"Importing" Immigrants?

[Zippyjuan]

Like we need another immigration thread- they are like the old 9/11 threads- dozens of pages of making all the same arguments over and over and nobody is going to change anybody else's mind on the subject- but this term keeps popping up and I was curious about it.

What is "importing immigrants"? How do we go about it? If we want to import say German beer, we find a beer maker and say we want to buy some of his product and ship it over to the United States. Do we go into another country and say we would like a million of their people? We did that with slaves. Are we still doing that? How many are being imported? How are they chosen? Do we go house to house (or stand on a street corner) and say "hey- wanna go to America? We got lots of free stuff for you if you do! All you have to do is promise to vote Democratic!" (I don't understand why the Republicans don't try to import more voters too- they are giving up on a potentially valuable resource- are they TRYING to lose?). Do we run ads in the papers? Do we mail out invitations? Do we cover their travel expenses?

[Brian4Liberty]

When the terminology of free trade and free markets are applied to people, that does equate people with products. Thus, the term "importation" is often used.

It is similar to your beer analogy. There are both informal (under the table, word of mouth, etc) and formal processes for "importing" the widgets that you want.

Quite often there is an "importer" involved. For instance, a local staffing firm with a foreign staffing firm as a partner, or a single international staffing and consulting entity. They often make the sales pitch to a US employer, and then they facilitate the importation. That's all part of the legal system.

In the illegal system, no doubt there are a multitude of methods used. It depends upon what kind of worker (or indentured servant or slave) you want. Someone else would have to give you the details on illegal activities.

[Zippyjuan]

So we are choosing to bring people here- importing them- it is not a case of people wanting to come here and we are deciding if we let them in or not. We are actively seeking them. If we don't "import" (actively seek) them will nobody come?

[timosman]

Now the question is what is the need we have that requires these imports?

[Brian4Liberty]

So we are choosing to bring people here- importing them- it is not a case of people wanting to come here and we are deciding if we let them in or not. We are actively seeking them.

It can be both. But that should be obvious.

Sometimes employers actively seek them, often it's a sales pitch they fall for. If an importer is selling a German beer, why would they tell you to buy a domestic one? They would tell you that domestic beer is no good, and the domestic beer factory is not producing any beer.

But in many case, it is simply active cronyism. For instance, a non-American middle manager will specify in no uncertain terms, hire a bunch of people, but no Americans!

[Zippyjuan]

So all of these "imported immigrants" are here to work. Does that mean they are not here to be on welfare as others have suggested? Are work visas the main way to get into the country (if so, we aren't "importing millions"- that is capped at 65,000 a year http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-...016-cap-season ).

[TheTexan]

Now the question is what is the need we have that requires these imports?

To keep our trade balance up, with all the freedom we export

[timosman]

So all of these "imported immigrants" are here to work. Does that mean they are not here to be on welfare as others have suggested? Are work visas the main way to get into the country (if so, we aren't "importing millions"- that is capped at 65,000 a year http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-...016-cap-season ).

We are bringing over 1mil per year, not sure how it happens. It is partially via the Refugee Act of 1980(<200k?), but nobody has a clear picture of what is coming in.

[Zippyjuan]

We are bringing over 1mil per year, not sure how it happens. It is partially via the Refugee Act of 1980(<200k?), but nobody has a clear picture of what is coming in.

"We are bringing them in" but you don't know how they are getting here. Are "we" bringing them in or are they wanting to come here themselves?

The Refugee Act of 1980 increased the allowed number of refugees from 17,500 a year to 50,000 a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act

The annual admission of refugees is set to a 50,000 cap per fiscal year unless in an emergency situation, during which the president may change this number for a period of twelve months. The Attorney General is also granted power to admit additional refugees and grant asylum to current aliens, but all admissions must be reported to congress and are limited to 5,000 people

If one million are "brought here" a year, that would account for 5% of them.

[AmericanSpartan]

Like we need another immigration thread- they are like the old 9/11 threads- dozens of pages of making all the same arguments over and over and nobody is going to change anybody else's mind on the subject- but this term keeps popping up and I was curious about it.

What is "importing immigrants"? How do we go about it? If we want to import say German beer, we find a beer maker and say we want to buy some of his product and ship it over to the United States. Do we go into another country and say we would like a million of their people? We did that with slaves. Are we still doing that? How many are being imported? How are they chosen? Do we go house to house (or stand on a street corner) and say "hey- wanna go to America? We got lots of free stuff for you if you do! All you have to do is promise to vote Democratic!" (I don't understand why the Republicans don't try to import more voters too- they are giving up on a potentially valuable resource- are they TRYING to lose?). Do we run ads in the papers? Do we mail out invitations? Do we cover their travel expenses?

Bring people in with a goal in mind, like swaying elections you would other wise not be able to win. Like what Clinton, he added around a million new citizens and resigned them to vote before his reelection bid.

Because they do not support our values, views, and politics.

Why Immigrants Tend to Be LiberalMost immigrants come from countries where the government plays a larger role in the economy and society. Their supportfor expansive government is reinforced by liberal elites in immigrant communities and the liberal urban areas in which somany settle. Further, immigrants’ liberalism often reflects self-interest, as many benefit from affirmative action and welfare.Unfortunately, some immigrants are also attracted to the Democratic Party’s support for identity- and grievance-basedpolitics. In short, the factors contributing to immigrants’ liberalism are largely outside of the Republican Party’s control.

[AmericanSpartan]

Now the question is what is the need we have that requires these imports?

The left needing votes, and the Donor Class "needing" "cheap" labor. The American worker, voter, tax payer, nation, culture and future does not need them.

[AmericanSpartan]

We are bringing over 1mil per year, not sure how it happens. It is partially via the Refugee Act of 1980(<200k?), but nobody has a clear picture of what is coming in.

This year as well as the next we are on tack to take in 1 million permanent residents, 700,000 foreign-workers, 500,000 foreign students, and 100,000 refugees and asylum seekers annually.

That is not taking into account the 1.5 plus illegals.

[timosman]

"We are bringing them in" but you don't know how they are getting here. Are "we" bringing them in or are they wanting to come here themselves?

The Refugee Act of 1980 increased the allowed number of refugees from 17,500 a year to 50,000 a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_Act



If one million are "brought here" a year, that would account for 5% of them.

We(officially) had 70,000 in 2013 refugees admitted - http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/...ics/228666.htm
The plan for 2016 is 85,000. - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/pl/249076.htm

The immigration stats - http://www.dhs.gov/publication/yearbook-2013 - says in 2012 there were 1,031,631 green cards issued. 2,996,743 temporary worker visas, etc ...

[timosman]

This year as well as the next we are on tack to take in 1 million permanent residents, 700,000 foreign-workers, 500,000 foreign students, and 100,000 refugees and asylum seekers annually.

That is not taking into account the 1.5 plus illegals.

It seems the refugee issue is a distraction from the millions we are bringing in "legally"

[AmericanSpartan]

We(officially) had 70,000 in 2013 refugees admitted - http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/...ics/228666.htm
The plan for 2016 is 85,000. - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/pl/249076.htm

The immigration stats - http://www.dhs.gov/publication/yearbook-2013 - says in 2012 there were 1,031,631 green cards issued. 2,996,743 temporary worker visas, etc ...

See how immigrationists always lie? They will do anything to bring in more people as they hate or are indifferent towards the future of their own people.

It seems the refugee issue is a distraction from the millions we are bringing in "legally"

It is.

Fun fact about refugees they are mostly on welfare 3 out of 4 , and for the cost of every one here we can care for 12 back home in their nations. And the best part? They can not effect our lives here.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...can-interests/

[Zippyjuan]

This year as well as the next we are on tack to take in 1 million permanent residents, 700,000 foreign-workers, 500,000 foreign students, and 100,000 refugees and asylum seekers annually.

That is not taking into account the 1.5 plus illegals.

1.5 million illegal immigrants a year?

[Zippyjuan]

We(officially) had 70,000 in 2013 refugees admitted - http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/...ics/228666.htm
The plan for 2016 is 85,000. - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/pl/249076.htm

The immigration stats - http://www.dhs.gov/publication/yearbook-2013 - says in 2012 there were 1,031,631 green cards issued. 2,996,743 temporary worker visas, etc ...

Note "temporary". They were allowed in and left (most did- some do overstay such visas)- that is not a net gain of all those people. Same for student and travel visas. The one million green cards included 460,000 "new arrivals" meaning the rest had already been in the country (not "new imports"). Green cards include refugees and asylum seekers. Figures also do not include those who went the other way- left the US for similar reasons (jobs, vacation, school, family).

[AmericanSpartan]

1.5 million illegal immigrants a year?

Yeah, I will call this data inaccurate. Hell the still think the population of illegals is 11-12 million.

[AmericanSpartan]

Note "temporary". They were allowed in and left (most did- some do overstay such visas)- that is not a net gain of all those people. Same for student and travel visas. The one million green cards included 460,000 "new arrivals" meaning the rest had already been in the country (not "new imports"). Green cards include refugees and asylum seekers.

Thank you for making out point for us. Too many people, too many rules, too much bureaucracy, time to shut it down, create a new system, with smaller immigration.

[timosman]

Note "temporary". They were allowed in and left (most did- some do overstay such visas)- that is not a net gain of all those people. Same for student and travel visas. The one million green cards included 460,000 "new arrivals" meaning the rest had already been in the country (not "new imports"). Green cards include refugees and asylum seekers.

It also includes people converting temporary visas into permanent residence. The accounting here is very sloppy. I doubt many people understand how the immigration pipeline works and where the over 1,000,000 citizen-ready-in-5-years (which is what the green card is) people are coming from. I sure would not get the idea of over million new citizens per year based on the official statistics.

[AmericanSpartan]

It also includes people converting temporary visas into permanent residence. The accounting here is very sloppy. I doubt many people understand how the immigration pipeline works and where the over 1,000,000 citizen-ready-in-5-years (which is what the green card is) people are coming from. I sure would not get the idea of over million new citizens per year based on the official statistics.

Their is no reason to,. Its time to reduce immigration.

[Zippyjuan]

See how immigrationists always lie? They will do anything to bring in more people as they hate or are indifferent towards the future of their own people.



It is.

Fun fact about refugees they are mostly on welfare 3 out of 4 , and for the cost of every one here we can care for 12 back home in their nations. And the best part? They can not effect our lives here.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...can-interests/

Facts? Really? True but highly misleading with how they count things. On welfare? Data counts whole family as immigrants if either parent was not born in the US. Even if that parent became a US citizen. It also counts the entire family as "on welfare" if just one person received any benefit at all- if one kid gets a subsidized lunch at school and Dad was Canadian, a family of five is all counted as immigrants on welfare. Even if the kid getting the lunch deal is a native born citizen.

[statist slayer]

Quick addition to the conversation. Free trade in goods is clearly different than free trade in people, which libertarians often seem to ignore. Immigrants bring customs that may or may not dissolve in the melting pot and may or may not be compatible with Enlightenment values and the self-reliance needed to nurture those values. As Rand points out, immigrants are now lured not only by jobs, like the Ellis Island immigrants, but also by generous welfare benefits for themselves and their native-born offspring. During the Ellis Island wave, the demand for manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and persecution in the Old World (think Jews in the Pale of Settlement) almost entirely regulated the supply of immigrants.

[Zippyjuan]

Quick addition to the conversation. Free trade in goods is clearly different than free trade in people, which libertarians often seem to ignore. Immigrants bring customs that may or may not dissolve in the melting pot and may or may not be compatible with Enlightenment values and the self-reliance needed to nurture those values. As Rand points out, immigrants are now lured not only by jobs, like the Ellis Island immigrants, but also by generous welfare benefits for themselves and their native-born offspring. During the Ellis Island wave, the demand for manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and persecution in the Old World (think Jews in the Pale of Settlement) almost entirely regulated the supply of immigrants.

The same concerns were raised about all immigrant groups who came to this country. The Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Italians, the Japanese. Couching it in "they might be uncomfortable" is another way of saying YOU would be uncomfortable meeting somebody not identical to yourself. They all managed to do just fine (most anyhow- some always struggle in a new place). They also bring strengths which make the country stronger and better. We didn't become the biggest economic (and military) power in the world because we banned all immigration.

A truely free economy requires not just the free movement of capital which you mention but the free movement of labor as well. That is why transit of goods and people between the states was not to be restricted. Then resources can be allocated to where they can best be used.

[timosman]

The same concerns were raised about all immigrant groups who came to this country. The Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Italians, the Japanese. Couching it in "they might be uncomfortable" is another way of saying YOU would be uncomfortable meeting somebody not identical to yourself. They all managed to do just fine (most anyhow- some always struggle in a new place). They also bring strengths which make the country stronger and better. We didn't become the biggest economic (and military) power in the world because we banned all immigration.

A truely free economy requires not just the free movement of capital which you mention but the free movement of labor as well. Then resources can be allocated to where they can best be used.

Is there a level at which you would call immigration excessive? We are doing officially over 1mil per year(4mil w/temps), do you think this is enough or should we bring more because Zippy Tires can not find enough workers at $10/hour?

[Zippyjuan]

Yeah, I will call this data inaccurate. Hell the still think the population of illegals is 11-12 million.

Can you prove it wrong?

[tod evans]

I have a real problem with government using tax dollars to move foreigners to this country, I also have a real problem with government using tax dollars to support foreigners once they're in this country.

Poor stewardship of both money and land is cause to strip power from government.

[Zippyjuan]

Is there a level at which you would call immigration excessive? We are doing officially over 1mil per year(4mil w/temps), do you think this is enough or should we bring more because Zippy Tires can not find enough workers at $10/hour?

What should determine the "proper" level? How do we know if the number is "too high" or not? The unemployment rate? That is half what it was in 2008. Does that suggest we have too many immigrants- that there aren't enough jobs to go around? If unemployment rises reduce the number allowed in and let it rise as the rate falls? What would you suggest?


If your other thread is accurate, maybe we don't have enough of them.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...for-immigrants

[statist slayer]

They all didn't manage to do "just fine." The immigrants we forced to come to the United States (African Americans) have not done "just fine." The immigrants from Latin America have not managed to do "just fine." The Somali immigrants in Minnesota have not been "just fine." The founders had the common sense to open up borders between states to free trade (although this actually wasn't codified in constitutional jurisprudence until the 19th century). And they also had the common sense to grant Congress power over our nation's borders. Many libertarians are blind to the fact that both Enlightenment principles (i.e., a republican form of government dedicated to the protection of individual rights) AND culture (i.e., self-sufficiency -- minding your own business and not expecting goodies to be transferred from other people) are necessary for a prosperous and free society.

[Zippyjuan]

A "free society" must be for all or it isn't free. Excluding others based on race or religion or country of origin or political views is not a free society.