Do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration? (1 Viewer)

[Bum]

No problem at all....if they have the desire and ability to contribute to the Nation, and the understanding that they adapt....then let them come legally.

 

[Lovebug]

No, absolutely not. Take the right steps and I will welcome you with open arms and be happy for you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope. If it weren't for immigration, out country would stagnate and die.

That is an interesting take for sure. What I want to know is why constant US population growth (by relocating folks from elswhere) makes sense to you. Since 1980 (38 years) we have added 100M folks (almost a 1/3 increase) to the US population total. From 1935 to 1980 (45 years) we added 100M folks to the US population total. That, on average, is adding 2.4M folks every year for the last 83 years with about half of that growth through (net) immigration.

Since the US population would grow by about 1.2M folks per year w/o any immigration why is it 'best' to have double that number added every year?

 

[mike2810]

I have no issue with legal immigration. I do have issue with illegal immigration, people who overstay their visas, and claiming asylum when they really have no case.

 

[KevinKohler]

I am not sure that is true, in Houston the Hispanic population is likely near 50%, but almost all of 50% are
people who were born here or are legal. We do have a large number of illegal immigrants, but no where near a majority.
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Texas/Houston/Race-and-Ethnicity
Bear in mind that most of this data likely comes from the census, and most illegals do no respond to the census.

I wasn't even thinking about Texas. I was thinking about Bridgeport, CT, or parts of FL. Areas I have lived and know very well.

 

[KevinKohler]

That is an interesting take for sure. What I want to know is why constant US population growth (by relocating folks from elswhere) makes sense to you. Since 1980 (38 years) we have added 100M folks (almost a 1/3 increase) to the US population total. From 1935 to 1980 (45 years) we added 100M folks to the US population total. That, on average, is adding 2.4M folks every year for the last 83 years with about half of that growth through (net) immigration.

Since the US population would grow by about 1.2M folks per year w/o any immigration why is it 'best' to have double that number added every year?

More productive people = more productivity.

 

[Fledermaus]

The administration and Senator Tom Cotton do.

ORLY?

Who might that be?

Do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration?

 

[Mithros]

That is an interesting take for sure. What I want to know is why constant US population growth (by relocating folks from elswhere) makes sense to you. Since 1980 (38 years) we have added 100M folks (almost a 1/3 increase) to the US population total. From 1935 to 1980 (45 years) we added 100M folks to the US population total. That, on average, is adding 2.4M folks every year for the last 83 years with about half of that growth through (net) immigration.

Since the US population would grow by about 1.2M folks per year w/o any immigration why is it 'best' to have double that number added every year?

The current cost to raise a child in the US is $233k. Children, retirees, and other non productive individuals consume but contribute nothing to the countries GDP. That consumption needs to be offset with productive labor, especially as the boomers change the balance of workers to retirees.

Immigrants are essentially free. Even if they lack the same levels of education and are less productive they were raised elsewhere, someone else paid to clothe, educate, and feed them. So they can start making a positive contribution immediately. We say that the only way out of the boomers' entitlement fiasco is to grow ourselves out. That's not going to happen without increasing the number of workers, and immigrants are the best and fastest way to do that.

If you literally want Mexico et al to pay for a wall, then immigrate their workforce.

 

[longview]

I wasn't even thinking about Texas. I was thinking about Bridgeport, CT, or parts of FL. Areas I have lived and know very well.

Sorry, I know Houston is very close to a Hispanic majority, but most are legal.

 

[gdgyva]

Some but not that many, and there would be Americans wanting to do the opposite as well. Believe it or not the rest of the developed world is not scrambling to live in the US. And the ones that would probably see the most benefit from moving to the US are not going to with Trump as president.

You would probably see 1 Canadian for every 100 Mexicans.

there are people from developed countries clamoring to come here...Trump or not

i have some on the list....

you really think they care who is president right now?

they have been on the list over 6 years now...and still waiting....

and it may be another president before their name is called....

call them, and they will come....Trump or not....

they come for the "dream"....not for the politics other people play

 

[ttwtt78640]

The current cost to raise a child in the US is $233k. Children, retirees, and other non productive individuals consume but contribute nothing to the countries GDP. That consumption needs to be offset with productive labor, especially as the boomers change the balance of workers to retirees.

Immigrants are essentially free. Even if they lack the same levels of education and are less productive they were raised elsewhere, someone else paid to clothe, educate, and feed them. So they can start making a positive contribution immediately. We say that the only way out of the boomers' entitlement fiasco is to grow ourselves out. That's not going to happen without increasing the number of workers, and immigrants are the best and fastest way to do that.

If you literally want Mexico et al to pay for a wall, then immigrate their workforce.

OK, but using your (bolded above) child raising costs means each immigrant (couple or family) that has 2.3 kids (later born and raised in the US) must generate over $5.3M in income just to pay for the cost of raising their own children. The odds of a barely educated immigrant (legal or not) accomplishing that feat is near zero - so somebody else must help pay the rest of those child raising costs. This is why having a more merit based immigration system makes sense.

 

[Cassandra]

I think in the midst of these conversations about immigration, the lines are getting blurred. Just saying "Well, this country was built by immigrants" as some sort of defense against the current argument --- it's not a good one because those were LEGAL immigrants. Maybe people actually think that most people on the right don't want any immigrants at all. Hmmm... thus, this poll.

So - do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration? Please explain in the comments.

My predecessors - French and British - came here legally because there were no immigration laws for most of the 19th C. Mexicans have been coming across the border to work AND then RETURNING to Mexico for many, many years. Hardening the borders encouraged these migrant workers to bring their families and stay. H-2B visas need to increase in number and , in my view, the U.S. should grant more people asylum- even if its temporary. Additionally, the U.S. should help train police forces in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to combat gang violence and alter our drug laws in order to reduce the profits and violence associated with the trade. Instead of demonizing the most unfortunate of people who are trying to escape terrible conditions, we have a duty to help. I have no problem w legal immigration and I think we can do more to address the underlying motivations for illegal immigration.

 

[Grand Mal]

My predecessors - French and British - came here legally because there were no immigration laws for most of the 19th C. Mexicans have been coming across the border to work AND then RETURNING to Mexico for many, many years. Hardening the borders encouraged these migrant workers to bring their families and stay. H-2B visas need to increase in number and , in my view, the U.S. should grant more people asylum- even if its temporary. Additionally, the U.S. should help train police forces in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to combat gang violence and alter our drug laws in order to reduce the profits and violence associated with the trade. Instead of demonizing the most unfortunate of people who are trying to escape terrible conditions, we have a duty to help. I have no problem w legal immigration and I think we can do more to address the underlying motivations for illegal immigration.

This has been forgotten. What's an illegal immigrant today used to be a migrant worker. They'd come to the US to work for the season and then go home where their wages stretched much further. Now they can't take the chance that they'll be able to cross again so they bring their families and stay.

 

[Waddy]

If the legal immigrants have a skill we need then I'm all for it.

 

[jamesrage]

I think in the midst of these conversations about immigration, the lines are getting blurred. Just saying "Well, this country was built by immigrants" as some sort of defense against the current argument --- it's not a good one because those were LEGAL immigrants. Maybe people actually think that most people on the right don't want any immigrants at all. Hmmm... thus, this poll.

So - do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration? Please explain in the comments.

I have no problem with legal immigration as long as its not unrestricted and not used to keep wages down.

 

[Lursa]

I voted No but I also believe that it should be merit-based and that we should only take in people filling roles and jobs that we need filled. People with specific skills.

And I believe in some for true asylum seeking but when an entire country is a disaster, that seems like a moot point for many immigrants.

 

[Barnacle]

The problem with immigration from Canada an other Western European countries is that those people have the least to gain from immigration to the US and is therefore a hard sell for many, because the only thing you can offer most of them is a bit of a salary increase, maybe. The vast majority just have no desire or reason to move to the US.

Also how US law works make being American a massive liability if they ever want to return to their home country.

Please explain that part.

 

[Barnacle]

The current cost to raise a child in the US is $233k. Children, retirees, and other non productive individuals consume but contribute nothing to the countries GDP. That consumption needs to be offset with productive labor, especially as the boomers change the balance of workers to retirees.

Immigrants are essentially free. Even if they lack the same levels of education and are less productive they were raised elsewhere, someone else paid to clothe, educate, and feed them. So they can start making a positive contribution immediately. We say that the only way out of the boomers' entitlement fiasco is to grow ourselves out. That's not going to happen without increasing the number of workers, and immigrants are the best and fastest way to do that.

If you literally want Mexico et al to pay for a wall, then immigrate their workforce.

Not quite, as they first drag over their immediate - and later on extended - family.

 

[MrPeanut]

I think in the midst of these conversations about immigration, the lines are getting blurred. Just saying "Well, this country was built by immigrants" as some sort of defense against the current argument --- it's not a good one because those were LEGAL immigrants. Maybe people actually think that most people on the right don't want any immigrants at all. Hmmm... thus, this poll.

So - do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration? Please explain in the comments.

Is the question based on immigration laws back when the Irish came over or current laws? I support the idea of legal immigration, but I'm not going to pretend like it used to be enforced anywhere near the level that it is today. Comparing the two at all is a pretty wild concept.

 

[Carjosse]

Please explain that part.

Due to US financial laws most banks in Europe will not serve American citizens for example. Another one is you are forced to pay taxes even if you make no income in the US.

 

[Nap]

I think in the midst of these conversations about immigration, the lines are getting blurred. Just saying "Well, this country was built by immigrants" as some sort of defense against the current argument --- it's not a good one because those were LEGAL immigrants. Maybe people actually think that most people on the right don't want any immigrants at all. Hmmm... thus, this poll.

So - do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration? Please explain in the comments.

If I am reading your question correctly, No. My problem is with our immigration system and the way we go about illegal immigration.

I would prefer open borders but our system is no longer capable of providing that due to the implementation of the social safety net. Given our current system, we need a merit based system that allows all who are capable of providing for themselves the ability to come here and do so easily. For those here illegally, the onus should be on those that house/employ them rather than the individual themselves. Take away the incentive to come here illegally and end the practice. Our current system effectively creates a secondary citizenry that allows people to abuse and exploit them and is both appalling and detrimental to those who are trying to do the right thing.

 

[Josie]

If I am reading your question correctly, No. My problem is with our immigration system and the way we go about illegal immigration.

I would prefer open borders but our system is no longer capable of providing that due to the implementation of the social safety net. Given our current system, we need a merit based system that allows all who are capable of providing for themselves the ability to come here and do so easily. For those here illegally, the onus should be on those that house/employ them rather than the individual themselves. Take away the incentive to come here illegally and end the practice. Our current system effectively creates a secondary citizenry that allows people to abuse and exploit them and is both appalling and detrimental to those who are trying to do the right thing.

Why do you prefer open borders?

 

[Nap]

Why do you prefer open borders?

In my ideal version of what America should be, people should be able to move here and live based on their own merits in a free society with limited government. I realize we have passed the point of ever being able to truly reach that point which is why I had to adjust my position to that of a merit based immigration system.

 

[Fiddytree]

ORLY?

Who might that be?

Do you have a problem with LEGAL immigration?

It's not hard to find this out, bud.

Just look up Stephen Miller.

Read newspapers and Hill journalists.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[lefty louie]

I answered yes, but it's not a big problem. I wish they'd issue visa's based on a countries population, with a maximum number not to be exceeded. if countries being placed on a sliding scale/curve, if a smaller country doesn't fill all there slots then larger countries don't get to fill all their slots.