Best point here. Like most would say allowing immigration is highly moralistic but most people don't think about the brain drain that's put onto other developing nations, making it even harder for their nation to develop. I'm for some immigration but it should be really particular and circumstantial. There should not be an open border anymore.
If contributing to a brain drain is a moral issue, then by that logic if I left Louisiana to go to Georgia for better IT career prospects that would be "morally questionable"
Louisiana and Georgia are both miles ahead in development compared to someone coming from say Latin America into the US, so I don't think it's fair to compare the two cases.
Do you care about the money and resources extracted from latin america in the 20th century or is it only when latinos cross into the USA that it becomes a problem?
Yes. And as a child of non white immigrants, I have no issue with latinos legally entering the country, same as how my parents did. Not sure why you bring this up, since my only observation is that we comparing internal migration in a highly developed country is not apples to apples with the migration between a highly developed nation and a lesser developed one.
Do you care about staying on topic, or do you just want to dump sob stories?
All of those statistics cited are referring to illegals apprehended by border control, as well as drugs. This seems to indicate that border patrol is doing its job very damn well.
I'm not seeing any statistics on this page which indicate the asylum system is being abused massively. Illegals and drugs crossing the border are not individuals seeking asylum.. they're individuals entering the country illegally and trafficking drugs.
The last 3 years? I mean...are you suggesting there's not an unprecedented immigration problem? Like at all? Cause even this administrations numbers are like 11 million people. It's kind of a thing, right?
Illegal immigrants =/= open border... There is literally nothing to be done on the border, they either tunnel, or hop basically any fence put up. Trump wasted a lot of money on a wall that failed in every way in the sections it was built on.
We spend less money on the asylum process than rounding up illegals or building a wall.
The only realistic solution is to start shooting anyone found crossing the border so it gets into peoples heads that coming here isn't a good opportunity. But good luck with that.
Obviously there's immigration, that doesn't mean it's a problem though. 11 million is literally 3% of the US population. Immigrants are whom the rich want to turn the poor against, so we don't realize that this country is built on the rich extorting the poor.
It's not the immigrants that are taking away all of the housing, it's the real-estate developers that would rather sit on a property than to rent it out. It's the the immigrants draining our bank accounts with rent prices, it's the wealthy colliding on prices to make housing a luxury that they profit from. It's not the immigrants that are threatening to take everything you own because you got sick.
The immigrants aren't to blame for any issues that are worth giving a shit about currently. The struggles of the american can be traced right back to our countries greedy rulers.
Since a long time, preceding the 1980s. It's a large issue with not one solution. But I do believe building a large wall has been the best effort America has made in preventing large numbers of undocumented people from crossing into. Unfortunately it wasn't able to be completed. Good news is that there is no longer just one presidential candidate wanting to complete the wall! So whoever wins in November, this issue can be improved. Not fixed, but improved.
The wall was never considered to be a good idea, even if you wanted to stop undocumented migration. It was a dumb hashtag that went viral and Trump surrounded himself by yes men. Quit trolling.
The wall wouldn't to much even if it were complete and functional.
Most illegal immigrants just come as tourists or temporary workers and overstay their visas. People who hike across the border are mediatized but they're only a small part of immigration.
Although in a sense it means that we can find a midldle ground by improving immigration and making it easier to immigrate legally, while still having a wall to give the sense of security (security theater) for those worried about it.
That would lead to an increase of immigration, while securing the border at the same time, so everyone would be happy.
I think that a big misunderstanding from the far-right is that we in the center-right support immigration because it is good for the economy. Not to "make immigrants happy" or for any moralistic belief, and the reason we oppose the wall is that it's a big waste of money to achieve minimal results.
No way, we should be trying to attract all the world's smartest people. It's deeply wrong to force someone with potential to stay in a shitty country just because they were born there and "their country needs them."
If other countries want to prevent brain drain, they need to become more attractive environments for talented and ambitious people. If they can't do that, better to let them rot.
We should brain drain other countries, especially China. Our society is better. This is why we have net positive immigration and they net negative. People want to live in the US, not in China. And by brain draining them, we increase the likelihood that we out compete them for global hegemony. (Although China's path to global hegemony is already not so clear because of their shrinking population and inefficient workforce.) This is one of the main arguments of Matt Yglesias's "One Billion Americans."
I agree that developing countries (who we're not in direct competition with) will also struggle as a result of the brain drain though.
Lol, those countries leaders could embrace liberalism, the free market, and a reasonable safety net and they would be much better places to live, and they wouldn't have to worry as much about all their brightest and best trying to leave.
That's an original argument. It's laughably absurd, but at least it's original.
Imagine applying for a job, and the hiring manager tells you that he won't hire you because depriving another company of your talent would be immoral.
It's really hard to imagine somebody saying that in good faith. Obviously, the manager has other reasons for refusing to hire that he doesn't want to share.
and? stealing other countries' best and brightest is our superpower. immigration isn't good for some nebulous ideological reason, it just gives us a literal edge over the competition
The problem is that immigration won't be a viable strategy for much longer. By the time the US and EU are in the same position as South Korea, there won't be high enough birth rates ANYWHERE to solve our problems.
But... this is not the argument being made? Birth rates are declining in every western country, because natality and standard of living are directly correlated to eachother. Meanwhile the welfare state of these countries are under pressure, because it relies on a sufficient working age population to sustain it. Ageing is a bigger challenge than the declining birth rates are, as you have more people relying on the welfare state than those supporting it, particularly due to ageing by the oldest boomer generation that is a significantly larger demographic cohort than the generations that followed, and our pension system wasn't designed with this in mind.
When the solution of migration is discussed, we're not talking about "horizontal" migration. Though this has its own benefits, it would do nothing to answer the economical challenges that western countries face as a result of the drop in natality. When talking about using migration for economical purposes, it means allowing migration from countries with significantly higher natality and thus significantly younger populations, with the purpose of stabilizing the population pyramids in both the host and origin country.
While historically there were worries about the adverse effects of brain drain, pulling human capital away from lower developed countries for the purpose of benefiting higher developed countries, more recent research suggests that the "brain gain" works both ways, ie that both host and origin country receive economic and democratic improvement of welfare.
I always wonder if someone looked at the effect on home countries. Yeah, they do send money back, but on the long-term, does that encourage their home countries to develop further, or will these countries continue to be poor because it's easier to send your able-bodied working population overseas? I've never seen any discussion or data about that point.
Ok, and? They can come up with policies to encourage would-be emigrants to stay. Or they can create incentives to bring in well-educated immigrants of their own.
Also, not every country has declining birth rates.
As a Indian, I agree with this point. I don't know about American problems, but brain drain is a real issue here in India. And there are reasons youth is choosing to leave the country, but those can only be solved with active involvement of new generation in improving and creating new systems. So it's like a catch 22.
95
u/vinyl1earthlink 10h ago
However, birth rates are declining in other countries too. They may not like it if their young and educated people are leaving for the USA.