CDZ Effects of having fewer people in the country

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Toronado3800, Feb 24, 2017.

  1. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,932
    Thanks Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,531
    Okay, so I watched short version. Some questions I'd like answered before I delve into responding to you vis a vis the content of Stefan's video essay and this thread's topic (the impacts of expelling illegal immigrants from the U.S.):
    • Did you present short version of video essay for its discussion on the role illegal immigration plays in the demise of rich nations/cultures?
      • If "yes," are there, based on what you know about the differences in content between the short and long versions of the analogy Stefan developed, ideas in the long version that he did not summarize and mention in the short version?
        • If "yes," please identify the minute markers whereat in the long version one'll find the ideas he didn't summarize in the short version and that pertain to illegal immigration or immigration in general.

    Actually they do. I can't say "they" teach it in all high school and college history classes. Indeed, the topic is out of scope for, say, an American history class, so, of course they don't teach it there. If, one takes what in my day was called EWC (European/Early and Western Civilization), one can be sure the rise and fall of Rome will be covered. I can't say whether all schools require a research paper on the topic -- Rome's rise and fall was the first long (25 pages) paper I recall having to write in high school -- but the topic is covered. Each of my four children had to write a paper of some sort on the same topic. (My second called me at home one night asking me to dig through her brother's stuff to see if his "Rome" paper was there and would I mail it to her.)

    Moreover, I cannot imagine the role migration played in The Fall of the Roman Empire is not taught to some degree in thousands of high schools. What I remember is this:
    1. Huns' rampage out of Asia (basically Russia) and into Europe by way of what we call the Baltic States-Belarus region.
    2. This pushes Goths (Visigoths), who knew the Huns were coming, south and eventually onto Rome's borders in about the area of present day Balkans, Hungary, Austria or there abouts.

      [​IMG]

    3. That creates large groups of scared-shitless Goths -- Visigoths; the Ostrogoths had by this time been killed or absorbed into the Hunnic empire; seeing that is basically why the Visigoths were scared -- trapped between the advancing Huns and Rome's frontier borders.
    4. Rome in response begrudgingly accepts the fleeing Goths into the safety of the Empire.
    5. Rome treated the Goths like sh*t -- conscripted them, made slaves (not exactly chattel slaves in the 19th century sense of the term, but bottom of the social ladder with little to no "climbing" opportunity, which is much more relevant than what kind of slaves they were) of others -- thus pissing off and creating an enemy within its borders. Back in school, I called these people "Gothromans" so I could remember who they were, but it's important to realize they were given only ally status and relatively safety of being allowed to live within Rome's borders, but they weren't citizens. There were roughly like a mix of H1B immigrant, migrant worker, resident alien, conscripts, low wage worker/slaves, and refugee, but still not Roman.
    6. The Gothromans eventually had enough and revolted. The revolt was settled by a treaty that gave the Gotheromans some land on the outer edge of the Eastern Empire in the area we call the Balkans. That essentially let Rome conserve its "native sons" and forced the Gothromans to fight the tribal invaders from the north like the Sarmatians.
    7. The Empire fell into civil war (in large part to defend Christianity's primacy over the remaining vestiges of Roman paganism) and Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, didn't have enough Romans to fight its battles, so he hired Alaric and his Visigoths essentially as contract soldiers. The Gothromans, living in the region where the Eastern and Western Empires met, were used by Theodosius as "cannon fodder."
    8. Theodosius' side won, the Empire is once again united, and Christianity is thenceforth decidedly the Empire's religion, but the pagans in the West aren't at all happy, so deep animosity remains. Keep in mind that the ill will is between the people in power. "Everyday" people don't care. They just want to raise and screw their sheep, and occasionally a woman, have some kids, grow old and die. They only time they care is when they have to fulfill their duty and serve in the Legions, which was the one thing and time that was likely to get them killed.
    9. Theodosius dies. His boys inherit the Empire and end up as the emperors of the East and Western halves of the empire. They do what brothers and other relatives do and get into disagreements, but since they "own" whole empires and armies, they play out their contretemps on a different scale than might you and your sibling, or even the Hatfields and McCoys. The result is that there is obvious tension between them; thus between the two empires. (If you remember Dynasty with Alexis and Crystal battling all the time, well, it was something like that and everyone around them got caught up in the battle one way or another. Something more or less like that is the story of Western history from the Dark Ages to WWI. After WWI, the key players aren't all relatives.)
    10. The brother who got the Western Empire moves the capital from Rome to Ravenna.
    11. Alaric, who was the Gothromans' leader, figures out that there are deep divisions between the East and West, so he decides it's a good time for him to press for a renegotiation of the Gothroman peace treaty that settled the Gothic uprising some twenty years prior. He wants some land, grain, a pension of sorts, and citizenship for his people, and for himself, he wanted to be given the title/job of full Roman commander/general, equal to the commander with whom he'd shared the burden of winning the civil war for Theodosius. The Roman general, who by this time has married his daughter to the Western Emperor, had designs on the Eastern Roman throne, so knowing that, Alaric promised to side with the general and attack the Eastern Emperor. (Keep in mind that the Gothromans' are part of the Eastern Empire because their official place is that land in the Balkans.)
    12. The general with whom Alaric had fought for Theodosius is to whom Alaric appealed, and that general was down with it, and took the request to the Western Roman Senate with a recommendation to approve it.
    13. The Senators said "no," and a powerful Senator got his panties in a buch over the mere fact that Alaric had even asked for a better deal for his people. The Senator convinced the Western emperor that Alaric's "ask" was an act of war.
    14. The Senator got the Western Emperor to agree to attack his brother and Alaric's war-buddy general advised the Emperor to let him lead the charge, a request that was granted, and he off he went to attack the Eastern Emperor.
    15. The Senator unilaterally orders the genocide against Goth sympathizers in Northern Italy in an areas somewhere around what we call Milan. (The Emperor didn't condone this, but it happened all the same.)
    16. Alaric's general friend dies in a battle.
    17. Alaric finds out about the Senator's deceit and massacre of his friends/allies around Milan and is pissed. Other Goths find out too and ally with Alaric.
    18. Alaric and the Goths surround Rome and lay siege, starving the residents and denying them fresh water, no way to bury their dead or dispose of their waste.
    19. Alaric sacks Rome when it's sufficiently weakened by the siege and disease and succeeds. This happens around 400-410 or so. (It's important to remember that Ravenna, not Rome, is the capital of the Western Roman Empire when Alaric does this. )
    20. Remember the pissed off "Gothromans" eventually had enough of being condescended to and treated like crap, so they allied themselves with Alaric and his band of Visigoths, who were essentially a mercenary force Rome hired because there weren't enough Romans to fight Rome's battles.

    That's the very simplified version of it -- massive texts, and lots of them, have been written about The Fall. Even so, I remember that much off the top of my head from friggin' high school. Now I know that Rome had Germanic (people who roughly occupied regions we'd call Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia) settler issues back in Marcus Aurelius' time too....that was the mess

    Now, do high school teachers stand at the front of the room and literally say, "The Romans took in Germanic settlers who came from the northern and Scandinavian regions of Europe. The Germanic people and the Goths were immigrants."? No. Why would they? "Immigrant" is a word and idea that high school students are reasonably expected to comprehend.

    Even were she to give just the short overview I wrote above as their lecture on Rome's Fall, a high school history teacher would expect his students to glean that the Germanic people and Goths who were fleeing the Huns were essentially refugees and that the ones whom Rome admitted were, wonder of wonders, immigrants. Making that connection -- history is, after all, about causes and effects -- is one small thing that a high school student would be expected to do on his own. A college student would be expected to make notably more insightful connections.
    • C-Students: students who merely parrot the story as it was given to them by the text/teacher.
    • B-Students: students who make small connections like realizing that the Goths were immigrants.
    • A-Students: students who make the small connections and draw accurate inferences by integrating their awareness of the human condition with history's events and how various people responded to them and or how those events and responses made possible subsequent developments and events in humanity's story.
    So, while it's fair to say that teacher may not explicitly refer to the people entering the Empire as immigrants, it's not exactly fair to say the role of immigrants wasn't taught. It's more apropos to say that some students master the topic of the Roman Empire and its Fall (and scores of others; I realize the Roman Empire's fall is just an example) and others not so much.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  2. Fishlore
    Offline

    Fishlore Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    935
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    New Hampshire USA
    Ratings:
    +445
    Rounding up and shipping out a group of people the size of the population of Georgia or Ohio simply isn't going to happen, so forget about it. Giving the boot to even half of them -- a group the size, say, of Colorado or Wisconsin is beyond the logistical capabilities of Uncle Sam.

    We are already seeing the first signs of the social chaos and division produced by the talk of deportation: the immigrants don't want to go and lots of Americans sympathize. The result is a rip in the social fabric akin to the effects of the Fugitive Slave Law: sanctuary cities, churches and other groups setting up to shelter potential deportees and a nasty feeling of Nazi-like persecution. Even more destructive is the vindictive conviction of deportation fans that America's problems are, at heart the fault of non-whites and that police crackdown is the solution to our economic and social problems.
     
  3. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,932
    Thanks Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,531
    Pros and Cons of importing goods







    Notes:
    • Autarky is introduced for to enhance didactic clarity, not as an existential attestation.
    • "Homogeneous goods" defined -- Goods consumers view as perfect substitutes for one another, for example, say, a Burberry trench coat and an Aquascutum trench coat, or "Farmer Joe's" Granny Smith apples and "Farmer Brown's" Granny Smith apples.
    • Producer Surplus
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  4. MisterBeale
    Offline

    MisterBeale Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    12,478
    Thanks Received:
    2,469
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +9,774
    Sorry, I often forget to look what sub-forum a thread is posted in. My bad. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was only intended to motivate folks to watch the full lecture.
     
  5. Fishlore
    Offline

    Fishlore Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    935
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    New Hampshire USA
    Ratings:
    +445
    The Migration Policy Institute reported in 2013 that the federal government spends more each year on immigration enforcement — through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol — than on all other federal law enforcement agencies combined... This exceeds the sum of all spending for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Secret Service; the Marshals Service; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    ICE and the Border Patrol already refer more cases for federal prosecution than the entire Justice Department, and the number of people they detain each year (more than 400,000) is greater than the number of inmates being held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for all other federal crimes.

    Congress requires the Homeland Security Department to maintain about 34,000 immigration detention beds, at an estimated annual cost of $2 billion, or $5.5 million a day.

    The American Action Forum last year estimated that expelling all unauthorized immigrants, and keeping them out, would cost $400 billion to $600 billion, and reduce the gross domestic product by $1 trillion.

    The Social Security Administration estimatesthat unauthorized immigrations pay about $13 billion a year into Social Security and get only about $1 billion back.

    The war on illegal immigrants is another gigantic boondoggle that isn't working, can't work and is bad for America. That doesn't mean we should just walk away, but it does mean that we are approaching the issue the wrong way and need to change our approach.
     
  6. OldLady
    Offline

    OldLady Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    22,647
    Thanks Received:
    4,245
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,530
    In what way are we actually approaching it wrongly?
    ICE has been instructed to enforce the laws on the books, focusing on those with criminal charges or convictions. There has been one "raid" in which a little under 700 people were taken into custody. At least, that's what I've heard about.
    I agree with you that we can't just "walk away;'" what do you propose instead? Actually, from what you've just laid out, maybe enhanced border security and a Wall are just what we need.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Fishlore
    Offline

    Fishlore Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    935
    Thanks Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    New Hampshire USA
    Ratings:
    +445
    The laws ICE has been instructed to enforce are means by which we are approaching it wrongly. What we need instead is an immigration system that recognizes the reality of who the immigrants are, why we need them, and their obligations if they come to work in this country. Nobody wants uncontrolled borders. Nobody wants criminals, drug dealers etc. running around, and everybody wants a strong and growing economy.

    The first step would be some sort of guest worker program which vets immigrants, matches them up to jobs and makes sure they pay their taxes etc. Such a work visa does not mean automatic citizenship.

    We already have several such programs operating in everything from scientific research to apple picking. We need to take a hard look at where immigrant labor is needed in our economy and create a systematic program whereby foreigners who want to do those jobs (jobs which Americans aren't taking) can come into the country legally and live here productively.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,932
    Thanks Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,531
    I watched the long version video early this morning.....

    MisterBeale, you are correct that the (long) video is excellent -- well, very good, excellent is too strong -- and well worth watching. The short one is good, but really doesn't say much that's critical to the topic of illegal immigrants.

    Folks who are willing to consider the essay and its key points in totality -- rather than compartmentalizing bits and pieces of it and then transforming those isolated bits into the "be all end all" for advancing a partisan stance on a single issue -- will find much of value there.

    The author of the two videos Mr. Beale posted, Stefan Molyneux, is, for the most part, spot on right. The short video essay doesn't say much of note that relates to immigration, which is the subject of the thread. The long one does have some interesting observations/analysis that draws a correlation between Roman slavery/slaves and immigration/immigrants. The correspondence he makes, though reasonable at a high level, leaves something to be desired in one important dimension.

    Mr. Beale is not correct that "they don't teach" that stuff in high school or college. [1] It would, however, be correct to say that the content isn't frequently (perhaps not at all) presented as a unified set of ideas in one single class that one might take at baccalaureate or lower levels. That it isn't is unsurprising.
    • Baccalaureate level expectation -- develop strong understanding of the most important bits of foundational knowledge in a discipline and focus on doing the same for a tiny "corner" of the disciple.
    • Master's level expectation -- develop strong understanding of the general body of knowledge across the entirety of a discipline and integrate those ideas with facts from related disciplines. (This is what Stefan's long video does.)
    • Doctoral level expectation -- contribute to the body of knowledge in a given discipline by performing original research and sharing it.
    Given that's the way, it's not surprising that folks who've not taken some political/governance science along with taking (1) a master's degree in history with a concentration on economics, or (2) an econ master's with focus on Roman/Greek economic history, or (3) a baccalaureate or high school class that called one to consider the economics of the Roman Empire (most likely for a paper), the integrated whole that Molyneux presents isn't likely to come up.

    That's not without good reason. One has to have a strong understanding of macro and micro econ (principles-level class is sufficient) and a whole lot of detail about Roman history, detail that, at high school and bachelor's levels, is beyond the scope of anything but a class devoted to Rome's history. It's not the econ or poly-sci that inhibits students making the observations and arriving at the conclusions Stefan shares; it's the history. I don't think many people would be keen to have their high school age kids exposed to the nature and extent of Roman depravity and decadence such a course will necessarily introduce. Even considering my own very bright and mature kids, I don't think at high school age they were ready to learn of that history and keep it in the right context.

    Should it? Well, that's a normative decision. I could easily say it should, but I like economics and history.


    Specific Observations:
    • Stefan has some inconsistencies and contextual missteps. I don't think they're material to the overall comparison he makes in the essay, but they are clearly contradictions.
      • Early in the essay, Stefan notes that Goths and Germans sought to join the Empire to partake of the riches of the Empire. He doesn't present that as an ignoble desire on their part, but rather as a rational one. He goes on, then, to describe how those would be immigrants don't assimilate well into the culture, because economics not cultural mores drew them in. He classifies the presences of so many economically motivated immigrants as part of what contributed to the decline of the Empire. Later, in his discussion of the declining years of the 5th century, he describes the very same categories of people as having noble ideas and intentions, and blames Roman Tyranny and coarseness for what he earlier attributed to immigrants. He never establishes or even hints that earlier (in the age of the Republic and early Empire years) immigrants were the impetus for the later Emperors' governance failings. He doesn't, of course, because they were not.
      • At one point Stefan cites excise taxes as being bad fiscal policy for the people, citing farmers in particular. Later he presents excise taxes as positive and points to taxes having become rate based as contributing the decline in social and political stability.
      • Stefan equates Roman slaves with immigrants today. That's an off-kilter analogy, but the situational economic context of the Empire's slave population and that of the U.S.' illegal immigrant population bears no resemblance to one another. I don't disagree with the impact he attributes to the existence and consistency of the Roman slave population, but as Molyneux points out, the slaves constituted, during the period of decline, 1/3rd of population. Similarly situated immigrants in the U.S. aren't even 5% of the population, and immigrants as a whole only comprise something shy of 15%.
      • Minor but since I'm listing things....Stefan glosses over the fact that when Alaric sacked Rome, Rome was a small town, even though it had the name "Rome." He doesn't explicitly mention Ravenna, which at the time of the sack was the bustling metropolis and capital of the Western Empire.
    • Stefan advocates strongly for free trade and does a fine job illustrating its virtues.
    • The essay has a wealth of footnotes that would enthrall any player of Trivial Pursuit. They add interest to Stefan's oration.
    • At 2:08 or so, Stefan notes what strikes me and at least one other scholar, Lawrence Reed, whom Molyneux cites in another of his essays, as the keystone cause of all the other maladies that beset the Empire. I think that's a thread he should have interwoven more palpably throughout the essay, especially as he's drawing parallels to modern day America. That one feature and its erosion is the single most important factor that drives the rise and fall of great civilizations.
    Notes:
    1. FWIW, the content, as Molyneux presents it, came to me via two courses, both of which were electives:
      1. HS --> AP European History -- This is the class from which I remember the history of the rise, decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Indeed one of the supplemental texts for the class had nearly that as its title. (elective insofar as one didn't have to take AP EWC, but one did have to take a European history survey class.)
      2. Undergrad --> American Economic History (taken as a lower level social science elective)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    60,718
    Thanks Received:
    3,838
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +13,238
    You almost nailed exactly what I was thinking.

    What made me do a search for this subject is I was thinking how poor people breeding is hurting us all. They produce the cheap labor companies rely on. A shortage of help means wages go up.

    You watch if illegals leaving really brings up wages you will see once again the corporations and government will once again encourage us to have families. Right now 30 year olds don't want to have kids. They have loans want a home and want to retire some day. If companies had day care, they offered good public schools, healthcare and wages people might want to have kids.

    I think lowering the population is good. The problem is it's middle class people who are having less kids. Poor people don't care because they're already poor. So this is dumbing down our society too. The poor don't do a good job raising doctors and scientists.
     
  10. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs forget....Hell Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +985
    Few pay income tax, most work under the going rates. Most work as drug pushers, and transporters. All of them use the EM rooms as a clinic, and most use the school system for education. As far as housing I see no problem in the matter. Dual Language classes double the cost of schools. If the do it the legal way I have no problems with them.
     

Share This Page