The US should end illegal immigration with open borders so nobody would be here illegally

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 39
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff

 There's no way the infrastructure of Canada could handle that. People would come because it would still be better than lots of other places. But for Canadians, the standard of living would fall. 

This is a great article to further your point.
Topic's author
#32
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
Those who are moving for an emergency, IE refugees, and those who are moving for a better life. For those moving for a better life, you want to make sure that them moving benefits your nation.
I would assume the vast majority (maybe even over 99%) of the migrants and refugees increase the power of the nation.  A store can have 70% of it's customers be below the poverty line and they don't care; they'll take what they can get.

70% of our migrants might have not a lot of skills; we'll take what we can get.

We probably could kick them off of welfare (and if their children starve, then so be it).  If you would be willing to give their children lifesaving welfare but not let the migrants be in the country, then that position makes no sense.

There's no way the infrastructure of Canada could handle that.
If the infrastructure of America can't handle 1.2 billion migrants, then you just build more infrastructure.

For the refugees, it's less about "does it benefit your country" and more about helping people in need.
I don't want to help any poor refugees fiscally; if they starve, then I don't care.  My $100 matters more than their children's lives, but George Soros'es (or Elon Musk's) $100 matters less to me than their children's lives.  If they come here and starve, then it's not my problem; you can raise taxes on George Soros, but not me.  George Soros'es net worth and Elon Musk's met worth are irrelevent to me.

You also want to make sure that they are actually refugees and not just economic migrants trying to jump the line. 
I hope they are economic migrants and not refugees; they're richer; more productive.  Why turn down any economic migrants?
#33
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@RemyBrown
 would assume the vast majority (maybe even over 99%) of the migrants and refugees increase the power of the nation.
Overall I would agree with you. But it needs to be a managed process. If you allow too many people with the exact same skill sets into the country in a very short period of time, you create a large amount of unemployment. Or you drive down wages for that industry because there are too many people competing for limited jobs. And if you get way too many people in too small of an area, you can overwhelm the services of that area. There's no problem with a city growing, but if it doubles of triples in population in a year, that is going to cause TONS of problems. 

If the infrastructure of America can't handle 1.2 billion migrants, then you just build more infrastructure.
you can absolutely do that, but it would take decades to build. If you could magically drop a billion people in the US tomorrow, most would die from starvation, exposure etc. There simply isn't enough housing, hospitals, grocery store etc to support that many people. And you can't possibly build enough to support them quickly enough to keep them alive. 

I hope they are economic migrants and not refugees; they're richer; more productive.  Why turn down any economic migrants?
I've already described some reasons. 
Topic's author
#34
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
 If you allow too many people with the exact same skill sets into the country in a very short period of time, you create a large amount of unemployment. 
This is true, but if open borders happens, then it's not like every person coming here is going to be a car mechanic.  Some jobs immigrants would be more likely to do; others they would be less likely to do.  Some jobs will get lower wages, other jobs will get higher wages.  People who work the low wage jobs might find a higher wage job and systemically, everything sorts it's self out.

There's no problem with a city growing, but if it doubles of triples in population in a year, that is going to cause TONS of problems. 
Why?  It's like Dallas turning into Chicago (a city with about twice as many people).

 If you could magically drop a billion people in the US tomorrow, most would die from starvation, exposure etc. There simply isn't enough housing, hospitals, grocery store etc to support that many people. And you can't possibly build enough to support them quickly enough to keep them alive. 
You sure about that?  The empire state building was built in only 1 year (and the building still stands).  Imagine how quickly a supermarket can be built iff you have 1940 style building regulations (what the empire state building was subject too and it still stands).


#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@RemyBrown
This is true, but if open borders happens, then it's not like every person coming here is going to be a car mechanic.
true, but certain industries are more likely to have a high standard of living in other countries (and therefore not be inclined to move), while certain industries will not. Certain people will have the economic resources to move across an ocean and successfully find a place to live and work. So there will be some selection bias. You won't get a completely random population. 

Some jobs will get lower wages, other jobs will get higher wages. 
why would any jobs get higher wages? A sudden spike in workers weakens the bargaining position of workers. Wages wouldn't fall in every industry, but I can't really see a reason why they would go up in any.

People who work the low wage jobs might find a higher wage job and systemically, everything sorts it's self out.
that's not how that works. When you place millions of workers into a new environment that isn't set up to absorb them, there won't be enough jobs to go around. It takes time for infrastructure to be built and for businesses to expand to take advantage of the new work force. You will get a sudden, drastic lowering of wages and living standards. Over the long term things will eventually recover, but that could take decades (depending on how many people you are talking about). 

Why?  It's like Dallas turning into Chicago (a city with about twice as many people).
because if you have enough housing for 1 million people, then suddenly have 2 million people, now you have 1 million homeless people. Over the course of years, you would be able to build more housing, expand businesses to make jobs for them etc. But if you do it too fast, you create poverty and death. 

You sure about that?  The empire state building was built in only 1 year (and the building still stands).
yes, I am sure. You are talking about a single building. They had lots of workers working on 1 single project. You are talking about 1 billion different projects, all at the same time. It's literally impossible. 

 Imagine how quickly a supermarket can be built iff you have 1940 style building regulations (what the empire state building was subject too and it still stands).
building regulations aren't just about making sure it doesn't fall down. They are about making sure it's safe. They are about making sure it is energy efficient (you wouldn't want to have to build a million coal power plants because you built shoddy housing with bad insolation). There's good reasons why we made regulations for buildings. Skipping them might let you build faster (it also might not) but you are going to get lower quality buildings and have alot more problems down the road. 
Topic's author
#36
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
So there will be some selection bias. You won't get a completely random population. 
That's fine.  Like, if you can't afford to move, then don't move.  I don't support giving randos in Serbia free trips to America.

why would any jobs get higher wages?

Lets say a place has 300 million people and 30000 Actuaries.  The ratio of people to Actuaries is 10K:1.

Lets say the population quintiples: 1.5 billion people and 75000 Actuaries.  The ratio of people to Actuaries is 20K:1.  The demand for Actuaries relative to the supply has doubled, leading to higher wages for Actuaries.

It takes time for infrastructure to be built and for businesses to expand to take advantage of the new work force. 
Tell that to the Pilgrims.  They built their settlement in 1-2 months with hunger, no bulldozers, and no mexicans.

It will be easy to acclimate the new population that won't have hunger (construction sites have food), a bunch of bulldozers, and a bunch of hard working Mexicans.  I swear, their tacos and marajuana gives those Pablos and Javiers energy.  I'm joking.

Over the long term things will eventually recover, but that could take decades (depending on how many people you are talking about). 
It will probably take a few months.

because if you have enough housing for 1 million people, then suddenly have 2 million people, now you have 1 million homeless people. Over the course of years, you would be able to build more housing, expand businesses to make jobs for them etc. But if you do it too fast, you create poverty and death. 
Tell that to the pilgrims; you can't go too fast.

They had lots of workers working on 1 single project.
That 1 project housed more people than the number of workers making that one project.  Therefore, you won't need 1 billion people making 1 billion projects; maybe 1 million (1000 people per building).

building regulations aren't just about making sure it doesn't fall down. They are about making sure it's safe.
Empire State building was safe.

They are about making sure it is energy efficient (you wouldn't want to have to build a million coal power plants because you built shoddy housing with bad insolation). 
They did this with the Empire State building.

Skipping them might let you build faster (it also might not) but you are going to get lower quality buildings and have alot more problems down the road. 
The Empire State building is very high quality and has no major problems.
#37
MarkWebberFan2
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 100
1
2
4
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
MarkWebberFan2
1
2
4
Underdog needs to come back. I agree with that. He had an issue with everything and everywhere, and I liked his posts because they bring some unique perspective.
Topic's author
#38
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 226
1
2
4
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
1
2
4
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
Honestly, I liked the Underdog as well.  I can start criticizing the left as well if you want to balance things out.

I probably should conduct a poll as to what people thought of the underdog.  I've heard a lot of positive and negative things about him.  I'm new to the site.
#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@RemyBrown
That's fine.  Like, if you can't afford to move, then don't move.  I don't support giving randos in Serbia free trips to America.
my point was that you would end up with a disproportionate amount of investment bankers or something. You wouldn't get an even assortment of workers spread across the economy. Certain industries would get flooded with people. 

Lets say the population quintiples: 1.5 billion people and 75000 Actuaries.  The ratio of people to Actuaries is 20K:1.  The demand for Actuaries relative to the supply has doubled, leading to higher wages for Actuaries.
fair point. But in order for that to happen, the prices actuaries charge would massively increase. So it might be good for the people in that industry, but it's still bad for everyone else and bad for the country, since there are now lots of people who can't get the services they need. 

Tell that to the Pilgrims.  They built their settlement in 1-2 months with hunger, no bulldozers, and no mexicans.
lol their infrastructure was what, log cabins and some dirt roads? We are talking about building hospitals, schools, highways, houses, funeral homes, massive expansions to the power grid etc. Comparing the two is just silly. 

It will be easy to acclimate the new population that won't have hunger (construction sites have food)
and where is that food going to come from? The infrastructure america has is designed to move and store food for 300ish million people. You add a billion people and there aren't enough warehouses to store it, or stores to sell it, or trucks to move it. You are talking about millions dead, mass food riots etc.

It will probably take a few months.
you think you can build 100's of millions of homes in a few a months? You cannot be this delusional. 

That 1 project housed more people than the number of workers making that one project.  Therefore, you won't need 1 billion people making 1 billion projects; maybe 1 million (1000 people per building).
i'm not even sure how to reply to you any more. You clearly have little to no understanding of how logistics or construction works. You seem to think that things will just magically appear where they are needed and people will be able to magically build trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure over night. 

The Empire State building is very high quality and has no major problems.
i don't know why you are so fixated on one building. Yes, with extraordinary expense and manpower it is possible to build one building safely and quickly. Do you think the world is so simple that you can just wave your hands and make that happen for a billion different buildings all at the same time? 

Try to think it through. There isn't enough concrete in the world to do what you are saying. Where is all the steel going to come from? How would you get it to america? there aren't enough ships. How would you unload it in america? there aren't enough ports. How would you move the construction materials around? There aren't enough roads or trucks. The logistics of what you are suggesting aren't just impossible, but they are ludicrous.