Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

Here is the problem. We hope that there are natural consequences from behaving badly. But, there are not.

Actually, most of us sincerely hope there are no (or at least very mild) consequences for our own bad actions. It's the bad actions of others that we want to come with consequences.

Another example - this bizarro system we have of declaring some people "illegal." What does it cost our economy in law enforcement, lost wages, lost taxes and imprisoning people who are caught and deported simply for the reason of existence?

Imagine if we allowed anyone who wanted to immigrate to register for a Social Security number, register with the local authorities, get a job, pay taxes, send their kids to school and eventually become citizens?

This assumes that everyone who wants to enter a country is both able and willing to "get a job". If an illiterate person from some country who doesn't speak the language arrives, how long will it be before that person can get a job and pay taxes? What happens if a billion people want to come to a given country?

This is a "tragedy of the commons issue"; it's only remotely feasible if the total number of people doing it is small enough for the system to absorb. If everyone did it, the entire system would collapse.

[ciao_yall]

Here is the problem. We hope that there are natural consequences from behaving badly. But, there are not.

Actually, most of us sincerely hope there are no (or at least very mild) consequences for our own bad actions. It's the bad actions of others that we want to come with consequences.

Another example - this bizarro system we have of declaring some people "illegal." What does it cost our economy in law enforcement, lost wages, lost taxes and imprisoning people who are caught and deported simply for the reason of existence?

Imagine if we allowed anyone who wanted to immigrate to register for a Social Security number, register with the local authorities, get a job, pay taxes, send their kids to school and eventually become citizens?

This assumes that everyone who wants to enter a country is both able and willing to "get a job". If an illiterate person from some country who doesn't speak the language arrives, how long will it be before that person can get a job and pay taxes? What happens if a billion people want to come to a given country?

This is a "tragedy of the commons issue"; it's only remotely feasible if the total number of people doing it is small enough for the system to absorb. If everyone did it, the entire system would collapse.

So far, lots of people who come to this country get jobs and work pretty hard, even if English is their second language and they weren't highly literate in their primary language.

I'd rather have a billion more people in this country than a massive border patrol, dead bodies in the borderlands, human trafficking and all the other abuses that take place because we have declared a group of people "illegal."

I'd like to think that we can build a longer table, not a higher wall.

[dismalist]

Imagine if we allowed anyone who wanted to immigrate to register for a Social Security number, register with the local authorities, get a job, pay taxes, send their kids to school and eventually become citizens?

One can have free immigration or a welfare state, but not both.

[marshwiggle]

I'd rather have a billion more people in this country than a massive border patrol, dead bodies in the borderlands, human trafficking and all the other abuses that take place because we have declared a group of people "illegal."

None of those people would have housing, and have schools to go to right now. And with all of the governments services they'll need until they're able to get jobs and pay taxes, (assuming whatever they work at can find markets for what they produce), there will be no government resources available to build housing or schools.

Immigration is necessary and good; however, it needs to be at pace that the economy can absorb. In the scenario above, those hundreds of millions of immigrants who don't yet have housing or schools or government support would be living in dire poverty for the forseeable future. Letting them in the country wouldn't be doing them any favours, and may actually leave them worse off than they were in their countries of origin.

[Wahoo Redux]

Here is the problem. We hope that there are natural consequences from behaving badly. But, there are not. Or those at the wrong end of the bad behavior tend to be hurt more, because the founder of the company was already a wealthy man and the Muslim employees had to decide how much crap they were going to take from him to keep their jobs.

I'm sorry, but again, what is your solution?

Do we just police everyone to make sure they are not "behaving badly?"

And we must acknowledge that to certain people, we are "behaving badly" in one way or another.  Your bigot boss undoubtedly believes we academics behave badly----stereotyping conservative bigot acknowledged.

People are simply going to behave badly. 

As unfair as it is (and I acknowledge that my idea of the importance of "fair" is predicated upon my background as a pinkish-white cisgender straight married middle-aged male from an educated and Episcopalian middle-class family) but the Muslim employees must decide what is more important, job-security or working for a bigot.  They always have the option of looking for a new job or writing their own blogs and calling their boss out on his bigotry too and then facing the consequences as we all do for our opinions (as unfair as that may be and acknowledging the power dynamic and threat of losing one's job----followed by a wrongful termination lawsuit).

Another example - this bizarro system we have of declaring some people "illegal." What does it cost our economy in law enforcement, lost wages, lost taxes and imprisoning people who are caught and deported simply for the reason of existence?

Imagine if we allowed anyone who wanted to immigrate to register for a Social Security number, register with the local authorities, get a job, pay taxes, send their kids to school and eventually become citizens?

No border control, no deaths in the Rio Grande, taxes would be paid, real crimes could be reported because victims wouldn't fear being exposed...

The fact is, a few people selfishly benefit from this system, but it hurts the undocumented workers, their families, and frankly, the overall US economy.

Sounds very logical and humane.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'd rather have a billion more people in this country than a massive border patrol, dead bodies in the borderlands, human trafficking and all the other abuses that take place because we have declared a group of people "illegal."

None of those people would have housing, and have schools to go to right now. And with all of the governments services they'll need until they're able to get jobs and pay taxes, (assuming whatever they work at can find markets for what they produce), there will be no government resources available to build housing or schools.

Immigration is necessary and good; however, it needs to be at pace that the economy can absorb. In the scenario above, those hundreds of millions of immigrants who don't yet have housing or schools or government support would be living in dire poverty for the forseeable future. Letting them in the country wouldn't be doing them any favours, and may actually leave them worse off than they were in their countries of origin.

You might look into how Americans deal with immigration, Marshy.  I've done a bit of journalism on this very subject.

Your conjectures are all wrong.

[marshwiggle]

I'd rather have a billion more people in this country than a massive border patrol, dead bodies in the borderlands, human trafficking and all the other abuses that take place because we have declared a group of people "illegal."

None of those people would have housing, and have schools to go to right now. And with all of the governments services they'll need until they're able to get jobs and pay taxes, (assuming whatever they work at can find markets for what they produce), there will be no government resources available to build housing or schools.

Immigration is necessary and good; however, it needs to be at pace that the economy can absorb. In the scenario above, those hundreds of millions of immigrants who don't yet have housing or schools or government support would be living in dire poverty for the forseeable future. Letting them in the country wouldn't be doing them any favours, and may actually leave them worse off than they were in their countries of origin.

You might look into how Americans deal with immigration, Marshy.  I've done a bit of journalism on this very subject.

Your conjectures are all wrong.

Come on, Wahoo. Quadrupling the population over some unspecified (but apparently short) time frame would be catastrophic for any country.  (Look at the strain on Ukraine's neighbours right now.)

The ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help anything.

[Wahoo Redux]

The ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help anything.

Marshy, quadrupling the population is hyperbole. Not gunna happen.  A good deal of what you say is hyperbole or an unfounded supposition on your part.

And America has a system for incorporating immigrants that works very well if it is allowed to work.

And many places in America could use the economic benefit and industry of immigrants----I live in one such place.

[marshwiggle]

The ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help anything.

Marshy, quadrupling the population is hyperbole. Not gunna happen.  A good deal of what you say is hyperbole or an unfounded supposition on your part.

And America has a system for incorporating immigrants that works very well if it is allowed to work.

And many places in America could use the economic benefit and industry of immigrants----I live in one such place.

And I bet where you live the pace of immigration is somewhat controlled, so that, as you say, the community can use "the economic benefit and industry of immigrants". With open borders, there would be certain communities that would be swamped with immigrants beyond what would be helpful.

Even Sweden has admitted that taking in immigration at too high a rate has resulted in serious problems for the country.
Why does SWEDEN NO LONGER WANT IMMIGRANTS? - VisualPolitik EN

[jimbogumbo]

The ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help anything.

Marshy, quadrupling the population is hyperbole. Not gunna happen.  A good deal of what you say is hyperbole or an unfounded supposition on your part.

And America has a system for incorporating immigrants that works very well if it is allowed to work.

And many places in America could use the economic benefit and industry of immigrants----I live in one such place.

And I bet where you live the pace of immigration is somewhat controlled, so that, as you say, the community can use "the economic benefit and industry of immigrants". With open borders, there would be certain communities that would be swamped with immigrants beyond what would be helpful.

Even Sweden has admitted that taking in immigration at too high a rate has resulted in serious problems for the country.
Why does SWEDEN NO LONGER WANT IMMIGRANTS? - VisualPolitik EN

The point is that the US has ALWAYS counted on steady immigration to provide a workforce. We are now in danger of becoming Japan in terms of the age demographic of our population. We simply don't have enough workers, and it has been self-inflicted by drastically cutting the pipeline of new labor.

Several years ago this was documented in a great documentary: A Day without a Mexican.

[marshwiggle]

The point is that the US has ALWAYS counted on steady immigration to provide a workforce. We are now in danger of becoming Japan in terms of the age demographic of our population. We simply don't have enough workers, and it has been self-inflicted by drastically cutting the pipeline of new labor.

Several years ago this was documented in a great documentary: A Day without a Mexican.

Basically all developed countries are below their natural replacement rate, so all developed countries need immigration to maintain a stable (and preferably, slightly growing, population).

[jimbogumbo]

The point is that the US has ALWAYS counted on steady immigration to provide a workforce. We are now in danger of becoming Japan in terms of the age demographic of our population. We simply don't have enough workers, and it has been self-inflicted by drastically cutting the pipeline of new labor.

Several years ago this was documented in a great documentary: A Day without a Mexican.

Basically all developed countries are below their natural replacement rate, so all developed countries need immigration to maintain a stable (and preferably, slightly growing, population).

So I guess that's an agreement with what I posted?

[dismalist]

Just for the record, people, I'm for more legal immigration, a lot more, and a lot less illegal immigration.

But don't worry about replacement rates. If people don't want to be replaced, they won't be replaced. So what?

I thought there was an overpopulation problem just a few decades ago. And there were depleting resources. And now we got too much CO₂. Fewer people would mean less global warming.

Just everybody decide which problem is biggest. :-)

[jimbogumbo]

Well, nobody said it would be easy:)

Channeling Gilda as Rosanne Roseannadanna: If it's not one thing it's another.

[ciao_yall]

Just for the record, people, I'm for more legal immigration, a lot more, and a lot less illegal immigration.

Legal and illegal are set by policy. We can change policy. It's not like the law of gravity.