Welcome to Gaia! ::

Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
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?
He may "get the shits," as I put it, but as he is self-employed, any jobs he denies to US workers are over and above those we might already have had prior to his immigration, were he to choose to immigrate. Unless he has investments in US mining interests now, and manages them from South Africa.

While he and another billionaire may compete for ownership of companies that employ US workers, he wouldn't take a job from a US worker by immigrating, would he? And he's not white.

Ergo, your argument has fallen apart, please shut up.
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.


Your second source addresses it this way:
Quote:

12. What is the role of women, minority, and veteran entrepreneurs?

Hispanic Americans owned 8.3 percent of all U.S. businesses


Note the difference there. Not all immigrants are counted as minorities. You can tell that because there was no break-down into europeans, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc.

Your New York Times article isn't much better. Here's what I found by going straight to the source of the NYT article:

Quote:

Mexicans make up biggest number of business owners, while immigrants from Middle East, Asia, and Southern Europe playing a disproportionate role . Mexican immigrants are less likely than other groups to be small business owners, perhaps in part because a high share of Mexican immigrants are not legally authorized to work in the United States.

-snip-

Immigrants from some countries—including some with relatively small numbers in the overall population—are disproportionately likely to be business owners. Immigrants from the Middle East, Asia, and Southern Europe are particularly inclined toward business ownership.
Immigrants from Greece, for example, are a tiny fraction of all immigrants in the labor force, but 16 percent of Greek immigrants in the labor force are business owners—the highest share of any group. Immigrants born in Israel/Palestine (the Census does not disaggregate the two) are the group with the second highest rate of business ownership, followed by Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Italy, Korea, South Africa, Ireland, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey.

-snip-

Immigrant business owners are most likely to be white, Asian, or Latino.

Among immigrant business owners, roughly equal numbers are white (34 percent), Asian (31 percent), and Latino (28 percent), with another 5 percent blacks and 2 percent identifying their race as “other.”

White and Asian immigrants are considerably more likely to be small business owners than
black or Latino immigrants
—and, indeed, also much more likely than U.S.-born workers. Among immigrants in the labor force, 6.8 percent of whites and 4.7 percent of Asians are small business owners. By contrast, 2.0 percent of Latino immigrants in the labor force and 2.1 percent of black immigrants are small business owners. The share for U.S.-born overall is 3.3 percent, and for U.S.-born whites, the highest among U.S.-born groups, the figure is 3.8 percent.


http://fiscalpolicy.org/immigrant-small-business-owners-FPI-20120614.pdf

The actual study suggests that we should prefer white and Asian immigrants if we want job growth from immigration.
Wendigo
Kaltros
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?
He may "get the shits," as I put it, but as he is self-employed, any jobs he denies to US workers are over and above those we might already have had prior to his immigration, were he to choose to immigrate. Unless he has investments in US mining interests now, and manages them from South Africa.

While he and another billionaire may compete for ownership of companies that employ US workers, he wouldn't take a job from a US worker by immigrating, would he? And he's not white.

Ergo, your argument has fallen apart, please shut up.


You still haven't answered the question. How does encouraging immigration of foreign black billionaires increase job growth? Buying existing U.S. companies does not, in itself, create new jobs. And you'd also need reasons for the FBBs to buy U.S. companies in the first place. What's the incentive for FBBs to buy U.S.-based companies?
N3bu

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.


So you think willful blindness is a virtue instead of a failing? Because there are real and significant differences between ethnic groups across the world. The differences exist. You ignore them at your own peril and to the detriment of your civilization.

Your beef against selective immigration policy seems to be that it discriminates. Alright. Are you against discrimination in all cases? Do you think mass murderers and serial rapists should be able to enter your country as easily as anyone else? How about those explicitly planning to blow up major landmarks and population centers within the country, causing lots of death and destruction?
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
You still haven't answered the question. How does encouraging immigration of foreign black billionaires increase job growth? Buying existing U.S. companies does not, in itself, create new jobs. And you'd also need reasons for the FBBs to buy U.S. companies in the first place. What's the incentive for FBBs to buy U.S.-based companies?
I never said that he would aid job growth. I simply brought him up as an example of why allowing black immigration doesn't impede job acquisition for white natives. Which is simply, obviously, and irrefutably not the case, despite your bullshit to the contrary.
Wendigo
Kaltros
You still haven't answered the question. How does encouraging immigration of foreign black billionaires increase job growth? Buying existing U.S. companies does not, in itself, create new jobs. And you'd also need reasons for the FBBs to buy U.S. companies in the first place. What's the incentive for FBBs to buy U.S.-based companies?
I never said that he would aid job growth. I simply brought him up as an example of why allowing black immigration doesn't impede job acquisition for white natives. Which is simply, obviously, and irrefutably not the case, despite your bullshit to the contrary.


No, black billionaires don't compete with dock workers and carpenters and the like. On the other hand, there just aren't that many rich blacks to immigrate, even if they wanted to. Most of those who immigrate are lower or middle class, and those sorts often do compete for the same jobs as the people already living in America.

Your FBBs are a giant red herring. Billionaires are outliers. Generalizing on immigration by using billionaires as your standard is foolish and absurd. Most people everywhere aren't even close to being that rich.
Kaltros
N3bu

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.


So you think willful blindness is a virtue instead of a failing? Because there are real and significant differences between ethnic groups across the world. The differences exist. You ignore them at your own peril and to the detriment of your civilization.

Your beef against selective immigration policy seems to be that it discriminates. Alright. Are you against discrimination in all cases? Do you think mass murderers and serial rapists should be able to enter your country as easily as anyone else? How about those explicitly planning to blow up major landmarks and population centers within the country, causing lots of death and destruction?

No my beef with selective immigration policy is that it discriminates on the basis of race.

Here's a simple question. Do you believe it is ok or needed to discriminate on the basis of race?

It's funny you say that because the ability to generalise an entire culture of people is more often associated with wilful blindness than not.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
Yakyakyak, hating jobs
So? Yes, There are a hundred thousand Mexican immigrant small business owners, making up a drop in the the bucket as far as population to small business ownership rate goes. Nonetheless, that's still a hundred thousand businesses creating jobs, accounting for 12% of all immigrant-run small businesses. Immigrants of all ethnicities are more likely to create jobs than their American counterparts. And Mexican immigrants have created thousands of businesses that help drive our economy. So, why do you hate job creators?


Kaltros
The actual study suggests that we should prefer white and Asian immigrants if we want job growth from immigration.
The study suggests that we should have more immigration period, because immigrants create more businesses. They fill jobs and then create more demand for goods and services. Different groups tend towards different types of businesses, which is good because it creates a wide variety of goods and services being contributed by business owners.

Stop hating business Kaltros. Stop hating America.
N3bu
Kaltros
N3bu

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.


So you think willful blindness is a virtue instead of a failing? Because there are real and significant differences between ethnic groups across the world. The differences exist. You ignore them at your own peril and to the detriment of your civilization.

Your beef against selective immigration policy seems to be that it discriminates. Alright. Are you against discrimination in all cases? Do you think mass murderers and serial rapists should be able to enter your country as easily as anyone else? How about those explicitly planning to blow up major landmarks and population centers within the country, causing lots of death and destruction?

No my beef with selective immigration policy is that it discriminates on the basis of race.


You're still objecting to it because the policy discriminates, right? Would you agree that you think discrimination is wrong in principle? If not in principle, why do you make a special exception to get outraged about one thing out of a thousand possible reasons for discrimination?


Quote:

Here's a simple question. Do you believe it is ok or needed to discriminate on the basis of race?


Yes, I think it is okay for a nation to choose not to let every single person that wants to live within its borders do so. Whether it's needed or not varies depending on the specific occasion.

Quote:

It's funny you say that because the ability to generalise an entire culture of people is more often associated with wilful blindness than not.


Generalizations can be useful, just as noting individual differences can be. You can still acknowledge the forest (or types of trees) while also taking time to examine individual trees.
Ban
Kaltros
Yakyakyak, hating jobs
So? Yes, There are a hundred thousand Mexican immigrant small business owners, making up a drop in the the bucket as far as population to small business ownership rate goes. Nonetheless, that's still a hundred thousand businesses creating jobs, accounting for 12% of all immigrant-run small businesses. Immigrants of all ethnicities are more likely to create jobs than their American counterparts. And Mexican immigrants have created thousands of businesses that help drive our economy. So, why do you hate job creators?


Shame on you for fabricating a comment and putting my name on it. If you want to disagree with me, be honorable enough to quote my actual words you dipshit.

I don't hate job creators, but I do hate lawbreakers. Many Mexicans are illegals. Maybe that's a plus for you, though. Maybe you like nurturing a new generation of robber barons with no respect for the law.

You're also misrepresenting your own source, there. According to the Fiscal Policy study, 2.0 percent of the Latinos in the labor force are small business owners. For U.S. born overall the rate is 3.3 percent, and for U.S. born whites, the highest among U.S. born groups, it's 3.8 percent. Latinos, along with immigrant blacks, are worse job creators than the average for U.S. born as a whole. If you really want to support job growth, you'd do it by supporting those who do better at creating new jobs: U.S. citizens, or white/asian immigrants.


Quote:

Kaltros
The actual study suggests that we should prefer white and Asian immigrants if we want job growth from immigration.
The study suggests that we should have more immigration period, because immigrants create more businesses. They fill jobs and then create more demand for goods and services. Different groups tend towards different types of businesses, which is good because it creates a wide variety of goods and services being contributed by business owners.

Stop hating business Kaltros. Stop hating America.


Stop hating your own source, Ban. You cited it originally, now why don't you listen to it more?

And if you hadn't been paying attention, the U.S. unemployment rate is still close to 8 percent. If only 2 percent of Latinos or, at best, nearly 7 percent of white immigrants become small business owners, that means the other 93-98 percent will be competing with U.S. citizens in the labor force for existing jobs. What you are calling for is even more economic hardship and making it even more difficult for Americans to find work.

Why do you hate ordinary Americans, Ban?
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros

Yes, I think it is okay for a nation to choose not to let every single person that wants to live within its borders do so. Whether it's needed or not varies depending on the specific occasion.
But that isn't what your White Australia Policy is about. It's about selecting people based on a color palette, and rejecting everybody from #d4af37 through #663300, regardless of their personal merits.
Wendigo
Kaltros

Yes, I think it is okay for a nation to choose not to let every single person that wants to live within its borders do so. Whether it's needed or not varies depending on the specific occasion.
But that isn't what your White Australia Policy is about. It's about selecting people based on a color palette, and rejecting everybody from #d4af37 through #663300, regardless of their personal merits.


Nope. It's not just about color, but also culture. Do you fancy bringing into the U.S. a bunch of Africans with a fondness for genital mutilation, and who use cutting off hands and feet as a favorite method of punishment?

Quote:

Anika Rahman and Nahid Toubia write that attempts in the early 20th century by colonial administrators to halt FGM succeeded only in provoking local anger.[63] In Kenya, Christian missionaries in the 1920s and 1930s forbade their adherents from practising it—in part because of the medical consequences, but also because the accompanying rituals were seen as highly sexualized—and as a result it became a focal point of the independence movement among the Kikuyu, the country's main ethnic group.[64][65] One American missionary, Hilda Stump, was murdered in January 1930 after speaking out against it.[66] Lynn M. Thomas, the American historian, writes that the period 1929–1931 became what is known in Kenyan historiography as the female circumcision controversy. Protestant missionaries campaigning against it tried to gain support from humanitarian and women's rights groups in London, where the issue was raised in the House of Commons, and in Kenya itself a person's stance toward FGM became a test of loyalty, either to the Christian churches or to the Kikuyu Central Association.[67]
Jomo Kenyatta (c. 1894–1978 ), who became Kenya's first prime minister in 1963, wrote in 1930:

Quote:
The real argument lies not in the defense of the general surgical operation or its details, but in the understanding of a very important fact in the tribal psychology of the Kikuyu—namely, that this operation is still regarded as the essence of an institution which has enormous educational, social, moral and religious implications, quite apart from the operation itself. For the present it is impossible for a member of the tribe to imagine an initiation without clitoridoctomy [sic]. Therefore the ... abolition of the surgical element in this custom means ... the abolition of the whole institution.[68]



Quote:

In the United States nineteen-year-old Fauziya Kasinga, a member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum in 1996 after leaving an arranged marriage to escape FGM, setting a precedent in U.S. immigration law because FGM was for the first time accepted as a form of persecution.[79] FGM became illegal in the United States by a federal law which came into force on 30 March 1997. According to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimate, 168,000 girls living in the U.S. as of 1997 had undergone FGM or were at risk.[80] In January 2013 the U.S. federal FGM law was amended by the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, which prohibits knowingly transporting a girl out of the U.S. for the purpose of undergoing FGM. [81]

-snip-

In the UK, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 outlawed the procedure in Britain itself, and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 made it an offence for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on British citizens or permanent residents.[84] The Times reported in 2009 that there are 500 victims of FGM every year in the UK, but there have been no prosecutions. According to the Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development, 66,000 women in England and Wales have experienced FGM, with 7,000 girls at risk. Families who have immigrated from practising countries may send their daughters there to undergo FGM, ostensibly to visit a relative, or may fly in circumcisers, known as "house doctors" because they conduct the procedure in people's homes.[85] The Guardian writes that the six-week-long school summer holiday in the UK is the most dangerous time of the year for these girls, a convenient time to carry out the procedure because they need several weeks to heal before returning to school.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence_and_attempts_to_end_the_practice
You just don't read very well do you.

You can't equate discrimination, an adjective, and Racial Discrimination, a long standing method of oppression based on the colour of ones skin which has no benefit or merit based in reality.

And that's exactly what the White Australia Policy was about. It wasn't called the "Homogenous Cultural Australia Policy", it was called the White Australia policy. White people just didn't want to live with people who weren't white.
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.

I love how quickly you back-pedal from the point. First it's a drop in the bucket, despite the study completely legitimizing what Ban said by stating that immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs. Next you try hard and fail to state that the study didn't show any business owners from Latin American countries, but seeing as you apparently have a s**t time at reading comprehension, here's what the article actually said and I quote, "The most common country of origin for immigrant founders was India, followed by Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. "

Where does it say only? Stop lying about sources that everyone can read, Kaltros. Or is that there fancy book learnin that trips you up?
Quote:
Your second source addresses it this way:
Quote:

12. What is the role of women, minority, and veteran entrepreneurs?

Hispanic Americans owned 8.3 percent of all U.S. businesses


Note the difference there. Not all immigrants are counted as minorities. You can tell that because there was no break-down into europeans, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc.

Are you legitimately stupid, or are you just lying to hold on to your argument? Let's refresh your memory. Ban states that immigrants make a disproportionate amount of small business owners, using this article, and using the second as the source to show that small businesses create jobs. You lie, and pretend like the second link is sourcing the claim about immigrants and small business, and try to cite this "Of the 27.1 million nonfarm businesses in 2007, women owned 7.8 million businesses, which generated $1.2 trillion in revenues, employed 7.6 million workers, and paid $218 billion in payroll. Another 4.6 million firms were were 50 percent woman owned. Minorities owned 5.8 million firms, which generated $1 trillion in revenues and employed 5.9 million people. Hispanic Americans owned 8.3 percent of all U.S. businesses; African Americans, 7.1 percent; Asian Americans, 5.7 percent; American Indians and Alaska Natives, 0.9 percent; and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders, 0.1 percent. Veterans owned 2.4 million businesses in 2007, generating $1.2 trillion in receipts; another 1.2 million firms were 50 percent veteran owned. About 7 percent of veteran business owners had service-connected disabilities in 2002." as proof that there is some wrong doing by not including non minorities immigrants in the numbers. However if you had read, or not lied about it, you'd have seen the subtitle "12. What is the role of women, minority, and veteran entrepreneurs?" Where does that say anything about immigrants, Kaltros? Try again.


Quote:
Your New York Times article isn't much better. Here's what I found by going straight to the source of the NYT article:

Quote:

Mexicans make up biggest number of business owners, while immigrants from Middle East, Asia, and Southern Europe playing a disproportionate role . Mexican immigrants are less likely than other groups to be small business owners, perhaps in part because a high share of Mexican immigrants are not legally authorized to work in the United States.

-snip-

Immigrants from some countries—including some with relatively small numbers in the overall population—are disproportionately likely to be business owners. Immigrants from the Middle East, Asia, and Southern Europe are particularly inclined toward business ownership.
Immigrants from Greece, for example, are a tiny fraction of all immigrants in the labor force, but 16 percent of Greek immigrants in the labor force are business owners—the highest share of any group. Immigrants born in Israel/Palestine (the Census does not disaggregate the two) are the group with the second highest rate of business ownership, followed by Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Italy, Korea, South Africa, Ireland, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey.

-snip-

Immigrant business owners are most likely to be white, Asian, or Latino.

Among immigrant business owners, roughly equal numbers are white (34 percent), Asian (31 percent), and Latino (28 percent), with another 5 percent blacks and 2 percent identifying their race as “other.”

White and Asian immigrants are considerably more likely to be small business owners than
black or Latino immigrants
—and, indeed, also much more likely than U.S.-born workers. Among immigrants in the labor force, 6.8 percent of whites and 4.7 percent of Asians are small business owners. By contrast, 2.0 percent of Latino immigrants in the labor force and 2.1 percent of black immigrants are small business owners. The share for U.S.-born overall is 3.3 percent, and for U.S.-born whites, the highest among U.S.-born groups, the figure is 3.8 percent.


http://fiscalpolicy.org/immigrant-small-business-owners-FPI-20120614.pdf

The actual study suggests that we should prefer white and Asian immigrants if we want job growth from immigration.

So since we've established you're apt to outright lie or omit information, let's take a gander at the piece of the article you "snipped" in its entirety.

"Mexicans make up biggest number of business owners, while immigrants from Middle East, Asia, and Southern Europe playing a disproportionate role Mexican immigrants are less likely than other groups to be small business owners, perhaps in part because a high share of Mexican immigrants are not legally authorized to work in the United States.

Yet there are nonetheless more small business owners from Mexico than from any other single
country. This is no surprise, perhaps, given the size of the Mexican population, though this does not seem to be the common image of immigrant small business owners.
" Oh s**t, look at that information you completely omitted that completely contradicts your claim. How funny.

Actually, what it's stating Kaltros, if you were able to comprehend basic math or English for that matter, is that while Mexican immigrants were less likely to be small business owners, they still make up the largest share of them. Meaning that relative to their population, they are less likely to own small businesses but STILL have the largest number of small business than any other single country. Ooops. Look at that. You're wildly flailing and attempting to compare MEXICAN business owners to the statistics on racial breakdowns of business owners in the U.S. And doing a piss poor job at it at that.

Try again, Kaltros. Make this somewhat of a challenge, I feel like i'm boxing an infant.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games