I want a logical argument from the left for why this man's point of view is wrong.

[Some Guy]

Immigration from shitholes is not supposed to reduce world poverty, but increase US poverty. Only way democrats can have some votes.

That it does well.

Your argument is self-defeating, assuming you're a capitalist. The only way that it could definitively make the U.S. poorer is if economics is a zero-sum game like the left tends to argue. If you believe that it's not, and that capitalism can create wealth that didn't previously exist, then find a better argument for not letting immigrants in.

 

[Confounding]

find a better argument for not letting immigrants in.

Do you think letting millions upon millions of poor and uneducated people immigrate to our country is going to have a positive or negative impact on our economy? Jobs and wages, public services, etc. I want your opinion, not some bullshit deflection.

 

[Some Guy]

I've never heard anyone, ever, say that the immigration issue is about "about tackling world poverty", which is the very foundation of his point.

Tossing straw man arguments into a complicated, contentious issue only drags us further away from honestly and effectively addressing it.

Sure, not in those terms. But if it's not about tackling immigrant poverty (or improving immigrant quality of life rather) then what is it about? No one is coming to America because it provides less opportunity or is just a lateral move for them. They're doing it to improve their lives in some way, usually though employment opportunity, quality of living conditions or less crime/danger.

On the flipside, i don't see why any country owes any immigrant the chance to live/work in that country regardless of what that immigrant is faced with elsewhere. If a country is sovereign then they deserve to make a judgment on anyone who's going to be accepted in as part of that country. The idea that we owe the world and it's people anything is a flawed one.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Explain the fault in his logic please.

What logic? All he seems to be saying is that the US cannot solve world poverty by moving everyone to the US. Which is accurate. But it raises the question: So what?

I get the impression that you want additional conclusions to be inferred. But I find it difficult to find much anything of relevance that can be reasonably inferred here.

 

[Confounding]

Explain the fault in his logic please.

What logic? All he seems to be saying is that the US cannot solve world poverty by moving everyone to the US. Which is accurate. But it raises the question: So what?

I get the impression that you want additional conclusions to be inferred. But I find it difficult to find much anything of relevance that can be reasonably inferred here.

Why do we let millions of poor and uneducated people in when we're not making a humanitarian difference? The only thing we're impacting is our economy. It's not a logical thing to do unless that shit conservatives say about getting votes from Mexicans is true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

not this shit again

I've never heard anyone say allowing immigrants would reduce world poverty. Where did that goober come up with such a dumb idea? He hasn't built a straw man. He built a gumball man. Is this all RWNJs have to spend their time on?

Why do we let in millions of people annually if we're not actually making a humanitarian difference? It certainly has a very real impact on our economy.

More nonsense.

Immigrants built this country, they are our greatest asset; we "let them in" because it makes us stronger as a Nation.

 

[Confounding]

not this shit again

I've never heard anyone say allowing immigrants would reduce world poverty. Where did that goober come up with such a dumb idea? He hasn't built a straw man. He built a gumball man. Is this all RWNJs have to spend their time on?

Why do we let in millions of people annually if we're not actually making a humanitarian difference? It certainly has a very real impact on our economy.

More nonsense.

Immigrants built this country, they are our greatest asset; we "let them in" because it makes us stronger as a Nation.

Poor and uneducated immigrants that come here and immediately sign up for food stamps and whatever other services they can get are not helping our economy. I support social safety nets, but to have and maintain decent ones we need to not let the poor of the world have access to them.

 

[Some Guy]

find a better argument for not letting immigrants in.

Do you think letting millions upon millions of poor and uneducated people immigrate to our country is going to have a positive or negative impact on our economy? Jobs and wages, public services, etc. I want your opinion, not some bullshit deflection.

No one is saying that they want to let immigrants in so the US can get poorer, which was the point of my post. Anyone who's favoring high levels of immigration can only make an emotional argument for it, not a logical one (and not much of an ethical one either). If the country had oodles of unskilled labor positions available (like we did back in the industrial revolution) then it would benefit highly from bringing in people who can fill those positions. Everyone would benefit from that economically, which is what i meant by economics not being a zero-sum game.

Considering where we are though, i agree with you that it would hurt us. We don't have unskilled labor positions available, we need skilled labor, pretty specific skilled labor at that. Our efforts would be much better spent overhauling our entire education system so it's designed to serve 21st century needs.

 

[Confounding]

Considering where we are though, i agree with you that it would hurt us. We don't have unskilled labor positions available, we need skilled labor, pretty specific skilled labor at that. Our efforts would be much better spent overhauling our entire education system designed to serve 21st century needs.

Good stuff.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a 6 minute long video. Watch the whole thing.

Nah, just summarize it in your own words.

 

[Mac1958]

I've never heard anyone, ever, say that the immigration issue is about "about tackling world poverty", which is the very foundation of his point.

Tossing straw man arguments into a complicated, contentious issue only drags us further away from honestly and effectively addressing it.

Sure, not in those terms. But if it's not about tackling immigrant poverty (or improving immigrant quality of life rather) then what is it about? No one is coming to America because it provides less opportunity or is just a lateral move for them. They're doing it to improve their lives in some way, usually though employment opportunity, quality of living conditions or less crime/danger.

On the flipside, i don't see why any country owes any immigrant the chance to live/work in that country regardless of what that immigrant is faced with elsewhere. If a country is sovereign then they deserve to make a judgment on anyone who's going to be accepted in as part of that country. The idea that we owe the world and it's people anything is a flawed one.

Agreed. We just don't seem to be able with deal with pretty any much any issue right now, that's the freakin' problem. There is a point of equilibrium on most issues, but once political ideology takes over, it's nothing more than a food fight.

Yes, we absolutely must protect our borders, and any Democrat who pretends there's not a significant political element to this latest outrage is either lying or delusional. They're gonna milk this for all it's worth, and don't be surprised when their outrage drops a bit after the election.

At the same time, conservatives have to understand that they're inviting this stuff with their wall, among other things. They could bend a bit and come up with some workable solutions, but instead, they're just punching back. I admit I don't understand partisan politics, but I don't see the point of all this.
.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I try never to watch 6 minute videos of anybody who looks remotely like the guy in that video. It hasn't depleted my life in any way to follow this rule. The potential harm such a fucktart like that could do me (should I be stupid enough to click the play button) in 6 minutes far outweighs any possible positive result. Because there is no possible positive result.​

This post teaches us two things.

1. You evaluate the intellectual merits of an argument based on the appearance of the speaker. This is, without a doubt, the dumbest idea, ever.

2. You are so stupid and gullible that any 6 minute video spouting any nonsense whatsoever can potentially alter, destroy, amend, or distort your world view, so living in a perpetual state of willful ignorance is your preferred method of avoiding accidentally having your world view negatively altered. That is, without a doubt, the second dumbest idea, ever.

 

[Some Guy]

not this shit again

I've never heard anyone say allowing immigrants would reduce world poverty. Where did that goober come up with such a dumb idea? He hasn't built a straw man. He built a gumball man. Is this all RWNJs have to spend their time on?

Why do we let in millions of people annually if we're not actually making a humanitarian difference? It certainly has a very real impact on our economy.

More nonsense.

Immigrants built this country, they are our greatest asset; we "let them in" because it makes us stronger as a Nation.

See my post above. Immigrants built the country because the country (industry rather) wasn't built yet. We had capital and brainpower but needed labor, so a flood of immigrants was beneficial to carry out that building.

The situation is completely different now. You don't go buy 6 beds for your house when you only need 3.

 

[Confounding]

It's a 6 minute long video. Watch the whole thing.

Nah, just summarize it in your own words.

He uses visuals and some rather good points to illustrate that it's impossible for us to make a difference in the world by letting poor people come to America, and that in fact we are harming some countries by taking their most dissatisfied people, people that would be agents for change if they stayed in those countries. Basically it's a feel good operation that doesn't make a meaningful impact, except on our economy.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why do we let millions of poor and uneducated people in when we're not making a humanitarian difference?

We don't. At least, according to the video. Did you forget to watch it?

 

[Confounding]

Why do we let millions of poor and uneducated people in when we're not making a humanitarian difference?

We don't.

We do. At the time the video was made we were letting in about a million a year. He talks about it in the first couple minutes.

 

[Thinker101]

It's a 6 minute long video. Watch the whole thing.

That's exactly six minutes longer than I'm going to invest. If you can't articulate your own point -- you ain't got one.

Yup, and that's why you're a fricken liberal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Anyone who's favoring high levels of immigration can only make an emotional argument for it, not a logical one (and not much of an ethical one either).

That is simply false. Should I chalk this up to rhetoric or laziness? One can easily argue that we need more young workers to help fund our aging demographics. That is not only logical and ethical, one could argue it is also moral.

One can alsoake the (somewhat) esoteric argument that immigrabts, by showing more entrepreneurialism and mobity than average Americans, are excellent for the economy in general and for helping to solve the worsening problems of wealth inequity and class inertia.

 

[HappyJoy]

I've never heard anyone, ever, say that the immigration issue is about "about tackling world poverty", which is the very foundation of his point.

Tossing straw man arguments into a complicated, contentious issue only drags us further away from honestly and effectively addressing it.

Sure, not in those terms. But if it's not about tackling immigrant poverty (or improving immigrant quality of life rather) then what is it about? No one is coming to America because it provides less opportunity or is just a lateral move for them. They're doing it to improve their lives in some way, usually though employment opportunity, quality of living conditions or less crime/danger.

On the flipside, i don't see why any country owes any immigrant the chance to live/work in that country regardless of what that immigrant is faced with elsewhere. If a country is sovereign then they deserve to make a judgment on anyone who's going to be accepted in as part of that country. The idea that we owe the world and it's people anything is a flawed one.

Agreed. We just don't seem to be able with deal with pretty any much any issue right now, that's the freakin' problem. There is a point of equilibrium on most issues, but once political ideology takes over, it's nothing more than a food fight.

Yes, we absolutely must protect our borders, and any Democrat who pretends there's not a significant political element to this latest outrage is either lying or delusional. They're gonna milk this for all it's worth, and don't be surprised when their outrage drops a bit after the election.

At the same time, conservatives have to understand that they're inviting this stuff with their wall, among other things. They could bend a bit and come up with some workable solutions, but instead, they're just punching back. I admit I don't understand partisan politics, but I don't see the point of all this.
.

Just curious, what's the appropriate response, Goldilocks?

 

[koshergrl]

False premise from the first two minutes.

Elaborate?

I mean it's a false premise. The notion that we don't accept enough of a percentage from the huge pool of economically challenged foreigners is a false premise and he starts out as if it's an established fact. That is all I need to hear. I dislike liars and snake oil salesmen.