I posted.

You truly are an example of the post fact era.

Uh, your post was a reply to me. If you were replying to me and not even talking about the same thing (lack of home ownership among Americans) then you are the clueless idiot.

edit: Also, I'd like to point out your statistics are fucking worthless. Do you know why illegal immigrants are also called "undocumented immigrants"?

I wonder how many documents can be examined to determine real and accurate statistics on undocumented immigrants?

 

[Chiropteran]

UBI would not only sustain them if they choose to stay in run down locations, but provides the capital required to chase jobs.

Which has little to nothing to do with immigration.

Wrong.

If there are 10 jobs and 10 Americans, it's all fine and good. If there are 10 jobs, 10 Americans, and 20 immigrants all trying to get the same jobs, a lot of people are going to be unemployed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong.

If there are 10 jobs and 10 Americans, it's all fine and good. If there are 10 jobs, 10 Americans, and 20 immigrants all trying to get the same jobs, a lot of people are going to be unemployed.

Overall unemployment is extremely low even if it is chronic in Trumplandia, the places & the people that the Jerb Creators forgot. Yeah, sure, they call once in awhile, tell you that they'll be home tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes. Y'all been dumped, Honey.

 

[Chiropteran]

Overall unemployment is extremely low even if it is chronic in Trumplandia, the places & the people that the Jerb Creators forgot. Yeah, sure, they call once in awhile, tell you that they'll be home tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes. Y'all been dumped, Honey.

The statistics say it's low. You have been duped. They don't count people as unemployed if they gave up on looking for work because after years they found nothing. They don't count people as unemployed when they are working for min wage with more college loan payments each month than their total wages. They don't count people as unemployed who are living at home with mom and dad doing nothing.

Besides, even 1% of working-age Americans is over 2 million people. "Extremely low" unemployment still leaves millions of people without work, living in poverty off of government and family handouts.

 

[Jhhnn]

The statistics say it's low. You have been duped. They don't count people as unemployed if they gave up on looking for work because after years they found nothing. They don't count people as unemployed when they are working for min wage with more college loan payments each month than their total wages. They don't count people as unemployed who are living at home with mom and dad doing nothing.

Besides, even 1% of working-age Americans is over 2 million people. "Extremely low" unemployment still leaves millions of people without work, living in poverty off of government and family handouts.

Which all goes right back to the Jerb Creators, doesn't it?

Perhaps it's been a mistake for us to let the greediest people on the planet direct the economy for the last 35 years or so. I mean, if we don't like it we have to acknowledge that it's just the way they made it.

Perhaps we also need to acknowledge that progress & automation means they need less human labor to pursue their interests, their profits, perks, huge salaries & enormous bonuses. Profits are excellent so why would they want to change that?

If you think Donald Trump isn't one of those guys along with his whole cabinet o' billionaires then it seems obvious that you need to re-evaluate.

 

[ivwshane]

If we embrace global trade, automation, and basic income... we wouldn't have or need a system based on growth.
I believe cheap goods combined with a stable minimum income is the basis for reaching not just economic stability, but also sustainability.
Such a system would be strained by rapid growth, rather than require or demand it.

As for certain voters, I cannot speak for them. If they support the "right thing for the wrong reasons" it wouldn't change my position.



UBI would not only sustain them if they choose to stay in run down locations, but provides the capital required to chase jobs.

Which has little to nothing to do with immigration.

The logical conclusion to that makes money pointless.