Should we adopt Denmark's anti immigration policies?

[YellowSnow51]

Denmark, which has become the far left's flavor of the year, has some of the strictest anti immigration laws on the planet. It is something many of their economists attribute a lot of success that their brand of "socialism" has achieved. Makes sense that policy is easier to make when dealing with a population that is constant and legal.

For those who hold up Demmark as their example of "what we should be" (most Berniephiles), would you be willing to accept the strict anti immigration laws that accompany their style of government to achieve the results of their society and economy? That would include mass deportations, beefing up border security, limiting the number of people allowed to move here and lots of other stuff we'd have to erase from the Statue of Liberty.

Can't have one without the other. It's called math.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Not really a Bernie fan and also don't necessarily like an anti immigration policy either.

 

[joelbc1]

The US ain't Denmark. We got the Statue of Liberty. Denmark has the Tivoli Gardens.

 

[naturalmwa]

Link to the economics that show a non growing population is good. Link to the study showing immigration is a net cost. While we are at it, link that shows it's the left that prevents teeth in the immigration laws. You'll find that was a concession to the right. TiA

 

[YellowSnow51]

Link to me asserting any of those things.

But here's a link to an article titled "Denmark's strict immigration laws save them billions"

http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-759716.html

Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country 6.7 billion euros, a government report has claimed. Even though Denmark already has some of the toughest immigration laws in Europe, right-wing populist politicians are now trying to make them even more restrictive.

Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. The Integration Ministry report has now led to calls among right-wing populists to clamp down further on immigrants to increase the savings.

The extremely strict laws have dramatically reduced the flow of people into Denmark in recent years, and many government figures are delighted with the outcome. "Now that we can see that it does matter who comes into the country, I have no scruples in further restricting those who one can suspect will be a burden on Denmark," the center-right liberal integration minister, Søren Pind, told the Jyllands Posten newspaper.

 

[naturalmwa]

Your OP said those things. If you didn't wish to communicate that immigration was a cost or that Bernie supporters were the impediment to enforcement then you will need to work on your messaging.

 

[22*43*51]

Link to the economics that show a non growing population is good. Link to the study showing immigration is a net cost. While we are at it, link that shows it's the left that prevents teeth in the immigration laws. You'll find that was a concession to the right. TiA

Here you go.

Two immigrants for every one job created since 2000.

http://cis.org/for-every-new-job-two-new-immigrants

 

[naturalmwa]

Here you go.

Two immigrants for every one job created since 2000.

http://cis.org/for-every-new-job-two-new-immigrants

That doesn't look to have the analysis to answer my questions. Thanks for trying however.

 

[22*43*51]

That doesn't look to have the analysis to answer my questions. Thanks for trying however.

Why not?

You think an influx of people creates economic opportunity.

It doesn't.

 

[22*43*51]

Link to the economics that show a non growing population is good. Link to the study showing immigration is a net cost. While we are at it, link that shows it's the left that prevents teeth in the immigration laws. You'll find that was a concession to the right. TiA

My link shows that just because a population grows doesn't make it solvent.

My link shows that immigration has a "net negative" cost.

However, my link doesn't show that the left is behind all open boarder, mass immigration efforts.

The left volunteers that on their own.

 

[naturalmwa]

Why not?

You think an influx of people creates economic opportunity.

It doesn't.

The article doesn't say what you are implying. It just says we had 18 million immigrants and 9 million jobs. It doesn't say how many of those jobs are related to the immigrants or what would have happened without the immigrants. It's not a very deep analysis of the situation. For all we know, without the immigrants we might have lost 9 million jobs.

Add to that job numbers don't tell a complete story about immigrations cost or benefit to the long term economy. You might also note I did not claim that immigration created economic opportunity.

 

[22*43*51]

The article doesn't say what you are implying. It just says we had 18 million immigrants and 9 million jobs. It doesn't say how many of those jobs are related to the immigrants or what would have happened without the immigrants. It's not a very deep analysis of the situation. For all we know, without the immigrants we might have lost 9 million jobs.

Add to that job numbers don't tell a complete story about immigrations cost or benefit to the long term economy. You might also note I did not claim that immigration created economic opportunity.

I'm waiting for your link that counters mine from the "Center for Immigration Studies".

 

[naturalmwa]

My link shows that just because a population grows doesn't make it solvent.

My link shows that immigration has a "net negative" cost.

However, my link doesn't show that the left is behind all open boarder, mass immigration efforts.

The left volunteers that on their own.

The left tried to pass punitive measures for hiring immigrants in the 80's Reagan Bill. The right insisted they be removed. It's really a red herring to say the left is pro immigration. The power behind that position is the right leaning business community. The left is just anti scapegoating brown people.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm waiting for your link that counters mine from the "Center for Immigration Studies".

I don't need to counter as you haven't put any relevant claims into play.

 

[22*43*51]

You might also note I did not claim that immigration created economic opportunity.

Yes you did.

You challenged Yellow to provide you with a link where immigration was a "net cost".

2 immigrants for every 1 job is a negative "net cost".

Even when applying Liberal math.

 

[22*43*51]

I don't need to counter as you haven't put any relevant claims into play.

Don't run. Your game is usually stronger than this.

 

[22*43*51]

The left tried to pass punitive measures for hiring immigrants in the 80's Reagan Bill. The right insisted they be removed. It's really a red herring to say the left is pro immigration. The power behind that position is the right leaning business community. The left is just anti scapegoating brown people.

Weak.

I provided information showing that the unchecked immigration policies of the left fuel a welfare state.

Don't come back with "Reagan" and soon no doubt "Bush".

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes you did.

You challenged Yellow to provide you with a link where immigration was a "net cost".

2 immigrants for every 1 job is a negative "net cost".

Even when applying Liberal math.

Poor reading comprehension. Demanding that it show a cost is important to yellows argument that we must choose. It's not important that I show the reverse nor is that the only option. It could be economically fairly neutral.

And again you have no idea how the jobs numbers relate to the immigration numbers. They are just two bits of data. They say nothing about the cost or benefit on their own. You gave me a bad article. If that's the top of the field, you don't have much to stand on

 

[naturalmwa]

Weak.

I provided information showing that the unchecked immigration policies of the left fuel a welfare state.

Don't come back with "Reagan" and soon no doubt "Bush".

I missed this data, where was that?

 

[naturalmwa]

Don't run. Your game is usually stronger than this.

Who is running, I'm asking to be educated and you are failing. Step up.

 

[22*43*51]

Poor reading comprehension. Demanding that it show a cost is important to yellows argument that we must choose. It's not important that I show the reverse nor is that the only option. It could be economically fairly neutral.

And again you have no idea how the jobs numbers relate to the immigration numbers. They are just two bits of data. They say nothing about the cost or benefit on their own. You gave me a bad article. If that's the top of the field, you don't have much to stand on

And again, I am looking for more than "would be", "could be".

If you have evidence, bring it forth.

I showed the "net negative" you demanded.

Am I just to receive rhetoric in return?

 

[22*43*51]

Who is running, I'm asking to be educated and you are failing. Step up.

I'm the only one who has brought empirical data to this.

You have brought one man's opinion.

You know that ish doesn't fly on HROT.

 

[naturalmwa]

And again, I am looking for more than "would be", "could be".

If you have evidence, bring it forth.

I showed the "net negative" you demanded.

Am I just to receive rhetoric in return?

You have not shown this. You simply showed the us labor market is not creating enough jobs to give one to every immigrant. That doesn't mean the immigrants are a negative. Your data isn't detailed enough to draw the conclusions you want to draw. Sorry, I wish you had better data too. Look for some.

 

[22*43*51]

And again you have no idea how the jobs numbers relate to the immigration numbers.

Using the data set you provided, I would say 5 jobs.

5 total jobs attributed to immigration.

It's damn near indisputable. Don't you think?

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm the only one who has brought empirical data to this.

You have brought one man's opinion.

You know that ish doesn't fly on HROT.

I haven't even brought that. I'm waiting for evidence to form an opinion.

 

[22*43*51]

You have not shown this. You simply showed the us labor market is not creating enough jobs to give one to every immigrant. That doesn't mean the immigrants are a negative. Your data isn't detailed enough to draw the conclusions you want to draw. Sorry, I wish you had better data too. Look for some.

It doesn't not show it either.

Waiting for counter data.

That's how this works.

 

[naturalmwa]

Using the data set you provided, I would say 5 jobs.

5 total jobs attributed to immigration.

It's damn near indisputable. Don't you think?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I didn't provide a data set.

 

[22*43*51]

I haven't even brought that. I'm waiting for evidence to form an opinion.

What evidence formed your original opinion?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

The US ain't Denmark. We got the Statue of Liberty. Denmark has the Tivoli Gardens.

Denmark is useful when you see fit, got it.

 

[22*43*51]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I didn't provide a data set.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[naturalmwa]

It doesn't not show it either.

Waiting for counter data.

That's how this works.

You're mistaken. I'm not arguing a position. I'm seeking the necessary evidence to form a defensible position.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Exactly. The student is waiting to be taught. So get to work.

 

[22*43*51]

You're mistaken. I'm not arguing a position. I'm seeking the necessary evidence to form a defensible position.

You took a position.

What eveidence solidified it?

 

[22*43*51]

Exactly. The student is waiting to be taught. So get to work.

Go back to your original challenge to YS and support it.

That's all I ask.

 

[joelbc1]

natu

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I didn't provide a data set.

natural...HELP ME! I can't keep up with this multi-sided attack!~ What exactly are these guys saying....all I said is that we (the US) has the Statue of lIberty..and the Danes have the Tivoli Gardens! I'm old..and I'm running low on spirits...Ican't take it much longer! Maybe I'll just "banzai" these sonofabithches!

 

[naturalmwa]

You took a position.

What eveidence solidified it?

Re-read. I have not taken a position. Yellow took one and I asked him to back it up. You have taken one and offered me poor analysis to back it. I'm seeking better analysis if I'm going to defend this position.

I think you are under the impression that because I'm liberal, I'm pro immigration. But my liberal positions are mainly about wanting to tip the playing field in favor of labor to strengthen the economic position of the masses. There is a very good reason right leaning business interests like immigration and those reasons don't aline with my interests. So I'm not necessarily pre disposed to welcome new tribe members.

 

[naturalmwa]

Go back to your original challenge to YS and support it.

That's all I ask.

Re read it. I'm asking, not telling. The only position I'm taking is that illegal immigration is mostly a problem the right maintains and benefits from. So when you and yellow toss it at the feet of liberals, I toss that claim right back. But the net cost or benefit of total immigration I'm less certain about.

 

[22*43*51]

Link to the economics that show a non growing population is good. Link to the study showing immigration is a net cost. While we are at it, link that shows it's the left that prevents teeth in the immigration laws. You'll find that was a concession to the right. TiA

I showed net cost.

I am waiting for whatever leads you to believe there is never any cost to unchecked immigration.

Support for Executive Orders should be enough evidence of the toothless left's stance on immigration.

 

[22*43*51]

Re read it. I'm asking, not telling.

Your beliefs rise from somewhere.

Where were these misconceptions born?

 

[22*43*51]

Re read it. I'm asking, not telling. The only position I'm taking is that illegal immigration is mostly a problem the right maintains and benefits from.

Why isn't the left running on stiffeling illegal immigration if the right is somehow the only beneficiary?