The Ultimate Immigration Debate

The Ultimate Immigration Debate

It's time for the ultimate debate on Immigration, are you ready! This thread will serve as a way to properly define the concept behind moving from one nation to another with the intention of making that move permanent for a duration long enough that you would need to become a citizen of that new nation in order to remain there. Immigration has been a very common and useful practice since the time of recorded history. It has brought many long-term benefits for those moving and the new country that has received them. It has also brought many short-term problems to the people moving and the new country receiving them. My goal with this thread is to determine whether history is a guide wise enough to rely on when it comes to examining the current circumstances of our planet.

Very few people have trouble understanding the basic meaning when somebody refers to immigration. Moving from one country to a new country with the intention of staying there permanently. There is no confusion because no variables have yet been established. Words such as good or bad, beneficial or detrimental event, do not come into the conversation, and neither does another important one: current context.

Since we are presently under circumstances that require us to not be confused about immigration and not be confused about whether it's good or bad, beneficial or detrimental when we consider current views on immigration, maybe its time to be honest about the situation. While history provides us with the privilege of hindsight, to be able to look back on past events that are similar to our present circumstances and make a judgement about whether we should or should not do the same thing, it fails to recognise that similarity does not equal exactness. (Just like the old “correlation does not equal causation!” saying.)

When looking at key areas for supporting or opposing immigration, let us compare each in their own list (numbered 1-8) from the most important to consider, to the least important to consider. All the following information relates to our present situation: Western countries being the major consideration when it comes to the immigration topic.

The main reasons to justify supporting immigration are:

1) Survivalist - we need immigrants because our population is likely to decrease over time without them, better to prepare for a long-term necessity than deny it in the short-term.
2) Economic - we will profit in the long-term from immigration, even when taking the short-term costs into consideration.
3) Moral - people should be free to move where they want to, nobody should be denied the right to move because of who they are or how they are labelled.
4) Political – if we support immigration, our reputation and influence improves, and so does our freedom to immigrate when we want to.
5) Social – we enrich our society by creating diversity and achieving a multicultural society, we can learn from other cultures and make ours more interesting.
6) Historical - look how much it has worked in the past, especially in modern times.
7) Guilt – our ancestors were allowed to immigrate, therefore we should allow others to immigrate here so they can prosper as we did.
8) Absurd - people with the same skin colour as our majority population immigrated without permission, therefore we should allow anybody to immigrate here

The main reasons to justify opposing immigration are:

1) Survivalist – immigrants are a potential threat to our security; the more different their culture and social values, the more of a potential threat they will be.
2) Economic – the short-term cost is too high, even when predicting the potential long-term benefit.
3) Moral – we shouldn't support immigration because we are told about its benefits, without also considering its potential detriments as well.
4) Political – if other countries feel immigration is good, that is their view and they are free to do so, but we should have the right of self-determination before deciding.
5) Social – the more different the culture, the more likely there will be social tensions to deal with.
6) Historical – there are far more examples of immigration failing than succeeding when non-modern periods of immigration are also considered.
7) Guilt - that is not relevant.
8) Absurd: only people with similar physical characteristics to the majority population may immigrate.

If we compare the above lists (by measuring the strength of each argument), we can determine the value after consideration in terms of our present situation:

Support vs. Oppose (percentage score of value after consideration)

1) 50% vs. 30%
2) 30% vs. 80%
3) 10% vs. 75%
4) 70% vs. 40%
5) 20% vs. 10%
6) 60% vs. 30%
7) 5% vs. 0%
8) 0% vs. 0%


Continued: Page 1 of 2

What the above results demonstrate:

Demonstration 1: In terms of the strength of the argument given, support for immigration finishes with an average strength score of 31%, while opposition to immigration finishes with an average strength score of 33%.

There is only a slight difference of 2% between both sides.

Demonstration 2: In terms of the number of 0% scores, both sides scored this lowest possible percentage, with OPPOSE scoring it one more time. An 80% strength of argument score was recorded by the OPPOSE side and this was the highest score of either. The closest high SUPPORT score was 75%.

Both sides managed 0% scores, but since both had absurd reason category arguments, they can be ignored. The only other example is the OPPOSE side that scored 0% for the guilt reason category. For that same category, the SUPPORT side managed 5%. The difference in each side's highest score percentage is exactly the same.

Some key reminders

- the major purpose of this thread was to see if historical arguments (not just the Historical reason category) were important factors to consider on the topic of Immigration.
- immigration has consistently been kept to its basic definition (explained in the next section).
- everything that can be concluded is done so with Western countries as the focus. While they are not directly comparable even with each other, they are overwhelmingly more developed nations than developing nations. Immigration is far less likely to be an important issue for developing nations.
- this topic is focused on examining the reasoning behind the arguments, not hard data (explained in the next section)

Further Analysis: Part 1

Immigration was kept to its basic definition because there is widespread confusion about what immigration actually refers to. Refugees, asylums seekers, illegal immigrants etc. do not carry the same type or number of variables that make them remotely comparable.
On this topic in particular, reasoning seems more important than hard data, because the access to documented data relating to all the reason categories used would have been near impossible to access for an ordinary citizen like me.

Nevertheless, the above arguments are ALWAYS used whenever the topic of immigration is brought up. People never give evidence and can never cite studies or statistics to properly back up what they are claiming. Therefore, I believed it was fair to determine the strength of reasoning while also putting the reason categories into context, as mentioned near the beginning of this thread.

Further Analysis: Part 2

The most significant factor to establish now is if the strength of historical arguments used is on average higher or lower when comparing the two sides of the debate (which takes us back to the “Support vs. Oppose” section from earlier). This will be done by counting the number of historical arguments the best answer for each side resorted to for their answer. After that, a final conclusion can be drawn.

For the SUPPORT side, the number of historical arguments (HA) used when answering each Argument Reason Category (ARC) are as follows: 5 (social), 6 (historical), 7 (guilt) and 8 (absurd) can all be reasonably considered as HA. That means 20%, 60%, 5% and 0%. An average of 21.25%.
For the OPPOSE side, the number of HA used when answering each ARC are as follows: 1 (survivalist), 3 (moral), 5 (social) and 6 (historical) can all be reasonably considered as HA. That means 30%, 75%, 10% and 0%. An average of 28.75%.

The strength of HA used is on average 7.5% stronger on the OPPOSE side than on the SUPPORT SIDE.

Here is the twist you might not have been expecting: having a lower average strength of HA is worse. Why? Because one side overwhelmingly uses more HA when they are pressed to substantiate their reason for answering their initial “best” answer in each of the ARCs. (The percentage number didn't even matter, what mattered was which one was higher.)

One side overwhelmingly lies (unwillingly or not) to substantiate their claim that they are answering the question honestly. Which strongly indicates they are resorting to past (historical) appeals because they actually do not have a known valid reason to argue for the original “best” answer they gave.
Without the convenience of resorting to history, the SUPPORT side has no plausible reason to argue in any category relating to the present. Therefore, the OPPOSE side's arguments in almost every single category is more plausible.

Conclusion: FINAL

Does this mean that immigration should be stopped, that we ought to oppose immigration of any kind because there is no justified reason to allow it? The answer is: NO.

It is cruel and unfair to place a blanket ban on all immigration, because some individuals have no choice but to either stay and die, or flee and seek safe asylum. It's also unreasonable to the majority of people that immigrate legally and try their best to integrate and assimilate In a way that RESPECTS their new country they call home.

History is NOT a guide wise enough to rely on when it comes to examining the current circumstances of our planet. It is almost so irrelevant that if the average person using an appeal to history actually thought about what they were arguing, there would be no debate to be had.

When people arguing in SUPPORT of immigration do so, they OUGHT to be pressed on why history is so critical to their answer when discussing the present. They will attempt to use your emotion against you when making those appeals to the past, and you need to be aware of what they are trying to do without revealing it at the time you notice. Just ensure everyone involved in the discussion understands which type of immigration is being discussed before any pressing is done.

End: Page 2 of 2

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Well, for one, excellent presentation. Two, you obviously put in a great deal of effort into this presentation and that is commendable.

I have a question that is paramount to understanding your analysis: how did you calculate the percentages for each item in your taxonomy of immigration? It looks all well and good, but I have no idea what those percentages mean, as there doesn't seem to be any criteria dictating how one would calculate those percentages.

Again, very well put together and solid presentation, but clarification on those percentages you arrived at would be great. Thanks in advance!

What if you are in both camps...

I fully support Legal immigration, in fact I think the system should face a review to see where we can stream line it.

But I am rabidly against open borders for a number of reasons, Since a large chunk of the globe hates us with a passion I think its kind of silly to not make a real attempt to secure our borders considering the prevalence of terrorist activities. I feel illegal immigrants when caught should be deported immediately without fail, I feel the time of pop out a kid on american soil walla they are a citizen and we have to keep the whole family has passed.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
What if you are in both camps...

Then you would be human.

I fully support Legal immigration, in fact I think the system should face a review to see where we can stream line it.

Do you think anybody who wants to immigrate legally should have the freedom to do so without any type of restriction when applying for citizenship? If so, I don't agree with that.

But I am rabidly against open borders for a number of reasons, Since a large chunk of the globe hates us with a passion I think its kind of silly to not make a real attempt to secure our borders considering the prevalence of terrorist activities. I feel illegal immigrants when caught should be deported immediately without fail, I feel the time of pop out a kid on american soil walla they are a citizen and we have to keep the whole family has passed.

Open boarders is the worst scenario conceivable in almost any context I can imagine. I guess if your goal were to systematically destroy everything you already like about the country you are in...but that does seem kind of counter-intuitive to our current discussion.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Do you think anybody who wants to immigrate legally should have the freedom to do so without any type of restriction when applying for citizenship? If so, I don't agree with that.

No I do not, but should good people with a clean record that want to be Americans, have to wait (in some cases) 2 years or more to become a citizen, in those areas you can probably streamline the process to some degree.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
Firstly one must put who is comparing the pro s and con s. Not you personally, but these question must be put forward for the native population and their reasoning as they will be the one to suffer if immigration goes wrong.
You must come with a first Question to the native population "are you happy with your country, your way of life, and ultimately how you are treated by your government.
I. Why do you come up with the population declining? This is only due to the PTB propaganda that people were over breeding and to cut down on family size. Just as easy they could encourage the native population to have more children. So now tell me why it's justifiable to import more breeders when the native infrastructure has a job to sustain the way of life for the indigenous population. So that's a no to your percentages as it would be 100% against-0% for.
2.Economics. Much pie in the sky there as ongoing data shows the majority of immigrants DO NOT want to contrbute to the native economy. Which necessitates jumping strait to number-
5. As of yet there is no evidence that the mass of immigrants neither want to integrate or join our economic system. So no rich multicultural society only THEIR society. So that's 100% against-0% for.
4. Just why if your happy in your own country would you want to immigrate, so that's a backward reason to justify immigration.
You don't like examples of the falsity of mass immigration. Let me tell you one and what we have coming to us if we don't do something.
TIBET. Tibet was a country in its own right till China took a liking to it. China forced a mass movement of Chinese people overrunning the indigenous population. Now it's not Tibet only in name, it's a now a province of China. Ask what the Tibetans think of that and you'll have your answers.

I got no problem with immigration at all..
I only have a problem with the religion Islam and its teachings...

I have no problem with Legal Immigration, It's the illegal immigration that I am against...

Granted the whole system may need an overhaul however how are we supposed to do that when we don't even enforce the current rules and regulations on immigration.

I have a funny feeling this thread won't remain civil and will be closed shortly.

I think that 91.5% of the population supports immigration (always fun to pull numbers out of thin air).

But I think you are completely missing the point. The real analysis that needs to be performed is the pros/cons for illegal immigration and/or open borders.

There is one parameter when considering illegal immigration that seems to dominate all others and that is money. The working class in the USA cannot provide welfare and services for free to anyone in the world who decides coming here would be a better life, there must be a 'valve' that can be adjusted so that we can control the amount of people we provide those services to based on our budget. This can only be done via legal immigration.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I am actually not sure what you are getting at because I think most people support legal immigration. It is the illegal flow of non-vetted foreign invaders to which most people are opposed.

a reply to: bluesjr

I think that 91.5% of the population supports immigration (always fun to pull numbers out of thin air).

I asked where/how those percentages in the OP were decided upon - crickets so far - which I suspect is exactly as you inferred, which is that they were pulled out of thin air. It was a well presented OP...lots of style with little substance. That's unfortunate for 'The Ultimate Immigration Debate'.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'll go out on a limb here and focus on this:

History is NOT a guide wise enough to rely on when it comes to examining the current circumstances of our planet. It is almost so irrelevant that if the average person using an appeal to history actually thought about what they were arguing, there would be no debate to be had.

My thinking here is that you may have fallen into a trap of sorts. While history is an imperfect "predictor" when considering current circumstances, it does provide guidance when viewed from a wider perspective.

So, for example, history instructs that the Roman Empire was brought down in no small part because they couldn't control the borders and were overwhelmed, culturally overwhelmed that is. But a closer examination reveals a greater truth.......that the Roman Culture was one that had, over time, fallen away from its core belief systems of right/wrong, good/evil, etc. As a result, the "Roman" population came to eschew civic and military service and as things began to crumble, the elites escaped with their wealth to Byzantium via the port at Ravena. As well, the culture of the Roman Republic roots were never fully embraced by the huge freed-slave population and that lead to further deterioration of the core culture.

When examined as a whole, history reveals that every great "Empire" has similarly crumbled from within. Wealth begets wilful sloth, over indulgence and the sense that the "old" cultural values can indeed be thrown out with abandon.

How does this affect the consideration of immigration in the US today? Actually, it doesn't, it is as you say, irrelevant and there's no need for debate simply because, as the US core culture is undermined, weakened, and abandoned, immigration does nothing except hasten the ultimate demise because there's no core cultural reference point for the newly arrived immigrant to identify with. That means, there's no genuine method of "assimilation" and indeed, the US counter-culture has branded "assimilation" as a bad thing, preferring immigrants to retain their core cultures rather than to attempt to find one in the US to graft onto.

So, in a sense you're right.........debating immigration is pointless because the problem isn't "immigration", its the slow death of the core culture.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Why are you having a conversation with yourself and calling it the ultimate debate? Why is your opinion the ultimate point on the subject to anyone but you?

I have a bigger problem with H1-B visas than I do with immigration. No other country in the world allows their best paying jobs to be outsourced to non-citizens. This is insanity.

I don't have a problem with all the Mexicans. We are all Americans. Some arbitrary line on the southern border means nothing. Besides, I think Mexican food is very good. But I just don't like all the undocumented workers get paid under the table. I would prefer Mexican citizens have special worker status where they pay payroll taxes, don't get to vote or collect any benefits until they become legal, and they don't have to worry about deportation. Mexican workers can travel back and forth through ports entry without hassle. I would prefer that solution better.

And make marijuana legal so the Mexican drugs gangs lose all their power. Smoking pot is much safer than cigarettes and alcohol. Adults are adults and should be free to do whatever they want. We need smaller government not bigger government.

a reply to: uncommitted

LOL! Dark Ghost has a little case of megalomania. But he is good thinker.

a reply to: TonyS

I read somewhere the Roman Empire fell because of the Romans and an insatiable appetite for expensive Chinese silk. The Chinese sucked all the life out of the Empire because of the HUGE trade imbalance. Hmmmmm, makes you think.....

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Why are you having a conversation with yourself and calling it the ultimate debate? Why is your opinion the ultimate point on the subject to anyone but you?

I was just gonna say, TLDR... you said it better.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: TonyS

I read somewhere the Roman Empire fell because of the Romans and an insatiable appetite for expensive Chinese silk. The Chinese sucked all the life out of the Empire because of the HUGE trade imbalance. Hmmmmm, makes you think.....

The Chinese offered luxury items like silk, spices, jewellry in exchange for nice shiny gold and platinum. That caused a gold shortage in Rome to the point they had to substitute other metals and decree a ban on the export of gold coins.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am actually not sure what you are getting at because I think most people support legal immigration. It is the illegal flow of non-vetted foreign invaders to which most people are opposed.

I am encouraging people to consider whether historical arguments should be considered in reference to any of the current problems we are facing. I used the basic definition to avoid extra complicated variables that are often used to support ANY form of immigration that falls under that basic definition.

If in its most basic form immigration is not inherently good/beneficial (as most SUPPORTERS claim it is), shouldn't we be challenging that assumption before delving into reasons why we should just support it, even when more complex types of immigration haven't even been brought up yet?

My argument is that it should be challenged. Historical arguments have no relevance to our present situation.