Originally posted by Blindside12
So you like the idea of bringing people here from other countries to take the job of the people that are already here struggling to find them?So the illegal who works in the fields, takes care of peoples kids, cleans table etc now needs to compete with the people that just showed up cause we cant control our borders or reduce who we let in?
Y'know that cliched scenario of illegals gathering in groups behind Home Depot waiting to be picked up by the truckload & taken away to do long hard hours for cheap pay.
Do you actually see American kids, unemployed or straight out of college also standing outside Home Depot?
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Y'know that cliched scenario of illegals gathering in groups behind Home Depot waiting to be picked up by the truckload & taken away to do long hard hours for cheap pay.Do you actually see American kids, unemployed or straight out of college also standing outside Home Depot?
This guy, what is cheap pay to you? Do you think those groups are just throwing their labor at whoever despite their market value? Just kick that shit from your head, they aren't "cheap" but they don't cost employers taxes. So in that form, they are cheap but they don't work for pennies.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Again, what's the guy arguing for? It seems pretty clear he's against immigration to the US, and then very loosely ties it to economic conditions in the immigrants' home countries, as if that were ever a major focal point in the immigration debate.The entire presentation was an oversimplistic way of getting idiots to agree with his stance on immigration, and reinforce the beliefs of the idiots who already agree with it.
Representing people with gumballs, for ****'s sake...and representing different regions of the world with jars of equal size when each region is vastly different from the other in terms of agriculture, commerce, infrastructure, total land area vs. population, etc.
Yeah because science has never used models before to explain their position.......
What would be your presentation of immigration?
Originally posted by snowdragon
Yeah because science has never used models before to explain their position.......What would be your presentation of immigration?
Science typically has repeatable test results to back up their claims, and better models to explain their findings that ****ing gumballs in glass jars.
I don't think there is an accurate way to represent a complex issue like immigration with an oversimplified physical model.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Science typically has repeatable test results to back up their claims, and better models to explain their findings that ****ing gumballs in glass jars.I don't think there is an accurate way to represent a complex issue like immigration with an oversimplified physical model.
Wow you are really dumb, all his numbers came from the world bank. He's using the gumballs as a visual to engage the audience rather then just sit and do a power point which apparently you prefer. You are being fcking ridiculous cause the visual smacks you with reality.
Now all you are trying to do is say "nah none of that is true there isn't a billion people Africa"
Originally posted by Blindside12
Wow you are really dumb, all his numbers came from the world bank. He's using the gumballs as a visual to engage the audience rather then just sit and do a power point which apparently you prefer. You are being fcking ridiculous cause the visual smacks you with reality.Now all you are trying to do is say "nah none of that is true there isn't a billion people Africa"
I know his numbers came from the World Bank, dumb ass. I paid attention to the video. Had you been paying attention to my posts, you'd realize I've been criticizing the simplicity of his visual aid, which he used to misrepresent the issues of immigration, overpopulation, and poverty to make the point that immigration to the U.S. (and other wealthy developed countries) makes no significant humanitarian impact. He goes on to suggest that immigration is a bad thing, and proposes we should do something to alleviate the economic conditions of these poorer countries, though he makes no indication of what that might be.
When you have millions of people represented by gumballs, it's easy to undermine the amount of people who benefit from immigrating to the U.S., especially when you're comparing it to the total populations of the regions being immigrated from. There are also many variables to consider that such a moronic model can't accurately represent.
So what was his point? That because we take in a hundred-thousand immigrants from, say India, and they attain for themselves at the very least a modest and comfortable living, yet most of India's 1.3 billion population remains poor, immigration has failed as a humanitarian effort?
His underlying message is to keep immigrants out of the US and let them fend for themselves in their home countries.
Roy Beck: journalist, public policy analyst, anti-immigration lobbyist, and President & Founder of NumbersUSA.Beck has gained notable attention via a presentation where he used gumballs to illustrate the infeasibility of immigration as a tool to alleviate world poverty. The conclusion was to help the impoverished where they are, instead of exporting them to richer countries.[4]
According to the Washington Post, before Donald Trump's election to President, Beck had "been marginalized in Washington as an eccentric figure whose views some consider xenophobic or even racist."[5]
NumbersUSA: organization supporting immigration reduction
NumbersUSA is an immigration reduction organization that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration to the United States.[5] It advocates for immigration reduction through user-generated fax, email, and direct mail campaigns.
Originally posted by AstnerAnd they need to do that to earn economic gain for themselves and their kids in your Society. They don't mind that. We also live in a global community and often skilled immigrants are a valuable cheap resource.
Yes but we need immigrants to clean our public bathrooms, fix our roofs and do other backbreaking and demeaning labor cheap.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Science typically has repeatable test results to back up their claims, and better models to explain their findings that ****ing gumballs in glass jars.I don't think there is an accurate way to represent a complex issue like immigration with an oversimplified physical model.
How about something much simpler then, get a glass fill it with water now add an extra straw for every illegal immigrant.
Does the water get used faster, is their less water to be distributed when more straws are added? Hmm seems simple yet absolutely explains a complex problem with a simple model.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And they need to do that to earn economic gain for themselves and their kids in your Society.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
They don't mind that. We also live in a global community and often skilled immigrants are a valuable cheap resource.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
What I'm really interested in is maximizing the rate at which humanity can:1. Continue technological and scientific progress
2. Use and develop them responsibily
The former I think is best boosted by making lots of really smart people and giving them resources and freedom. The latter is much harder.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I know his numbers came from the World Bank, dumb ass. I paid attention to the video. Had you been paying attention to my posts, you'd realize I've been criticizing the simplicity of his visual aid, which he used to misrepresent the issues of immigration, overpopulation, and poverty to make the point that immigration to the U.S. (and other wealthy developed countries) makes no significant humanitarian impact. He goes on to suggest that immigration is a bad thing, and proposes we should do something to alleviate the economic conditions of these poorer countries, though he makes no indication of what that might be.When you have millions of people represented by gumballs, it's easy to undermine the amount of people who benefit from immigrating to the U.S., especially when you're comparing it to the total populations of the regions being immigrated from. There are also many variables to consider that such a moronic model can't accurately represent.
So what was his point? That because we take in a hundred-thousand immigrants from, say India, and they attain for themselves at the very least a modest and comfortable living, yet most of India's 1.3 billion population remains poor, immigration has failed as a humanitarian effort?
His underlying message is to keep immigrants out of the US and let them fend for themselves in their home countries.
So drain their home countries and make them barren watelands in terms of talent? Because liberals want to virtue signal.
Originally posted by Blindside12
So drain their home countries and make them barren watelands in terms of talent? Because liberals want to virtue signal.
That is such a bullshit argument. Make up your ****ing minds: Are immigrants mostly skilled and educated professionals, or are they mostly unskilled laborers?
It seems to change whenever it's convenient for whatever argument you're trying to make.
Just like the drop in the bucket argument Roy Beck was trying to make against immigration. So a million immigrants from across the globe who came to the U.S. and made a better life for themselves is an insignificant number to use as a humanitarian cause in support of immigration, but a few thousand people leaving their home country suddenly depletes its talent pool?
**** off.
Ahh so you have nothing to say of actual substance👆
People can still be low skilled workers that leave their country and take away from that countries raw gdp, worker population and taxable income for the country.
Nothing I said contradicts what I said, you lack the ability to think substantively because your just trying to win this argument.
**** off👆
Originally posted by Eternal IdolGood Post mate.
That is such a bullshit argument. Make up your ****ing minds: Are immigrants mostly skilled and educated professionals, or are they mostly unskilled laborers?It seems to change whenever it's convenient for whatever argument you're trying to make.
Just like the drop in the bucket argument Roy Beck was trying to make against immigration. So a million immigrants from across the globe who came to the U.S. and made a better life for themselves is an insignificant number to use as a humanitarian cause in support of immigration, but a few thousand people leaving their home country suddenly depletes its talent pool?
**** off.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not how the burden of proof works.
What is this, edgey atheistic teenagers on the internet?
"Burden of Proof" is a bullshit concept that doesn't show up in almost any legit science.
It works like this:
Science A says 1
Science B says 1.2.
Therefore, Science A is not as correct as B.
You're supposed to do B if you disagree with A. Instead of saying "burden of proof! lawlz!"
If you don't want to entertain outrageous claims, then don't. If you don't want to make the effort to prove something, that will contradict the arguments and facts presented by others, then don't. But don't be lazy and take the old and tired anti-intellectual position of "burden of proof, man!!!"
Edit - I just read some of the lazy-ass arguments in this thread. His claims can be researched. "Burden of proof" my ass. Stop being lazy and search for the answers in the video. If you find that decent research supports his numbers, there's your proof. If you find different numbers, make a counter argument. Stop being lazy dipshits that just want to shit on all idea you think are not "liberal."
Originally posted by dadudemonThe burden of proof lies with you to prove you assertation, I for one am not convinced.
What is this, edgey atheistic teenagers on the internet?"Burden of Proof" is a bullshit concept that doesn't show up in almost any legit science.
It works like this:
Science A says 1
Science B says 1.2.
Therefore, Science A is not as correct as B.
You're supposed to do B if you disagree with A. Instead of saying "burden of proof! lawlz!"
If you don't want to entertain outrageous claims, then don't. If you don't want to make the effort to prove something, that will contradict the arguments and facts presented by others, then don't. But don't be lazy and take the old and tired anti-intellectual position of "burden of proof, man!!!"