 | VirileVagabond (37)
10/13/2006 | No lengthy analysis really necessary to evidence the weakness of this argument. In short, an immigrant circa 1920 didn't have the same entitlement mentality or the same potential to become a ward of the state, as is the case presently. With the rise of the modern social welfare state, the government not only should but also has the obligation to mitigate against increasing the burden on the taxpayer due to contemporary social welfare programs. In the sink or swim economy and culture of the 1920's, this wasn't really an issue save for burdens on physical infrastructure (e.g. housing and schools). Now we're talking school lunches, free emergency room care, food stamps, etc. Earlier immigration waves also included more skilled labor and artisans, which doesn't appear to be the case presently, and the prior comment discusses the dangers of that difference (i.e. the higher susceptibility of low-skilled labor to swings in the economy and the ramifications of same).
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | DrEntropy (40)
05/03/2006 | The American economy, circa 2006, is not the American economy of 1800, 1900, or even 1980. We are currently exporting the bulk of our low-skilled jobs to other countries, particularly China. Elite and middle-class immigration to the US is not a problem; but is it really a good idea to import millions of unskilled young men to work in the remaining low skilled jobs, especially in highly cyclical industries such as construction? What happens when the boom ends and the jobs disappear? What will be the prospects for their children? Are these young men going to return to their home countries, which have double-digit unemployment and no government benefits? More likely they will demand to be supported by the state, or will turn to crime to survive, or both.
(11 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
