Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Why do liberals support immigration so much?

  1. May 17, 2012 #1
    I agree with most liberal ideas, because they're usually rational, but the one thing I don't think is rational are their ideas about immigration and affirmative action. Why do they support the continuation of legal immigration as it is, and why do they support giving amnesty to illegal immigrants?

    Legal immigration laws are allowing mass immigration, both to USA and Europe. The problems already started decades ago:
    - rejection of host country's culture
    - formation of localities where the natives become minorities. In every case I've seen in Portugal and other countries (like France), the culture that becomes dominant between the kids and youth is a gangster culture.
    - rise in criminality
    - in some cases unfair competition (chinese shops which buy very cheap products from China to sell here, which is an unfair competition to the local merchants);
    - and on top of that, liberals support affirmative action, which is discriminatory and racist (it helps people solely based on race, and it discriminates natives). In Portugal, a good example of how unfair affirmative action is, is the allowance of foreign students from Portugal's former african colonies to go to medicine with really low grades, where students from Portugal must usually have a grade of 18 out of 20, minimum, to study medicine. This situation is making some portuguese natives who have really high grades, which obviously worked much harder than the foreign students, to give up on medicine, since the foreign students are taking some slots.

    And about illegal immigration, why do they support amnesty as a rule? Too much amnesty gives an incentive for other immigrants to come illegally to the country, it doesn't even make sense to have borders if you give amnesty to all the illegal immigrants.

    Just to be clear, I'm not against immigration - I'm in favor of smart immigration laws, not the laws there are today in most european countries and USA. As for amnesty, it's supposed to be an exception, not a rule. For example, if some refugees went to an European country illegally I think they should get amnesty while their country doesn't have conditions to receive them. But amnesty to immigrants who just run through the borders doesn't make any sense. And I'm completely against affirmative action.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. May 17, 2012 #2

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Liberals don't support immigration. They just don't vehemently resist immigration like the GOP does.

    Immigration is a fact of life (after all, all but a few of us - some of my ancestors excepted) in the US are not immigrants. When I was a child, I was given a hard time because my mother's family was French-Catholic (Metis) and because my father's family immigrated here due to the potato famine in Ireland. Who can come in and be assimilated and who must be vilified? Is that a fair question?
     
  4. May 17, 2012 #3
    The GOP only resists illegal immigration, and very weakly.

    The fact that americans are descendants from immigrants doesn't mean you have to support an irrational immigration system that allows mass immigration just because. Since Japan doesn't have the tradition of immigration in their past, does that mean they have to stick to it forever?

    When a country's future is at stake, of course that's a fair question.
     
  5. May 18, 2012 #4
    Just curious, do you have any statistics that legal immigration increases crime? Are you seriously going to tell me that Indian and Chinese kids have a "gangster culture?" In this country, when most people whinge about immigration, they're specifically talking about immigration from Mexico. I hear almost nobody complain about Canadians or Scots immigrating.

    I think that if we streamlined the process to immigrate to the country, to let more people in legally after a straightforward screening process, we'd cut down on illegal immigration substantially. If we do that, I'd be more comfortable being much stricter about illegal immigration.

    I just can't get angry at illegal immigrants for wanting to improve their lives in a nonviolent manner, even if it means they are willing to take lower wages than an American citizen.

    I'm not a nationalist, and I have no particular loyalty to this country, so I really don't care if the person who built my house (or whatever else you'd like to consider) was born in the USA or born in Mexico or any other country.

    Lastly, if you want to talk about affirmative action, start a different thread. It is an entirely separate topic which has nothing to do with immigration.
     
  6. May 18, 2012 #5
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime

    No, indians and chinese don't. But if I said specifically who has a gangster culture, I'd be called a racist.

    Your solution to illegal immigration is to allow more people in legally? Legal immigration already lets way too many people in without any good reason behind it.

    I don't have a problem with illegal immigrants either, but like the name says, they went to the country illegally, so they can't stay. You can't mix emotions with law.
     
  7. May 18, 2012 #6

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    From that page:

     
  8. May 18, 2012 #7

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Please post references to literature that support all of these claims. To clarify the research must take into account the whole picture, posting studies that focus on particular areas (i.e. one ghetto in Paris or one Chinese supermarket in London) is not acceptable.

    Personally I would class myself as liberal (though that word means different things depending on where you are) and I don't mind immigration at all.
     
  9. May 18, 2012 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    This whole thread is starting on a false premise. Read up on FDR's immigration policy, especially towards the Japanese.
     
  10. May 18, 2012 #9
    Thing is, illegal immigration is basically just a paperwork issue. My proposal is to streamline the paperwork process. Then, they're no longer here illegally. Problem solved.

    And you CAN mix emotions with law. That's why many laws exist, and that's what the punishment for breaking laws is based off of in part. A violent assault often carries a lighter jail sentence than rape, even though they're somewhat similar in some respects (an attack on the body of another), but rape is so emotionally repugnant that society doesn't stand for it, and doles out harsh punishments.

    In the same way, I feel that illegal immigrants should be given a medium-sized slap on the wrist and given the choice of taking a difficult yet feasible path to citizenship or being deported. As long as they aren't committing other crimes, I'd like to give them the option to become a citizen. To me, it's none of my business where they want to live.
     
  11. May 18, 2012 #10

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I think you're trivialising the connection here, it's not just based on initial emotions. There are many quite complex and well thought out moral systems at work in society and very empirical ways of measuring harm. Other wise I agree with you.
     
  12. May 18, 2012 #11
    lol, it's a tax / GDP base.

    without prejudice, white folks just don't make babies like they used to.

    Despite the couple of generations for tax/GDP generating integration, it is fair better than a declining population. In particular if a country is already spending beyond its tax income.

    The amnesty thing is probably optics from a government perspective.


    BBC news had a cool stat the other day. "White" births in the US accounted for less than half the total births, (in some recent time frame).

    "....mix it up until there are no pedigrees..." RHCP - Midnight

    In addition, it is "cherry picking" from the non-US citizen population, another obvious comparative benefit.
     
  13. May 18, 2012 #12

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here's a counter-argument (not that you actually provided an argument):
    http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/07/smallbusiness/immigration-entrepreneurs/index.htm
     
  14. May 18, 2012 #13
    From a US perspective, given the amount of money transferred from workers to retirees these days (1 trillionish a year) having a larger worker base paying taxes would be a good thing.

    In my mind that's an argument for reforming the entitlement programs, but there's no will to do that. So it's either more workers, higher taxes, or lower benefits. . . and we're not gonna do the last two. . .
     
  15. May 18, 2012 #14
    Well you can take it to the nationality/race level, in that case it's even clearer where most of the crime comes from, since in USA there are statistics on that. I don't see anything being done to change that though.

    I can find different studies that say exactly the opposite thing, am I supposed to show the ones that support what I'm saying? These claims are very obvious, and are supported by observation.

    It's false that liberals support immigration? I don't know what liberals you are referring to.

    You can, but you shouldn't, but that's not the point. My point was that you can't ignore an existing law because of emotions, which is what amnesty is.

    You found something good about immigration - it would be even worse than I thought if there were no positive things about it! But it has to be weighted against the bad things.
    Here's the core problem with the current immigration law in my opinion: it leads to replacement of the native population. In US some will use the argument that the only natives are the indian-americans, not european-americans, but USA itself was founded by european-americans. In my opinion immigration should never ever lead the natives to become minorites in their own country.
     
  16. May 18, 2012 #15

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We could have more babies, but that's not going to happen, either.
     
  17. May 18, 2012 #16
    True!

    We could even incentivize it. I’ve always thought the first sign that we’re doing the whole wealth transfer thing wrong is that 4x-5x as much wealth is transferred to retirees as children (or the children’s families). I understand there’s value in treating our elderly population with some care, but children are the future of the country. . . and will be the ones paying those taxes pretty soon.

    I once figured it up and if you swapped transfer payments between children and elderly (Soc Sec/Medicare vs Medicaid/Education etc.) the excess would amount to over $9,000 per child per year. That would allow our society to take a lot of the hardship out of child rearing.
    I’m not saying that’s a good idea, I’m just agreeing with you and pointing out that there’s a pretty good reason we have the demographics we have.

    In any case, that would be a 25 year solution to a 5 year problem. . .
     
  18. May 18, 2012 #17
  19. May 18, 2012 #18

    Bacle2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re allowing too many people in legally, you may want to consider that a good portion of the high-tech startups in Silicon Valley and in general, are done by Indians, Taiwanese, Israelis, etc. entrpreneurs.

    You need to consider too, the case of people who try to immigrate from far away, for whom the option of returning is not really a viable one. For that reason, these people are likely to be hard-workers. In the case of people comming from nearby countries, the story I heard is that Mexicans have a leftover contempt for the US border from the time that more than 40% of their land was taken in an unprovoked war.

    Seems too, like a lot of science profs. in a lot of schools are foreign-born (this is true in my experience, and from what I have seen online, etc.). It may be that when a country becomes prosperous, its citizens do not want to go through hardships ( meaning spending and scrapping by 10+ years in school to get a PHD ) the same way people did when there was less propsperity.

    Moreover, AFAIK, up to 1930-or-so, just-about anyone coming into the US was allowed in, and it seems like things turned out O.K. Of course, circumstances change, but seems to reinforce the idea that immigration is benefitial.
     
  20. May 18, 2012 #19
    To pythagorean, your quote is talking about immigrants, no one I know is anti-immigrant! But, immigrants who come here illegally have all broken the law, that is 100% if my math is right?
     
  21. May 18, 2012 #20
    Everybody has broken the law. I drive in excess of the posted speed limit every day of my life. I have listened to illegally downloaded songs. I jaywalk. I've trespassed in taking a shortcut. I've probably cursed too loud in public, which could be construed as disorderly conduct.

    So, I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make.
     
  22. May 19, 2012 #21

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You are answering a different question though. The quote made a statement about crime rates. Rate is a continuous number that can hold many values and changes with time. Instead, you framed the question binary "have they broken a law or not".
     
  23. May 19, 2012 #22
    That first comment I think touches on a crucial point. Poetically, it is a clash between our empathy & selfishness.

    Even from the tender age of 32, to me it's clear "care" for elders is NOT top quality healthcare with 24/7 nursing support and a 24/7 on call doctor, subsidized at a minimum of 50% by the government.

    That's the "scene" in Canada. Yes it does provide a fantastic amount of "service" labour at "living wage" pay grades. A form of equity balancing, a remarkable percentage of professional nursing staff are "new" Canadians, but in a addition the education required is an attractive balance with the near guaranteed job & ever increasing wages (all nurses are unionized, well pretty much). In other words it is easy entry into the field, not rags to riches, but min.40k annual ain't to shabby, excluding fringe benefits such as "employer funded" pension.

    btw I'd peg the cost per "resident" in an LTC facility at about 4k a month total, say about 14million capital for 125 residents.

    The average age of an LTC facility resident in Ontario is 81. Life expectancy in Canada is 80.7. Consider that this is a LONG term care facility, right; I suppose long is a relative term in this context.

    The logic is funny from this perspective, and clearly this isn't "caring" for elders so much as "caring" for something else.


    Whats the education scene from this perspective? Wish I knew, but would guess it's pretty close. Excluding the "backwards" logic of 81yr olds in a Long Term care Facility in a country where life expectancy is 80.7. Neat food for thought in the context of "Selfish Gene" concepts.

    I like they wording of your last comment!
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  24. May 19, 2012 #23

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We only support immigrants that support our values*.

    The rest can go home.

    Tom McCall was an immigrant from Massachusetts, and our governor when I was a young lad.

    *ps. Our values here are pretty simple: Don't litter**.
    pps. OMG! I just read that one of our recent mayors is a German born Rooski. And I always wondered why she had a Brooklyn accent.
    **ppps. Now we'll have to start an 86 page long thread on what 'litter' means to Om, as compared to the rest of humanity. :rolleyes:
     
  25. May 19, 2012 #24
    I basically agree with this.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
  26. May 21, 2012 #25
    What's backwards about it? The life expectancy of an 80 or 81 year old is not 80.7. The life expectancy of an 80 year old is a bit over 9 years here in the US, though it will vary by sex, region, ethnicity and marital status (among others). It probably isn't that different in Canada.

    I have to remind my dad about this all the time, when he talks about his future and mentions a life expectancy of 75 years. The life expectancy for a newborn might be 75 (though I think it's higher), but you're not a newborn and you better be ready to finance a number of years after that, bud. . . get thee to a financial advisor. . .
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook