Mass immigration & economic problems in USA and Europe

[John Cuthber]

I'm intrigued to see how many things are "patently obvious"

(from a man who lives on a smallish island where the birth rate is less than the death rate and where the population would fall if it were not for immigration)

[CharonY]

To declare things as patently obvious (without providing data) is not a good way to argue. I would think this is blatantly obvious.

[Greg Boyles]

Umm, proof of this please?

 

Humanitarian immigrants in Australia, particularly those who can't speak English, get unemployment benefits and health care cards because they can't get jobs even many years after they have arrived. No one will employ them if they can't speak english. There have been studies that have found this on a number of occasions and regular complaints by them in various media. I run a small business and there is no way in hell I would employ an immigrant over an Australian citizen, let alone one that could not speak English.

 

They also get government funded English lessons, they are supported in the community by ethnic support organisations that are partly funded by government grants, they get public housing. Many of them impose a significant cost on the rest of society for a significant period of time and Australia would not have the economic capacity to sustain a signficantly larger humaniotarian intake. I am not suggesting that there is necessarily anything wrong with all this for a reasonable and economically sustainable number of humanitarian immigrants.

 

All immigrants, humanitarian or skilled and english speaking impose costs in the way of infrastructure and services - freeways to ease increased traffic congestions, more buses and trains to ease public transport congestion, more police to cover a larger area of suburbs, expanded water distribution networks, expanded electricity grid, greater electricity generation capacity to cope with increased peak demand, more water collection and generation capacity (dams and desalination plants),.............

 

All this costs a great deal of money and has pushed up the cost of living across eastern Australia in particular - water bills, electricity bills, property prices and mortgages, council rates,........ The locals then demand more tax breaks and welfare payments in order to cope with it. Local charities like the Salvos etc are experiencing unprecedented demand.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CharonY]

So you are focusing on the cost of asylum seekers? As opposed to the rest of legal as well as illegal immigration? This is quite a a different premise than initially stated. Also note that the number of asylum seekers Australia (and most other countries, I think) accept is regulated.

Quick googling indicate roughly 12-13k people per year.

I am doubtful that this constitutes mass migration.

 

Note that legal immigrants also contribute to the infrastructure and pay for water etc. So just focusing on the cost side is unjustified.

Edited August 9, 2011 by CharonY

[Greg Boyles]

I'm intrigued to see how many things are "patently obvious"

(from a man who lives on a smallish island where the birth rate is less than the death rate and where the population would fall if it were not for immigration)

 

From a man who obviously does not live on that island and knows little about it other than what he sees in the media.

 

According to recent statistics and all the pronouncements from business leaders and economists who want population growth, even without immigration Australia's population would rise to 30-40 million by 2050 even with zero immigration.

 

So your above assessment of Ausralia's fertility is not based on fact.

 

Your derogatory attitude toward my 'smallish island' suggests that you are a pommy. I could retort with some deragatory comments about the expenses rorts perpetrated by a number of your mps and the rioting and looting in your capital city......but I will resist the temptation

 

Umm, proof of this please?

 

From http://www.aph.gov.a...tlement.htm#set

 

Immigrants impose signficant costs on the host society.

 

Settlement Grants Program

From 1 July 2006, CSSS and MRC funding will be replaced by the Settlement Grants Program (SGP). A Settlement Grants Program Discussion Paper, outlining the general policy framework of the SGP and the planned consultation process was released in April 2005, and followed up with community consultations in the states and territories. A final report, the Settlement Grants Policy Paper, was released by the department in 2005.

 

During the Settlement Grants consultation process in 2005, new national priority settlement needs were identified by the department in consultation with the community, the settlement service sector, and local, state/territory and Commonwealth government agencies. A new National Framework for Settlement Planning was launched in March 2006 and specific 2006–07 settlement needs for every state and territory are listed on the website.

 

The department will administer the new program and every applicant for funding must sign a funding agreement and agree to performance monitoring by the department.

 

 

Current entitlements for newly-arrived migrants

Any newly arrived migrant may be eligible for a wide range of settlement services such as assistance in accessing medical services, Centrelink, Job Network, the First Home Owner Grant and so on.

 

Specific settlement programs funded and coordinated through the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), comprise:

 

• English language tuition through the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)
• on-site and telephone interpreting and translating, through the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS)
• financial grants to community and service organisations/programs such as Migrant Resource Centres (MRCs) and the Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS), through the Community Grants Program.
• humanitarian settlement services through the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy. The Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) was established in 1997–98 to provide a more targeted approach to settlement services for humanitarian entrants. Follow the link to see the criteria and services provided.

Community-based service providers

A variety of community organisations and <A href="http://www.immi.gov.au/settle/providers/">service providers are funded, through the Commonwealth DIMA, to deliver community-based settlement services. DIMA consults with these community organisations on a regular basis.

 

In the case of the IHSS, service providers are contracted to the department to deliver on-arrival reception, counselling, and accommodation services. Volunteer groups also work with service providers to support entrants and assist them to settle into the local community.

 

The government also provides funding for the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) which contracts out to service providers whose professional skills are recognised by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI).

 

A list of currently funded CSSS service providers and MRCs is available on the DIMA website by following these links. The CSSS page gives details of currently funded projects and contact details of the funded organisations. The MRC page includes details of both Migrant Resource Centres and Migrant Service Agencies (MSA) that are currently funded. There is also a list of MRCs by state and territory.

 

Details on funding allocations are available from the Commonwealth Budget Papers, particularly the Immigration Portfolio Budget Statements. See, for example, the Immigration Portfolio Budget Statement, 2006–07, Section 3.

 

Current funding specifically for CSSS projects and MRC funding allocations are on DIMA's website.

 

 

So you are focusing on the cost of asylum seekers? As opposed to the rest of legal as well as illegal immigration? This is quite a a different premise than initially stated. Also note that the number of asylum seekers Australia (and most other countries, I think) accept is regulated.

Quick googling indicate roughly 12-13k people per year.

I am doubtful that this constitutes mass migration.

 

Note that legal immigrants also contribute to the infrastructure and pay for water etc. So just focusing on the cost side is unjustified.

 

Humanitarian immigrants impose the greatest direct costs on government through welfare and support services.

 

But all immigrants, and population increase due to fertility, impose even greater indirect costs on society through their demand for increased infrastructure and government services to maintain living standards. Costs that governments are failing to meet regardless of any marginal increase in economic output that population increase in general brings.

 

We will stick with immigrants here because it is the major source of population growth in Australia, USA and Britain.

If immigrants do indeed bring so much economic benefit to the host society that they impose no net cost on it, then logically governments would be awash with revenue and have absolutely no problem in keeping up with infrastructure and services such that there are no significant complaints from the populous.

 

That is demonstrably not the case in Australia and hasn't been since Howard massively increased our skills immigration intake about a decade ago.

 

Free ways and major roads or more severely congested for longer than they were in the 80s and 90s, hospital waiting lists have blown out, the number of people unable to purchase property without significant government handouts has grown, water restrictions have been imposed for the past decade, public transport is not adequate to meet demand,...........

Edited August 9, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[JohnB]

Greg, I'm confused. You say;

Humanitarian immigrants in Australia, particularly those who can't speak English, get unemployment benefits and health care cards because they can't get jobs even many years after they have arrived. No one will employ them if they can't speak english.

 

So if they can't speak English they can't economically contribute to the nations welfare. But you are also complaining about the costs of those persons which include;

 

English language tuition through the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)

 

So they can't be employed due to lack of English, but spending money to teach them English so that they can integrate into society and become employable is wrong? That's like complaining about a lack of sparkies and then complaining about the electricians apprentice program.

 

A lot of the other things you mention;

Free ways and major roads or more severely congested for longer than they were in the 80s and 90s, hospital waiting lists have blown out, the number of people unable to purchase property without significant government handouts has grown, water restrictions have been imposed for the past decade, public transport is not adequate to meet demand,...........

 

Have bugger all to do with immigration and far more to do with politics and economic mismanagement. Water is short in some areas because while the population grew we haven't built a drinking water dam in over 20 years anywhere in Australia. Apparently saving a non endangered lungfish was more important. As to the rest, in the 10 years since 2001 the Queensland government income has risen from $17 billion to $37 billion. Mining royalties etc have gone from $4.8 billion to $10.4 billion, fees for government services from $1.8 billion to $4.8 billion. Government income has more than doubled but the population hasn't. That there are still the problems you mentioned isn't due to immigration, but from pure, basic economic incompetence. Any gov that can more than double its income in 10 years and still be forced to sell off assets and go into debt is a bloody disaster.

 

I can't speak for the other States, but Queensland is doing well economically in spite of and not because of our State Gov.

 

Edit to add.

 

I also run a small business and I'll employ the best person for the job, be he/she black, white, brindle or polka dotted. So long as their command of English is good enough to understand instructions and they can competently carry out those instructions, that's all that matters. I've run large projects using immigrants as casuals and have found them to be generally very grateful to be here and damn hard workers. I probably had more trouble from the Irish workers than any others, especially the poor bastards who managed to get out of Darfour.

 

How about cutting them a bit of slack? Many have lost their entire families and are not only trying to learn and become part of Australia, but are trying to unlearn a lot too. Little things like; The cops won't break down your door and rape and kill your family, you know, little stuff.

 

As to employing immigrants over Australians, from the POV of the Aboriginals we're all bloody immigrants.

Edited August 10, 2011 by JohnB

[DJBruce]

<br>Humanitarian immigrants in Australia, particularly those who can't speak English, get unemployment benefits and health care cards because they can't get jobs even many years after they have arrived. No one will employ them if they can't speak english. There have been studies that have found this on a number of occasions and regular complaints by them in various media.

<br><br>Well then why don't you show me the actual studies instead of your unsupported opinion.<br><br>

They also get government funded English lessons, they are supported in the community by ethnic support organisations that are partly funded by government grants, they get public housing. Many of them impose a significant cost on the rest of society for a significant period of time and Australia would not have the economic capacity to sustain a signficantly larger humaniotarian intake. I am not suggesting that there is necessarily anything wrong with all this for a reasonable and economically sustainable number of humanitarian immigrants.

<br><br>I assume that you also received at least 12 years of free school, where the government tried to give you the necessary skills to make you a productive member of society so that you could eventually  repay the state for your education.  I also don't understand how in one paragraph you bash non-english speakers and characterize them not being able to find a job, and then  seem to complain about the programs to teach these people English so they can find work easier. <br><br>

All this costs a great deal of money and has pushed up the cost of living across eastern Australia in particular - water bills, electricity bills, property prices and mortgages, council rates,........ The locals then demand more tax breaks and welfare payments in order to cope with it. Local charities like the Salvos etc are experiencing unprecedented demand.<br>

<br><br><br>Again can you show me any study that finds a correlation between this increase in immigrants and these consequences you claim they have?<br><br>Also also appear to have ignored the actual studies that both iNow and myself have posted showing that immigration increases GDP. <div><br></div><div>As for the one link you gave about settlement grants; I could not find any data from your linked site showing the either the cost of the program or more importantly the net economic effects of the program.  It seems to me that you look at the issue of immigration in the short term and do not consider the total effects of immigration.  Yes, there may be initial costs when people first arrive in a new country and need some help getting their feet on the ground, but after awhile these people most often become productive members of society that boosts the GDP of the host country.  <br><br>

 

</div>

Edited August 10, 2011 by DJBruce

[Greg Boyles]

So they can't be employed due to lack of English, but spending money to teach them English so that they can integrate into society and become employable is wrong? That's like complaining about a lack of sparkies and then complaining about the electricians apprentice program.

 

Yeah well these english classes tend to process them like a sausage machine and when they come out the end they may be able to speak fairly rudimentary english but they are still difficult to communicate with.

 

As far as I am concerned it they are not worth the hassle of employing them.......having to teach them the job while trying to make your self understood and understanding them........forget it!

 

Have bugger all to do with immigration and far more to do with politics and economic mismanagement.

Yes governments are negligent at providing increased infrastructure and services. But increasing the population through immigration will not make them any less negligent. Ordinary Australians or Britains or what ever end up the meat in the sandwich between negligent governments and influxes of immigrants.

 

 

Water is short in some areas because while the population grew we haven't built a drinking water dam in over 20 years anywhere in Australia.

Australia is the flattest continent on Earth! And we do not have all that many areas that dams of an economically viable size can be constructed. Clearly you are not looking at the bigger picture.

 

Apparently saving a non endangered lungfish was more important.

Screw more humans, I would rather save the lungfish. There are plenty of humans but very few lungfish left.

 

As to the rest, in the 10 years since 2001 the Queensland government income has risen from $17 billion to $37 billion. Mining royalties etc have gone from $4.8 billion to $10.4 billion, fees for government services from $1.8 billion to $4.8 billion. Government income has more than doubled but the population hasn't. That there are still the problems you mentioned isn't due to immigration, but from pure, basic economic incompetence. Any gov that can more than double its income in 10 years and still be forced to sell off assets and go into debt is a bloody disaster.

Yes the governments are very efficient at selling of the silverware, whitegoods and furniture to generate cash flow. But your children and grand children will be left with an empty house when they reach adulthood. Reduce the population and keep some of the resources in the ground for future generations.

 

I also run a small business and I'll employ the best person for the job, be he/she black, white, brindle or polka dotted. So long as their command of English is good enough to understand instructions and they can competently carry out those instructions, that's all that matters. I've run large projects using immigrants as casuals and have found them to be generally very grateful to be here and damn hard workers. I probably had more trouble from the Irish workers than any others, especially the poor bastards who managed to get out of Darfour.

If they can speak fluent english and there are no suitable Australian citizens, then I would hire them too.

 

How about cutting them a bit of slack? Many have lost their entire families and are not only trying to learn and become part of Australia, but are trying to unlearn a lot too. Little things like; The cops won't break down your door and rape and kill your family, you know, little stuff.

My compassion is finite. One hard luck story is matched by a million others. Australia can't save them all and nor should we try. We also have obligations to future generations of our own.

 

As to employing immigrants over Australians, from the POV of the Aboriginals we're all bloody immigrants.

And continued colonisation facilitated by white Australians will do nothing to improve the economic lot of aborigines. Quite the reverse.....it diverts resources away from aborigines in remote communities and towards noisy immigrants in the major cities.

[swansont]

From a man who obviously does not live on that island and knows little about it other than what he sees in the media.

 

According to recent statistics and all the pronouncements from business leaders and economists who want population growth, even without immigration Australia's population would rise to 30-40 million by 2050 even with zero immigration.

 

So your above assessment of Ausralia's fertility is not based on fact.

 

Your derogatory attitude toward my 'smallish island' suggests that you are a pommy. I could retort with some deragatory comments about the expenses rorts perpetrated by a number of your mps and the rioting and looting in your capital city......but I will resist the temptation

 

Ummmm, John is in England, so I'm fairly certain that's the "smallish island" to which he was referring. Renders everything here moot, wouldn't you say?

 

Humanitarian immigrants in Australia, particularly those who can't speak English, get unemployment benefits and health care cards because they can't get jobs even many years after they have arrived. No one will employ them if they can't speak english. There have been studies that have found this on a number of occasions and regular complaints by them in various media. I run a small business and there is no way in hell I would employ an immigrant over an Australian citizen, let alone one that could not speak English.

 

In the US we have a large enough population where we can support pockets of non-English speaking immigrants — and it's been that way for some time. People can and do hire workers who do not speak English. Since you claim that that does not happen in Australia, it would seem that your immigrant "burden" is greater than ours.

[Greg Boyles]

Ummmm, John is in England, so I'm fairly certain that's the "smallish island" to which he was referring. Renders everything here moot, wouldn't you say?

 

 

 

In the US we have a large enough population where we can support pockets of non-English speaking immigrants — and it's been that way for some time. People can and do hire workers who do not speak English. Since you claim that that does not happen in Australia, it would seem that your immigrant "burden" is greater than ours.

 

If they do get hired then it is on far lower wages than the locals in which case it is worth the tradies while to give them simple mundane jobs that don't require a great deal of communication.

 

There is a bit of an issue with exploitation of immigrants who are rarely in a position to complain. Often the exploitation seems to be perpetrated by other fomer immigrants who are better english speakers and more savy about what they can get away with as far as breaching emplyment regulations.

 

They pay them well below award wages or don't pay them at all for weeks on end, they don't pay them over time, they don't make their complusory employer supperannuation contributions and they sack them if they complain to the government regulators.

 

Unacceptible degradation of Australian society and the price of letting to many immigants in too fast.

 

These sorts of employment rorts were not an issue in the 80s and early 90s when the immigration intake was much smaller, of the order of 80,000 per year I think it was.

[CaptainPanic]

Since it seems a majority of the members in this thread have accepted that a comparison of immigrants per 1000 people would be an acceptable tool to evaluate the issue, let me post this picture:

 

 

It shows that:

- immigration per capita is much larger in Australia than in the US or UK.

- immigration was much larger in Australia in the 80s and early 90s than now.

 

Greg Boyles, I fear that your whole point makes little to no sense. And the only thing left is to convince you (somehow) that a comparison per 1000 people is fair. No clue how we're gonna do that. Maybe we should compare economies (which are also always compared per person or per 1000 people)? Luxembourg is located #70 on the list of countries by GDP (gross domestic product), while India is #10. Are people in India richer than in Luxembourg? No. And we can see that clearly on the list of GDP per capita (per person): India is now place #129, while luxembourg is #2.

[Ophiolite]

Because it is patently clear that the person posted those figures for the express purpose of discrediting my hypothesis from the get go........

Your hypothesis is discredited from the get go by your singular inability to understand that only a per capita comparison can properly convey the potential impact on resources, society, etc. This is something schoolchildren learn in their first year of secondary school at the latest. You might want to revisit some old geography or mathematics textbooks.

 

Humanitarian immigrants impose the greatest direct costs on government through welfare and support services.

Here is a thought: if it costs us nothing in terms of money, in terms of time, in terms of effort, can it be called humanitarian. Humanitarian actions are ones we undertake because we care more about fellow members of humanity than we do about a small slice of our money, or out time, or our effort. I take it you wish to dissociate yourself from such actions.

[imatfaal]

If they do get hired then it is on far lower wages than the locals in which case it is worth the tradies while to give them simple mundane jobs that don't require a great deal of communication.

 

There is a bit of an issue with exploitation of immigrants who are rarely in a position to complain. Often the exploitation seems to be perpetrated by other fomer immigrants who are better english speakers and more savy about what they can get away with as far as breaching emplyment regulations.

 

They pay them well below award wages or don't pay them at all for weeks on end, they don't pay them over time, they don't make their complusory employer supperannuation contributions and they sack them if they complain to the government regulators.

 

Unacceptible degradation of Australian society and the price of letting to many immigants in too fast.

 

These sorts of employment rorts were not an issue in the 80s and early 90s when the immigration intake was much smaller, of the order of 80,000 per year I think it was.

 

This thread has moved from merely a poorly informed claim about immigration to a border-line racist rant.

 

Often the exploitation seems to be perpetrated by other fomer immigrants

[sarcasm] Rather than the good upstanding anglos who would not dream of exploiting another human being!!! [/sarcasm]

 

Unacceptible degradation of Australian society and the price of letting to many immigants in too fast.

I would be flirting with Godwin's law if I expounded on what this reminds me of.

[Greg Boyles]

Your hypothesis is discredited from the get go by your singular inability to understand that only a per capita comparison can properly convey the potential impact on resources, society, etc. This is something schoolchildren learn in their first year of secondary school at the latest. You might want to revisit some old geography or mathematics textbooks.

 

Here is a thought: if it costs us nothing in terms of money, in terms of time, in terms of effort, can it be called humanitarian. Humanitarian actions are ones we undertake because we care more about fellow members of humanity than we do about a small slice of our money, or out time, or our effort. I take it you wish to dissociate yourself from such actions.

 

Per capita immigration intake assumes that:

 

1) All 1,000 head of population entirely support the specified number of immigrants and that they are not drawing on social welfare themselves.

 

2) It assumes that each 1,000 head of population are equally productive in each country regardless of ecological and cultural restraints etc.

 

Across OECD countries, levels of most measures of specific social conditions are significantly related to GDP per capita while changes over time are not. However, survey based data on happiness and life-satisfaction across OECD countries are only weakly related to levels of GDP per capita.

 

Overall, measures of GDP per capita and economic growth remain critical for any assessment of wellbeing but they need to be complemented with measures of other dimensions of well-being to get a comprehensive picture of well-being.

 

I suggest we need to do the same with determining what role total immigration intake has played in countries building of national debt.

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

Per capita immigration intake assumes that:

 

1) All 1,000 head of population entirely support the specified number of immigrants and that they are not drawing on social welfare themselves.

 

2) It assumes that each 1,000 head of population are equally productive in each country regardless of ecological and cultural restraints etc.

It's an average value across any of those nations. You take ALL the immigration into a particular country, divide by the total number of people, and multiply by 1000. Then compare.

 

You do know what an average value is, don't you?

 

This thread has moved from merely a poorly informed claim about immigration to a border-line racist rant.

 

[sarcasm] Rather than the good upstanding anglos who would not dream of exploiting another human being!!! [/sarcasm]

 

 

I would be flirting with Godwin's law if I expounded on what this reminds me of.

I completely agree with you.

 

Unfortunately, in real life we also have politicians who simply blame foreigners for all that's wrong.

As much as I hate the continuous logical fallacies, the twisting of facts and the refusal to accept the obvious, this is modern politics - or, rather, populism.

It breaks forum rules 1c and 4, but I guess only on the politics forum that actually makes it more realistic.

 

Greg is an excellent populist, and he would probably gain votes by simply blaming everything that's wrong on immigrants... regardless whether it's true or not.

He would gain even more votes because he will never admit he's wrong about anything. He won't accept statistical data regarding countries, saying that statistical averages are fabricated. And such things work in politics. You can indeed get votes by denying statistics.

Edited August 10, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Greg Boyles]

This thread has moved from merely a poorly informed claim about immigration to a border-line racist rant.

 

Then I suggest that you don't really understand what the definition of 'racism' really is!

 

According to the Australia's Race Discrimination Act (Miller vs Wertheim) criticism of the attitude or behaviour of an ethnic or religious group is NOT regarded as 'racism' under the act.

 

Criticism of the ethnicity, physical traits, intelligence or religion IS regarded as racism.

 

I am criticising the behaviour of a range of nationalities regarding business ethics. Not all the former nationals of any given country will be of the same ethnicity. Therefore by law my comments are not racist!

 

Again you are just rolling out the racist slur in an attempt to veto any questioning of immigration.

 

And your slur does not intimidate me!

 

If you are a non-Anglo and have a problem with my criticism of the business ethics of a range of non-Anglo immigrants, then prove me wrong.

 

It's an average value across any of those nations. You take ALL the immigration into a particular country, divide by the total number of people, and multiply by 1000. Then compare.

 

You do know what an average value is, don't you?

 

What ever. But my criticism of using per capita immigration still stands. You need more information than simply per capita immigration to properly examine my hypothesis.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[DJBruce]

Gregg, ignoring your obvious xenophobia and ethnocentrism, which in my opinion is tip toeing racism, why don't you respond to any of the data that has been posted refuting your claim? It seems like you only wish to debate baseless opinion.

 

What ever. But my criticism of using per capita immigration still stands. You need more information than simply per capita immigration to properly examine my hypothesis.

 

Then give me the data to support your hypothesis. If you are tired of people attacking you hypothesis why don't you give us the data and the studies that you used to form the hypothesis, or is you OP only ground in your baseless opinion.

Edited August 10, 2011 by DJBruce

[swansont]

If they do get hired then it is on far lower wages than the locals in which case it is worth the tradies while to give them simple mundane jobs that don't require a great deal of communication.

 

But you just said nobody hires them.

 

There is a bit of an issue with exploitation of immigrants who are rarely in a position to complain. Often the exploitation seems to be perpetrated by other fomer immigrants who are better english speakers and more savy about what they can get away with as far as breaching emplyment regulations.

 

They pay them well below award wages or don't pay them at all for weeks on end, they don't pay them over time, they don't make their complusory employer supperannuation contributions and they sack them if they complain to the government regulators.

 

if they are employed, how are they a drain on social programs? If they work cheaply, how does this drag down the economy?

 

Unacceptible degradation of Australian society and the price of letting to many immigants in too fast.

That's not economics. Though I suspect it's a sentiment that the Aborigines have had for some time.

[Greg Boyles]

It's an average value across any of those nations. You take ALL the immigration into a particular country, divide by the total number of people, and multiply by 1000. Then compare.

 

You do know what an average value is, don't you?

 

 

I completely agree with you.

 

Unfortunately, in real life we also have politicians who simply blame foreigners for all that's wrong.

As much as I hate the continuous logical fallacies, the twisting of facts and the refusal to accept the obvious, this is modern politics - or, rather, populism.

It breaks forum rules 1c and 4, but I guess only on the politics forum that actually makes it more realistic.

 

Greg is an excellent populist, and he would probably gain votes by simply blaming everything that's wrong on immigrants... regardless whether it's true or not.

He would gain even more votes because he will never admit he's wrong about anything. He won't accept statistical data regarding countries, saying that statistical averages are fabricated. And such things work in politics. You can indeed get votes by denying statistics.

 

I did not say that economic problems and national debt are caused entirely by immigrants and immigration.

 

I said that economic problems and national debt are caused by over large populations and population growth, to which immigration is a major contributor in Australia, Britain and the USA.

 

OK I will accept the label of xenophobic.

 

But big deal.

 

99.9% of the human ace is xenophobic, including Indians and Chinese etc

 

Xenophobia is ubiquitous in all societies and within ethnic groups. I will cite examples of the latter if I must, but surely at least some of you recognize it. Xenophobia is not only racially or culturally based.

 

But my xenophobia is not only reserved for those with other than white skin. In some cases I have criticisms of immigrants with white skin also.

 

That's not economics. Though I suspect it's a sentiment that the Aborigines have had for some time.

 

I would agree with aborigines on that. In which case there is no sense in us continuing the downward trend by us inviting hordes more immigrants.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[CaptainPanic]

I did not say that economic problems and national debt are caused entirely by immigrants and immigration.

 

I said that economic problems and national debt are caused by over large populations and population growth, to which immigration is a major contributor in Australia, Britain and the USA.

That's why you're such a good populist.

Rather than say someone else has made a good point, you find a way to twist yourself out of it.

Rather than say that statistics show no good correlation, you say that we misunderstood your point.

 

I would agree with aborigines on that.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand sarcasm so well. I am sure swansont meant that originally the Western people were the immigrants and they caused the degradation of the original Australian society.

 

If you want to be a good populist, you cannot allow your opponents to mock you. You have to find these sarcastic remarks, and you have to reply to them by completely ignoring them and instead making an unrelated joke which proves you're right (again).

 

In which case there is no sense in us continuing the downward trend by us inviting hordes more immigrants.

And at the end of each post, like Cato the Elder, regardless of the topic, you post your motto.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

Edited August 10, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Greg Boyles]

Here are some interesting facts and figures regarding illegal immigration from Mexico to the USA:

 

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

 

Immigration causes average wage decline of $1,700

Here is an interesting point. Immigration, legal or illegal, is lorded as increasing GDP and the tax base. But if wages decline then income taxes decline along with the tax base, while infrastructure and service costs for the government rise. If average income declines then average spending declines or personal debt increases while GST takes for the government decline.

 

Economic and social costs of illegal immigration

The economic and social consequences of illegal immigration across the 1,940 mile long America-Mexico border are staggering.

 

An average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).

 

Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

 

FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.⁸

 

80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals. Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing Mexico's corrupt generals and police officials, and armed confrontations between the Mexican army and U.S. Border Patrol agents are a real threat. There have been 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military over the last five years.

 

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

 

Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIR research shows "the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers."

 

"In the NAFTA era, a staggering 87 percent of Mexico's imports go to the United States, while Mexicans living in the United States send home more than $8 billion annually. Fox has said he considers his constituency to include the 22 million to 24 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States. Mexican candidates now make campaign stops in U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fresno, Calif." (Mexico's muddle, Ruben Navarrette Jr., March 26, 2003)

 

For more information, see The Washington Times article and series Chaos along the border, October 6, 2002, the FAIR reports Immigration and the Economy, Immigration Lowers Wages for American Workers, and the article Record amount of remittances sent from US to Mexico.

 

Edited August 10, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Phi for All]

What ever. But my criticism of using per capita immigration still stands. You need more information than simply per capita immigration to properly examine my hypothesis.

!

Moderator Note

You are basing much of your supposition on immigration figures and people are objecting because you draw conclusions which aren't supported using common per capita measurement. You can't ask them to look past that and spend time seeing merit in your hypothesis. This stumbling block is keeping this thread from proceeding rationally. Until you deal with it, everything else is just hand-waving. Please modify your approach.

[Greg Boyles]

That's why you're such a good populist.

Rather than say someone else has made a good point, you find a way to twist yourself out of it.

Rather than say that statistics show no good correlation, you say that we misunderstood your point.

 

 

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand sarcasm so well. I am sure swansont meant that originally the Western people were the immigrants and they caused the degradation of the original Australian society.

 

If you want to be a good populist, you cannot allow your opponents to mock you. You have to find these sarcastic remarks, and you have to reply to them by completely ignoring them and instead making an unrelated joke which proves you're right (again).

 

 

And at the end of each post, like Cato the Elder, regardless of the topic, you post your motto.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

 

I know exactly what swansont meant and I agree with him, regardless of his sarcasm.

 

British have degraded this continent both in terms of ecology and biodiversity and in terms of our capitalist consumerism.

 

I repeat. There is no sense in bringing in ever more immigrants, indocrinated with capitalist consumerism, and degrade our ecosystems and the prospects of aborigines still further.

 

At least my motto has you full attention.

 

!

Moderator Note

You are basing much of your supposition on immigration figures and people are objecting because you draw conclusions which aren't supported using common per capita measurement. You can't ask them to look past that and spend time seeing merit in your hypothesis. This stumbling block is keeping this thread from proceeding rationally. Until you deal with it, everything else is just hand-waving. Please modify your approach.

 

Please refer to post #46 - supporting facts and figures for the USA other than per capita immigration.

 

These figure are at odds with what the others are saying about per capita immigration figures not showing a correlation between high immigration and debt and economic problems.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

Here are some interesting facts and figures regarding illegal immigration from Mexico to the USA:

 

http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html

 

Considering they claim that 2 million illegals are getting in every year (3 million cross, 1/3 are caught), and half stay (1 million), but the numbers have only doubled to 11 million since 1994, something doesn't add up. A 5.5 million increase in 16 years is about 300k per year. And that's assuming all illegals are from Mexico.

 

So I don't necessarily trust their numbers. Especially since many are un- or dubiously-sourced.

 

But while 11 million illegals earning $60 billion may sound like a lot, that's not even $5500 per capita. Given that the US us per capita income is about $27k, just which jobs are the illegals taking that are so sought after by others?

[DJBruce]

An average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).

 

Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

 

As Swansont pointed out these figures do not agree with each other.

 

FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year."

I am not sure I would consider a group considered by both the SPLC and ADL as being at very best biased and fear mongering, and often racist with questionable financial contributors to be a non-biased source of factual data on immigration data.

The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.⁸

 

This is an interesting statistic, however, I would point out that we may be confounding variables in that it has long been know that those without a high school education make less and are more likely to need government assistance than those who attend college. So this really does little to show that immigrants are bad for a country.

80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals. Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing Mexico's corrupt generals and police officials, and armed confrontations between the Mexican army and U.S. Border Patrol agents are a real threat. There have been 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military over the last five years.

 

Umm, what does this have to do with the immigrant debate? It appears to me to be an attempt to portray all immigrants from Mexico as drug dealers, which is simply fallacious and flat out disgusting.

 

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

Primary source please.

Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIRresearch shows "the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year.

See my above point on FAIR.

 

"In the NAFTA era, a staggering 87 percent of Mexico's imports go to the United States, while Mexicans living in the United States send home more than $8 billion annually.

Not sure where this economic argument is going.

Fox has said he considers his constituency to include the 22 million to 24 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the United States. Mexican candidates now make campaign stops in U.S. cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Fresno, Calif." (Mexico's muddle, Ruben Navarrette Jr., March 26, 2003)

So what?