Immigration

What do you think of the points raised in this video?
Your opinion is automatically discarded if you commit logical fallacies (i.e. ad hominem, )

youtube.com/watch?v=4XQXiCLzyAw

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Here's your ≫74453222 (You)

kike bitch

Not an argument :^)

Immigration puts an upward pressure on food prices and all other commodity prices.
Immigration puts a strain on the housing stock, and an upward pressure on housing prices.
Immigration puts a downward pressure on wages.
Illegal immigration brings organized & violent crime.
Islamic immigration brings Islamists.
You only get one homecountry (if even that), so why would you want to give it away to someone else?

There you go, saged.

but white countries need diversity in 2016 :^)

>Your opinion is automatically discarded if you commit logical fallacies

LEL OP COMMITTED THE FALLACY FALLACY.

DISCARDED

Australians are so sexy. Every once in a while there'll be an Australian tourist and I always just went them to cum deep in my boi pussy with their superior Australian seed.

Assuming a functional economy, supply will adjust to meet the demand, same with housing.

Short term pressure on wages, this point was addressed in the video, there will be benefits in the longer term due to population growth.

Immigration != illegal immigration

Islam still needs a blanket ban though.

Supply isn't a bottomless pit. That's why it's even a thing to begin with.

I didn't say you are automatically wrong, it is just that your argument won't be considered. In your post however, you managed to create a straw man.

But in all seriousness, her argument depends on the wholly unsubstantiated claim that all human beings are interchangeable.

If that were true there would be no need for migration in the first place as every society would be advanced and developed as the other.

>If that were true there would be no need for migration in the first place as every society would be advanced and developed as the other.

The earth's resources and climate is not uniformly distributed.

>Assuming a functional economy, supply will adjust to meet the demand, same with housing.
Yeah, when it comes to immigrants, the economy is magically elastic.

>there will be benefits in the longer term due to population growth.
I want population shrinkage. I do not want the British countryside to be further built over.

>Immigration != illegal immigration
Illegal immigration is a subset of immigration.

>Adriene is a graduate of Amherst College, where she earned her bachelor’s degree in political science and economics. She has a master’s degree in political science from Northwestern University.

So she is a political scientist (much) more than an economist, and isn't a professional on either.

That's one problem with these fucking "educators"...

I mean, how fucking ABSURD is a statement such as "immigration is good for the economy", jesus christ. It can sometimes be good and sometimes be bad. Ignorant cunt, please die in a fire.

Sub-Saharan Africa is incredibly rich in resources and fertile land but they can't even figure out how to farm. They are low-IQ people who will forever be dependent on aid.

Humans are not fungible.

this girl looks like the hot version of anzu

Oh shit she randomly concludes that immigrants actually INCREASE wages. WEW. I am sooooo a cruz missile now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

Places rich in natural resources discourage technological innovation.

Yeah, there is an incredible amount of valuable stuff in Africa, the Middle East and South America ... how's that working out for those places?

Also economists forget that society does not exist independent of the people within it. Rather, society is created by the people. A high quality society exists because the people within it have a predisposition to work together. We are also evolved to work better with people like ourselves. Taking everyone from everywhere, especially from shitty societies, runs counter to this.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Yes, and behaivour has genetic elements. Meaning people affected by what you have posted are likely to have genetic predispositions evolved as such and so won't function in a highly developed society. Shock horror, niggers in the US completely substantiate that theory.

Woe is me; I have too many diamonds, too much good land, too many rare earth minerals. I'd better keep hunting rats, eating up dem foreign aid flour bags, and breeding.

Yeah, America is so backwards when it comes to technology.

lol and at the end she says that the presentation she just gave was actually written by immigrants

LOLOL

Isn't making claims that aren't supported by empirical evidence of what actually happens in real life a form of fallacy?

Too general of an idea there, beady.

Sometimes there isn't enough empirical data to make a proper study, sometimes there is some data but it's being applied to invalid context (which is almost ALWAYS the case when it comes to "social" stuff).....

Empirical evidence is good and nice, but there are serious downsides that people need to be aware of. Relying ONLY on empirical evidence would be a terrible idea, on the other side, ignoring relevant empirical evidence is also a no-no. It really depends on what is being studied. Imo, for immigration, empirical is not enough. (however i'm pretty sure she is citing more than just empirical, but I don;t like the theoretical approach they take either....)

...

>AM I VIRTUOUS YET UGUUUU

Immigration is good, if the people who immigrate are qualified and hard working.
Citing countries like the USA or Australia as examples for why immigration is a good thing often leaves out the fact, that 95% of the people immigrating there until recently have been European and more recently far east Asians, i.e. came from countries with strong work ethics.

This is in no way comparable to modern day mass migration, in which the unwashed, unqualified masses of poorly developed countries, often tied to a regressive and oppressive religion, storm Europe and America. They don't bring any benefits to the people of those places. What little intellectuals their home countries had already came to the first world when Islam took root in their countries.

In short: Unlike previous, smaller migrations this new migration age offers the first world no opportunities and presents a threat to cultural and social stability.

>Khannea Sun Tzu
>as a European
Always knew my Jewish genes were European.

Economics major here.

OP you are technically right. Immigration is a net positive - if the immigrants are not niggers.

Let me introduce the economic concept of TFP (Total Factor Productivity).

Let Y equal a countrys output, and let the the inputs (variables) be Labor (L) and Capital (K). A common function for output is:

Y(K,L) = AK^(2/3)L^(1/3)

It turns out that that countries with the exact same amount of Labour and Capital produce different amount of output. This is due to the parameter A, or TFP, which represents every other aspect of the economy - that could be technology, efficiency, education, Legal systems and Law and Order, institutions, culture, etc. - but lastly it would also include genetics and IQ

I would argue that the Africans have a permanently lower TFP because they are - on AVERAGE - genetically less intelligent, and more violent, than any other group of humans.

So importing africans will permanently lower the TFP of your country.

The same argument doesnt apply to other types of humans - asians and middleasterners are capable of being on par with europeans.

So yes, on pure economic terms, immigration is a net positive if you dont import any niggers - however there is another caveat here.

Your own video points out that the benefit is only in the longterm - in the short term we dont see those benefits and it also drives down wages and other things.

It turns out that as long as we have constant high levels of immigration, we will NEVER see these longterm benefits! Because the new immigration keeps on coming, keeping wages down, adding under-educated people, continuously adding people to cultural enclaves making sure they never integrate etc.

One of the biggest reasons the US was an economic powerhouse in the late 1800's early 1900's was because of immigration. But immigration was stopped and those immigrants integrated and we saw the long term benefits as the economy adjusted to a new equilibrium.

cont.

These days, we never reach the new equilibrium because we keep adding thousands of new shit-tier immigrants every year.

I would add that culture, language, customs etc. are also a part of TFP and so if immigrants are continuously added, these cultures never die as the immigrants never integrate, because they are in ethnic enclaves. This is what we are seeing with mexicans especially in the US, and this lowers TFP because their culture is no where near as productive as the US (Germany is an example of one of the most productive cultures).

And these are only economic examples - are we forgetting about our own culture and national and racial identity? Immigration destroys this, that is not even a question.

This isn't always true, there are lots of countries with abundant natural resources that are very technologically advanced - the united states for example, but also china and russia

OP you fuck, you better reply to my posts, you cant expect longer thought out answers to your thread straight away

I just dont want brown people flooding my country lol I dont care if the economy isnt growing infintetely

People are not equal and interchangeable cogs.

Genetics and culture matters. Also universal suffrage means that they can commit violence against you by voting for redistribution of purchasing power.

Diversity is a meaningless buzzword whose only purpose is to justify the entrenchment of rent seeking sophists in their cushy parasitical jobs in either the private or public sector.

How is population growth an automatic benefit? By that logic, Nigeria should be thriving.

>Research links gender inequality in the Middle East to resource wealth. A study in the US finds similar results: resource wealth leads to lower levels of female labor force participation, lower turnout and fewer seats held by women in legislatures
What? They're oppressed because they have too much resources?

European countries taking third-world refugee's in itself is an illogical premise.

Imagine dropping a white redneck family in the middle of Beijing and expecting them to not only learn the native language but also expecting them to get jobs and be productive; you can't.

Which is why not only is taking in middle east refugee's negative to the host country, it's inhumane to expect the refugee's to conform to the host country.

Sauce

>Immigration everywhere is restricted and undesired because of allahu akhbars

>Restrict immigration from all countries

>Later on give special permissions to flood your country with highly orthodox ISIS rapists anyways

>benefits in the longer term due to population growth.

You might as well say a benefit to shooting yourself in the head is you will never have a headache again. No real trade off for a self inflect wound.

b-but anzu is hot..

You should have some things to say, after all you come from a penal colony

Well she made a sweeping generalization about it right out the gates which makes me not give too many shits about her opinion because it was a shitty generalization.