[RexImperator]

Think about it. Large numbers of immigrants provide low cost labor to certain businesses but require larger public expenditures such as social services, and town/local/school budgets become strained. It's just a redistribution scheme from the middle/lower middle class to the more powerful ownership class.

[rpg]

Mass immigration is a band aid on the rest of the worlds failures. If immigrants were banned from sending money back home, millions of people would starve worldwide.

[The Beast1]

I see it more as an attempt to keep labor costs low by having a large pool of workers.

Since western countries are declining in population, it would make sense that we would see a rise in the cost of labor to make up that short fall.

The wealthy don't want that for a few reasons. Increased labor costs can encourage competition. More money for the masses means more potential usurpers from nascent start ups.

The irony of this situation is, the labor costs that the rich are looking to reduce are for extremely high skilled workers. The children of immigrants tend to be as dumb as their parents. It takes several generations for this to trickle through the system.

You also get the doubly excellent effect of keeping property values sky high due to a large population. Can't quite demand some of these lofty valuations if there isn't anyone to want it.

[911]

Mass immigration also serves the function of diluting cultural barriers in order to serve the globalist agenda. Look at the US and Mexican migration, they're dissolving the cultural divide between anglo-european north and the hispanic/mestizo south. They've almost reached critical mass there.

[Fast Eddie]

To say that massive immigration is nothing but a form of wealth transfer is like saying a 1000m high tsunami is nothing but a way make things wet.

[rotekz]

Yes it is state subsidised low cost labour that benefits globalists. It is also the tool by which to destroy national identities and cultures allowing globalist governance to remove sovereignty without a struggle.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

like saying a 1000m high tsunami is nothing but a way make things wet.

Always with the nitpicking...I don't literally mean nothing, I'm just focusing primarily on the economics and not the cultural issues. But yeah, we can bring those in as those are real costs, they are just hard to quantify, which is why economists tend to ignore them.

What I'm saying is this: suppose you have a lot immigration, the cost of labor goes down, government expenditures go up, and so GDP goes up. (Eventually taxes will have to go up, which may reduce that somewhat.) Economists will say there is a net boost to GDP but because taxes go up you are really selectively benefitting one group (businesses who need cheap labor) while harming those who pay taxes (a cost diffused among the population). People will also benefit with the lower cost of labor-intensive goods and services, but there will also be harm in the sense that jobs that could have been made more efficient won't be.

Basically: the benefits are reaped by a few and the costs are born by the many. Example: Business owners will put their kids in elite private schools. The average person will have to deal with sending their kids to burdened public schools.

[scotian]

There's also negative environmental impacts when people from poor countries move to the west and adopt western lifestyles, they increase thier "carbon footprint". Of course, the leftists who are in favour of mass immigration are also big fans of environmental protection but would never admit to this hypocrisy.

[Dantes]

It's purely economic. Businesses benefit from low cost labor. Businesses that rely on immigrant workers will do whatever they can to make sure they remain in the workforce.

I recently read an article about how big business over the last few years been donating more to the Democratic Party due to their pro immigration stance. I will post the article if I can find it. It was basically how the Democratic Party has become the party of the one percenters and big business.

[ivansirko]

The reasons are economic. The tactics are racial.

[N°6]

The globalist model is mass-migration of productive jobs and machinery in one direction and the immigration of cheap, unskilled un-unionised labour in the other direction.

This leaves the resultant service economies of the West which produce very little, apart from the most consumerist and fattest women in history, wholly reliant on the cheap importation of matériel and labour as well as cheap debt and also cheap and fecund wombs. The immigrant does not even need to work, his presence on the welfare statistics quantifies the bloated 'reserve labour pool' which drags down the wages of those who do work.

A globalised world requires all countries to be reduced to a plantation, overseen by a cosmopolitan, technocratic class which pools its fiscal, social and political resources together to stamp out any threat of nationalism in the West. This is why social protectionism AND fiscal protectionist political parties are denounced as 'extremist' in the West.

[Diogenes]

It's partly but not purely economic. Clearly it reduces the overall cost of labour. However it also produces a population which is divided between many different groups and so less likely to unify in opposition to the elite.

[CodyB]

Dilution of the lower and middle classes by adding in desperate unscrupulous outsiders who don't feel accountable to the society to which they have been ejected.

This a ploy by the Uber Elites in my opinion.

The Elites hold significant clout in the political sphere, yet they are not all powerful as the lower-middle classes hold relatively high amounts of wealth.

Inject a whole bunch of poor people, it lowers the market wage and reduces political leverage.

[RexImperator]

In this radio interview, a Harvard professor confirms what I wrote in the OP:

http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2016/10/...ers-losers

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/

[beta_plus]

Mass immigration, at least in modern western democracies, is more about the ruling leftist parties (hillary dems as opposed to bernie bros, UK labour vs. Greenies) changing those western democracies' demographics to stay in power.

Basically, back in late 50s left wing parties like the American Machines realized that with post WW II prosperity, white men were no longer going to vote for them, since they could now afford to comfortably raise a family without government assistance. As well, Kruschev taking power in the USSR began to reveal just what a horrific system communism and leftism was.

So they did the following:

• opened their borders to 3rd world immigrants who would always vote for them
• supported feminism in order to get women to vote against men
• at least in the United States, went from being oppressively racist against blacks to suddenly supporting their enfranchisement in order to further dilute the votes of white men
  

The Democrat and Labour parties would have folded decades ago otherwise.

[ivansirko]

(10-23-2016 09:00 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  

Mass immigration, at least in modern western democracies, is more about the ruling leftist parties (hillary dems as opposed to bernie bros, UK labour vs. Greenies) changing those western democracies' demographics to stay in power.

Basically, back in late 50s left wing parties like the American Machines realized that with post WW II prosperity, white men were no longer going to vote for them, since they could now afford to comfortably raise a family without government assistance. As well, Kruschev taking power in the USSR began to reveal just what a horrific system communism and leftism was.

So they did the following:

• opened their borders to 3rd world immigrants who would always vote for them
• supported feminism in order to get women to vote against men
• at least in the United States, went from being oppressively racist against blacks to suddenly supporting their enfranchisement in order to further dilute the votes of white men
  

The Democrat and Labour parties would have folded decades ago otherwise.

Then what explains the GOP Establishment's interest in this?

[beta_plus]

(10-23-2016 09:02 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:00 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  

Mass immigration, at least in modern western democracies, is more about the ruling leftist parties (hillary dems as opposed to bernie bros, UK labour vs. Greenies) changing those western democracies' demographics to stay in power.

Basically, back in late 50s left wing parties like the American Machines realized that with post WW II prosperity, white men were no longer going to vote for them, since they could now afford to comfortably raise a family without government assistance. As well, Kruschev taking power in the USSR began to reveal just what a horrific system communism and leftism was.

So they did the following:

• opened their borders to 3rd world immigrants who would always vote for them
• supported feminism in order to get women to vote against men
• at least in the United States, went from being oppressively racist against blacks to suddenly supporting their enfranchisement in order to further dilute the votes of white men
  

The Democrat and Labour parties would have folded decades ago otherwise.

Then what explains the GOP Establishment's interest in this?

They bribed the business side of the GOP (represented by the US Chamber of Commerce) with cheap imported labor. Unfortunately, the US CoC was so greedy that they didn't realize the people that they were importing would create a government that would destroy the American institutions that allowed them to thrive.

[beta_plus]

(10-23-2016 10:24 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:02 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 09:00 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  

Mass immigration, at least in modern western democracies, is more about the ruling leftist parties (hillary dems as opposed to bernie bros, UK labour vs. Greenies) changing those western democracies' demographics to stay in power.

Basically, back in late 50s left wing parties like the American Machines realized that with post WW II prosperity, white men were no longer going to vote for them, since they could now afford to comfortably raise a family without government assistance. As well, Kruschev taking power in the USSR began to reveal just what a horrific system communism and leftism was.

So they did the following:

• opened their borders to 3rd world immigrants who would always vote for them
• supported feminism in order to get women to vote against men
• at least in the United States, went from being oppressively racist against blacks to suddenly supporting their enfranchisement in order to further dilute the votes of white men
  

The Democrat and Labour parties would have folded decades ago otherwise.

Then what explains the GOP Establishment's interest in this?

They bribed the business side of the GOP (represented by the US Chamber of Commerce) with cheap imported labor. Unfortunately, the US CoC was so greedy that they didn't realize the people that they were importing would create a government that would destroy the American institutions that allowed them to thrive.

It's also worth noting that this did not just happen in America. It happened throughout the Anglosphere and Western Europe. You can argue that America had a tradition of immigration and racism that would lead to opening the borders and Germany had caused WW II, but countries like Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, and Switzerland, which had little or no history of colonialism, slavery, or war mongering also opened their borders.

Having the statist party import voters to win elections appears to be a very real defect of Western Democracy.

[redpillage]

The fundamental goal of unmitigated migration into Western Europe and the United States is the destruction of both white cultural heritage and white genetics. PERIOD.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Research by the Center for Immigration studies in the U.S. indicates that migrants generate total profits of $437 billion for their “users” – for the most part, big businesses and employers. But mass immigration comes at a cost of $405 billion in wage losses for native-born workers, which falls disproportionately on the so-called working poor.

http://cis.org/node/4573

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/03/...s-hungary/

[BortimusPrime]

(07-02-2016 11:28 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I see it more as an attempt to keep labor costs low by having a large pool of workers.

Since western countries are declining in population, it would make sense that we would see a rise in the cost of labor to make up that short fall.

The wealthy don't want that for a few reasons. Increased labor costs can encourage competition. More money for the masses means more potential usurpers from nascent start ups.

The irony of this situation is, the labor costs that the rich are looking to reduce are for extremely high skilled workers. The children of immigrants tend to be as dumb as their parents. It takes several generations for this to trickle through the system.

You also get the doubly excellent effect of keeping property values sky high due to a large population. Can't quite demand some of these lofty valuations if there isn't anyone to want it.

High skill labor gets debased primarily through the H1-B program. Even if billions of people have an average IQ of 85 put together, there's still going to end up being millions of high IQ people that can be skimmed off the top and brought into the US.

Not only does this depress wages for high skilled labor to the point where a STEM graduate degree only produces a lifestyle equivalent to an American factory worker from the 1950s, but the brain drain in the third world ensures that those countries have no hope of pulling themselves up, and are dependent on globalist investment/aid and thus globalist control.