LOL at saying that the statement that strong welfare systems are a factor (like on among a few) on migration movements obscure or incongruous. There are academics all over the world studying the subject of welfare migration (internal and external). There are dozens of peer-review papers published. Laughable.
Mogro, do you think there might be a reason why many of your posts seem to be misinterpreted?
I mean, one or two posters, that's one thing.
But when a vast majority of the posters misinterpret your posts, perhaps it is not the reader's fault, n'est ce pas?
make up your mind. are you talking about mexicans (add to this your completely random assertion that somehow mexicans are not really "immigrants" in your mind) or other immigrants? if so which ones? you haven't defined anything at all ! then you say that money is really the true impetus and then you backpeddle and say there there are studies suggesting that welfare could be a reason (but give no actual evidence of such).
you are swimming in obscurity and fallacies !
perhaps he should stop living on our public assistance and go back to his native land if he can not learn english !
Sure, it's obvious that when one writes something like
"Jobs opportunities aren't the only factor motivating migration, the existence of strong/better welfare systems is another one"
it's obvious that if someone accuses the author of being a racist and a Mexican-hater (!!) for producing the said statement, it's entirely the author's fault.
Absolutely obvious.
I don't think so many of my posts are misinterpreted. Examples?
To be honest, if an American can get his house cleaned by an illegal, should that be considered wrong on an ethical/moral scale? Getting your house cleaned for as cheaply as you can is part of capitalism, after all.
It's not the job of the person whose house is being cleaned to verify citizenship papers.
Besides, how would you even take something like that to court? "Sir, he showed me papers, I thought he was legal." "Oh... well... uh... case dismissed."
The only way to implement something like this would be to hit larger companies that pay workers under the table.
Perhaps not "misinterpreted", but standoffish. You don't seem to engender alot of good will.
I have no particular beef with you, other than you being wrong about fouls.
Let's see if you can understand this:
1 - The biggest factor behind migration movements are the existence of employment opportunities.
2 - However, it's not the only one: the existence of strong welfare systems is another one, impacting the migration at a quan ative/qualitative level.
3 - I believe the nationality of the migrants is irrelevant.
Or you can keep accusing me of being a racist and an immigrant/Mexican hater even though I defend an open borders policy.Pathetic.
So, no examples? I thought so.Perhaps not "misinterpreted", but standoffish. You don't seem to engender alot of good will.
I have no particular beef with you, other than you being wrong about fouls.
I love that you're ting on the one guy who has your back. Payaso.
I don't care enough to look up possible examples.
To be fair, I don't think Mogro has come down from the Ivory Tower of Supreme Intelligence long enough to mingle with a lowly Commoner of Average Thoughts and Incorrect Assumptions like myself.
Okay, but you were the one making a post about it and claiming that. Nice to know now you don't care.
Let's see if you can understand this:
1 - The biggest factor behind migration movements are the existence of employment opportunities.
2 - However, it's not the only one: the existence of strong welfare systems is another one, impacting the migration at a quan ative/qualitative level.
3 - I believe the nationality of the migrants is irrelevant.
Or you can keep accusing me of being a racist and an immigrant/Mexican hater even though I defend an open borders policy.
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
That's not true. If they can't make any money they won't come here.
Not necessarily true. Too many public goods to free-ride.
hmmm. what a difference that was ! amazing what some desparate editing can do to a take.
the bizzaro world of mogrovejan logic grows even stranger. i guess we just have to assume that your posts are actually one of just many other possible worlds! for every one crappy statement there are more spelled out and less opaque versions of the same thought existing in some parallel universe.
that was very weak m., even for you.
What editing?Originally Posted by jack sommerset
That's not true. If they can't make any money they won't come here.
hmmm. what a difference that was ! amazing what some desparate editing can do to a take.
the bizzaro world of mogrovejan logic grows even stranger. i guess we just have to assume that your posts are actually one of just many other possible worlds! for every one crappy statement there are more spelled out and less opaque versions of the same thought existing in some parallel universe.
that was very weak m., even for you.
A guy was saying that immigrants wouldn't migrate if there were no jobs available. I disagreed - America's welfare system, for example, is too strong. I wasn't even that assertive, hence the "not necessarily".
Considering your inability to apologize for calling me a racist with no grounds whatsoever for that, I think I'm done here.
The appreciation of irony is not manifest in some people's consciousness.
you were done before you started.
http://www.mmo.gr/pdf/publications/m...rs/MMO_WP4.pdf
From existing empirical data and secondary analyses, a paradoxical relationship is observed: that generous redistributive welfare states tend to attract the lowest skilled and most welfare dependent migrants, whilst non-redistributive welfare states tend to exclude legal migration and attract illegal migrants.
he even laughed at my own lampooning of him. now that's double-irony !
Yeah, that was definitely some strong lampooning, considering my pro open-borders stance.
i thought you were done. but if you want to argue in this thread about whether or not the ins utional factors that shaped our welfare state are the very same that developed our immigration policies then before you do it would be best to spell out which specific "immigrant" groups you are referring to. unless you want to just lump them all into your continuing amorphous domain of "immigrants"
the article also states: '
It is argued here, that the same ins utional
factors which shaped welfare systems also shape immigration policy.
this may explain why your are so prone to generalizations. "immigration policy" in regards to what group(s)?
The same stance that led you -- in this thread -- to incorrectly say :
Given that the CIRA act was an effort to close a functionally open border, why did you regretfully impugn the POTUS' ability to effect reform as it existed in that bill? Isn't such reform necessarily in conflict with open borders? And if so, why do you support it over the current state of affairs?
but you do not even associate immigrants to mexicans, remember ? or is there another version of this post in some other universe that you are going to repost ?
welcome to the wonderland of m. where logic is a cheshire cat.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
