Immigration - Why do we do it? [Archive]

bluninja

28th February 2014, 12:08

The solution is clearly to eat more pink gumballs.

No answer to the OP question though: Immigration - Why do we do it? it appears to presume that only poor people migrate from <$2 a day to untold riches in the US.

What about people from richer countries migrating to poorer countries to get more bang for their buck, like Thailand, Philippines, Fiji, New Zealand :nya:

awa355

28th February 2014, 12:42

I thought Helens UN bunch tells each country how many immigrants that country HAS to take, I could be wrong:crazy:

swbarnett

1st March 2014, 11:08

He didn't look Native American to me.
Immigration was obviously OK for him or his ancestors but lets not let anyone else in to rain on our parade. We are AMERICANS god damn it!
Even the "native" americans came from Africa by way of Europe.

I don't think he's against immigration per se. I think what he's saying is that it won't help the world's poor and to great an influx in too short a time may well hurt the infrastructure that's been set up so far.

mstriumph

1st March 2014, 12:31

Even the "native" americans came from Africa by way of Europe.

I don't think he's against immigration per se. I think what he's saying is that it won't help the world's poor and to great an influx in too short a time may well hurt the infrastructure that's been set up so far.

:yes:no, he isn't.
:yes:yes, he is.

Must admit, that clip is an eye-opener ... never thought about it like that before.

All those people, less than $2 a day .... although, in the countries where they live, that $2 a day must buy a heck of a lot more than it does here (witness the annual increase of pink gumballs... not possible if what they earn isn't at least subsistance - just saying).

Naki Rat

1st March 2014, 13:15

BoristheBiter

1st March 2014, 13:46

He didn't look Native American to me.
Immigration was obviously OK for him or his ancestors but lets not let anyone else in to rain on our parade. We are AMERICANS god damn it!

He said immigration not invasion and eradication.

BoristheBiter

1st March 2014, 13:48

The real problem is that are far far too many humans on this planet and increasing exponentially. We are currently on the brink of running out of many resources as this film (http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU) explains exquisitely so improving the living standards of the (4+?) billions of sub $2/day peoples will not solve the problem.

Where to from here? It's got me beat! :scratch:

And that there is all there is to know about the problem.

How about a world war.

mashman

1st March 2014, 14:24

And that there is all there is to know about the problem.

How about a world war.

It's got nothing to do with how we're using the resources right? I'm not saying overpopulation isn't an issue, but I will say that even if you kill the 3/4 billion who are in need, you're still going to have rampant consumerism... likely even more so as we'll believe that we will have solved our resource usage issues.

There is a fuckload more to know about the problem.

http://sarahbrandis.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/head-in-sand.jpg?w=233&h=300

BoristheBiter

1st March 2014, 16:38

There is a fuckload more to know about the problem.

]

Yep we let idiots breed, you're the case in point.

James Deuce

1st March 2014, 16:49

It's a bullshit, contrived argument from a conservative isolationist.

There is NOTHING worse in the minds of those who cling to a capitalist system than an upwardly mobile untouchable class. The fact that these people might have access to modern communication networks and clean water gives the 1%ers the shits.

The fact remains: To improve the quality of life to 3/5ths of the world's population means the end of rampant consumerism and the end of the import/export trade in junk food and junk shit that no one needs. Locally made and consumed product and global knowledge exchanges will make a bigger dent in poverty stats than stopping emigration from shitholes and intentionally killing billions of people.

bogan

1st March 2014, 17:22

He has a point in that they must address poverty in their own country. But on the other side, immigration based on societal worth seems like it fits in well with a capitalistic approach; ie, that your merits and hardworking can bring you wealth. And there's benefits to allowing immigration to the migrant country, such as wealth being sent back home, upskilled people returning back home to make a difference, and just the incentive to distinguish oneself enough to make it out of the poor country.

Still, with that much candy on hand, bet he could get a youthful 'voluntary' workforce sorted really easily...

James Deuce

1st March 2014, 17:51

That's not what he argued. He argued that letting those with the skills and desire to migrate elsewhere go, damages the country of origin.

bogan

1st March 2014, 17:53

That's not what he argued. He argued that letting those with the skills and desire to migrate elsewhere go, damages the country of origin.

Indeed, I thought perhaps it might be a good idea to consider the flip side of that coin as well.

Ocean1

1st March 2014, 18:01

That's not what he argued. He argued that letting those with the skills and desire to migrate elsewhere go, damages the country of origin.

He's right.

Almost every voluntary diaspora in history has resulted in a society stronger than it's root stock.

The difference isn't cultural, though, and I don't see that either letting them go or making them stay is going to change poverty in the country of origin. Or anywhere else.

SMOKEU

1st March 2014, 18:10

The real problem is that are far far too many humans on this planet and increasing exponentially. We are currently on the brink of running out of many resources as this film (http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU) explains exquisitely so improving the living standards of the (4+?) billions of sub $2/day peoples will not solve the problem.

Where to from here? It's got me beat! :scratch:

That's because niggers tend to breed like rabbits. It's common for them to have 5-10 kids each.

gammaguy

1st March 2014, 18:45

The real problem is that are far far too many humans on this planet and increasing exponentially. We are currently on the brink of running out of many resources as this film (http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU) explains exquisitely so improving the living standards of the (4+?) billions of sub $2/day peoples will not solve the problem.

Where to from here? It's got me beat! :scratch:

It's called rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic

And the way the earth is going ecologically that is a very apt description of the good ship earth

mashman

1st March 2014, 19:07

It's called rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic

And the way the earth is going ecologically that is a very apt description of the good ship earth

It all depends on how you rearrange the deckchairs innit.

gammaguy

1st March 2014, 19:17

It all depends on how you rearrange the deckchairs innit.

Last I heard the deckchairs went down with the ship

We need to fix the sailors first then the ship

The deckchairs will only be needed after that

mashman

1st March 2014, 20:24

Last I heard the deckchairs went down with the ship

We need to fix the sailors first then the ship

The deckchairs will only be needed after that

There'll be no deckchairs left if they aren't secured in such a way that they can be used to keep the "passengers" out of the crews way... but meh, me thinks the captains need a fixin first, well, the admirals etc... coz it won't matter how good the crew are will it?

Irrespective, if we ain't gonna try to stop the ship from sinking, the quicker it happens the better.

ricardohardo

1st March 2014, 22:12

Nature will take its course. She always does. We're all f$&ked.....enjoy what you have while it lasts

.

awa355

2nd March 2014, 07:00

The future's not looking all that flash across the ditch if this coloumn is anything to go by.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/international-politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503226&objectid=11211905

" At home, the official unemployment rate is now 6 per cent, with another 875,000 searching for more work. Morgan, which uses broader measures, puts the jobless rate at more than 11 per cent and a record 2.5 million people either out of work or under-employed.

Unemployment among 15-24 year olds runs nationally at more than 12 per cent, reaching 20 per cent in some regions.

Company closures have heightened fears. The loss of more than 15,000 jobs from Qantas, the car industry, Rio Tinto, Alcoa, and Telstra have been announced in the past few months, with tens of thousands more at risk downstream industries.

The mining sector has already shed an estimated 16,000 jobs, with another 78,000 forecast to vanish in the next four years as construction winds down. Business investment, especially in mining and manufacturing, is rapidly contracting. "

Mike.Gayner

2nd March 2014, 07:28

The real problem is that are far far too many humans on this planet and increasing exponentially. We are currently on the brink of running out of many resources as this film (http://youtu.be/jqxENMKaeCU) explains exquisitely so improving the living standards of the (4+?) billions of sub $2/day peoples will not solve the problem.

Where to from here? It's got me beat! :scratch:

I always find it funny when people say this. Firstly because it's most likely not true, and secondly because if you really believe it you're free to do the noble thing and kill yourself. But they never do.

Naki Rat

2nd March 2014, 08:05

I always find it funny when people say this. Firstly because it's most likely not true, and secondly because if you really believe it you're free to do the noble thing and kill yourself. But they never do.
Not much point in killing yourself if you've already consumed most of what you will in your lifetime. Not breeding is surely a more noble act.

swbarnett

2nd March 2014, 08:26

I always find it funny when people say this. Firstly because it's most likely not true, and secondly because if you really believe it you're free to do the noble thing and kill yourself. But they never do.
WTF? Personally I think you must have your head in the sand.

If the world population were to stop increasing maybe we could find ways for the planet to support us. However, that's not going to happen. It is one of the truths of nature that when a population outgrows the ability of the environment to support it one of two things happen - either half the population finds somewhere else to live or the population plummets back to a level that is sustainable. How many more billion people is required for us to reach this level is the only uncertain factor. Oh, and whether we have the technology at the time to find somewhere else to live.

Secondly, I may not have killed myself but this is certainly one of the reasons I don't have kids and never will.

Mike.Gayner

2nd March 2014, 08:33

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Mike.Gayner

2nd March 2014, 08:33

Secondly, I may not have killed myself but this is certainly one of the reasons I don't have kids and never will.

You're telling me that the world is overpopulated, and you're saying that other people don't have a right to exist, but you're unwilling to do the right thing and remove yourself?

swbarnett

2nd March 2014, 09:07

You're telling me that the world is overpopulated, and you're saying that other people don't have a right to exist, but you're unwilling to do the right thing and remove yourself?
I'm not saying that any given individual has no right to exist. I'm saying that, collectively, there are two many people on this planet (or soon will be).

I may not be removing myself from the population but when my wiffe and I do go we will have contributed to population reduction by two plus how ever many kids we might've had.

Also, I'm not advocating anybody's slaughter. Just a reduction of the population explosion over time.

Naki Rat

2nd March 2014, 09:07

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/What a load of simplistic claptrap! For a starter most of the increased food on our planet is hydrocarbon reliant and although fracking is currently allowing us to squeeze more out of the remaining reservoirs the days of that 'cheap energy' are finite.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cJ-J91SwP8w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ricardohardo

2nd March 2014, 13:59

Not much point in killing yourself if you've already consumed most of what you will in your lifetime. Not breeding is surely a more noble act.

Here here.

.

ricardohardo

2nd March 2014, 14:07

WTF? Personally I think you must have your head in the sand.

If the world population were to stop increasing maybe we could find ways for the planet to support us. However, that's not going to happen. It is one of the truths of nature that when a population outgrows the ability of the environment to support it one of two things happen - either half the population finds somewhere else to live or the population plummets back to a level that is sustainable. How many more billion people is required for us to reach this level is the only uncertain factor. Oh, and whether we have the technology at the time to find somewhere else to live.

Secondly, I may not have killed myself but this is certainly one of the reasons I don't have kids and never will.

Step 1. Cigarettes in school lunches
Step 2. Stop fighting Malaria
Step 3. Privatise healthcare even further
Step 4. Increase speed limit to 150k/phr
Step 5. $1,000'000 prize purse for the first man to swim from Africa to Brazil

.

imdying

3rd March 2014, 12:07

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/That's really well laid out for a crackpot site. I do like the giant red arrow pointing out where to purchase their products... a really nice touch.

You're telling me that the world is overpopulated, and you're saying that other people don't have a right to exist, but you're unwilling to do the right thing and remove yourself?Yes, overpopulated. No, they do not have a right to exist, nobody does. That much you have correct. However, the right thing to do is not to remove oneself, far from it. The correct thing to do is to eliminate as many other people as possible. Removing one from the population base is a waste of time when what we really need to do is remove billions. War is a good starter, but in the meantime, keeping the jackboot firmly on the throats of the weak is the next best thing.