patrick.net

20% of the US Population is Foreign Born.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/us/census-foreign-population.html

The next country is Germany, then Russia, both with just under 5%.

The USA has more than 400% foreign born as a percentage of the population, not raw numbers than the next two countries

That's overwhelmingly extreme and must be pared back at least 2/3rd

NuttBoxer says

passport system, that didn't exist until WWII

.

Not true.

We should only have open borders for ppl who're independently wealthy as thus, don't require a job of any sort.

This is exactly how I plan on retiring to Australia where there is legalized hoeing.

The foreign-born population ranking is mistaken. Germany and Russia are not even close to the top in terms of foreign-born percentage, not even the US! Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE have more foreign-born population than native-born population (i.e. more than 50% are foreign-born). The reason is money/opportunity. Its just like NYC and SF have much higher percentage of transplants than Boondock does. The city of Detroit had more than 80% transplants from other parts of the US when the carmakers built the city in the 1910's and 1920's.

This brings into focus the real counter-point to the video: the real legit reason for allowing immigration is not our charity, but should be to our own benefit! primary in two ways:

1. People from poorer foreign countries tend to work harder after they arrive (before the age of welfare), harder than the coddled native borns. That's to the benefit of Americans.

2. Drain the brains of countries like Russia, China and India, so they don't out-compete us in the long run. This happened previously with Germans in the 19th century. US saved England in both WWI and WWII; Eisenhower was obviously of German ancestry.

What should be abolished is the welfare system. Stopping welfare has the additional advantage of forcing immigrants to integrate into American way of life and American value, instead of isolating themselves and building their 7th century sandcastles at taxpayer expense.

Reality says

What should be abolished is the welfare system.

Up until AI eliminates all jobs. Between now and then, we should only give welfare to those citizens (read: not on visa) whose jobs are permanently automated forever.

Rin says

give welfare to those citizens whose jobs are permanently automated forever.

Does that mean stevedores should receive welfare after the invention of cranes? How about farmers after the invention of steam tractor? Of course then the steam engine mechanics after the invention of diesel engine for tractors? Then Combines and GPS-directed self-driving Combines?

Only the old and truly disabled should be receiving charity . . . and private charity (i.e. run by competitive channels) can deal with frauds much more efficiently than government bureaucrats can. Of course private charities are more likely to help citizens instead of snackbar just coming off the boat. Foreign-funded charities should be banned, as they are usually arms of foreign governments.

Reality says

Rin says

give welfare to those citizens whose jobs are permanently automated forever.

Does that mean stevedores should receive welfare after the invention of cranes? How about farmers after the invention of steam tractor? Of course then the steam engine mechanics after the invention of diesel engine for tractors? Then Combines and GPS-directed self-driving Combines?

Only the old and truly disabled should be receiving charity . . . and private charity (i.e. run by competitive channels) can deal with frauds much more efficiently than government bureaucrats can.

Not this time around, those were the agricultural to industrial to service economy shifts.

This time, however, there will be no future economy for anyone to move into, once AI eliminates all jobs. The problem with today is that the workforce has so many inefficiencies, that we can maintain a long term contracting (non-full time) workforce for at least another generation. Afterwards, however, it'll all be gone.

Rin says

Not this time around, those were the agricultural to industrial to service economy shifts.

This time, however, there will be no future economy for anyone to move into, once AI eliminates all jobs. The problem with today is that the workforce has so many inefficiencies, that we can maintain a long term contracting (non-full time) workforce for at least another generation. Afterwards, however, it'll all be gone.

When AI eliminates all human jobs, AI will eliminate all humans or turn human beings into pets (and the pound usually puts a limit on how many days the strays are kept); that's a decision for them to make.

So far, the evidence is that human beings are still the most versatile tool on the planet. However, they have a built-in preference for leisure. So removing the incentive to find new jobs or work will quickly reduce people to idleness, as all the socialist experiments found out (from Mayflower to Soviet Union).

Herdingcats says

I asked you to show us where this proof of this Democratic open boarders platform was. None has been linked.

These threads already exist and those discussions should happen in the appropriate places. Why should I discuss off topic issues here?

lol, like I said. Totally ignoring all evidence and avoiding discussion altogether just as predicted.

Herdingcats says

All of which is off topic and should be flagged.

Don't worry about such things, the mods will flag when appropriate. You're wrong in your assumptions.

However IMO you ignoring the topic and not addressing points while being argumentative is trolling. We'll see how long that lasts.

The Proof in the Democratic Platform.

All of the problems they want to fix are about helping and increasing immigrants, not enforcing the laws.

They list nothing concrete about how they intend to implement new or enforce old border or immigration laws for control purposes. Only to facilitate immigration and help immigrants.

Herdingcats says

Does ICE = boarder patrol?

Half of all illegal immigrants come in via airports, and are the responsibility of ICE, not the Border Patrol.

Herdingcats says

What do sectuary cities have to do with open boarders?

You're being facetious. Sanctuary Cities by definition are where local Law Enforcement is restricted largely or wholly from assisting ICE operations or alerting ICE, whose responsibility deporting immigrants is. Or any Federal Authority.

Herdingcats says

Or what does SF registering illegals to vote for education issues at we're their legal kids go to school have to do with open boarders?

It's part and parcel of encouraging and welcoming illegal border crossers. Allowing them to dilute the vote of actual citizens is encouraging illegal immigration.

Herdingcats says

Does ICE = boarder patrol?

Half of all illegal immigrants come in via airports, and are the responsibility of ICE, not the Border Patrol.

Herdingcats says

What do sectuary cities have to do with open boarders?

You're being facetious. Sanctuary Cities by definition are where local Law Enforcement is restricted largely or wholly from assisting ICE operations or alerting ICE, whose responsibility deporting immigrants is. Or any Federal Authority.

Herdingcats says

Or what does SF registering illegals to vote for education issues at we're their legal kids go to school have to do with open boarders?

It's part and parcel of encouraging and welcoming illegal border crossers. Allowing them to dilute the vote of actual citizens is encouraging illegal immigration.

Reality says

Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, UAE have more foreign-born population than native-born population (i.e. more than 50% are foreign-born).

Those are Slaves... I mean, guest workers who have their passports taken and regularly beaten and abused. Kuwaitis flipped out when the government mandated a single day off for "Domestic (Slave) Laborers".

Also, Germany, Russia, France, UK, Brazil, etc. are Real Regular to Large sized countries, not little Sultanates like Kuwait or Qatar with a long history of living off slave labor and producing nothing but repacking exports between east and west with a markup

Herdingcats says

Which is not open boarder. Tell me if Republicans really wanted a change made to the immigration policies why didn't they do something about it when they had control of the House and Senate?

Like I said, go read it.

It has NOTHING to say about regulating the border. Every suggestion the Democrats make both in there and in public has to do with MOAR immigrants, less enforcement, etc.

Airports ARE Border Areas, btw.

Herdingcats says

really? Sounds like ICE is doing a terrible job. Why do they let them in if they are illegal?

Think carefully about how somebody could come to the country legally and then be illegal.

(Hint, it's stapled inside a passport).

Herdingcats says

No really, what do sanctuary Cities have to do with open boarders? They really are to separate issues.

You're basically saying "Once you sneak across the border to over here, we won't report you to immigration agencies."

So yes, that's encouraging an open border.

Herdingcats says

I disagree, yet still is a separate issue as to open boarders.

Again, you're rewarding illegal border crossers with an unearned benefit. Thus encouraging an open border by non-enforcement.

Let me ask YOU a question. What new idea or extra funding does the Democrat House have planned for border enforcement, which is obviously inadequate given that hundreds of thousands illegally cross borders each year?

Herdingcats says

And they don't let illegals in at the airport. Airlines are fined big league for having a passenger arrive without a passport. So please don't insult my intelligence and be honest and admit no illegals enter at the airport but they do become illegal when they overstay their visa. Which brings me to another question, can you please tell me how a wall is going to stop this practice of people overstaying thier visa?

That was MY question to you. Of course, they overstay their visa.

Now, how do you capture visa overstayers? You must have the cooperation of state and local governments and institutions, which is how sanctuary cities and non-cooperative policies that Democrats (who dominate Urban Areas and Academia) support. Because of their non-cooperation, capture and punishment of visa overstayers is rare and thus not an effective disincentive to this form of illegal immigration.

The difference between crossing the border illegally vs. entering on false pretenses to be a student or tourist or short term worker is the difference between theft by burglary or theft by fraud. Both are crimes, only the method is different.

Herdingcats says

I asked you a question, why, when Republicans had control of the House and Senate didn't they do anything about immigration?

Name one accomplishment of Paul Ryan in his 20 years of Congress.

Seriously, before Trump, the Republicans were just the Cheapskate Conservatives, concerned only with Taxes. The Democrats want to undermine the nation state, so they both agreed not to do anything to prevent illegal immigration and keep legal immigration sky high.

Which is why, despite tepid GDP growth since 2000, we have unjustifiably high, 1910s levels of Foreign Born. It's also why housing costs have exploded.

Herdingcats says

No really, what do sanctuary Cities have to do with open boarders? They really are to separate issues

Telling an illegal that you enter our state and city you will not be caught and returned does nothing to encourage more ilelgals pouring in???. DEms want iopen borders, dems want more illegals and no consequences for being illegal.

BUt strangely dems also want 15 dolalrs per hour wages-why would you pay a legal person 15 bucks an hour when you can pay an illegal 3 or 5 bucks?????????????????????

The US can't solve poverty for the world; it can't solve it for the US.

Politically, both parties have an unofficial open border policy.

Beck’s argument is pretty much an open and shut case. There’s no debate. If we didn’t have borders billions of people would come to America immediately. It is amazing to me how many people don’t realize this. I think many Americans are naïvely oblivious to the way most of the worlds population lives , and how amazingly fortunate they are to be a citizen of United States, at any socioeconomic level , or of any first world country. People are just oblivious to how brutal life can be and is for the majority of people on the planet.
Most of the worlds population are still involved in a daily life and death struggle, with very little modern medicine ,food shortages and where health problems that we easily take care of are fatal. The people in these countries have zero chance of getting out of their situation for the most part . It made sense to have a lot of immigration into the country when we needed to increase the population, but now, we have plenty of people.
Allowing impoverished and uneducated and helpless immigrants in does not help the country, and letting them in is not in the interests of the majority of the population of United States.

Herdingcats says

Goran_K says

However IMO you ignoring the topic

Is the topic democrats open boarder policy? That's what I thought you said in the OP. I didn't know the topic was sanctuary cities or SF letting illegals vote for school board members or what ever other topic was brought up. So again I ask where is the link to democrats stating they want open boarders. Please I beg of you link to somewhere were I can see this open boarder policy that you say the Democrats have.

I do not dispute that their policies encourage people to cross the boarder but that is not equal to having an open boarder platform. You have yet to prove me wrong.

As explained above their policies are in effect open borders. They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes, but it is open borders through policy.

But can I still promote OPEN BORDERS for virtue signaling points or do I need to move on to another topic?

Herdingcats says

Goran_K says

they would be admitting to their crimes

Uhhh? What crimes? I don't think libertarians are criminals because they have a platform that states they are for open boarders, do you?

You are still avoiding the question, why didn't the Republicans do anything about immigration when they had a chance? This is the only party that Roy Beck implicates in the video above who has failed to do anything about immigration.

Which libertarians hold office? We’re talking about Democrats that ACTUALLY hold office.

Trump is doing plenty to end open borders. He’s raiding factories, trying to end birth right citizenship, ending chain migration and most of all trying to get congress to fund the wall.

Guess who is fighting him every step of the way?

Democrats.

Herdingcats says

Goran_K says

As explained above their policies are in effect open borders. They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes, but it is open borders through policy.

No their policies are not in effect open boarder, you are wrong. Not one policy stated above has anything to do open boarders.

Sure they do. You’re the only person in this thread arguing they don’t do exactly that, open the border.

Herdingcats says

Goran_K says

Trump is doing plenty

Trump is not Congress. Roy Beck clearly states Congress is the body that needs to deal with immigration.

ah, so moving the goal posts. By that measure why didn’t the 2008-2010 congress do anything about illegal immigration?

See how that works?

Trump has been at the forefront of immigration reform, Democrats have been at the forefront of the status quo (because they want more slaves).

#buildthewall

Herdingcats says

Goran_K says

ending chain migration

You know his Trump's mother and father in law are here because of chain migration, right?

No one in Trumps family is an illegal and all went through the legal processes at the time. Total straw man and not what Trump is talking about when he says reform.

Like I said, dishonesty and trolling. The leash is about to be tightened.

Those are Slaves... I mean, guest workers who have their passports taken and regularly beaten and abused. Kuwaitis flipped out when the government mandated a single day off for "Domestic (Slave) Laborers".

They were not abducted from their native countries, but volunteered to go to countries like Kuwait. H1B visa recipients are not exactly free labor either, but they still come.

Also, Germany, Russia, France, UK, Brazil, etc. are Real Regular to Large sized countries, not little Sultanates like Kuwait or Qatar with a long history of living off slave labor and producing nothing but repacking exports between east and west with a markup

The real difference is money / monetary system. Huge numbers of Brazilians and Canadians immigrated to the US in the past few decades, for the same reason that huge numbers in the middle of the US migrated to NYC and SF, both of which are closer to the source of the global monetary system. $2 a day was a huge amount of money at the time of Wyatt Earp, who bought his house for $20 a century and half ago. The same house would be worth at least $200k today, due to monetary inflation. Monetary inflation benefits those who get the new money first (spending the money before inflation propagates through the economy), at the expense of the people who get it later (having to spend against the inflated prices). That's why people flock to regions privileged with new money creation. US happens to be the primary source of new money creation for the entire world, as our primary export is the dollar itself.

Which is why, despite tepid GDP growth since 2000, we have unjustifiably high, 1910s levels of Foreign Born. It's also why housing costs have exploded.

Tepid GDP growth is part of the cause not the result of high number of immigrants. Whenever the US hits recession, one of the solutions is (temporarily) increasing immigration: recession is the result of pricing error/adjustment, jobs not taking place because the buyers want lower price, ergo immigrants providing that source of lower priced labor, so that necessary work can be done while people adjust to new prices. Housing cost is not high in the interior of the US. The coastal rent is high due to government subsidies and zoning control, combined with the monetary system shifting population from the interior to the coastal cities. There is a lot of vacancy and abandoned housing in the middle of the country. Real estate price high is not necessarily a result of housing demand at all, but speculation demand: lower interest results in higher asset price. Foreigners buying up US real estate and other assets at the peak of the market then sell them a few years later in a crash actually benefit Americans, and is the most harmless way of dollar recycling: just like Japanese did in the early 1990's, and Mercedes did buying Chrysler. Those repricing cycles enabled Americans to receive tons of Japanese cars, electronics and German cars for free!

you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.

jazz_music says

Democrats open borders using The same tear gas used on migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday was also used under the Obama administration?

Figures from Homeland Security show the tear gas was deployed almost 80 times during Obama's later years

Does tear gas open the borders?

Herdingcats says

Because niether party wants to upset the status quo. See how easy it is to answer a question, see how that works?. Now can you do it? Why didn't the Republicans?

Where did I say that NO ONE in the GOP supports illegals openly or tacitly?

I'll wait.

Rocketmanjoe says

I don't think this is true. Why can't the democrats advocate for open borders? What law would they be breaking?

Oh they do advocate for it. That much is true.

But they cannot attempt to put it into "letter of law", unless they somehow were able to dominate every branch of government and go through the arduous process of the laws governing who is responsible for defending the nations borders.

So they continue with "abolish ice" because "racism" or "Sanctuary Cities" which are ways to undercut national border sovereignty without "putting it into law".

Herdingcats says

Threats of censorship? Why because I'm right that the democrats don't have an open boarder policy?

@patrick this is wrong and should not be allowed at Patrick.net

I'm not threatening. I'm telling you, if you're here to just troll (and I never said you were or not), the leash could be tightened. So don't troll and there won't be any problems.

Jazz hates everything I've ever posted. Yet I commended him for proper spelling.
Kinda blows your post right out of the water...
Herdingcats says

BlueSardine says

you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.

Its interesting pour spelling, isn't pointed out when one is presived to be on you're teem.

Maybe you outta heard eyeballs...

Maybe you outta herd eyeballs

Herdingcats says

For open borders? No evidence has been presented as such. They advocate for passion for those that have made it here.

lol

"Passion for those that have made it here"

Herdingcats says

My answer is that a wall won't stop it. So a wall doesn't solve the problem.

Of course a wall works, there is no debate. arguing that a wall and tight border security doesn't stop illegal immigration is like denying that 1+1=2. The fact that some immigrants have other routes available they can try doesn't mean the wall doesn't do its job. Israels wall works close to perfectly, so do their airport controls. The fact that pretty much every country has some sort of walls, border fences/gates at their neighboring countries is clear prove how well they actually can and do work. In fact walls prevented people not only from entering but also exiting the iron curtain to the former soviet union for decades. Please.

Herdingcats says

Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.

There have been many projections that show the wall would be cost positive vs the costs of allowing more illegals to leech on public services.

Herdingcats says

If that is true then why didn't they do it in 2008-2010 when they had their chance to?

Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.

Herdingcats says

What? Are you just pulling shit out of your ass now?

I actually know how laws work. :(

Also that was borderline a personal attack. Nuked for breaking the rules. :(

Herdingcats says

mell says

doesn't stop illegal immigration

Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.

Fine, so people with "feelz" (Dems, SJWs) say it's not worth the cost while the overwhelming majority of countries are happy with the ROI and keep their walls - some even strongly enforcing them lately such as Hungary, Poland etc. - clearly indicates the "feelz" are wrong on this. It's highly unlikely - close to impossible - that all countries suddenly are gripped by mass hysteria. No, they did the math and came to the conclusion that the ROI of living without hostile rapefugees is worth every penny.