Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one.
I understand some people will not be swayed by moral arguments, but society doesn't seem to try anymore. Utilitarian arguments have become the default.
Combating xenophobia should be a moral issue, not a utilitarian one.
I understand some people will not be swayed by moral arguments, but society doesn't seem to try anymore. Utilitarian arguments have become the default.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrant...
And by the way, many have kids that are Americans by birthright. So, I'm not sure what the benefit is to scapegoating the undocumented immigrant labor class. Maybe you can answer that.
Another is Fannie Mae subsidizing housing. Another is public school. Another is protection under the law. Another is all public road/land use.
The fact of the matter is that we have finite resources. And simply being a person inside the US's borders give you rights to these resources, and if we do not make sure that the return we get from the presence of the people we're letting in at least makes up the cost of bringing them in, then we are doomed.
Again, a lot of those public services are paid for through taxes immigrants do pay into, like property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, and even income taxes. And again, their children are Americans by birthright so public education is an investment in Americans.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/sr133.pdf
We can argue resource allocation, entitlement programs but considering China has 1 billion more people with a land mass not much larger than ours, we're certainly not running out of space.
And if you gave them a pathway to amnesty it would be much easier to allocate entitlement programs and have common sense taxation.
The original statement was "I'm appalled by the need for statistics showing how "useful" immigrants are." Mine response is that it's a necessary framework. I in no way gave any conclusions about what I believe is the result of thinking in that framework, but you seem to harbor some sort of prejudice that makes it so you've assumed what I think.
Yet you describe my arguments as "ill-argued cliche talking points" and go on to state that I "harbor some sort of prejudice"
Perhaps a little introspection is in order on your part.
No trolling required to upset you. It seems just facts and reality will do it.
You implied that illegal immigrants consume no government resources / cannot be a utilitarian concern.
In fact, if that were not the case, it would make things even worse. Imagine if you take a million people, and after a few years, kick most of them out, and only a few get permanent residency. Who would want to build their life around that?
Or do you think that having a stranger tell them that they are a wrong/dumb/stupid person for feeling a way will further alienate them and reinforce their current opinion?
Is honey better than vinegar?
Equating 'pro immigration' with 'morality' is the rather problematic basis of your statement.
Many countries (most, in fact) do just fine without large scale immigration policies.
Many nations with immigration are struggling to cope.
Moreover, there are serious flaws with US immigration policy such that one could be opposed to it on that basis.
Very, very few people 'hate immigrants'. But significant numbers of people think it's inappropriate to have people sneaking across the border, without documentation or status, and others just don't support large scale immigration, or perhaps have other criteria.