Why Are Lefties Against Guns, Secure Borders, etc?

[Ban]

Kaltros

What does that mean? Has Australia been invaded, conquered, and occupied since 1975? What tyrant is keeping them from exercising full control of their own borders?

I presume that it's a reference to Australia's Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, which was basically an enabling statute for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a multi-lateral treaty to which Australia is a signatory. So, no tyrant. They voluntarily ceded such control.

This ain't exactly Westphalia. We're living in a globalizing world.

[Wendigo]

Kaltros

Let's apply your logic to a smaller scale but similar situation: "Some people leave troubled homes, let's say, to avoid being killed. Some people see better opportunities outside their first home. Some would rather just live some place that is not their original family's home, and there's really no reason to stop most of them from picking a new home, whether the adoptive family agrees or not."

If it's okay for immigrants to go to any country they want, isn't it also okay for any child to pick a new family without that family's approval? Shouldn't a kid just be able to say "Hey! I like that nice big house over there! I'm moving in with them!" and then do it, without asking the family that lives in the big house?

That's a rather preposterous situation you propose, since immigration denies nothing to the current residents of a country, even one room in their home or one seat at their dinner table. Immigration is not a zero sum game.

[Kaltros]

Ban

Kaltros

What does that mean? Has Australia been invaded, conquered, and occupied since 1975? What tyrant is keeping them from exercising full control of their own borders?

I presume that it's a reference to Australia's Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, which was basically an enabling statute for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a multi-lateral treaty to which Australia is a signatory. So, no tyrant. They voluntarily ceded such control.

This ain't exactly Westphalia. We're living in a globalizing world.

They could change their minds if they wanted, then.

[Kaltros]

Wendigo

Kaltros

Let's apply your logic to a smaller scale but similar situation: "Some people leave troubled homes, let's say, to avoid being killed. Some people see better opportunities outside their first home. Some would rather just live some place that is not their original family's home, and there's really no reason to stop most of them from picking a new home, whether the adoptive family agrees or not."

If it's okay for immigrants to go to any country they want, isn't it also okay for any child to pick a new family without that family's approval? Shouldn't a kid just be able to say "Hey! I like that nice big house over there! I'm moving in with them!" and then do it, without asking the family that lives in the big house?

That's a rather preposterous situation you propose, since immigration denies nothing to the current residents of a country, even one room in their home or one seat at their dinner table. Immigration is not a zero sum game.

There are a limited number of jobs in each country. Immigration increases the labor pool, which has the effect of lowering the value of each laborer. This is basic supply and demand. When you increase supply of something, it becomes cheaper and demand for it starts to go down. The labor market isn't immune from this.

Unemployment is high enough in the U.S. already, still close to 8% by the official measure. Immigration, of whatever sort, just brings more people looking for a job when the economy already doesn't have enough jobs to go around. Again, basic supply and demand. There is currently an over-supply of workers and too few jobs to satisfy them. Bringing in even more wannabe workers solves what part of that again?

Increased healthcare costs, schooling for children, administrative costs for translators, and a bunch of other associated costs come into it as well.

[Ban]

Kaltros

Ban

Kaltros

What does that mean? Has Australia been invaded, conquered, and occupied since 1975? What tyrant is keeping them from exercising full control of their own borders?

I presume that it's a reference to Australia's Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, which was basically an enabling statute for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a multi-lateral treaty to which Australia is a signatory. So, no tyrant. They voluntarily ceded such control.

This ain't exactly Westphalia. We're living in a globalizing world.

They could change their minds if they wanted, then.

Well, theoretically. They voluntarily ceded that right, too, when they acceded to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLR). The VCLR does not allow for a denunciation or withdrawal from a treaty unless specifically provided for in the treaty itself. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination only allows for denunciation and thus a withdrawal from their obligations under the Convention if they give a year's notice.

Practically speaking, Australia probably would not do such a thing. It would in effect announce to the world that they plan on engaging in racial discrimination, which would probably result in a rather weaker position when it comes to all those international economic relations that Australia depends upon. Tourism, for example. An incredibly large part of Australia's tourism dollars come from Asian countries, much more than English speaking countries combined. Losing billions of dollars is not a happy prospect.

[Wendigo]

Kaltros

There are a limited number of jobs in each country.

Not really. There's a finite amount of capital (to which the average immigrant adds, because they bring what they own with them), but the addition of more workers also increases the number of people consuming products and services, hence the number of jobs to be done. Worst case scenario, there's always food service.

Quote:

There is currently an over-supply of workers and too few jobs to satisfy them.

But not because we've run out of capital to pay new workers or tasks for them to do - employers just get a case of the shits when bad things happen. In this case, the real estate kerfuffle over obscure financial derivatives.

[Kaltros]

Wendigo

Kaltros

There are a limited number of jobs in each country.

Not really. There's a finite amount of capital (to which the average immigrant adds, because they bring what they own with them), but the addition of more workers also increases the number of people consuming products and services, hence the number of jobs to be done. Worst case scenario, there's always food service.

Not really? Why is it so hard to lower the unemployment rate these days if what you say is true? There are millions of Americans who want to work but can't. There just aren't enough jobs to go around. Not even in food service.

Quote:

Quote:

There is currently an over-supply of workers and too few jobs to satisfy them.

But not because we've run out of capital to pay new workers or tasks for them to do - employers just get a case of the shits when bad things happen. In this case, the real estate kerfuffle over obscure financial derivatives.

Same difference, unless you suggest nationalizing all the industries you think have unused capital and forcing them to spend everything. Absent that or a big change that makes them more comfortable, the situation isn't likely to improve much on the unused capital front. Which leaves us with the problem of high unemployment and underemployment.

[Wendigo]

Kaltros

Not really? Why is it so hard to lower the unemployment rate these days if what you say is true?

Like I said, your average employer has a case of the shits. They start dumping employees at the first sign of trouble, and don't start picking them back up until that trouble is definitely over. One of the perils of a confidence-based economy.

Which is neither here nor there as far as immigration goes, because of course there are immigrants who are equally as capable of starting a business as the querulous shitheads who are already in business.

[Kaltros]

Wendigo

Kaltros

Not really? Why is it so hard to lower the unemployment rate these days if what you say is true?

Like I said, your average employer has a case of the shits. They start dumping employees at the first sign of trouble, and don't start picking them back up until that trouble is definitely over. One of the perils of a confidence-based economy.

Which is neither here nor there as far as immigration goes, because of course there are immigrants who are equally as capable of starting a business as the querulous shitheads who are already in business.

Whatever the reasons behind it, there aren't enough employers hiring to put America's current citizens to work. How does more immigration help that job shortage?

[Wendigo]

Kaltros

Whatever the reasons behind it, there aren't enough employers hiring to put America's current citizens to work. How does more immigration help that job shortage?

Well, one thing you might wanna get updated on, there are rich black guys. In the world. Some of them don't live here at present.

[Ban]

Wendigo

Kaltros

Whatever the reasons behind it, there aren't enough employers hiring to put America's current citizens to work. How does more immigration help that job shortage?

Well, one thing you might wanna get updated on, there are rich black guys. In the world. Some of them don't live here at present.

Also, immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs.

[Kaltros]

Wendigo

Kaltros

Whatever the reasons behind it, there aren't enough employers hiring to put America's current citizens to work. How does more immigration help that job shortage?

Well, one thing you might wanna get updated on, there are rich black guys. In the world. Some of them don't live here at present.

So what? What's to say foreign rich black guys don't also 'get the shits' as you put it, and just sit on their capital without hiring many people? That seems to be a failing common to rich people from many countries nowadays.

Lay out your plan for me. You get some foreign black billionaires to live in the U.S. Then what? How does that translate to more jobs for U.S. citizens?

[Kaltros]

Ban

Wendigo

Kaltros

Whatever the reasons behind it, there aren't enough employers hiring to put America's current citizens to work. How does more immigration help that job shortage?

Well, one thing you might wanna get updated on, there are rich black guys. In the world. Some of them don't live here at present.

Also, immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs.

Hmm. Small sample sizes are bad for you! From the article:

Quote:

The report, Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel in America’s 50 Top Venture-Funded Companies, was released by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), a non-profit research group based in Arlington, Virginia. The research was conducted by analyzing a list of 50 of America's top private venture-funded companies, as ranked by VentureSource, a research firm owned by Dow Jones.

Okay, so fifty companies. That's a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy. According to the census bureau, there were nearly 6 MILLION employer firms in the U.S. in 2008.

Let's round the number of companies founded by immigrants in the survey to 50%. Which is 25 of the companies surveyed. On average, according to the survey, those 25 companies created 3750 jobs. Even if all those companies doubled the number of employees, bringing it to around 7500 new jobs, that still wouldn't put a dent in the country's unemployment rate.

I say again, small sample sizes are bad for you.

Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.

Try again, Ban.

[Ban]

Kaltros

Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.

Try again, Ban.

Immigrants also form a disproportionate amount of the small business owners in America. The largest portion of those immigrant small business owners come from Mexico. And, of course, small businesses mean more jobs.

Why do you hate jobs, Kaltros?

[N3bu]

The problem with your argument so far Kaltros has been that your equating Immigration, with non-white immigration, using simplistic anti-immigration arguments against both.

Australia has never been anti-immigration, all the way back to it's foundation as a penal colony and has always recognised the need (until very recently given the current political trend) to use immigration to make up the numbers when local birth rates declined.

The issue has been that Australia refused immigration to people of non-white decent (unless they wanted to work on a plantation). Regarding this the flow of the argument is simple.

Do you believe racism is wrong? If yes, then you would recognise that the White Australia Policy is Racist and that the argument is not about, "white can non-whites contribute to our society" but instead "This is Racist, we shouldn't do this".

If you don't believe Racism is wrong, then you're a bigot, and frankly I don't owe you an ounce of explanation otherwise.