1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

A Pascal's Wager on Immigration

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by SW85, Jun 9, 2007.

  1. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Let's assume that there are equal bodies of evidence concerning the possible consequences of mass immigration -- that is to say, that there is as much information supporting the pro-immigration lobby's fear of economic stagnation and the failure of certain social welfare programs without mass immigration that there is supporting the anti-immigration lobby's fears of total social collapse and economic ruin with it.

    All else being equal, prudence dictates we ought to favor the anti-immigration lobby's arguments, for two reasons:

    (1) If their policies prove to be unworkable, they can always be reversed. (i.e., unseal the borders)

    (2) If the policies of the pro-immigration side prove unworkable, they cannot be easily reversed.

    That is to say, if we sealed the borders and it was later determined that mass immigration is good, the borders could always be opened again. But if we opened the borders and later determined that mass immigration is bad, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to deal with the continuing social consequences of it, as at that point, sealing the borders would not effectively solve the problem.

    Thus the precautionary principle (as well as mountains of historical and sociological evidence) argue in favor of immigration control.
     
  2. Justinian

    Justinian New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    What's left of Long Island
    Hmmm

    Concearning the the downill decay and approach of western ruin, I would only advocate the promotion of the renewal of large families as opposed to the welcoming of indifferent barbaric foreigners IF it was ever proven we need more manual labor at all.
     
  3. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Justinian, what is preventing people from having a large family now? It is thier choice to or not to have many kids. Again I cringe at your idea of calling them barbaric foreigners when that is a grossly inappropriate generality and at the same time, your ancestors are apart of the same group.
    Human kind has and always will use manual labor of some kind. But not all immigrants do manual labor...again a generality on your part that is again...totally inaccurate.
     
  4. drippinhun

    drippinhun New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It might be refreshing to diminish the entitlement mindset by seeing most young people go through a period of hard physical work as it once was for many in my generation.
     
  5. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Justinian, large families are neither necessary for western society to survive nor are they explicitly good. The problems associated with immigration are most commonly problems of population growth generally -- overcrowding, division of public services among increasing numbers of people, crime, environmental damage, etc. -- which large families exacerbates just as badly as mass immigration. It is simply unnecessary to have huge numbers of kids these days; we as a society prefer to invest intensively in a smaller brood. You'll notice most of the societies that are worst off (i.e., Third World societies) are the ones that have massive families; most of us wealthy First World countries practice some control and have, at most, two or three kids.

    Bunz, not all immigrants do manual labor but probably the majority do. This is almost the sole justification for providing them with a cheap "path to citizenship" they've done nothing to earn -- "they do jobs Americans won't do."

    Drippin -- maybe. But those western nations that practice universal conscription (like Germany) do not have a substantially lower population of welfare-addled folks. I tend to think, though, that young people (especially young men) have a tremendous amount of energy that sometimes demands to be released through hard physical labor, but which immigration is making increasingly impossible and therefore requiring that they be shuttled into soul-killing education systems they wouldn't normally choose if another option was available to them.
     
  6. drippinhun

    drippinhun New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SW85 - I never said it would change welfare statistics. I was thinking more of the instant consumer gratification that tends to distort the ability to differentiate between striving for base survival commodities and frivolous entertaining devices.

    But you are correct with the warehousing of young minds. As JFK so aptly put it, "Conformity is that jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." And as the old adage goes, "A little hard work never killed anybody."
     
  7. DrWho

    DrWho New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tardis
    I agree that there is no need to call immigrants barbaric. However, we do not know that justinians ancestors were a part of the same group, they could have been native or more likely they could have immigrated legally. When it comes to immigration I have heard very few complaints about legal immigration, it is the illegal immigrants that frost people.
     
  8. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Dr. Who, forgive me for this, but I already know that Justinian is of mixed white ancestory as he mentioned in a different post in a different topic. So I know that much. There is a good chance that his ancestors entered this country legally under American law. Now my Native American background will debate that at another time. But Justinian has in several threads concerning immigration pointed out hispanics and specifically Mexicans being the main problem. He never mentions the illegal eastern Europeans, middle easterners nor the Asians and Africans that have immigrated illegally. He points his hatred of illegal immigrants at one group, that being the hispanics. I have asked him several times to come on the record concerning what his view would be if it was white Canadians coming across the northern and western border and if his view point would change. But to this point he has not said a peep about it.
     
  9. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,891
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Is anyone seriously advocating putting an end to immigration, or are we confusing the problem of illegal aliens and immigration again?
     
  10. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    I'd like a dramatic reduction in immigration generally (legal and illegal) to less than a tenth of its current numbers. Not really putting an end to it, but certainly close enough.
     
  11. Justinian

    Justinian New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    What's left of Long Island
    Define Western civilization.

    Hasty Population growth is a major problem regardless if its because of immigration or not but most of the time it is because of immigration and has to do with the region's economy. Also, where do you get the nerve to encourage anglos to have less kids when you know damn well the first thing these wetbacks do is have a large amount of children. I was at the beach the other day and I watched with bitter shock as a family of mexicans walked on the beach with SEVEN children. And this is what they will all do is this is part of their plan. The more people they have, the easier and more relaxed their lifestyles are and the more political power they can consolidate. Not to mention if they have a kid here, it's guaranteed under this system that they will become automatic citizens.


    Perhaps in principle we should seemingly have less kids but you are no one to say a big family is essentially a bad thing unless of course you hate your family. My point here is Anglos must have a higher birthrate than minorities to maintain control and dominance of the country. If Americans lose ground and more than half is no longer white, this country will be completely paralyzed, even more than it is now.

    Who says they do jobs Americans won't do? You know who said that, the politicians. Why? Because it's not true. It's a labor market trick to fool you. They want you to believe the kind of work they are doing is undesirable to anyone else which is a plain lie. I ownen a Landscaping company and I hired only WASPs, no spikks. The reason they say this is because they're coming here in such tremendous, unfathomable numbers, they've driven down the wages of all the unskilled labor jobs Americans did that used to pay decently. This is also why the companies like them because you can pay them a third of what an American used to get. But this is BS and we shouldn't be running a nursery with these people because they don't belong here and could ruin this country EASILY.

    This is true but American won't do the work for the money the wetbacks are depriving them of and they certainly don't want to work with them. So what's really happened is the Wetbacks have taken over the industry and pushed out the Americans (aside from the landscaper owners) which the politicians then have the GAUL to say they do jobs Americans won't do. It's a BS distraction and isn't true. Americans will do any kind of work and anything that's profitable. They're BS is to ignore the problem and give these trespassers a new home. Why? Because there are political gains to be made and it's politically convenient. It won't fly though and it looks like the Wetback trailblazing days are over and many if not most all will get kicked out.
     
  12. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Why should I? I have a sense you have a firm grasp as to what it is already, since you mostly agree with me on immigration.

    I know.

    For the record, I know full well immigrants are higher fertility than native-born Americans, which is why the immigration problem tends to be self-perpetuating: immigrants not only add to the population, their children do, as well, as they have more of them than other people. That's why we'd still have positive population growth at this point even if we sealed the borders. That's what makes it all the more imperative that we seal the borders now.

    First of all, I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything, I'm simply stating what is an obvious empirical fact -- that large families are unnecessary nowadays. We don't have large farms to tend to and we are very unlikely to lose a kid or two to pertussis or some such disease. With the quality of living as high as it is, we prefer to invest more in one kid than spread our resources thinner between others.

    And second, watch your language. You're only legitimizing the people who accuse the anti-immigration majority of bigotry.

    Again, I didn't say big families were bad. I simply said they are not necessary for the vast majority of westerners. You yourself acknowledged this previously -- large families are symptomatic of poor societies.

    Immigration control would cement the current ethnic balance pretty effectively without having to raise birth rates (which we don't know how to do on a national level, anyway). The fact that whites are having fewer kids is only problematic if they are forced into demographic rivalry with high-fertility non-whites, which they would not be if immigration was ended.

    Problems will come long before whites are a minority, but again, immigration control effectively resolves that concern. It does not matter after that point if whites have fewer kids, because they will not be competing with an endless flow of non-whites.

    I put that in quotation marks because it's what the opposition believes, not because it's what I believe. The words preceding it constitute mockery of their lies. I grasp you haven't read what I wrote; I'm pretty strongly anti-immigration. That's why I started this thread.
     

Share This Page