Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Sustainable Immigration: Terrorism, Cheap Labor, Voting Bloc

    Terrorism, Cheap Labor, Voting Blocks

    Toward a Sustainable Immigration Policy

    By Daniel Greenfield Monday, November 23, 2009

    While the rising threat of terrorism, violence and honor killings produced by Muslim immigration tends to be in the news lately, the problems produced by immigration are not limited solely to Islam. The problem of Muslim immigration was created by a larger trend in First World immigration policies that favors bringing in cheap labor for short term commercial and political gain. Such immigration policies however are seriously damaging to the nations that utilize them and cannot be sustained. So what we must do is look for a sustainable immigration policy.

    The first principle we need to begin with is that immigration should be in a nation’s interest. While this seems self-evident, it is a principle that has gone by the wayside. For a clear example of what that leads to, consider Obama’s move to allow people infected with AIDS to freely enter the United States. Clearly the entry of people with a deadly communicable disease for which there is no cure into the United States is not in our interest. It is actually quite dangerous to us and offers us no benefits whatsoever to outweigh the risks. There are numerous examples in our immigration policy are less graphic but ultimately just as destructive.

    Beginning with the principle that immigration must be in the nation’s interest, we now need a standard for measuring whether a particular form of immigration is in our interest or not.

    The ideal form of immigration is one that benefits both the host country and the immigrants themselves. Immigration that benefits only the host country is slavery. Immigration that benefits only the immigrants is parasitism. The ideal is a mutual exchange of benefits between the immigrants and their new country. And we can begin by measuring that exchange through simple statistics by breaking down the impact of a particular immigration population in simple dollar terms.

    This can be done simply by taking a particular population of immigrants and balancing their contributions in the form of taxes against the social expenditures they create through social services, crime, terrorism and public assistance. Through this method any immigrant population can be broken down into a dollar amount, which can then be contrasted and compared with other immigrant populations, as well as with the native population, to arrive at a chart that shows on the financial level which immigrants offer more benefits versus losses. Such figures should be assessed for first, second and if possible, third generation immigrants, to study the extent to which absorption improves those numbers or worsens them. Further in depth studies would look at regional differences which could allow for a greater fine tuning of immigrant acceptance from urban vs rural areas, to educated professionals vs industrial workers, for religious vs secular and so on and so forth, making it possible to produce questionnaires that would allow a country to reap the maximum possible benefit from immigrants, with the minimum possible loss.

    Once this is done, it becomes possible to specifically assess the consequences for local and national economies of giving preference to one immigrant population over another. If we can break down the cost of say bringing in 2000 immigrants from Ireland vs 2000 immigrants from Belize, or 2000 immigrants from Venezuela vs 2000 immigrants from China—we will be much closer to forming a rational immigration policy. And by presenting statistics in literal dollar amounts, a compelling interest based argument can be made for reforming immigration by making it sustainable.

    The next step is to go beyond simple dollar amounts and to look at a nation’s overall statistics, its total and per capita GDP, literacy rate, teenage pregnancies, domestic abuse, crime rates, and so on, and look to see which immigrant populations raise our statistics, and which lower them. The ideal form of immigration increases our statistics, or at least maintains them in place, but does not lower them. Again this needs to be studied across multiple generations to see the impact that absorption has on these numbers. An immigrant population that lowers these numbers not only in the first generation, but in the second and the third as well, is as unsustainable as a smokestack spewing poison into the air.

    Then there is the cultural question. Population migrations are nothing new in human history. Most countries are made up of a mix of peoples blending together over time through migrating populations. But while some such migrations are generally positive, others are generally negative. Whether a population migration is even feasible depends on how much room there is. 19th century America was able to absorb large numbers of immigrants in ways that 21st century America cannot because it lacks the same amount of open space. With the 20th century’s suburbanization, that enabled the immigration and population movements of the 20th century reaching their limit in America, immigration creates crammed urban centers. And without “room to growâ€
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member builditnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    A Midwest State in North AmeXica
    Posts
    1,845
    The same big companies that complain about high taxes and socialism, seem to have no understanding whatsoever that when you import hundreds of thousands of immigrants, legal or illegal, they will have to pay the price for them sooner or later. Capitalism may rely on cheap labor, but cheap labor inevitably leads to socialism, because importing a population incapable of caring for itself, will require the government to step in sooner or later.

    While we believe in free enterprise, that means responsible free enterprise. A factory that pours toxic waste into a river is not behaving responsibly and is not serving the public good. Similarly an industry that uses cheap immigration to cut costs while dumping ten times those same costs on the taxpayer, a cost that they themselves will ultimately have to make up down the road, is not behaving responsibly. The allegiance of American business must be to America, just as English businesses must be to England and so on and so forth. A loyal business does not act against the national interest, but seeks to work within a sustainable immigration policy for the larger national benefit, a benefit that will also accrue to it as well.
    OMG, Yes, Thank-you! This is a point I have been trying to ask and say for some time now. This author says it well: "Capitalism may rely on cheap labor, but cheap labor inevitably leads to socialism, because importing a population incapable of caring for itself, will require the government to step in sooner or later."

    ANTI-U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Are you listening??

    EDIT: I guess if the ANTI-U.S. C of C is an organization of globalists now, just headquartered in the U.S., then I guess they couldn't care less what happens to the U.S., even if it does become Socialist. They seem opposed to SOME Socialist policies of the Obama WH, like recently weren't they expressing opposition to Cap and Trade? or was it Healthcare bill? Maybe the ANTI-U.S. CofC strategy is just to occasionally pretend to disagree with the Socialist policies of the WH, to throw everyone off track. Seriously, I don't trust them ONE BIT. There are billions of dollars and lots of power at stake for them.
    <div>Number*U.S. military*in S.Korea to protect their border with N.Korea: 28,000. Number*U.S. military*on 2000 mile*U.S. southern border to protect ourselves from*the war in our own backyard: 1,200 National Guard.</

  3. #3
    Senior Member builditnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    A Midwest State in North AmeXica
    Posts
    1,845
    The RINO RepubliCONS who are being paid off to vote pro-open borders by the big-business lobbyists, had darn well better get the points made in this article real soon. The pro-open borders RINOs and Big Business better look at the big picture, and the long-range picture, because they ARE just shooting themselves in the foot.
    <div>Number*U.S. military*in S.Korea to protect their border with N.Korea: 28,000. Number*U.S. military*on 2000 mile*U.S. southern border to protect ourselves from*the war in our own backyard: 1,200 National Guard.</

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •