Advantages and disadvantages of immigration?

There is no need to single out people by religion, ethnicity or country of origin. The problem can be greatly addressed by dramatic reductions in nearly all forms of immigration.

When a country imports large numbers of people from another culture, there will be changes. This same article says:

Crime historians tell us that nearly every nationality that has immigrated to America over the last 200 years in a large wave has brought with it a new organized crime network. It isn't that those nationalities are filled with criminals. But the large unassimilated number of a nationality in a foreign land provides a space for the bad guys to swim with much less chance of detection.

On the other hand, immigrants can provide different viewpoints. What percentage of a country that is immigrants is enough? What is your evidence

Not sure where this is coming from but I don't think the issue is whether there are changes - that's a given, the issue is whether the changes are generally viewed positively or negatively. Immigration can also be split into subgroups for consideration. If for instance, and to use an American example, Latinos and Muslims are over-represented in crime stats and other negative considerations, or even merely perceived to be, then until assimilation and integration of those groups occurs further immigration should be heavily discouraged. Conversely if European or East Asian migration is under-represented in the statistics, and such groups can be seen to integrate well, as well as provide positive contributions to the wider society, then they should be targeted for immigration.

Bewildered wrote:Not sure where this is coming from but I don't think the issue is whether there are changes - that's a given, the issue is whether the changes are generally viewed positively or negatively. Immigration can also be split into subgroups for consideration. If for instance, and to use an American example, Latinos and Muslims are over-represented in crime stats and other negative considerations, or even merely perceived to be, then until assimilation and integration of those groups occurs further immigration should be heavily discouraged. Conversely if European or East Asian migration is under-represented in the statistics, and such groups can be seen to integrate well, as well as provide positive contributions to the wider society, then they should be targeted for immigration.

Latinos and Muslims are also overrepresented among small business owners, what conclusions would you draw from that?

The E wrote:Latinos and Muslims are also overrepresented among small business owners, what conclusions would you draw from that?

Not exactly the example I would have chosen. Do you have a cite for that? Not doubting just want it in my back pocket for other discussions in other places.

My first thought was labor participation rates from bls.gov to with the crime rates. [edit] The participation rates of Latinos are much higher than the norm. I don't think they track by religion. Rereading might read the statement as the opposite of a good thing which is was not meant to be.[end edit]

Just because I am watching them pour my driveway right now and there isn't a "white" guy around. Though now that you mention it the owner is Latino as well.

It is sort of understandable this job I could do but dang that is a lot of work.

Good example thank you for that.

Have fun,
T2M

I've a friend in the UK who is a really good person with just one flaw. He'll say "I'm not racist but", then complain about all the black and asian faces in London. We all point out that without those people doing all the essential work London would be uninhabitable.

Being an optimist I believe that our great lifestyle of beer, bikinis, and bbqs will corrupt the next generations of islamic migrants, and they will fit in bringing some good things of their own. After WW2 we had a lot of Greeks and Italians come here and it has been a great result.

Daryl wrote:I've a friend in the UK who is a really good person with just one flaw. He'll say "I'm not racist but", then complain about all the black and asian faces in London. We all point out that without those people doing all the essential work London would be uninhabitable.

Yes and no.
The main problem is immigrants who refuse to assimilate, a legacy of the Labour Party's time in power. While it isn't as bad as some people (*cough* Donald Trump *cough*) think, there are areas in London (and indeed, other cities) where the immigrants have pursued a bunker-style mentality, choosing not to even try to understand the people around them but instead to shut them out. In a large minority of these areas, the de-facto slavery of women is enforced by not allowing them to learn English, thus trapping them on a metaphorical island in the middle of an ocean of incomprehension. A number of the males choose to not learn more than the absolute basics of English either, shutting themselves out of the workplace and thus increasing their sense that they are being discriminated against.

The rise in immigration was encouraged by the Labour Party in order to fulfill 3 goals.
1) The creation of a multicultural society.
--Although it seemed to work at first, the fracture lines between the various micro-societies are growing larger and can't be fixed with Khumbaya-singing. We have a Salad Bowl rather than a Melting Pot and the tomatoes hate the cucumbers...
2) An increase in the number of Labour voters.
--Historically, approximately 90% of new immigrants tend to vote for Labour. Part of this is hat most immigrants rely on the welfare state to support them as they find their financial feet and Labour is the party associated with handouts.
3) Changing society so that the Coservative principles are no longer valid.
--While it seemed to work for the first decade, the last two elections (Lib-Dem/Tory coalition then Tory majority) demonstrates that there's a backlash against the effort to change the societal matrix. Labour presiding over a series of scandals and an economic crash of immense proportions (even if it wasn't entirely their fault) really didn't help them.

The primary issues are mainly cultural rather than race. Race don't matter compared to culture because a bad culture can totally screw things up.

Michael Everett wrote:

Daryl wrote:I've a friend in the UK who is a really good person with just one flaw. He'll say "I'm not racist but", then complain about all the black and asian faces in London. We all point out that without those people doing all the essential work London would be uninhabitable.

Yes and no.
The main problem is immigrants who refuse to assimilate, a legacy of the Labour Party's time in power. While it isn't as bad as some people (*cough* Donald Trump *cough*) think, there are areas in London (and indeed, other cities) where the immigrants have pursued a bunker-style mentality, choosing not to even try to understand the people around them but instead to shut them out. In a large minority of these areas, the de-facto slavery of women is enforced by not allowing them to learn English, thus trapping them on a metaphorical island in the middle of an ocean of incomprehension. A number of the males choose to not learn more than the absolute basics of English either, shutting themselves out of the workplace and thus increasing their sense that they are being discriminated against.

The rise in immigration was encouraged by the Labour Party in order to fulfill 3 goals.
1) The creation of a multicultural society.
--Although it seemed to work at first, the fracture lines between the various micro-societies are growing larger and can't be fixed with Khumbaya-singing. We have a Salad Bowl rather than a Melting Pot and the tomatoes hate the cucumbers...
2) An increase in the number of Labour voters.
--Historically, approximately 90% of new immigrants tend to vote for Labour. Part of this is hat most immigrants rely on the welfare state to support them as they find their financial feet and Labour is the party associated with handouts.
3) Changing society so that the Coservative principles are no longer valid.
--While it seemed to work for the first decade, the last two elections (Lib-Dem/Tory coalition then Tory majority) demonstrates that there's a backlash against the effort to change the societal matrix. Labour presiding over a series of scandals and an economic crash of immense proportions (even if it wasn't entirely their fault) really didn't help them.

The primary issues are mainly cultural rather than race. Race don't matter compared to culture because a bad culture can totally screw things up.

The immigration stats from the last six years make interesting reading. Particularly if you can find the now-deleted Conservative pledge in 2010 to bring net migration down to 100,000 by 2015. At that time it was just over 200,000.

In 2015, the same Home Secretary again pledged to bring migration down to 100,000 by 2020. At that time, it was nearly 350,000.

Political football much? Let(or even make) a not-problem get "worse" so you can then blow whistles at the electorate. The strategy worked - UKIP's massive increase in support effectively gutted the Labour vote - and then by seizing UKIP's raison d'etre(Brexit referendum), the Tories managed to harvest some of those votes.

And on further review. White contractor who installed windows. Showed up on time and completed all the work on time. Not unexpected same guy who installed roof 10 years ago.

Driveway not so much promised 1 April. Finally poured on the 6th. All the stuff would be gone yesterday morning. Looks out front window stares at an unsightly trailer. Looks at the forms still in place. Nice concrete looks level have to wait for rain to really tell.

Is that the result of cultural attitude? Or just a guy out to get a buck. Really doesn't matter. I won't be recommending him to anybody in the future. I will be telling people to try another company.

Did I mention that they dug up the driveway 2 weeks ago tomorrow. Be nice to use that wonderful new driveway. I have a car cruise control to adapt/install on a motorcycle. And I remind myself of L'Amour in a year I won't really care about these 2 or 3 weeks.

Live and learn,
T2M

One of the problems with the public discourse on immigration is that the commentators tend to take the two extremes: immigration is wonderful throw open the border vs immigration is destroying the country/jobs/economy etc. In reality it is somewhere in between. There are definite pluses and minuses to immigration. Some of which have been state above.

In general I tend to feel that the immigration rate should roughly equal the assimilation rate with some economic factors included as well. That rate may vary with culture and may be different in different time periods (there may be time periods in which for whatever reason assimilation occurs faster/slower than others).

I tend to think that the rate in the USA is too high. It is higher than the assimilation rate, so we need to slow down assimilate those already here then add immigrants at a slower rate.

It appears worse in the UK. The tomatoes had better learn to tolerate the cucumbers in the second generation at least or you have a recipe for civil war.

As legal immigrant, I agree with you. Someone on one of the boards I read (might have been here) posted that immigration absent any intent of assimilation is an invasion. I agree with this. Any nation has the right to fight off invasion, especially if fighting off an invasion simply means limiting immigration to the level thorough assimilation.

biochem wrote:One of the problems with the public discourse on immigration is that the commentators tend to take the two extremes: immigration is wonderful throw open the border vs immigration is destroying the country/jobs/economy etc. In reality it is somewhere in between. There are definite pluses and minuses to immigration. Some of which have been state above.

In general I tend to feel that the immigration rate should roughly equal the assimilation rate with some economic factors included as well. That rate may vary with culture and may be different in different time periods (there may be time periods in which for whatever reason assimilation occurs faster/slower than others).

I tend to think that the rate in the USA is too high. It is higher than the assimilation rate, so we need to slow down assimilate those already here then add immigrants at a slower rate.

It appears worse in the UK. The tomatoes had better learn to tolerate the cucumbers in the second generation at least or you have a recipe for civil war.