steeler wrote: 
And I'm not sure, but the protection of scarce "resources" debate seems to be based on a presumption of those "resources" being fixed and finite in number, which is not true. The economic expansion/increased consumption that results from bringing immigrants in to meet labor demand potentially increases the resource pool, since they (arguably) generate government revenue beyond their infrastructure needs as a group, providing a surplus that can be applied to meet increased resource needs.

 steeler wrote:
 

I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:

 kurtster wrote: 
Getting old sucks, eh? No insult intended. I have memory problems as well. Can't remember where I laid stuff down, etc.

 black321 wrote:
 
Exactly, if by "merit" we mean wealth.  

 steeler wrote:
 
arguably, they would consume a lot more.  

A few points. 

The scarcity of resources/employment argument goes to immigration as a whole, not just illegal immigration.  (The person using infrastructure and drinking water is doing so regardless of status, which is not to say that I am arguing that there is otherwise no difference between illegal and legal immigration or that I am fine with illegal immigration).   Yes, legal immigration provides a measure of "control" in terms of the influx in the aggregate, and within certain immigration categories.  However, those with status within this country are free to travel and relocate. It is a right.  There is no way to control where future citizens are going to migrate within the country. Therefore, overcrowding can and does occur in particular jurisdictions, and resources within those jurisdictions can become more scarce.

Moreover, as I have mentioned here before, the debate - predictably - has gone beyond mitigating illegal immigration.  It now also entails discussion of curtailing legal immigration and restructuring how we determine who will and who will not be allowed to emigrate to the United States.   The word "merit-based" is being tossed around in this debate.  When I hear the argument about scarce resources and the need to curtail immigration, I wonder why a person with more "merit" would consume less of these scarce resources?    

 kurtster wrote:
 

Your first comments are reasonable.  I may not agree with your solution, but agree we have an immigration problem that isn't being adequately addressed.  Maybe the solution is a more simple admittance process.  Once they are admitted, it appears most immigrants are net contributors to society.  And we have rules limiting who can immediately access resources.  I take issue with your last comment.  I agree trump is attempting to strickly enforce laws, but also circumventing them, most recently  claiming he can ignore due process, and have immigrants deported.

 black321 wrote: 
So you did.  Not selective memory.  Call it short term memory deficit. And that was 5 days ago.  I gave this a rest until someone else brought it back up.


 black321 wrote:  

So how do we implement immigration in order to deal with inefficient bureaucracies and bloated public pensions ?  

The only thing I'm saying is that we need to control the amount of people who come in so we don't overwhelm our public services and our existing infrastructure.  If nothing else, my understanding is that our immigration justice system is overwhelmed with at least a 700,000 case back load.  It takes time and planning to expand services.  No one wants to undertake this effort (pardon the broad brush).  Instead, the usual response especially with the new democratic socialist direction the left is taking, is just open the borders and let them all in.  or aka ... anarchy ... break the system to pieces.  We currently have 10's of thousands living in tent cities on stateside military bases because there is nowhere to put them.  How is this good for anybody ?

There is broad discretion allowed to the AG regarding asylum if that is what you refer to in the bolded.  If that is not what you are referring to, then I have no idea.  What the current administration is doing is actually strongly enforcing the laws on the books, not circumventing them.

 black321 wrote: 
Yea, we've done that aspect of immigration to death over the last 5 years. Selective memry n'all.

 kurtster wrote:
 

i countered the economic argument a couple pages back

 black321 wrote: 
I've been trying to discuss this from a sovereignty / economic point of view.  No one seems to want to discuss it in these terms.

So much of the immigration issue gets lost in arguments over personal morals.  
Countries may (and do) limit immigration.  That's an ethical position.  However, the morality of it is another question...and a completely different debate.  
It would be nice to try to separate the two.  

p.s., New Zealand just restricted foreign home ownership in attempt to make home ownership more affordable.

 kurtster wrote: 
I think your vision is based on imagination, pretty much. 

This is like the bogus "sharia law" claims that were popular hot button sound bites recently.

Our laws do not get rewritten wholesale by incoming ethnic groups. Nor do our national societal norms; at least, not the ones that intersect with the basic principles on which the nation was founded.

Before we were even a nation, a Jewish Synagogue had been built in Newport, RI. We have a hugely diverse assortment of houses of worship in the US. And this mirrors are insistence on freedom of worship. And it belies claims that we are, at base, a "Christian" nation.

Whether it is food, literature, religion, or symbols of cultural heritage, incoming ethnic groups pretty much provide such things for themselves the same way the first European immigrants/colonists did. They don't "make" society provide it for them. And our polyglot society determines what aspects to absorb into regional/national culture.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
My point about evolution is more about culture and society than of the species that comprise the same.

You're kinda proving my point.  Here is the rest of my post I composed while asking my original questions, but thought that I should wait for the thoughts of others before posting it.  And it kinda addresses some of L8's points, too.

We are many different distinct societies with different cultures and values.  Life itself is valued differently depending on cultures and locations.  Some believe in private property and settle and establish a society and others just roam about within an area and claim vast territories but do not settle and have different ways of ordering life.

Does the society in place find places for the new arrivals to join the society or do the immigrants tell the society what they want and make the society change and provide for them ?  I see more of the latter happening and think that it is destructive to the society in place more than beneficial.  Is it not the goal of any worthwhile society to preserve and even raise the standards of living within it and raise new comers to the higher level rather than lower itself in order to accommodate those who insist it adapt to their needs regardless of value to the society in place ?

Those who immigrate to my country within the legal framework in place appear to want to come into our society on our terms.  Their arrival is planned for.  Those who come here illegally insist that they come in on their terms and pull down the society to accommodate them and their specific needs.  They directly compete against citizens and green card holders for the jobs that they both have the same skills for.  Not fair.  Not right.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Eloquent argument that societal/cultural inbreeding weakens a society.

I'm not a historian, but if you look at the isolationism that marked Japan and China's approach to European nations from the 15th to the 17th centuries, you could probably make a case that this put them at a distinct political and military disadvantage, and led to the unequal treaties they were forced to sign with European powers beginning in the 17th century. How many centuries did it take for these nations to overcome this and develop the ability to become economic/military peers of the major European powers? How much did their populations suffer because of this short-sightedness?

kurtster wrote:

Evolution isn't limited to species. Societies evolve, but they use different mechanisms.

Those new families? They contain different people, or they become genetic dead ends—weakened by undiluted defects, able to adapt new traits only by random mutation.

You grew up in the US. Surely you can see that societies form for all kinds of reasons, not just similarities of wealth and culture, and that diverse ones thrive. Look around you.

Do you eat the same food your great grandparents did? Listen to the same music? Dress the same? Dance the same dances? Are there no words in your vocabulary other than those in your ancestors'?

Think about your ancestry. Yeah, you're white. A century ago there were more distinctions drawn, and I bet you can name at least two distinct nationalities in your family tree. Those were not small differences when they came together. There were hot debates about whether to let in more of those scary foreigners with their incomprehensible languages and thick accents and strange clothes and smelly foods. They didn't look like us—like real Americans.

Your side lost that debate back then, which is why I'm here. Probably why you're here too. Our ancestors brought their cultures and religions with them—those parts that were useful, anyway—and now those cultures and religions are integrated into the fabric of a mighty nation. They're American, because the definition of American wrapped around them.

I spent last night listening to bagpipes and drinking mead and barbecuing bratwurst. Tonight I dance with friends and we eat food from many cultures. We're bringing grain from South America but friends will make what they like and we'll combine it into a splendid feast. Diversity means our choices expand.

So as the descendant of a once-hated minority, one that people were afraid of, one they associated with crime and radical, violent politics I urge you to...enjoy your pizza.

You're welcome.

 kurtster wrote: 
btw.. Kurtster, this is a very skewed view of how evolution works and contains IMHO some serious flaws:

1. you are conflating local adaptation with species differentiation. Sure local adaption is great to cope with changes in local conditions but sometimes  it is precisely the injection of a foreign adaptation that might save locals who are incapable of adapting to a sudden change. As long as different populations can still interbreed we can benefit from this.
2. by the same taken, I am sure you are aware of the pitfalls of interbreeding. It also normally takes many generations of isolation before a group evolves to an extent that it can no longer breed with the main population. It is kind of hard to conceive of that kind of isolation in the human population.
3. our gene pool is enormous and contains a lot of dormant material that is not actively expressed. Did you know that the genome of single-celled amoeba is about 100 times the size of that of humans?  Kind of dispels any feeling of superiority, doesn't it?
4. By the same token, your arbitrary family distinction can hardly be sustained by relying on the genome. The human genome contains vast potential and what particular genes get expressed in which cases is an extremely complex field. Whether you like it or not, we are all closely related.
5. just as an aside, your very own personal genome will be diluted to non-recognition within about seven generations. None of us as individuals are actually that special. It is the genome of our entire species that is what makes us us.

And while we are on this topic, I personally think I have more in common with you, a foreigner of roughly my generation that I have never met than I do with the local kids, who have their own cultural nuances and focus. Time and geography are probably way more influential coordinates in what makes us us than our specific family ties

And finally, why on earth is any kind of "sameness" something to strive for? Be it family, race, intellect, political views or whatever? Isn't this just a pure judgment call on your part?
 

 kurtster wrote:
 


Then why do you keep posting basic questions and positions, as if the rest of us have never touched on them?

I have seen little supporting evidence, such as links to data analysis or policy positions, in your posts. Truthiness doesn't do it for me.

 kcar wrote: 
And I've written about this subject extensively in the several related threads here for well over 10 years.  There we have it.