The “magic dirt” point is perfect. There’s no rebuttal to that. It applies everywhere: to Syrians in Germany, Haitians in Miami, and Californians in Texas…
The open borders speaker's use of the example of women leaving their jobs to take care of their children is very interesting. He claimed that high skilled women could continue to work and use their skills if they could pay an immigrant a low wage. The women who have a choice to not work because of having children do so because they want to take care of their children and not outsource it to someone else, not because they cannot afford child care.
@@ryanrobichaud8665 it is inefficient if you suppose your theory is right, tho you are predicting how the markets behaves, like you are some kind of prophet: still, people will search for the best job they can get, they are not gonna be nannies if the can earn more in something else, or something they like.
the problem is you are inventing one, and ignoring the other problem, people dont have children because it is quite expensive in your present and future career and income
I get the economic and freedom Arguments for open borders but that ignores the political reality that we have a series of failed States south of our country which are hemorrhaging people. It is a political reality that within a short period Of time half or more of the people living in the US will speak a language other than English and they will vote along ethnic and cultural lines
there is no culture to speak of, it is interactions from people to other people, the only links you can appreciate are language and the nation they reside in, there are lots of differences between everyone in the us, and that difference grows bigger with a more diverse environment, like the one provided by the internet.
@@ryanrobichaud8665 I would generally associate the country they come from to their stance in inmigration, people from very closed borders are much more willing to push for closing the border rather than opening them, and viceversa
Ever watch Canadian politics? Their prime minister will alternate between English and french, line-by-line. They've had elections lines drawn along language. They've even enacted harsh laws banning English in quebec in certain circumstances. Do we want to create a similar scenario in the US with spanish within a generation? Do we want our politicians elected on the basis of ethnicity rather than the merits of their policy? Do we not anticipate the importation of a hundred million+ poor immigrants will create a political demand for increasing welfare benefits for politicians marketing their vote?
Krikorian put up a fairly strong showing during his initial debate (opening statements and rebuttal) but he completely fell apart during the questions portion. It's kind of funny to watch him go through all these mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging what his position actually is.
@@arresteddevelopment5383 that he only repeated the same things over and over without actually talking about his solutions, as his solutions depend entirely about the person that uses them as there are no basis for his ideas, you could justify a million inmigrants and zero inmigrants, so he can not clarify his ideas or they could argue for extensive openess or isolation
The gentleman arguing for the negative is ludicrous. He mentions so-called "immigration" from Puerto Rico (by the way, it isn't immigration because they're American citizens) and then tries to segue into European/Syrian immigration problems. He basically abdicates any responsibility to answer the actual question, which is about AMERICAN policy. As usual, Dr. Powell (full disclosure, he was a professor of mine during a fellowship at Georgetown) actually stuck to the issues and argued a real case.
No one actually discussed on of the main arguments, which is that encouraging the best from around the world to immigrate actually Rob's worse off countries from the very people who would be high achievers there. Not saying I agree, but I'm shocked no one talked about it or asked about it.
@Ryan Robichaud I think OP meant the talented ppl from the third-world like Nigeria and Pakistan. When America and The UK takes their most talented, it robs them of someone who’d develop their economy.
@@ryanrobichaud8665 ireland gdp figures are not at all a good guide, the reports of the imf and world bank are great works on how gdp is not necesarrily a measure of the workers income or their welfare, as those figure are inflated due to foreign corporations
"Mass immigration is incompatible with the goals and characteristics of a modern society". By that he means goals like equality of outcome, and characteristics like a Welfare State. But what if I think those goals and characteristics are stupid?
No, actually, by that he means goals like the maintenance of basic first-world standards of living. Essentially, think of it this way: “mass immigration is incompatible with maintaining a society that more closely resembles Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, rather than Somalia, Brazil, India, Turkmenistan, Guatemala, Equatorial Guinea, and Cambodia all mashed into one. So, how does the totally edgy 13-year-old feel about living in a nation with a bit more of a “Mogadishu-Mumbai” character, rather than that sticky, tired, BORING “Copenhagen-Berlin” character? Look around the world, child. Naive “equality of outcome” types are the least of your concerns.
@Ryan Robichaud Suggest you read Open Borders by Brian Caplan. Explains basically the same. Good book. But I disagree, nowadays anti-immigrant sentiment is mostly on the nationalist right wing. Yes, lefties would probably raise those absurd objections, but the main thrust in favor of restricting immigration comes from the more populist nationalists.
@@DVHeld the nowdays left is just an amalgamation of morals and no real socio-economics theory, you can literally present their socialist doctrine to all their claims about open borders and they cant even answer one thing without contradicting the other.
Excellent debate. The only thing I’d add is the distinction between illegal and legal immigration. My parents immigrated to the USA LEGALLY. When I see many come here ILLEGALLY, it undermines the integrity of the process.
@@GugaGDFABC Mark Krikorian is not an economist. None of his work is peer-reviewed or respected by anyone who is an expert in the field. However, he is great at hating immigrants. So, if you hate them too, Mark is your guy.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
The “magic dirt” point is perfect. There’s no rebuttal to that. It applies everywhere: to Syrians in Germany, Haitians in Miami, and Californians in Texas…
This was a fantastic debate. Bravo to both of them.
The open borders speaker's use of the example of women leaving their jobs to take care of their children is very interesting. He claimed that high skilled women could continue to work and use their skills if they could pay an immigrant a low wage. The women who have a choice to not work because of having children do so because they want to take care of their children and not outsource it to someone else, not because they cannot afford child care.
@@ryanrobichaud8665 it is inefficient if you suppose your theory is right, tho you are predicting how the markets behaves, like you are some kind of prophet: still, people will search for the best job they can get, they are not gonna be nannies if the can earn more in something else, or something they like.
the problem is you are inventing one, and ignoring the other problem, people dont have children because it is quite expensive in your present and future career and income
I get the economic and freedom Arguments for open borders but that ignores the political reality that we have a series of failed States south of our country which are hemorrhaging people. It is a political reality that within a short period Of time half or more of the people living in the US will speak a language other than English and they will vote along ethnic and cultural lines
Based
LIke how Cubans vote Republican? I have meet very conservative Indians too.
there is no culture to speak of, it is interactions from people to other people, the only links you can appreciate are language and the nation they reside in, there are lots of differences between everyone in the us, and that difference grows bigger with a more diverse environment, like the one provided by the internet.
@@ryanrobichaud8665 I would generally associate the country they come from to their stance in inmigration, people from very closed borders are much more willing to push for closing the border rather than opening them, and viceversa
Ever watch Canadian politics? Their prime minister will alternate between English and french, line-by-line.
They've had elections lines drawn along language. They've even enacted harsh laws banning English in quebec in certain circumstances.
Do we want to create a similar scenario in the US with spanish within a generation?
Do we want our politicians elected on the basis of ethnicity rather than the merits of their policy?
Do we not anticipate the importation of a hundred million+ poor immigrants will create a political demand for increasing welfare benefits for politicians marketing their vote?
Krikorian put up a fairly strong showing during his initial debate (opening statements and rebuttal) but he completely fell apart during the questions portion. It's kind of funny to watch him go through all these mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging what his position actually is.
Krikorian had some great retorts and answers to the audience’s questions. What are you talking about?
@@arresteddevelopment5383 that he only repeated the same things over and over without actually talking about his solutions, as his solutions depend entirely about the person that uses them as there are no basis for his ideas, you could justify a million inmigrants and zero inmigrants, so he can not clarify his ideas or they could argue for extensive openess or isolation
The gentleman arguing for the negative is ludicrous. He mentions so-called "immigration" from Puerto Rico (by the way, it isn't immigration because they're American citizens) and then tries to segue into European/Syrian immigration problems. He basically abdicates any responsibility to answer the actual question, which is about AMERICAN policy. As usual, Dr. Powell (full disclosure, he was a professor of mine during a fellowship at Georgetown) actually stuck to the issues and argued a real case.
No one actually discussed on of the main arguments, which is that encouraging the best from around the world to immigrate actually Rob's worse off countries from the very people who would be high achievers there. Not saying I agree, but I'm shocked no one talked about it or asked about it.
@Ryan Robichaud I think OP meant the talented ppl from the third-world like Nigeria and Pakistan. When America and The UK takes their most talented, it robs them of someone who’d develop their economy.
@@ryanrobichaud8665 ireland gdp figures are not at all a good guide, the reports of the imf and world bank are great works on how gdp is not necesarrily a measure of the workers income or their welfare, as those figure are inflated due to foreign corporations
"Mass immigration is incompatible with the goals and characteristics of a modern society". By that he means goals like equality of outcome, and characteristics like a Welfare State. But what if I think those goals and characteristics are stupid?
No, actually, by that he means goals like the maintenance of basic first-world standards of living. Essentially, think of it this way: “mass immigration is incompatible with maintaining a society that more closely resembles Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, rather than Somalia, Brazil, India, Turkmenistan, Guatemala, Equatorial Guinea, and Cambodia all mashed into one.
So, how does the totally edgy 13-year-old feel about living in a nation with a bit more of a “Mogadishu-Mumbai” character, rather than that sticky, tired, BORING “Copenhagen-Berlin” character?
Look around the world, child. Naive “equality of outcome” types are the least of your concerns.
@@JJJRRRJJJ Well the US only exists because of mass immigration.
@@dylanthornsberry8778 Therefore open borders always and forever lol
@Ryan Robichaud Suggest you read Open Borders by Brian Caplan. Explains basically the same. Good book. But I disagree, nowadays anti-immigrant sentiment is mostly on the nationalist right wing. Yes, lefties would probably raise those absurd objections, but the main thrust in favor of restricting immigration comes from the more populist nationalists.
@@DVHeld the nowdays left is just an amalgamation of morals and no real socio-economics theory, you can literally present their socialist doctrine to all their claims about open borders and they cant even answer one thing without contradicting the other.
Excellent debate. The only thing I’d add is the distinction between illegal and legal immigration. My parents immigrated to the USA LEGALLY. When I see many come here ILLEGALLY, it undermines the integrity of the process.
So many straw man arguments by Mark.
I didn’t see any and I’m not a fan of Mark.
Mark Krikorian is not recognized as an expert. CIS is considered fringe.
Much of what's considered fringe is good and everything that's mainstream is bad.
@@GugaGDFABC Mark Krikorian is not an economist. None of his work is peer-reviewed or respected by anyone who is an expert in the field. However, he is great at hating immigrants. So, if you hate them too, Mark is your guy.
@@dylanthornsberry8778 his work is cited by think tanks and gathers his data from public govt info. Stop
@@arresteddevelopment5383 his work is done from an economic perspective yet he is not an economist, pretty sure that is a bad sign