Amid debate, all 2016 American Nobel laureates are immigrants
thehill.com
thehill.com
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440334/immigration-nat...
Bottom section is the critical point, about native born workers having 500 bn in wealth transferred from the labor class to the ownership class as a result of immigration.
We live in a very comfortable echo chamber where we usually don't actually compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. Not everyone is so lucky. And those people deserve to be heard instead of being shouted down and drowned out with negative "-ist" arguments designed to censor them.
Why does this reasoning end up blaming people that by circumstance was born elsewhere for competing by doing a better/cheaper job, instead of blaming the system for allowing that transfer of resources between classes? Why not use $100bn of those 500 for betterment/education/job creation/etc for those less "lucky"?
Is there no way to improve the lives of immigrants in their home countries without transferring wealth to the rich in America?
There are two basic ideas to solve this though, you can put more and more taxes on the capital owning class to "make them pay their fair share" for, from what I gather the humanists want, an unlimited number of economic migrants because it's the human thing to do. Now an important thing to note, might be Trump's comments in the second debate, that while everyone is going on about how he legally avoided paying maximal amounts of taxes (which I would do as well, I think most everyone pays as little tax as they legally can), Hillary's donors also use those loopholes. It takes a lot more research into the respective tax plans to see if "making the rich pay their fair share" is a campaign line or an actual plan, so that takes checking.
I gather that the arguments against this are that if people can't be rich in the USA, they will go be rich somewhere else. The USA, from Trump's rhetoric, I haven't checked this, has some of the higher corporate tax rates in the world, and seeing as how manufacturing has already spread outside the USA, is it really crazy to assume the capital will as well (especially when selling the goods to America is facilitated by free trade deals that are in place, making it less costly to move your business to another country).
This is the Democratic party tack to deal with wealth inequality.
The second plan is to cause a shortage of labor, which would increase it's value, which would make wages go up. The common ways to do this would be: to make it expensive to import goods into America (which lessens the effect of labor in foreign factories which export into the USA) by getting rid of free trade agreements; and to lower the number of people in the USA competing for that labor. We attempt to do this by having an immigration procedure, with quotas, so that we can accept as immigrants into our labor force the number of people needed at various skill levels (this would be why it's easier for a doctor to get in than a farmer, say). Trump's "wall" is basically just a way to say "we should enforce the quotas that our immigration experts are setting so that our labor force isn't glutted by excess supply in any relative tier".
This is the republican tack to tackle wealth disparity.
The arguments against this are mostly humanitarian, from what I gather. A significant portion of the population consider's it America's duty and legacy to be the harbor for the indigent. There's also arguments for cultural enrichment etc.
I think that's why so much emotion is involved in opposing it, and why so much backlash is rightfully indignant and angry. One side is hurt by this betrayal of the American identity by building a wall to oppress the poor and keep them from the upward path -- and then begins to call the other side hateful things... When the other side tried to start an economic conversation.
This is just my interpretation of the situation.
The tax code is complicated BECAUSE it was lobbied so that only the few have the resources to (ab)use it. If you think that a Trump in office would not act protectionist you are fooling yourself. I'm not saying Hillary in this matter would be any better.
The companies will stay as long as the US is a large market, because they need the presence.
Re: your comment that you couldn't edit in on walling off. If at first we take the literal part: [1].
On the economic part, undocumented workers have contributed 10% of the social security trust fund, while only being eligible for 1/15th of that in return, so that's a 14 to 1 net positive [2].
They (undocumented workers) also pay $11.64bn annually in state and local tax [3].
[1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18/donald-trump-immigration...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigr...
[3] http://itep.org/itep_reports/2016/02/undocumented-immigrants...
I wasn't aware of those figures; rolling in my mind was that I'd read somewhere that immigrants took substantially more social benefits than natives (like 50% more, perhaps attributable to the culture). But I'm not sure if that was documented or undocumented or what, just a vague memory.
First reaction would be that anarcho-capitalism is a thing, albeit not a philosophy I think would possibly work (See Stefan Molyneux rambling on youtube).
I agree with your second point completely, the question is about the little guy. Neither of their policies would affect me much at all, so I feel it's my responsibility to vote for who I think would help the poor most.
Is the third one true? For example where I live in China there is a huge Apple advertising presence even with the 10-20% price increase versus USA prices. And with free trade, couldn't it be cheaper to be a "foreign" company without losing much presence / market share? I feel like tariffs are essential for forcing companies to stay to maintain market presence, instead of free trade deals.
I think that it is foremost important thing to get the population gains under control. If this has happened then we have plenty of time of to figure out how to actually fairly share our home we call Earth.
Current trends do show that things are moving to towards normalization, but it is not yet conclusive.
Many countries trying to reduce population are succeeding, even Brazil that is not developed already has 1.8 child per woman on average. The problem is that the poor remain reproducing faster always.
So how you enforce it? Pull a China and remove rights of poor people that ended with multiple kids and end with murderous parents?
Murder children yourself, Sparta style?
Force sterilize women and then give out reproduction licenses like a dystopian scifi movie?
"Education" and "career" is not a solution, by definition the elite will have always more of that, and all else equal, will reproduce slower.
If children are only burden and not the source of the income (by direct workforce during the young age or by sending money to the family when older) and contraceptives are accepted and accessible then there is no initiative to have too many children. Well, at least it looks to be the case.
First of he explained that Brazilian education system gets you trapped. While universities are free, the basic education is either expensive or so bad that it would not allow children to get into universities. So if you are born in favela, you can not get out of it based on your education. If this is like this by design and intentional, or just out of stupidity, I do not know. But I would conclude from this that also that there exists no social pressure in this community to get out of it as it is possibly regarded as almost impossible.
Second he explained that her wife went through serious hardship during the school age, as the school meal was for her only way to get something to eat. I would conclude from this that I could be that actually the children are not such a burden for parents in favelas - school system keeps them alive, they do not die from hunger and nobody gets blamed.
Third the average temperature in Rio is constantly >= 20 C. This means that nobody really has to prepare for prolonged period of cold. Nobody will die because they do not have proper housing or can not pay for the heating or have proper clothes.
Based on these 3 pieces of information I would the kids are for them not a burden, at least not in a sense I considered, in addition there is currently no force that would motivate to improve the situation.
So the solution would be more complicated. At least they are not motivated in children because of economical gains and it would possibly make the solution simpler.
PS. Please not the this is just an argumentation based on these small pieces of information. I would recommend to look up if there are some studies that would clarify this situation in a more systematic manner. Also I am certainly not claiming that this opinion piece reflects actual truth.
Rio is just fucked up, the government right now is with a debt of about 500 million USD in unpaid wages to common state employees (teachers, cooks, janitors, etc...)
In some places, there are not even enough schools in first place.
Yet, people pump kids out like there is no tomorrow, I don't know why is that, people even make TV programs out of it, kinda like exploiting the poor by showing their bizareness on TV, like when they showed a family with 12 kids or something like that, where the older kids had to take care of newborns, and both parents combined and all welfare combined gave them in total about 300 USD month.
So how you put stop to that without resorting to extreme means? I know no viable solution.
All known plans toward that, ended being labelled as evil in some way (for example there are various theories that Swedish flu vaccines that caused diseases in young people were intentional culling of population, similarly many people believe that divorce laws, abortion, etc... is similarly some kind of evil plan to cull population).
I know that Catholic Church has a lot of influence over South America, can this be related to this?
I think that it is actually very important to every individual on Earth to figure this out as more we have people on Earth the less can be shared among us and is there space for other species.
As is apparent, I have a bit of a Trump tilt. I would actually really appreciate knowing more arguments against locked down borders in general (like Switzerland, say), besides social ones.
1. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21707835-econom...
If Trump came out with a nuanced plan for immigration reform like the above, I would be mightily impressed. But it's hard to respect someone who crassly labels Mexican immigrants as "drug dealers and rapists".
The first section uses wage differences between natives and foreign born workers as a proxy for assimilation:
"For example, the 1965–69 arrivals had a 23.5 percent wage disadvantage at the time of arrival, and this narrowed to a 12.0 percent disadvantage after ten years. But the 1995–99 arrivals had a 27.3 percent wage disadvantage at the time of arrival, and it was still 26.9 percent after ten years. As the report modestly puts it, “the process of economic integration appears to have slowed somewhat in recent decades."
Wages have been doing some odd things in recent decades[1], so it may be a bit off to assign the difference to immigrants' failure to assimilate.
[1] http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Then there's:
"[The increase in wealth accruing to the native population as a result of immigration] ignores all the externalities that immigrants create along the way. The externalities are both good and bad. The good: The entry of extremely high-skill immigrants surely accelerates innovation, makes us more productive, and has a beneficial impact on economic growth. The bad: The entry of some high-skill immigrants, such as those who enrolled in flight schools and learned to fly planes and then flew them on September 11, 2001, can make us all much worse off."
Yes, that might help explain Trump's support.
It might also help explain the opposition to Trump from the ownership class.
There is a debate to be had about who and how and how many people from where we allow to settle. We are outliers in how many people we take in. And I think we should tailor policies with the impact on Americans in mind.
We're no longer in a steep growth phase, we're a mature economy which can successfully absorb so many new people into viable jobs. We need to work harder to get our underemployed better employed before we employ the surplus workers from elsewhere.
That's not to say no immigration. Just controlled and proportional to need and population of origin so that both a Senegalese and Indian and Cuban have reasonable equality in obtaining a visa.
There is no reason we can't set data driven quotas to allow, say, 2MM per annum to fill needs for ditch diggers and doctors, etc. But base it on need and do it with some balance.
Social media has made it worse. I think that it encourages preference falsification and causes inelasticity in the Overton Window. That inelasticity means that changes in public opinion are abrupt and usually need some concrete excuse to be justified.
"The Page Act becomes law. It's the country's first exclusionary act, banning criminals, prostitutes, and Chinese contract laborers from entering the country. 1882. Congress passes the Immigration Act."
That said, I think if the US had a strict policy like any number of countries where you can presume 90%+ of immigrants are legal, people would treat immigrants much better knowing they didn't shortcut the system, they have government imprimatur and that they contribute to the economy and to other Americans' wellbeing.
But... regardless, we should always proceed civilly and petition the gov't rather than lash out on a population, legal or not.
For example, in England /UK we witness outlash toward Poles, despite their not being outwardly different, but for language. Again, lower classes feel undue labor pressure and take it out on working class immigrants.
if you think that trump has been talking about illegal immigration only, I would like to point you to the term "dog whistle politics". Do you think that the white supremacists that have come out in support of him are only referring to illegal immigrants when they talk about the threat posed to "our" culture?
Lee Atwater once explained in a speech that because of changes in social moirés you couldn't call black people "n*" anymore. Instead you could refer to racial issues in terms of tax cuts and school busing. Tax cuts keep your hard earned money from benefiting "those"" people and school busing...they were going to make your kids schools worse by bringing "them" in.
Are there issues with the US immigration system. Yes. Has that been at issue in this election? Not really. That's just not what's going on here. The issue of immigration is a surrogate for a perceived loss of power by one population relative to another.
Of course, the class based view of this is that the capital owning class have disenfranchised the rest of the country. It's impossible to talk about class in America without including race. The poor and working poor whites have had more in common with their black neighbors than they have had with the capital owning class since the end of the civil war. That doesn't change the structure of the issue. So, no, I was not saying that it is as simple as race.
Ex-Democrat, I can see, but ex-liberal...what, is this person now a mercantilist monarchist or something? I'm assuming that they still support the ideal of democracy and some kind of quasi-market capitalist society?
There are some on the "far left" that take the view that Trump is exactly what this country deserves and that if we went "full retard" that it might mean real reform sooner rather than later because of the damage he would do. I don't agree. The American president is clothed in tremendous power and is capable of terrible things.
I don't think that the avid environmentalist is actually an avid environmentalist if they think that Trump would be good for the environment after attacking the EPA and the limited good that they do now as choking the lifeblood out of business.
EDIT: What I'm trying to say here is that in the American class system the middle class whites who struck a deal with elites for privilege over the poor and people of color are afraid that the deal has changed. They are right. There's no economic advantage to the capital owning class to respect prior social compacts and they have removed all the levers of power that the middle and lower classes had to stop them. They were allowed to remove those levers in the name of maintaining racial privilege for a large group.
my point is that something can be happening in the macro even while there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary in the micro.
i mean, you know that, at this point, things like the southern strategy have been well documented including very literal explanations by the people that came up with it, right? ron reagan announcing his campaign in a town were civil rights workers were murdered?
was it just the thing about the environmentalist? and thats going to kill my whole point for you? fine. you met a unicorn. unicorns are real. that doesnt change the meat of my argument.
EDIT: yes, i was being snarky about the ex-liberal andbthe environmentalist. i thought the bit about an ex-liberal being a monarchist was funny. classical liberalism joke. sue me.
Those people are far dead and there were many Republican primary contenders who tried these antique tactics and fell flat in the 90s onward. Coopting some dusty historical strategy as starting to work again doesn't sound like a plausible story.
Many feel that the modern political machinery had left them behind. You could say he "dog whistles" to saying he cares about poor whites and those who don't have a college degree, but he actively talks about them and how he'd like to secure opportunities for them to succeed. It's safety net and opportunity politics.
The republicans played to a sense of white aggrievement over the 40 years since the 70's while using the political power given to them in the name of that aggrievement to disempower the people that gave it to them.
I agree that he does speak to how middle and lower class whites still feel aggrieved but he does it in a way is still consistent with white privilege. You mentioned Arlie Hochshchild in another comment. Did you catch her comment about how Trump is playing the white knight role and that he shames everyone but white men? What about her "deep story" explanation? She's said that in two different interviews that I've heard her in. The one thing that she doesn't include, because its outside the scope of what she's doing, is the extent to which these people are complicit in the construction of their own circumstances. If you only look at this as an economic class struggle it's impossible to explain the reason that people supported parties that were explicitly opposed to their self interest. The class based explanation of the exploitation of poor people without including race is incomplete at best and disingenuous at worst.
It's "safety net" in that he's going to get some "safety net" for "you" and not "them". You have to be willingly ignoring that to not see it.
EDIT: Saying that the southern strategy was only for pro segregationists in the 60's and early 70's is so demonstrably false that it makes me think you are purposefully being misleading. It BECAME the Republican mainstream. It didn't go away. It won.
The subtitle to the motherjones article is literally: "How Donald Trump took a narrative of unfairness and twisted it to his advantage."
In practice, I've heard the line "I know trump's awful but ..." coming from quite a few surprising places. I can't say "this reality doesn't exist because I choose not to believe in it".
If I want to honestly understand the world, I need to be open to ideas I currently do not understand.
Because both parties have abandoned them, and class politics, in favor of identity politics.
Why do so many politicians, activists, journalists, and other leaders ignore (or demonize) their cause?
var iceberg = { tip : "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" }
If you want a historical analogy that helps you to better connect with the situation under question then I would recommend to think about immigration of Germans into South America after WWII.
This is what at least comes into my mind. I do not know if this analogy would be fair to either parties.
Also it does not follow that I would recommend you to support one of the candidates based on this. If you happen to be an American.
This is the case right now. Ramping up deportation as Trump has suggested would obviously not yield better results. The immigration courts right now have a backlog of more than half a million cases [5]. I've not even touched stop-and-frisk, religious profiling, etc.
Now, and this part is speculation, this part of history comes to mind: [6]. If it's TLDR, then search for "repatriation".
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/office-of-the-chief-immigration...
[2]: http://naij-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-14-Re...
[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-a-crowded-immigra...
[4]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/29/the-deportation...
[5]: http://trac.syr.edu/whatsnew/email.160915.html
[6]: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439114563/americas-forgotten-h...
Edit: Bonus: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trumps-p...
Lots of people openly say that we should tolerate illegal immigration either for economic or humanitarian reasons, and I've never seen such an argument applied to them.
Also, first American Nobel laureate was Teddy Roosevelt. Now that is a surprise.
(0): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_cou...
If all immigration barriers were to be removed tomorrow, the influx of third world population would crush the USA - or any other western state - as we know it.
The challenge of the immigration system is being tough but fair, where you let more of the useful immigrants pass while filtering out the rest. The American system is not there; it's tough alright, but it's still missing on a huge amount of human potential.
(I'm not a US citizen)
Last year: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Sancar
Now that you have done so, I have a simple retort.
The only person of African descent to win a real* Nobel Prize was Sir William Arthur Lewis for Economics, and that chap was obviously fairly well anglicized. Just look at his bio!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Arthur_Lewis
* If we're working with the colloquial meaning of the phrase Nobel Prize, then winning it for 'Peace', while honorable and relevant to Alfred's original intent, isn't an intellectual feat. Intellectual prowess has nothing to do with morality, noble though it could be.
Now onto Muslims.
From Wikipedia:
Muslims make up over 23% of the world's population.[5][6][7] And as of 2015, twelve Nobel Prize winners have been Muslims.
Again, if you discount 'Peace' then only 3 Muslims have obtained a Nobel Prize for an intellectual reason.
If one categorizes writing as of equal intellectual consequence as physics or chemistry, you only get an additional 2 winners.
The long and short of it is that African and Middle Easterners are populations which are in the billions but which have a single digit number of Nobel Prize winners.
That makes perfect sense even if you don't believe race is a real biological concept since those are the areas of our planet that have experienced the least amount of progress, dare I say civilization.
If you dispute the Nobel Prize as evidence of an objective way to measure intellectual prowess I'll completely agree with you (even though I believe more objective metrics are likely to yield similar results), there are many intelligent people who have performed feats who don't get a Nobel Prize, but then maybe it points to the idea you shouldn't write headlines like "Amid debate, all 2016 American Nobel laureates are immigrants" because that is total bullshit.
Trying to equate it to how "civilised" a nation is, is just racism.
Is that all you have got?
Your ideals are intellectually dysfunctional, leading to stagnation, anarchy and death as they have done so in every age. The whitewash job on history is peeling off and every day that passes undermines your credibility.
Watch, as Venezuela and South Africa collapse into an abyss.
Watch, as each generation sinks deeper into poverty than the one before it. Working harder, for less, every day.
Watch, as the fires rise in France and it becomes unsafe to walk the streets in our own cities.
That is your work devil.
"Give me your healthy, your rich, your educated masses yearning to contribute significantly to our GDP."
I find it laughable that all immigrants are bundled under the banner of "immigrant". Apparently the category of "race" or even "ethnicity" should not be used but the category of "immigrant" despite origin is something that is of great value despite being far more general.
What I am suggesting is that this collective romanticism about immigrants is absurd. This was posted it the "latino" section of thehill to make an ideological point yet none of these people are of latin american origin.
Comments stressing immigration laws are only about illegal immigration are almost tautologic. Of course illegal immigrants are illegal, but the real issue is who the policy makers want to declare illegal.
Historically is there any information on the quantities of migrants who have migrated to the USA with highly-formalised skills, or who are already wealthy vs. those who arrived with nearly empty pockets.
"An expatriate (often shortened to expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing, as an immigrant, in a country other than that of their citizenship."
expats = migrants from the 'elite' class. educated, wealthy, well-connected etc. most often referred to persons from so called '1st/2nd world' countries.
immigrants = migrants from the 'cattle' class. not-so-rich, varied education, mostly non-caucasians. most often referred to persons from so called '3rd world' countries.
According to the article, at least one of the laureates is now a US citizen.