I've never understood the proposal from some quarters that if First World nations would only accept more immigrants from the Third World, this would somehow magically alleviate world poverty. This video clip clarifies the reality of the situation as well as I've ever heard (or seen) it argued.
You can say that again!
Peter
6 comments:
I can only think of one thing he could have added - a small jar representing the population of the US.
As clear and succinct an argument for expanding our immigration policy as I've heard yet. We've been poaching the world's talent for generations and I see no particular reason to stop now.
My first thought was to ask this fella, "What is your position upon government funding of sex education, birth control and abortion?"
Nebris, what precisely do any of those subjects have to do with US immigration policy???
Peter, Nebris is bringing this up because he/she/it are suggestion physical reduction/prevention of expansion of the portion of the population that is born into those "desperately poor" population, especially in the "desperately poor" countries.
I shall remain silent on how I feel about goverment education on a subject that should be brought up by the parents/guardians...and with all the birth control options avaliable, abortions really should be limited the ones that truly threaten the life of the mother...
On a more postive note, this video clip did an excellent job of arguing against expansion of the immigration policy.
minimedic: "this video clip did an excellent job of arguing against expansion of the immigration policy"
Actually no it didn't. All he argued against was to stop thinking that immigration solves the entire planet's poverty problem. Somewhat of a strawman argument since I'm not sure anyone seriously thinks that that's why any nation allows immigration.
As "The Lost Goat" says, if anything this is an argument to expand immigration. It obviously favours the country allowing in immigrants since they tend to be the best and most motivated from the world's pool of potential immigrants.
Also, it does not help any country to close its borders to immigration. It's an infusion of life and new ideas and diversity. Besides, no country can or should cut itself off from everyone else. Immigration is part of the connection each country has to everyone else.
Finally, in an indirect way, the argument is wrong. It does not take into consideration the effect accepted immigrants can and often do have on their home countries from within their new home. Many people come to a richer country to send money home. And children of immigrants can still feel connected to their place of origin and provide the initiative to help those left behind to a larger degree.
My ultimate problem with the argument is the question of what the alternative is. So taking in a million a year is a drop in the bucket? Will NOT taking that million be better? An argument of the form "A can't completely resolve B so A is useless" is not an argument.
Post a Comment