What pending issues? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we're never going to be free of mortality, disease or shoelaces. So we might as well make things better in ways that are actually feasible.
No it's not beyond your knowledge of economics, you just need to look at it in terms you can understand.
Let's say that ten people showed up on your door step today, they've been watching your place it seems better than where they live, you have enough food and money, your family is happy and gets along pretty well. With all that you have you should be able to take them in, right? What do you think that would do to your economic situation. Would you be asking questions? Would they need to bring something to the dinner table? Would you be willing to provide transportation, heath care, and all of their other needs?
Oh yes it's obvious that the first world buckles under huge strain; I was asked to compare the personal loss to prior citizens vs the personal gain of the migrants in from various hellholes. What metric do we use to assess the net loss/benefit across all sides? Is there a premium on being able to eat? Handwaving is easy, saying whether the loss is greater than the gain is not...
In a word, energy. You want first world living then you use 125kWh/day (450MJ/day), 260 for americans and, at best, we'll never beat 90.
That is more energy than we can get our hands on in the long term without radical new technology or improvements. That's not a guess, that inescapable, and once we've exhausted the easy access energy we currently use we are soooo boned - it becomes effectively impossible to make the leap forward when we've wasted our carbon stopgap.
I'd choose the short term nasty so that we can still be a post-industrial species 1000 years from now.
That's not the situation, though. It's more like ten people showing up on your doorstep, then doing all the housework, cutting the lawns, growing your food, contributing to your beer fund, ferrying you around,etc. etc. and asking to stay. And then you turn around and say 'god no, your kind don't belong here'. Now, that's simplistic, but then so is your analogy.
Yes, I realize my analogy was simplistic that was the point. Your analogy is called employment where I come from. I personally don't need anyone to hold my hand as I'm very self sufficient, although, if you wish to contribute to my beer fund I would not turn that down What is wrong with treating people fair, and expecting fair treatment in return? Because I do not wish to coddle everyone does that make me a racist? Should I support the world from the sweat of my back. I donate to many causes around the world as do many of my countrymen in fact the USA is the most generous nation in the world. And yet we are "easy targets" for ridicule from those who think the nanny state governments are so far ahead of the curve.
A broke nation, or take it up a notch a broke world economy, cannot help it's citizens or it's neighbors. "Put your own oxygen mask on before attempting to help others".
In the sense you give the most actual money yes but compared to what you could pay? Not by a long shot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
The reason you have unskilled immigrants is the same reason the UK has unskilled immigrants. The normal Canadian population refuses to do unskilled work. Because they're educated and expect a better life.
As I understand it Canada has a welfare system somewhat like the UKs. Healthcare free at the point of use. Some sort of unemployment benefit and many other handouts. All of which make the crappy jobs Canadians won't do well worth while for most immigrants.
So if you start turning away all of those immigrants. How will you fill the labour gap? Will you force unemployed Canadians to take jobs they don't want? Turn those jobs into community service detail for criminals? Before you change a system that basically works. You need to know what it is you're changing to and how that's going to work. Which is something the ConDems don't understand here in the UK.
This is a 2008 article, a lot can change over the years. Not to mention the source seems to be a "far" right media.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/americans-are-most-generous-people-planet
A new gallup poll has the USA at fifth in the world as a percentage of GNP. According to the NY Times. (left wing media)
Wow, where do I begin.....if an asylum seeker wishes to leave his home country until things 'get better'. Why do they most always want to come to the US when other nations that live in peace are much closer to their home country?
Also, the question of knowing history is a tough one. I for one am a real wiz at history, I enjoy reading it and not just of my own country but for lots of others. I think to know where the nation you're choosing to live is going, you have to understand where its been. Even when that history was mostly written from a white, non-native point of view. Most US citizens do have a poor knowledge of our own history and I find that really hard to fathom.
But by your standard, to the extreme, all you need is a job and some rudimentary language skills, enough to get by. We had an accident right in front of the building I work in yesterday due to a foreigner who could not read english, did not know what a stop sign was, borrowed his sons car and ran the stop sign and killed someone. Should that just be an 'oh well' moment and chalk it up to one of those crazy poor immigrant things?
Yes I have been blessed to have been born in one of the wealthiest country on earth. I am proud to be an american and I can only think of 2-3 other countries I would ever want to live in long term. But I don't want my standard of living to be brought down by immigrants from the third world simply because they bring 'their standards' to our country.
I am English born and was emigrating to a country where one of the two languages is English. I had a job to go to, a clean criminal record and I still had to prove qualifications and language competency (even though I am a native speaker).
I do not think it is too much to ask that everyone meets these criteria or they are not allowed in. I had to go through hoops, so should everyone else. Sadly the standards are a lot looser than that, which ticks me off when you meet people who literally can barely speak a word of the language of the country they chose to move to
That has nothing to do with immigration. It was and accident pure and simple. Any tourist could have done that. And it's not as though Americans or Canadians or the British don't run stop sighs. They do. Reading a history book won't make you a better driver.
Genuine asylum seekers pick certain countries because those countries have a history and reputation for compassion. Because they feel they'll be protected in those countries. Those trying to cheat the system are clearly just there to try and make some money. Find a better life. Who can fault them for that.
Should they read a history book? Why? What will that do for them? How does it make their life better? How does it help them integrate? Learning the language and current customs and rudimentary sense of the law would be more beneficial. But then again. They are asylum seekers. When will they have the time to do all this before they get to their destination? It would seem to be a more sensible requirement of immigrants and economic migrants rather than asylum seekers.
I always find it incredibly amusing (and somewhat ironic) when any non-Native inhabiting the Americas (continent, not country) complains about immigration.
That's because every country worth moving to employs border control and selective immigration.
It isn't just "jobs", there are housing, medical, infrastructure requirements for every citizen in a country. Creating more jobs will not magically increase the required infrastructure. Even if the US was willing to take in an extra 50 million people it couldn't - not at the current standard of living. Infrastructure always lags behind population, and the faster the population growth, the bigger the gap.
Why is it "funny" that I should mention the Japanese? I merely mentioned Japan as being a first-world nation that I, a first-world citizen, have no guaranteed right to move to. In fact, I have no automatic right to move anywhere, nor do I claim such a right. Economic logic is not "racist", it's economic. A "whites only" policy is racist, a "skilled migrants only" policy is not.
Here's a newsflash for you - I work with immigrants and I don't have a problem with it. They came here legitimately, they had to meet certain criteria, and they are productive citizens, fine by me.
What is wrong with the economic logic of admitting primarily those people who can contribute to the country? As for my "rejection criteria" it's quite simple. To move to Australia you would need a: a working knowledge of english, b: the skills or ability to be gainfully employed. (A humanitarian intake too of course, but this will always have to be far smaller than the number of workers admitted.) The number of accepted immigrants and the skilled/unskilled percentage would be based on the requirements at the time. What's racist about that? I wouldn't accept a white english speaker who wasn't willing or able to obtain employment.
I don't know where you're coming from here. Sure, your job in your own country is worth protecting - but you don't have a job here, nor any inalienable right to one. As far as integration goes - yes, everyone moving to another country has to integrate to some extent. Obey the law, respect local customs, try not to bother anyone else. The same things that are expected of me.
An entirely unfounded accusation. I'm happy for people to bring their cultures here - celebrate Hanuka, Ramadan, Chinese new Year - whatever. I don't care how they live their lives as long as they don't interfere with mine.
Your argument is based on the false assumption that anything short of fully open borders is "racist" (regardless of non race-related criteria), and that the economic arguments that I and others have put forward are "wrong". You have yet to prove either one of these.
Oh, BTW, openly expressing racism is a criminal offence in Australia - punishable by jail. Tell me again how racist we are down here...
I was going along with that when you first mentioned it but you haven't backed it up with a lot of logic so far, pretty much just repeated that being against immigration in any way automatically makes you racist. If you oppose immigration from certain areas be it religious, ethnic or whatever then I can see your point. Opposition to immigration based on them receiving jobs over indiginous people I could at a stretch call racist, and I won't pretend the majority of anti-immigration groups and views are steeped in racism to an extent, but flat out saying any immigration opposition is just racism doesn't make sense.
A couple other people have mentioned being against open border immigration based on country resources and I don't get how that would be racism. You've pointed out that in reality economics and immigration don't work like that (I don't know anything about it to say if you're right or not) but it stil doesn't make it a racist view. Misguided and factually wrong perhaps but not racially discriminating.
I'm not "against immigration". I gave you my criteria for immigrants - race wasn't one of them. I merely believe that immigration policy has to reflect the needs of the nation. Australia accepts both migrants and refugees, so if you are referring to Australia - you're still wrong.
You have now progressed from weak arguments to outright lies. There is no reason I should take you seriously.
That's because the logic is self-evident. If you believe that jobs in your country should be for people in your country, then you are discriminating against people from outside of it. There is no logical reason to do so- you don't know them any better, they're not necessarily better qualified or anything.
I also do not believe that the reason given is the genuine reason, and suspect that it's a cloak for more traditional forms of discrimination.