"Open Immigration Is Good for the Economy"--article by myself

[Kidlicious]

So, no muslims (refugees or otherwise) who come legally to the USA (under the immigration policies of the Obama era)



Till when did the schols function well (year)?
And what demographics change?



Which is no problem that can be handled via things like the muslim ban, Trump would love to implement.
After all this effects only people who would (without the ban) come legally into the USA

It isn't a Muslim ban. I wouldn't object if you called it an Islamist ban though. It wouldn't be accurate but it would be more honest of you.

[Proteus_MST]

It isn't a Muslim ban. I wouldn't object if you called it an Islamist ban though. It wouldn't be accurate but it would be more honest of you.

The majority of people froom those countries who are blocked, seem to be muslims.
I cannot call it islamist ban, because this would actually be rather dishonest ... I doubt tht the majority of muslims who are affected by the ban are islamists.
There is o vetting process in Trumps ban that divided "good" muslims from "bad" islamists.

Actually AFAIK the Obama era vetting process (which, even for refugees, takes several years) already takes care that islamists (if they are discovered as such) are not allowed to immigrate to the USA.

So, "muslim ban" seems to be the description that comes closest to the thing Trump wants to implement

[Kidlicious]

The majority of people froom those countries who are blocked, seem to be muslims.
I cannot call it islamist ban, because this would actually be rather dishonest ... I doubt tht the majority of muslims who are affected by the ban are islamists.
There is o vetting process in Trumps ban that divided "good" muslims from "bad" islamists.

Actually AFAIK the Obama era vetting process (which, even for refugees, takes several years) already takes care that islamists (if they are discovered as such) are not allowed to immigrate to the USA.

So, "muslim ban" seems too be the description that comes closest to the thing Trump wants to implement

You don't get it. Obama let Islamists in here. Trump isn't doing that. He loves Muslims, who aren't Islamists. You are making false accusations.

[Kidlicious]

The majority of people froom those countries who are blocked, seem to be muslims.
I cannot call it islamist ban, because this would actually be rather dishonest ... I doubt tht the majority of muslims who are affected by the ban are islamists.
There is o vetting process in Trumps ban that divided "good" muslims from "bad" islamists.

Actually AFAIK the Obama era vetting process (which, even for refugees, takes several years) already takes care that islamists (if they are discovered as such) are not allowed to immigrate to the USA.

So, "muslim ban" seems too be the description that comes closest to the thing Trump wants to implement

You don't get it. Obama let Islamists in here. Trump isn't doing that. He loves Muslims, who aren't Islamists. You are making false accusations.

[Proteus_MST]

You don't get it. Obama let Islamists in here. Trump isn't doing that. He loves Muslims, who aren't Islamists. You are making false accusations.

Please post links (to believable sources) for both claims (that Obama let Islamists in and that Trump loves muslims who are no islamists)

[Kidlicious]

Obama loves Islamists. He lived Hezbollah. He calls Hezbollah moderate Muslims

[Zevico]

Kid:

1. In fact I was trying to address the issue of demographic change but perhaps I should be more explicit. Culturally, Americans of European background know how to each how their kids how to learn at school and the discipline of learning in that school environment. They could have brilliant minds but that doesn't mean they are open to learning at school. Other cultures are not as adapted to the schoolyard environment. It's newer or perhaps even unfamiliar to them.. This includes some minorities and some (not all) immigrant groups. Public schools don't teach how to learn, so kids from some of these non-Euro backgrounds will struggle.
2. Teachers like Jaime Escalante in his time taught their kids *how to learn*, and over one quarter of the Mexican Americans that passed an advanced mathematics class in the United States came from his class. No doubt some of those were illegal immigrants, yet they succeeded nevertheless. According to Stossel his results were better than those of Beverly HIlls High. That's what made him stand out. Everyone wants an education in principle but learning how to learn is a skill that a lot of people just don't learn.
3. My point out BLM is not that they are people to emulate in all ways--not at all. I totally disagree with their observations on economics. But as free market economist Milton Friedman argues, "from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel." (See this interview http://www.aei.org/publication/milto...-war-on-drugs/). Because drug prohibition makes trafficking profitable, and creates a lawless environment. That's why America has the largest number of prisoners per capita in the Western world. Because some kids aren't being taught to learn, money is driving them into the black economy. There are better models out there. Colorado has legalised cannabis, Canada has too. Drug prohibition has formented organised crime. It's basic free market economics--get rid of prohibition and there will be far fewer gangs and far fewer shootings. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition.
4. I know this is really hard but try to put yourself in the shoes of people who know the terror of civil war, of starvation, mass shootings and the like. Suppose for a moment that those people then taught their kids that (rightly or wrongly) the American government was responsible. For Americans the flag is an emblem of peace, liberty and justice. These are all admirable causes. But the American political class' foreign policy has sparked and prolonged terrible wars in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. Just look at Iraq for a moment--the intervention there caused a civil war and the rise of ISIS, an organisation that beheads unbelievers and gays. It was not intentional but it was the result of the intervention. And Iraq is just one example. In some places America isn't admired, it's feared as a force that could shake the region apart in a heartbeat.

[Kidlicious]

Kid:

1. In fact I was trying to address the issue of demographic change but perhaps I should be more explicit. Culturally, Americans of European background know how to each how their kids how to learn at school and the discipline of learning in that school environment. They could have brilliant minds but that doesn't mean they are open to learning at school. Other cultures are not as adapted to the schoolyard environment. It's newer or perhaps even unfamiliar to them.. This includes some minorities and some (not all) immigrant groups. Public schools don't teach how to learn, so kids from some of these non-Euro backgrounds will struggle.

Not so. Schools teach how to learn. I don't know where you are getting this. Just because students don't learn doesn't mean they aren't being taught. That's a common assumption that isn't true.

The fact is that 1) they don't speak English and 2) they have matriarchial family structures.

As far as 1 they have a serious disadvantage because they have to be taught English first. That puts them behind.

As far as 2 they have a serious disadvantage because father is the one that motivates children more to do well in school and succeed as an adult.

2. Teachers like Jaime Escalante in his time taught their kids *how to learn*, and over one quarter of the Mexican Americans that passed an advanced mathematics class in the United States came from his class. No doubt some of those were illegal immigrants, yet they succeeded nevertheless. According to Stossel his results were better than those of Beverly HIlls High. That's what made him stand out. Everyone wants an education in principle but learning how to learn is a skill that a lot of people just don't learn.

He is likely a very good teacher. That's why he did particularly well, but that doesn't mean that reform will ever make a significant difference. And again, schools teach students how to learn. Anything else would be silliness. The problem is motivating them to learn, because they are at a disadvantage as second language students and not having strong fathers.

3. My point out BLM is not that they are people to emulate in all ways--not at all. I totally disagree with their observations on economics. But as free market economist Milton Friedman argues, "from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel." (See this interview http://www.aei.org/publication/milto...-war-on-drugs/). Because drug prohibition makes trafficking profitable, and creates a lawless environment. That's why America has the largest number of prisoners per capita in the Western world. Because some kids aren't being taught to learn, money is driving them into the black economy. There are better models out there. Colorado has legalised cannabis, Canada has too. Drug prohibition has formented organised crime. It's basic free market economics--get rid of prohibition and there will be far fewer gangs and far fewer shootings. The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition.

But we don't want drugs to be legal. We don't want our children to use them. No one should be expected to put their children in harm's way to help strangers.

4. I know this is really hard but try to put yourself in the shoes of people who know the terror of civil war, of starvation, mass shootings and the like. Suppose for a moment that those people then taught their kids that (rightly or wrongly) the American government was responsible. For Americans the flag is an emblem of peace, liberty and justice. These are all admirable causes. But the American political class' foreign policy has sparked and prolonged terrible wars in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. Just look at Iraq for a moment--the intervention there caused a civil war and the rise of ISIS, an organisation that beheads unbelievers and gays. It was not intentional but it was the result of the intervention. And Iraq is just one example. In some places America isn't admired, it's feared as a force that could shake the region apart in a heartbeat.

The fact is that American is better than every single country where they come from. If they don't believe that (and it's absolutely true) then they don't belong here, because they aren't going to be successful and they are going to be a problem.

[Proteus_MST]

...
But we don't want drugs to be legal. We don't want our children to use them. No one should be expected to put their children in harm's way to help strangers.
....

You already have drugs that are legal ... caffeine ... nicotine ... and, worst of all, alcohol.
Last time you wanted to stop the usage of the latter one didn't go all too well

[Kidlicious]

Exactly, and two of those are very bad.

[Zevico]

Firstly, the idea that children are more or less likely to do something because it's legal is incorrect. Cultural factors drive drug use, and key among them is the fact that it's seen as cool because it's illegal. Films and pop culture are filled with such references. In fact, legalisation may even lead to reduced abuse rates because the usage happens in the open. That's what the data indicates in Colorado and Portugal, both of which implemented drug law reforms.

It's also much easier to get treatment when what you're doing isn't a crime--there's no fear.

Secondly what matters is abuse, not use. I just went to a winery today. Not a drunk in sight, but plenty of happy couples and families enjoying lunch and a drink. The same holds of all drugs. Even meth is just a really high dose of the same cough medicine everyone can get at the chemist. I've never used cannabis myself but have seen plenty of others use it in moderation without issues. Abuse is typically a problem caused by othe issues that need to be addressed, eg self control, learning a trade.

Point is, there are plenty of ways to claim that low-skilled and 'uneducated' migrants harm
locals but they ways in which they do are actually caused by problems that affect lower income regardless of citizenship or migration status. Inner city schools have been problematic well beforehand. Chicago has been filled with gangland shootings daily because of the drug war--no migrants necessary. Plenty of poor Americans face these issues. One approach is to blame the people, the other is to address the issues that cause the crime and lack of education in these communities. I think addressing the issues is better than blaming would be migrants who have done no harm.

[Zevico]

Lastly the mining boom ended in 2013. We have hundreds of thousands of migrants come to Australia every year and economic growth comes with it.

[Kidlicious]

Lastly the mining boom ended in 2013. We have hundreds of thousands of migrants come to Australia every year and economic growth comes with it.

Jobs were still being lost just 2 years ago. The housing market is bust. How do you call this economic growth?

[Kidlicious]

Firstly, the idea that children are more or less likely to do something because it's legal is incorrect. Cultural factors drive drug use, and key among them is the fact that it's seen as cool because it's illegal. Films and pop culture are filled with such references. In fact, legalisation may even lead to reduced abuse rates because the usage happens in the open. That's what the data indicates in Colorado and Portugal, both of which implemented drug law reforms.

It's also much easier to get treatment when what you're doing isn't a crime--there's no fear.

Secondly what matters is abuse, not use. I just went to a winery today. Not a drunk in sight, but plenty of happy couples and families enjoying lunch and a drink. The same holds of all drugs. Even meth is just a really high dose of the same cough medicine everyone can get at the chemist. I've never used cannabis myself but have seen plenty of others use it in moderation without issues. Abuse is typically a problem caused by othe issues that need to be addressed, eg self control, learning a trade.

Point is, there are plenty of ways to claim that low-skilled and 'uneducated' migrants harm
locals but they ways in which they do are actually caused by problems that affect lower income regardless of citizenship or migration status. Inner city schools have been problematic well beforehand. Chicago has been filled with gangland shootings daily because of the drug war--no migrants necessary. Plenty of poor Americans face these issues. One approach is to blame the people, the other is to address the issues that cause the crime and lack of education in these communities. I think addressing the issues is better than blaming would be migrants who have done no harm.

No. The people who commit the crimes deserve the blame. Blaming anyone else is immoral.

[Kidlicious]

If I understand your argument, it's that we should legalize drugs so that immigrants don't break our laws. Is that correct.