Global Poll Uncovers Psychic Shift on Immigration

[jundp 191]

This article is from humanevents.com "the leading conservative media since 1944." Thus, why is anyone surprised that it's a one-sided argument?

Media doesn't equal honest, unbiased reporting. It equals propaganda, whether it's from the left or the right. I'm not entirely sure there's any real journalism left today.

[BishopM 114]

Media doesn't equal honest, unbiased reporting. It equals propaganda, whether it's from the left or the right. I'm not entirely sure there's any real journalism left today.

I agree. I gave up watching/reading all news...it was a total waste of time, not to mention just flat out depressing. Instead, I just go to work...which seems to be working fine for my family. Vfuk the rest of that mezz...

[scandal 951]

That immigration into this country is declining relative to the size of the population. That's what they prove. Seeing that our population is increasingly aging, we'd need more rather than less immigration to keep things moving along. Does that mean that our current immigration policy is good? No, it doesn't. We should turn to skill-based immigration. Give the economy what it needs - skilled and educated labor. And then do a lot more of it.

Precisely.

Interesting that two -or perhaps three- of the leading issues on our present national agenda have a symbiotic linkage that can be used, if we choose sensible policies, to solve each other.

We have an entitlement crisis emerging. Namely, that our social benefits - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid - face an aging population of retirees with too few workers in younger generations to support their benefits.

And we have a desperate need for a reformed national immigration policy tuned to the needs of the 21st century and globalized economy.

And, we have an overall budget shortfall that we all know is unsustainable. A shortfall which is at least partly related to the entitlement programs. And a shortfall that needs a more robust economy employing more workers and generating more tax revenue to close.

We can kill those two (three) birds with one stone (or at least, make serious progress in that direction) if we fashion an enlightened immigration policy that brings in the skilled workforce, to become part of the working payroll and support America's aging baby boomers now hitting retirement. Back in the 50s and 60s we grew via the Baby Boom. Today we don't have birthrates to sustain that growth. We ought to be importing our 21st century boom from the countries who have the birth rates we lack.

We still need entitlement reform. We need to adjust benefit payouts, reindex SS to wage growth rather than CPI, increase entitlement age. But having aggressive policies to encourage more immigration, and the right sort of immigration, can go a long way to shoring up SS and Medicare shortfalls.

One very obvious thing we ought to do is have policies that encourage foreign students who study in American universities, colleges, medical schools, engineering schools, to stay and pursue their careers and lives in the US rather than sending them back to their home countries. It's fine for a US-trained Indian engineer or Chinese doctor to go back to India or China - there are benefits to the US of that happening. But it would be even better for us if those people stayed here and practiced here and contributed their talents here.

[peejay 327]

That immigration into this country is declining relative to the size of the population. That's what they prove. Seeing that our population is increasingly aging, we'd need more rather than less immigration to keep things moving along. Does that mean that our current immigration policy is good? No, it doesn't. We should turn to skill-based immigration. Give the economy what it needs - skilled and educated labor. And then do a lot more of it.

A lot hinges on the state of the economy. Importing masses of foreigners into a bad economy with high unemployment is not in the best interests of working Americans. Corporate America would love it though. But then again the best interests of the American people are not what corporate America is all about.

[Pooky 3,348]

But having aggressive policies to encourage more immigration, and the right sort of immigration, can go a long way to shoring up SS and Medicare shortfalls.

And that is where Washington falls down. Encouraging legal immigration for the skills that can be brought into the country is one thing. Encouraging illegal immigration by default to bolster the low-paid, unskilled workforce, which is the route currently followed by this administration and those that preceded it, is, unfortunately, the route currently being followed. And that just exacerbates the economic problems we face.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A lot hinges on the state of the economy. Importing masses of foreigners into a bad economy with high unemployment is not in the best interests of working Americans. Corporate America would love it though. But then again the best interests of the American people are not what corporate America is all about.

I'll go along with that. We do not need to add millions of people when millions are in the unemployment line as it is. Gotta get those Americans and present lawful residents back to work first - which, of course, Congress has just decided to delay for who knows how long. But this will pass eventually when Americans demand that jobs and employment come front and center before anything else. And when it does pass and unemployment returns to 6% or less, we'd be well advised to have a beneficial immigration policy ready and set to go. Such policy will open the country to more and better qualified immigrants which will help grow the economy, raise revenues and sustain our social safety net.

[scandal 951]

And that is where Washington falls down. Encouraging legal immigration for the skills that can be brought into the country is one thing. Encouraging illegal immigration by default to bolster the low-paid, unskilled workforce, which is the route currently followed by this administration and those that preceded it, is, unfortunately, the route currently being followed. And that just exacerbates the economic problems we face.

To their credit, George Bush and John McCain (until he did an about face and became "build the damn fence!" McCain) both supported comprehensive immigration reform. Until their party made the political costs of that clear. They understood what's at stake. So, too, did Obama. He spoke about reform on the campaign trail but he has no stomach for it now, or political base. The healthcare debate completely emptied his political capital account.

[Pooky 3,348]

To their credit, George Bush and John McCain (until he did an about face and became "build the damn fence!" McCain) both supported comprehensive immigration reform. Until their party made the political costs of that clear. They understood what's at stake. So, too, did Obama. He spoke about reform on the campaign trail but he has no stomach for it now, or political base. The healthcare debate completely emptied his political capital account.

And I disagreed with BushBaby's plan when it was put forward, too, as did a majority of the American electorate. Neither side in Washington wants to address the 800lb gorilla in the room which is the 12-20 million (depending on who you believe) illegal immigrants currently in the country.

Both sides are reluctant to do anything substantive on illegal immigration, as both stand to benefit from sustaining the current relative inaction. In the current climate, illegal immigration will continue to poison the debate on what can and should be done to improve legal immigration.

[Danno 1,228]

Well, I'll wager you a tenner that we are both sitting in our houses with our immigrant spouses.

Maybe they shouldn't have been admitted?

You suggest either one has to be in favor of unlimited immigration or... none.

Because as soon as one professes that a given number is "too much", then he forfeits his right to favor the immigration of ones immediate family members.

Sorry, I don't see that as an honest counter-point.

[Danno 1,228]

One very obvious thing we ought to do is have policies that encourage foreign students who study in American universities, colleges, medical schools, engineering schools, to stay and pursue their careers and lives in the US rather than sending them back to their home countries. It's fine for a US-trained Indian engineer or Chinese doctor to go back to India or China - there are benefits to the US of that happening. But it would be even better for us if those people stayed here and practiced here and contributed their talents here.

I might disagree in that many parts of the world are in the bad shape they are in because they don't have the very people (educated) you suggest we should hold onto.

Often times these people return to their country believing and helping to grow some of the things we do right here.

[bigdog 376]

Global Poll Uncovers Psychic Shift on Immigration

by Rachel Marsden

Posted 08/07/2011 ET

A new global poll by Ipsos measuring citizens' perception of immigration in 24 countries has just been released. Despite what politicians around the world would have their countrymen believe, the average person isn't buying the benefits of current immigration policy.

The poll proves that our collective gut is indeed in line with reality: 80% of world citizens, from Russia and Brazil to America and India, feel that immigration has increased over the past five years, with 52% feeling it's too much. Of respondents, 45% believe this immigration has a negative impact. This is legal, above-board immigration with which people are taking issue.

While politicians in America typically focus on the 12 million or so illegal immigrants, they often ignore that the country is taking in new legal immigrants at a rate of over a million every year.

America may have been built on immigration, but it wasn't the kind of mass Third World immigration that we've been seeing over the past 40 years. The Left originally introduced the concept of Third World multiculturalism to America during the Lyndon Johnson presidency through the Democratic Party's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It was born of white guilt overkill in the shade of the Civil Rights Movement.

At the time, Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy said: "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. … The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

In the true final analysis, the new law opened the flood gates to exponentially more Third World immigrants than originally planned—and did it on the basis of "family reunification" rather than skill.

Before the new law, immigrants came overwhelmingly from Western European democracies and Canada. Afterward, Latin America and Asia dominated, while European immigration was reduced from 86% to a mere sliver of 13%.

The law led to an influx of new Democratic voters via immigration. Now, any politician wanting to land this growing immigrant vote—whether Democrat or Republican—had better find a way to pander to the idea of multiculturalism or, theoretically, risk alienating a major swath of voters. Ronald Reagan presided over near record levels of annual legal immigration, and George W. Bush was anything but tough on immigration, maintaining immigration levels from the very same countries against which we struggled ideologically in the aftermath of 9/11. No one wants to touch it.

The idea of any and all legal immigration being a net positive is something that has been deeply planted in the public conscience through leftist brainwashing and diversity promotion initiatives, typically starting in the public education system. If anything, the Ipsos poll finally proves this to be definitively true, with the most educated being the most supportive of immigration. Top-educated Canadians have the most positive view of immigration of anyone in the world. As a product of that system, I can personally vouch for the amount of multicultural and diversity peddling to which the average student is subjected in the absence of any counterpoint. This, despite the fact that the two founding factions of French and English Canadians haven't managed to ever get along, even leading to a period of French nationalist terrorism, which has since been subdued by repeatedly buying off the French-Canadian province.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Ipsos survey—and most in conflict with current policy—is that 45% of people prefer skilled, educated immigrants over those who are simply there to do jobs the locals won't do. And 48% still feel that immigrants take jobs from locals. Therefore, the survey would suggest that people only really feel protective of low-paying jobs. So future policy ought to focus on importing top talent and limiting low-level immigration—which is also a recipe for competitive success in the global economy. It would be a good place to start.

http://www.humaneven...nt=yes&id=45352

If you have a good education, you will be delayed, their is no common sense applied.