There is a theoretical optimal economic rate at which the U.S. can absorb new entrants into the country. I don't know what that rate is, but I assume it is something less than completely open borders would produce. I sometimes feel like you blow by this concept, at least implicitly, but maybe I'm not being fair. I know that you are at least as focused on the moral component, which I agree is not at all trivial.

I assume that you are talking about economic contribution. Historically, immigration has been a net economic positive in the long run (and often in the short run) for the U.S. Over a long enough period, I certainly would expect that trend to continue in the future.

Yeah, I think letting the free market decide who emigrates where is much more efficient than some bureaucrat figuring out how many plumbers America needs.

Free market for them is cool yes.
Not the same for the whole lot of people who cost more in welfare than they can provide in taxes

Ye why aggregate togheter groups you know beforehand will contribute differently though, I wonder what would make someone sum up the contributions of PhDsnin engineering with those of completely unskilled people with a violent criminal record in their home country

Agreed, that immigration is a net positive long-term in the US (and most other countries) and I see no reason that will change in the future. I think the more interesting conversation is that if most immigrants are economic contributors to our society and that is important to us why wouldn't we focus our immigration policy on luring immigrants that are going to contribute more than an average immigrant which is what happens with open borders?

I agree that the private sector should play a massive role in immigration. I'm not sure what that looks like though. Maybe companies can post jobs overseas and interview people via zoom and then offer them a job that comes with citizenship if they work in that or a similar field for x number of months.

Taxes - welfare is hardly the right way to look at it. Someone gets paid $15/hr to build roads is creating wealth for everyone in that area. They may pay no income or property taxes and may receive some kinds of welfare benefits, but still make a large positive contribution to the economy which helps make rich *******s richer.

Ye then they get any health condition and you pay back a multiple of their contributions to society.

So, how about corporate sponsorship of immigrants? You keep everything as it is right now but the totality of welfare and healthcare for the immigrant and any other alien who gets access to the USA because of him, are the full responsibility of the employer until the immigrant is naturalized

It looks like the way America has traditionally operated back before Fox News radicalized you into hating immigrants. People come over looking for work, they set up shop.

****ing Fox news that radicalized americans from 1920 to 1970

Some of you guys were radicalized for other reasons circa 1920-1940 but I may not be allowed to post about that.

Just to be clear, you are responding to my post where I started by saying “Agreed, that immigration is a net positive long-term in the US (and most other countries) and I see no reason that will change in the future.” And you think I hate immigrants?

In the rest of my post I throw out an idea I think will help lure MORE immigrants to the US and I discuss a plan to give them citizenship.

One of us has definitely been radicalized, but I think you have the wrong culprit.

Dunno take it with FDR and the radical leftists that governed at the time. Or the several blue trifectas after that

It's really hard to get my head around how someone would think that's a problem. I guess with the hypernationalist Europeans and all their ancient history it might be possible to understand it, but in the USA? Land of the free? That chart bothering an American is mind boggling.

Even the data that's supposed to scare people is such a big nothingburger. Immigration is slightly above historical norms in the face of a massive demand for labor? Oh noes! How will America survive!

And some ultra-Nationalist French person might think that when a Lebanese person comes and opens a Falafel stand along the Seine that they are displacing some historic French Frog Leg stand or something, but nothing could be more quintessentially American than that Falafel stand started by an immigrant.

What's this post supposed to mean? FDR was a huge racist and implemented several absolutely abhorrent racist policies on immigration and other things and Truman absolutely followed up on those. Are you saying that you wish they hadn't done those things?

Do you imagine some liberal/leftist here is going to be like "duh, I didn't know FDR had race based immigration and internment and segregation policies"?

Wait, if FDR was favoring the White Man over Japanese, Black and Hispanic people, was he really a radical leftist? Geez, so confusing. Is Trump a radical leftist?

I hear FDR wasn't so great about using people's preferred pronouns either.

I'm such a dumbass I only now see that chat is some goofy-ass projection out to 2060, as if anyone knows what the immigration rate is going to be like then.

"highest ever in the history of the nation" becomes "slightly above historical norms".

"massive demand of very skilled labor" <> "massive demand of any labor"

ye so take it with leftwing racists, nothing to do with Fox recently radicalizing americans.

Trump has incorporated in his policies a series of radical leftist ideas, including heavy tariffs to push domestic manufacturing which is basic leftism 101 yes.

His nativist (not white supremacist) tendencies are also very leftist as well, the idea that "immigrants steal jobs" is leftism 101..

Carlson, one of Trump favorite voices wrt immigration issues, has a purely marxist framework of analysis of jobs and national interest.

Bannon self-defined himself a Leninist

Luciom, if what you say about yourself is to be believed you're like "if there is no welfare, I love freedom, but if there is welfare I demand a complete nativist police state". You can just be against welfare without wanting to blow up ships of "garbage people". Is it just that you like the idea of blowing up ships of "garbage people"?

I'm not saying welfare, in its various forms is not a big deal, but it's not *that* big a deal for the rich countries. And it's not nearly as simple as just how much it costs because it has lots of benefits, strictly economic benefits, to weigh against the cost.