lol I don't even have any idea who you are... you post under a different name?

In any case arguing that 250 mil is a large number because it's more than the population of a few small population countries when the world population is 7B++ is laughable and shows a very poor understanding of the most basic logic.

You're absolutely right. I totally forgot the world pop is 7+B. In fact, 1B people immigrating to the US is starting to sound more reasonable. After all, it's only 14%.

Do you realize there's a country less than a third of the size of the US and less than half the GDP with a billion more people?

250 mil is nothing. Also you're not very smart.

Wow, I love it when someone makes a stupid post, then signs off insulting the other guy.

1M/yr people currently immigrate to the US legally. If immigration is relaxed, you're saying that 250x that normal rate of immigrates will show up all at once in 1 year?! Based on what? Nor is immigration rates uniform among all those 7B people. Immigration rates are much higher for countries in North, Central and South America, not surprisingly. 1/3 of the world population may be jammed packed in China and India, but they have 1/30th the immigration rate of Mexico and Central American countries.

Seriously, this thread has gone full ******.

I'm glad we can agree

Someone mentioned the UBI test in Finland. There is also one ongoing in Ontario. I fail to see how you can test UBI when you only have one part of the equation being handing out money for sitting on your ass. What is the offset during these "tests". Of course Joe Blow will be happier (or whatever other liberal metrics they use) to do **** all and be paid for it. Those types are poor for a reason for the most part.

I'm not sure how I feel about open borders, but it would be nice if people arguing against it understood that the borders would just open up full stop. It would obviously be a gradual shift toward and ultimately ending with it. If you do understand that, then stop arguing with intellectual dishonesty.

A) he didn’t make the original post, he questioned your reasoning.

B) Current rates mean nothing without knowing how restrictive immigration policies are. If the process currently requires thousands in fees, local sponsors, work skills, etc, the number of applicants (never mind successful applicants) would be a small fraction of what it would with open borders. If all it took to live in the us with full citizenship was to drive across the border you’d probably see 10-20m (more) show up from Mexico alone.

It’s not a matter of being 250x the current “rate”. The rate right now is based on the hard limits of how many are let in. Open borders means you get all the people who would have immigrated 1/2/3/4/5 years down the line who were in queue immediately.

I think you’re projecting your own interpretation - there are a lot of people who’re arguing quite literally to approve anyone who wants to come in. I’m not even against it really but there likewise needs to be more intellectual honesty Wrt the impact it will have on wages and the strain it puts on state/federal budgets.

Unfortunately the type of person who will make a terrible argument in the first place is also highly unlikely to be able to distinguish between a criticism of the argument itself and a disagreement with the conclusion.

fmp, sorry

I stand by 250 mil migrants in 1 year being entirely possible. 50 million I'd consider a certainty.

where would they come from?
africa
middle east
Indonesia
India
China
thailand
phillipines
nepal
burma
malaysia
laos
etc


Its not just south and central america that would show up. make it as easy as hopping on a flight for $600, no visa process ( you can get from anywhere where in the world to atlanta for 600) and I think the EU wouldnt be getting boatloads of migrants...migrants would just fly in style to the US, be welcomed to stay as long as you want.

These are all places that struggle to get a visa to the US unless they have business or family reasons. there is pent up demand by people that have decent lives back home...they arent close to being refugees but would jump on the chance of going to US for a while if they could get a visa..eliminating visa and allowing them to work would open the floodgates.

20 million people a year jump through lots of hoops just for a 1 in 400 shot at winning the US diversity lottery. At least 200 million would arrive in the first year (although the US would rapidly turn into a ****hole after the first 10 million or so - the infrastructure can't handle that sudden extra influx). People just don't know how the world works, it's sad.

As for whether taking in large numbers of immigrants is good or bad, it's the worst possible thing you can do for the world's poor in aggregate.

not necessarily...you are doing no favors to the country of origin by taking their young, able bodied and fertile. At the same time you may be doing no favor to the poor in your country by accepting more of the same when you haven't fixed the plight of the existing.

I think safe special economic zones could be a solution. western nations partnering with weak nations to create zones where foreign business get the infrastructure and security assurances they need to operate, and locals get employment and money flowing into the economy. China is doing this in Africa...not sure how its working out. The government of the zones would need to be fairly close to a foriegn controlled colony to overcome the corruption thats endemic in those regions.

Good, as I was clearly referring to you.

Sick burn

And I questioned his.

I don't disagree with this.

If it takes 5 years to wait in line after approval, and the approval rate is 50%, the multiplier is 10x. You would need 25x more people to arrive who otherwise choose not go through the current process. This might be believable for Mexico and other nearby countries, but not the entire world.

Your logic couldn't be more backwards.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/161435/...ream-life.aspx

good find

and the top three: china, nigeria, and india. but but but grimreaper says only nearby countries would show up.

a more recent poll:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...nt-to-move-to/

"14% of the world’s adults – nearly 710 million people – said they want to permanently migrate to another country, according to analytics company Gallup."


and these numbers are only for adults. if they start bringing kids its higher

The former depends a lot on tax treaties. In a lot of cases they're paying a piece of what they earn to both countries (just via taxes, not even including remittances), and since the income they're generating is significantly more than what they'd earn domestically it's often going to be the benefit of both the host country and the one they left.

WRT local poors - they would lose, but the amount they lose by is not greater than the amount that foreign workers benefit by, which is the only point im making. I can go into more detail as to why if you want.

Investing in infrastructure and immigration aren't mutually exclusive.

Neither link suggests immigration will be 250 million in 1 year. Both polls say 150 desire to live in the US. That's an upper bound. Just because you desire to move, doesn't imply you have the means. I desire to live in a mansion and drive a Ferrari. Even if all of those 150 million did have the means, it doesn't imply it will happen all in 1 year.

That might be the upper bound if the data were 100% reliable and all of those countries opened their borders simultaneously, but that's clearly not what's being proposed. So you've failed miserably on logic once again.

Really? How many countries other than USA#1 make non-resident citizens pay tax?