The Economics of Immigration: Crash Course Econ #33

Hi, I’m Adriene Hill, this is Crash Course
Economics, and today we’re going to talk about Immigration
and how it affects economies. So, that poem on the statue of liberty?
The one that reads in part, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled
masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” That’s some lofty stuff, right? Well, sentiment aside, immigrants are good
for the economy. [Theme Music] Before we get into the Economics of Immigration, let’s step back and have a quick look at the history. Homo Sapiens have been moving around the planet
for a long, long time. Estimates vary, but modern humans started to spread out from Africa between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago, and since then they’ve been busily migrating
all over the globe. By 12,000 years ago, we were on all the continents
except Antarctica. Because Antarctica is a terrible place to
live if you aren’t a penguin. And honestly, even they seem unhappy there. Today we’re going to look at international
migration, when people move between countries, rather than internal migration, which refers to people moving around within their home country, because international migration has the most
appreciable economic effect. We’re also not going to talk about forced
migrations, like the Atlantic Slave Trade that kidnapped
many million Africans, and transported them to the Americas as chattel
between the 16th and 19th centuries. We’re going to focus on voluntary migration because people who choose to move internationally
are very often seeking economic opportunity. In 1889, a geographer named Georg Ravenstein
wrote in his Laws of Migration, “Bad or oppressive laws, heavy taxation,
an unattractive climate, uncongenial social surroundings, and even
compulsion… all have produced and are still producing
currents of migration, but none of these currents can compare in
volume with that which arises from the desire inherent in most men to ‘better’
themselves in material respects.” Ravenstein was writing during the Great Atlantic
Migration, which began in the 1840s as huge numbers of
Europeans relocated to the Americas. Between 1880 and 1910 alone, somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 million
Europeans arrived in the United States. The 19th century also saw a smaller, but still significant, number of Asian immigrants arrive in the US, mostly settling on the West Coast. Many of them came to join in the Gold Rush
— working as laborers in the mines. They also worked in factories and helped build
the Transcontinental Railroad. All this immigration was, in many ways, a
result of technological advances. Improved transportation like steamships reduced the cost and difficulty of migrating across the Atlantic, and the rapidly growing industries of the
United States needed workers to keep producing. This influx of immigrants, while good for the industrial economy of the US, eventually ran into resistance. Beginning in the late 19th century, a series
of laws were passed to restrict immigration. By the 1930s, European immigration was severely curtailed, and Asian immigration was banned outright. Many of these laws remained in effect until the 1960s, when new laws helped precipitate a wave of immigration. And today, immigration’s a really big deal. Even as we’re making this video, immigration is one of the most contentious
issues in the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are in a three way fight about how we handle immigration. We’re not going to give an up-to-the-minute
journalistic report on immigration policy, but we can talk about the economic arguments
for and against. First, and let’s just get this out of the
way, the overwhelming majority of economists agree that immigration is a good thing for national economies. Many, many studies indicate that increased immigration is associated with overall increases in GDP and productivity. Opponents of immigration, however, point to some of the costs that can come along with immigration. They point to data indicating that immigrants
with low skills are likely to remain poor, and that some of those economic disadvantages
can be passed to their children; that recent immigrants use a lot of social
services; that immigration might result in short term
drops in wages and contribute to inequality by shifting money
from labor to capital. And the data — it bears some of this out. The thing is, though, these arguments don’t look at the net effects of immigration. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Harvard economist George Borjas wrote about a family of economic models he called the Immigration Surplus. Population growth via immigration increases
the demand for goods, which can, in the long run, lead to more hiring
and higher wages. This can come at the cost of people who are
already working, as inexpensive immigrant labor can drive down
wages. But most economists point to this as a
short-term effect, and that the overall growth in the economy driven by population growth will eventually push wages up. So the benefits of immigration tend to not
only outweigh, but to exceed the costs. Studies indicate this holds true, even in
cases of extreme immigration events. Labor markets quickly adapt to inflows of
new workers. One study looked at the effects of the Mariel
Boatlift on the labor market in Miami. In 1980, nearly 100,000 Cuban migrants arrived in South Florida, and around 60,000 of them settled in Miami. Despite this massive influx of labor supply, the study found the Mariel immigration didn’t
drive down wages of native workers, and didn’t cause widespread unemployment. The immigrants were quickly absorbed into the workforce with negligible effects on other workers. One of the interesting things about the immigration
surplus is that it only accounts for benefits that accrue to citizens who already lived in the country before the immigrants arrived. It doesn’t take into account the huge economic
benefits the immigrants themselves enjoy. Irish workers who came to the US in the 1870s
could double their wages. Guatemalans who immigrated to the US in the 1990s, were able to increase their incomes sixfold. An economist named John Kennan has estimated that if immigration restrictions were eliminated worldwide the world’s labor supply would double, there’d be significant economic growth, and that workers from developing countries could see their wages jump from $8,900 to more than $19,000. Thanks Thought Bubble. Borjas’s Immigration Surplus findings do draw a distinction between high and low skill workers. It notes that the arrival of larger numbers of high skill workers is associated with a larger immigration surplus. And the model also indicates that if immigrant
flows are too weighted toward unskilled workers, the immigrant surplus will be smaller, and the growth that comes along with immigration can be slowed. But, the surplus, in most cases, still exists. Encouraging the immigration of high-skill
workers has other benefits as well. Studies indicate that high-skill immigrants
are innovators. One such study found that foreign-born entreprenuers
register about 25% of new patents in the US, and another found that a 1998 doubling of
the quota for H1-B visas — which enable employers to more easily hire
high-skill foreign workers — that led to an average 15% revenue increase
for companies that participated. Doesn’t take an Einstein to figure maybe
you want to expand the H1-B Visa program. One subtext to this high-skill versus low-skill
conversation here in the United States — and it gets to one of the most contentious
parts of the immigration debate — is how immigrants actually get or got into
the country. It centers on the differences between immigrants
who arrive in the U.S. via official channels, and those that enter the country without going
through the legal documentation process. So, what do we do with 11 million undocumented
immigrants who are already here? Well, in 2014, the federal government deported 369,000 immigrants, 9 times as many as were expelled in 1994. And from an economic standpoint, kicking people
out might not make the most sense. In fact, a wide range of studies find that extending legal status to undocumented immigrants would be a net positive. Proponents say that newly documented workers
would gain labor protections, and would be free to pursue work that better
matches their skill-set. As a result, on average, some economists estimate
these workers wages could rise up to 15%. And when workers get paid more, they tend
to buy more stuff. That increased demand, once again, leads to
more production, which leads to more hiring. And that’s not just pie in the sky liberal
thinking. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
projected in 2007 that immigration reform would bring undocumented
workers into the tax base, and that growth in revenue would offset costs
by a ratio of two to one. Many partisan organizations agree on this
point as well. The liberal think tank, Center for American
Progress, estimated that giving undocumented workers legal status could create more than 200,000 additional jobs per year. Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform, wrote that legalizing undocumented workers would, “free millions of those now working to move
to where their work is most productive for themselves and the national
economy.” And the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote
in 2006 that, “Whether low-skilled or high-skilled, immigrants
boost national output, enhance specialization, and provide a net
economic benefit.” Let’s stop for a minute, and really
appreciate the rareness of this situation, that the Center for American Progress and
the Heritage Foundation AGREE on something. Researchers have modeled the economic effects
of different possible policy responses to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. — full deportation, full legalization and
full legalization with added border control. They found that full deportation would cut
GDP by 0.61% and full legalization would, on the other
hand, INCREASE GDP by 0.53%. Legalization with more border enforcement
winds up in the middle increasing GDP by 0.17% So, if the debate over immigration were solely about economics, there wouldn’t be much of a debate. But, as we’ve learned, the world is a complex
place. Many immigration opponents argue that expanding
immigration is a security risk. They argue that relaxed border enforcement can lead to more illegal items like drugs being smuggled into the country. There’s also a strong sentiment that people shouldn’t be rewarded with citizenship for breaking the law. But let’s go back to the broader community
of all immigrants. Cliché as it might sound, the US really is
a nation of immigrants. The United States has the world’s largest
total immigrant population — at 41 million. And sentiment in the U.S. about immigrants
is changing. A 2015 study from the Pew Research Center found that about half of U.S. adults say immigrants strengthen the economy. Compared to 40% who say they are a burden. Back in 1994, that was reversed. Nearly 2/3rds of the population then saw immigrants
as a burden. Only 30% said they strengthened the country. Pew also discovered that young people hold
a more positive view of the contributions of immigrants to the
country than older generations. Which means it’s likely, pro-immigrant sentiments
gonna keep on growing. Economically, and otherwise. Thanks for watching. See you next week. Thanks for watching Crash Course Economics, which is made with the help of all these nice
people, some of whom are immigrants. You can help keep Crash Course free for everyone,
forever by supporting the show at Patreon. Patreon is a voluntary subscription service where you can help make the show with your monthly contribution. And you get rewards! Thanks for watching. Don’t forget: sometimes
partisan think tanks agree!

  1. The big problem with liberal analysis like this is that liberals always equal economic growth with benefit for the people, especially for the workers. This is false. If border controls were lifted inthe entire world, the entire world population would move to western europe and north america. The impact in the environmental and living conditions in these territories would be apocalyptic, they would all become huge Hong Kongs, while the rest of the world rottens. Open borders are lunatics.

  2. You should try keep your own opinions out of your courses. Bit of a let down this course, youre pushing it too much.

  3. Hey wait , i thought you are to talk about both pros and cons.. why talk only about advantages of immigrants…

  4. All I want from people who come into a new country is to education themselves. Learn the main language, understand the culture, its history, its values, its morals/ethics, and live by them.

  5. My mom was a LEGAL immigrant. Suddenly the morons on the left dont know the difference. I GREW UP IN A SANCTUARY CITY. I was shot twice by the time I was 16 and there was a crack house next door. NO VIDEO WILL CONVINCE ME OF 18 YEARS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Im glad I went to college so I could get the hell out of there.

  6. This video is filled with lies. The H1B is a horrible visa. The workers they are bringing in aren't high skill just cheap labor which leads to driving down wages of Americans with high tech and medical skills. Now, the H2B is definitely needed as Americans are just way too lazy to do any menial labor.

  7. The amount of dislikes showed everything… as an immigrant I feel absurd to see countries I admire breed citizens react so to videos like this. This video meant to inform and it did it job. The info it provided is accurate and is at fault for nothing. You should distinguish the difference between your opinions on the info and the info itself.

  8. The actual economical effects of immigration : increased demand, which is good as it increase production. Although this is where the good stuff stops. Immigration main effect on labor is to put a downwards effect on salary as the number of people with low competence increases. More people, means more competition for jobs. Immigration also decreases people collaboration meaning that strategic pressure on salary is also lower. At the end of the day, the only people winning in immigration are the rich classes : more sales and lower salary.

  9. The strongest argument against immigration isn't that immigrants are bad people or bad for the economy, it's that its bad for the national identity. America already has an identity derived from pop culture because most of the people are deracinated from any ethnic identity or tradition. This is bad for communities because it lowers social trust and community organizing. It also leads to even greater individualism that already existed in the West, causing people to be nihilistic or consumerist. What CrashCourse has revealed here is that our governing parties do not see America as a nation of people with a common identity and history, but is an economic republic where Americanism is whatever you want it to be – which means nothing. The embodiment of this is the fact that Americans are not reproducing. This shows they are so individualistic that they don't even care to participate in creating the future generation for their people, bc they have no people. Women do not want to have/raise their children. Men don't want to be fathers. America is rotten to the core bc of immigration and blind capitalism.

  10. immigration is good if we took away all the welfare.
    workers good
    welfare bad

    while labor is cheap they need to tear down barriers to entry to business.
    then it will be ok.
    that patent yes revoke it.

    but since we import cheap labor and they go on welfare immigration is bad.
    SO SORRY We need workers without welfare.
    WHY ARE WE paying you to not do a job and working under the books?

    also repeal income tax and jack up property and sales tax.

    INCOME TAX rich do not pay them anyway douches. idiots. poor people that want more income tax?
    STUPID? you really STUPID?

  11. Lumping illegal and legal immigrants together is insane.
    You're doing a disservice to the legal immigrants that waited in line like everyone else.



  14. Illegals are Good for Capitalists, bad for middle class Americans. Where do you think the money flowing to the 1% comes from? migrants? This SCAM is buried under a massive Race War. That's all this is. It's simply a way to make even more money for the Rich by picking the pockets of working Americans. Most people have 5-10K in credit card debt because they have not seen a REAL wage increase in 3 decades. That money has simply flowed right into the pockets of the 1%. Adding insult is a massive unpayable added debt burden for working people. Eventually there will be riots in the streets like you see in Paris right now.

  15. International migration vs internal migrations

    Voluntary migrations vs forced migration

    Majority of economists agree that immigration is good for the economy
    – population growth > higher demand > higher production > economic growth

    Immigration of high skilled workers surplus > immigration of low skilled workers
    – HB-1 Visa program

    Full legalization
    Full legalization with enhanced border
    Full deportation

    US – 41 million largest country of immigrants

  16. The whole Latin American region has been designated as areas of natural resource extraction…nothing else. That is why the intrepid Latin American citizens leave that behind. I wish people who criticize the migrant stream would see them as heroes with a very natural bold determination to succeed.

    I would like to see, these speaker focus on the extraction policy and all free trade throughout the world and allow manufacturing. This will resolve most migration. It’s offensive to see U.S. benefiting from parasitic tactics….I am a U.S. citizen I believe Fair trade is good. Let’s encourage our companies to operate under our standards while abroad…. we would be ambassadors of economic prosperity.

    This speakers speak of disease as a reason for the wall, a bigger threat is the free flow of U.S. citizens traveling abroad. All U.S. travelers unless staying in a sterile environment while staying in a foreign country, upon returning, need to be quarantined for disease, believe me they bring in more than just trinkets.

  17. A lot of opinions but where is the data. As much as i appreciate your opinion im gonna need to see some facts if you want me to change my mind. Build the Wall

  18. 3:40 the woman claims increases in GDP and Productivity "are good" and infers "everybody" agrees with that. She just shrugs her shoulders as if to say who argues against increases in productivity and gdp? No argument most don't argue but most are clueless. Take productivity…well that surely doesn't mean higher wages for experience or tenure now does it? are employers paying more for experience or tenure? no what PRODUCTIVITY it means as counted the way it is means more profits from lower wages. To claim increases in GDP mean anything you have to translate that into quality of life. Are those metrics getting better? I doubt 10% would say things are getting better overall. GDP is rising because of currency inflation. This is the other reason they must keep the flow of illegals and marginal immigrants going (green cards – -asylum visas). If the debt stops growing it is curtains to this bs economy (see 2008).

  19. Illegal immigrants are the problem. How can you trust someone who doesn't go through our legal system to begin with?

  20. So allowing millions of low skilled workers into a population with too many low skilled workers, wouldn't push more people to the welfare line? Just recently have we been able to produce enough job growth to offset our population. So why let people in to take jobs from people who have a birth right to them?

  21. No, it is based on the simple idea of more people in the right age can get jobs and pay in more tax. This has been called by economists to, " piss in the pants to keep warm".

    It requires that this people actually get work. It requires that they get work early enough and meet a job market where there is work because most of them will end up in low pay situations so the tax income from them are not high.

    The worst thing is that when your now increased population gets old, you need to do this again because now there is even more olds that need pensions and aid. This will be repeated with more and more people in theory.

    This idea has been debunked by many and in the end you become " China", where the population is to big for the states capacity to give everybody a high standard of living.

  22. I don't have a problem with immigration as long as they come here and pay taxes. I'm not going to support them with my taxes while they live on the government tit.

  23. If increasing a country's population makes it richer, Bangladesh would be the richest country in the world. China has grown economically without any migration from other countries. The area of land in an individual city is fixed. So any increase in population pushes up the price of every square metre of land. This is really beneficial to those who already own land. However, the younger and poorer members must pay more and more, for less and less space. In order to fit more people into cities, it is necessary to build up or out. Both alternatives represent a drop in living standard.

  24. Immigration benefits the migrants themselves, and those who are already wealthy. The very real cost of immigration is borne by the whole community, especially the younger and poorer members of it.
    Migrants create a demand for more infrastructure, that everyone has to pay for, not just the newcomers who make it necessary.

  25. The population of humans has tripled over the last 70 years. What does this woman mean by 'the economy'? She would have the welfare of the people sacrificed for the sake of 'the economy".

  26. This video is just capitalist propaganda. 'Growth in the economy' is code for: gobble up the earth's resources at a faster and faster rate. The massive flow of people from the middle east and Africa into Germany in 2015 has been a disaster. Only 10% have jobs now.

  27. The migrant says: I want to move into your home and use all the stuff that you have worked to pay for, and bring in my big family to live in your home too. If you don't let me move in, I will call you nasty names like: xenophobe, bigot, and racist. There is a new one too: its 'divisive'.

  28. The Reserve Bank of Australia has recently admitted that Australia's high immigration intake has bumped up rents, adversely affecting the native born population.

  29. Yes, it contributes to the economy, they bring thousands of gang members into the country and send them to every state so that every state can get their share of crime, so then we need more police therefore contributing to the economy. When these criminals get big enough and start making tons of money that’s when they get busted so that law agencies can confiscate their millions and even billions of dollars thereby contributing to our economy, meanwhile the law abiding citizens get caught in the middle of all this and their families become victims of these people but no one cares because “ They contribute to our economy.”

  30. It's funny how they took the most neoliberal, war-mongering, corporatist, globalist elite SOBs from the "right" like Grover N and the "heritage" foundation to make their case. Not once did they help explain why, when you add labor supply, on average, the employers have a diminished incentive to raise wages but they use studies rather than the demand and supply curve.

    Hey I got a question for ya – why doesn't a country like India import 150 million people from Bangladesh.. why doesn't China? After all it makes everyone richer beyond their wildest dreams.

  31. 03:08 "And today, immigration's a really big deal." Thus we continue the very false argument that those opposed to illegal entry are opposed to the legal migration of immigrants. You are conflating the two, stop …. just stop.

  32. The good and bad of immigration is not the easiest of factors to predict. What we know is early on as a country develops towards a developed country migrants are good – who else is going to build the infrastructure and fill the industrial jobs.

    With a developed country mass immigration may be very bad. The new immigrants may have very different values to the people currently there. New immigrants with shared values can affect the local politics of the area where they settle (some politician will want those votes). Low skill and low education immigrants often breed very quickly thus can put a strain on the communal facilities and welfare. These migrants often out compete low skill and low education natives by lowering the wages and by removing jobs that natives use to do. (The middle class does not see this because it is not their jobs that are being replaced, at least not straight away. But the working class gets the competition straight away.) The ones out of work tend to commit plenty of crime by percentage in comparison to natives in the same position.

    (It is very important to expand on the second to last last point as low skill and low education immigrants are not likely to become teachers, bankers, accountants, lawyers, jobs that require high school and certainly not college straight away. People in the professions do not feel the competition. So the jobs taken en mass are ones that don't require much of an education eg driver, salesperson, supermarket attendant, cleaner packer, highly repetitive job etc)

    High skill (especially if the skill is in demand) immigration is very desirable for a developed country and possibly for some developed countries. These people are usually highly educated, what they know and do contributes greatly to a country's ability to compete with the rest of the world, usually they have few children, usually they commit very little crime and usually there is not too many of these types of immigrants.

    The liberals also hate considering the longer term pension payments requirements for old age immigrants – who pays for that? That's right more immigrants.

    As technology keeps on advancing to replace very manual and highly repetitive jobs and production (energy and food) a country does not necessarily need to be very large. Automation and AI can mean an end to very large work forces and hard labor being unnecessary.

  33. Immigration is good for the economy in the same sense that cancel mininum wage/ allow unlimited work hours/ allow child labour is good for the economy…
    You can't have both ways, either believe in capitalism and allow free flow of human capital, or reject capitalism by embracing welfare state and tons of labour regulations.

  34. Giving undocumented people legal status would be good? You do realize that if they happened, the next day everyone would come illegally to the US

  35. There are cases where immigration can drive down wages. The entire video is like a pep rally. Their is no grey areas. No down sides are presented. Increase the supply of labor while maintaining the same level of demand. The price for labor will be driven down. Thats economics not racism. But according to the video there are only positives. Nothing works like that.

  36. You barely talked about health care. Mexicans and South Americans come here and get full health care and Dental. “Dental “ Majority work for cash
    If you don’t think so hire one

  37. You say immigrants file more patents and start lots of businesses, well how can they do that when they are being underpaid and suffering prejudice? Immigrants that succeed (like Elon Musk) do so in spite of (not because of) being immigrants. Immigration does not automatically create entrepreneurs like you seem to be implying. Hence, it does not help the economy in that way. What helps the economy (and immigrants) is creating opportunities/help for entrepreneurs and small business.

  38. This liberal capitalist woman is a fool. "Immigration is good for the economy" is a universalistic statement—qualitative. But reality/facts are particularistic—quantitative. The logical fact is that "SOME immigration from SOME groups is good for SOME people". …Also, if something "is good for the economy", that does not mean it "is good for YOU". —A classic conflation. …This woman is funded by liberal capitalist Soros and liberal Google, your liberal capitalist rulers. She shall not be banned. … …Note for the ignorant, like this liberal capitalist woman: The factual statement (that I re-wrote) does have logical "quantifiers" ("SOME") of "particulars", and therefore is existential. The foolish liberal capitalist woman's postulate that "immigration is good for the economy" lacks logical quantifiers and lacks particulars and therefore is universalistic—an nonfactual postulate about was does not exist. A fool and a fool maker. Making useful idiots for the ruling class.

  39. How does that work? An increase in people looking for work means an increase in wages? Huh? What school of economics is this?!?! You simply showed that immigrants can improve their standard of living by increasing their wages, without supplying total numbers, nor any links to where you got your data from. A poor immigrant who earns next to nothing in the 3rd world will of course have a massive increase in their income if they move to the States. But what numbers are you factoring in for those that are unskilled or cannot/won't find a job?! This video is simply an exercise in obfuscating the truth.

  40. This women has an obvious agenda of pro immigration mixing past normal with present evil mass migration for global government..the fact she is white and the targeted group for extinction makes her a despicable sellout to her own race. Also she totally ignores the environmental impact of adding millions of new consumers from 3rd world into a country already dealing with environmental problems, nor does she mention how much money is sucked out of the host country and sent back to immigrants country because that’s why they came in the first place was to “better themselves “ and not to assimilate as loyal Americans. People are creators no different than birds they seek to be with their own, multiculturalism weakens that bond and thus a benefit that the ruling elite wish to exploit. If she truly wanted to examine migration she would warn about cultural Marxism,what it is and how it is a weapon, she would show how it has caused many wars and much civil unrest and why no such utopian country, on a large scale ,is now or ever has existed in the past. Bottom line, if you want to improve your economy by a growing population HAVE MORE BABIES NOT ABORT THEM!!

  41. There is a time when immigration reaches a point of diminishing returns.

    When the population demands more resources and services than the host City
    or Country can support, the demand causes costs go higher (i.e. supply and demand), poverty, crime etc.

    As demographics change can feel like they are losing their identity,

    Here in Melbourne Australia, when I was a kid we had 1.3M people, (Australia had 9m back then – now 25m) .

    My migrant parents earnt a modest wage, they could afford a home, we could travel freely and the cost of living was relatively cheap.

    We had a reasonable size block of land and us kids would walk on our own to school and stay out late at night .

    We felt so safe we didn't bother to lock our door at night.

    Today Melbourne has 5M+ people, roads are congested (even during off peak times), Trains are full , food is expensive, resources and services are expensive, houses are unaffordable and if you can afford a block of land, its miniscule because they want to contain the urban sprawl.

    Yet there are still property developers, politicians and some economists calling for a doubling of our population.

    If you want to see how that will look, check out Mumbai or one of those other over crowded Indian cities that they are all trying to get away from.

    Its just not sustainable. At some point we have to find a way to exists with much less migration else our lives will become even more miserable.

  42. Immigration works in some cases, sure in America it hasn’t become overwhelming and seems to be working. But if you took a look at France recently……. it’s become a sh**hole. How do people expect their own country to evolve and become better if they all keep leaving. The problem must be fixed from within, not out reach to new countries. Practically leaving there own country to fall down the economic chain. On top of the migrates who lack working skills for the country they are going to, how does anyone expect them to succeed? If you think about crime, what might be acceptable in one country might not be the same in another. Yet this tends to be over looked. To cut it short the problem has to be fixed within not leaving their own to root.

  43. This video aside, the debate is over illegal immigration and open boarders. I really wish that those on the left would stop trying to muddy the waters and blur the difference between illegal immigration and legal immigration.

  44. I never took any of the surveys mentioned in this video, when she said "51% of Americans….". Did you? I understand it's hard to find unbiased info on this topic. But man, I wish I could find someone that doesn't say: "Immigration is nothing but good for the US", because it clearly isn't true. Also, I wish I could find one that doesn't say: "Immigration will totally destroy the US", because it clearly hasn't. All the info in the world on the internet, none of it is consistent, fully true, or unbiased. I just want to know the empirical facts, no matter how ugly or pretty!

  45. I’m curious about what happens to the countries that people immigrate FROM. People are removed from extended family when they emigrate, cutting them off from familiar support systems. Communities are decimated, and the people left behind have lost important resources. Sometimes the home country only survives because the immigrants send money back to family at home. So a lot of the GDP in the new country probably leaves the country. Witness what percent of Mexico‘s GDP comes from the United States in this way. In that more socialist economy, where the government officials are very corrupt and skim money off the top all the time, they don’t have the money for sharing with the people who need it. As long as money is rolling in from other countries, it’s even easier to get away with skimming off the top and defrauding the poor. The Mexican government encourages people to illegally enter the United States in order to partake of those financial benefits, as well.Also, I have noticed that ideological diversity has had a negative effect on our country. The destination countries for immigration have become repressive places, where free speech and self protection laws are being challenged. Is that because most immigrants come from repressive countries and they don’t realize they are bringing bad politics to a good country? Incentivizing immigration with Government benefits is only good for the wealthy who benefit from cheap labor and A growing base of customers and debt slaves. They can use the existing population to pay for the expenses. And perhaps, the decrease in population in the home countries makes it much easier for the wealthy to buy vacation and retirement homes in exotic locations. I suppose this would have a beneficial effect for some people in the originating countries, which seems hypocritical in the light of the anti-colonialism stance of people who favor massive and unrestricted immigration. Unrestricted movement between countries seems like a fun idea, but it does faster a lot of criminal activities like human trafficking and drug trafficking and making it easier for criminals to evade the law. There are also health dangers in massive immigration. And importing massive numbers of people whose religion/political system Intends to replace our current one is a recipe for internal conflict, discrimination, repressive laws and worse. I am not sure that increasing the GDP is worth all of that. Controlled immigration without free benefits seems a smarter path.

  46. Legal immigration into the United States is too low. Only 1 Million per year ?!?! There are so many more millions that the US could help and provide an American dream.

  47. If the US doesn't want tens of millions of immigrants, why did they build the Statue of Liberty and write that poem about huddled masses ?

  48. White Europeans are so cruel. They won't let people from other countries more into their countries ? Why not !?!?! Everyone has dream.

  49. When employees compete for employment, wages drop.
    When employers compete for employees, wages increase.

    Immigration should be about population control and only about population control. The US population since 1940 has more than doubled, yet wages staggered behind inflation despite the exponential growth in GDP. Take a look at the worlds next largest economies, China and India and their population yet they also suffer abject poverty. Of course, all of this is mere correlation and speculation and I am by no means an economist. I can however, draw a line, and realize that the human population needs to be reduced by about 6 billion people world wide.

  50. If you really want you wages to increase??? Then stop corporations from the employment of illegal immigrants… it’s that easy to solve the “problem”….but, there will be inflation. I’d rather have some inflation over never raising wages IMO

  51. The whole lie about immigration being good for the economy comes from the fact that government benefits are not subtracted from the so called growth in GDP these people bring to the country. Extract the welfare, medicare, medicaid, school expenses, justice system expenses from the overall economic growth (GDP) and you have negative economic impacts. Since the govt just prints money they don't have to pay for these benefits and the debt just keeps climbing destroying the future of the younger generation. If these immigrants are so good to economic growth then have them pay for the social safety net they receive in America and see how many come streaming to our shores. The fake money regime in America is nothing but wool being pulled over the eyes of those too uneducated to understand the truth.

  52. immigration is good. But when the government starts to care about the immigrants more then about it's own population then I guess it's Sweden again) or the Netherlands or Germany or .. well you get the point

  53. poor brainwashed girl , or is she a little evil ?
    she talks about the economy like its a thing that MUST be served RATHER THAN A THING THAT SERVES US .
    immigration is always a capitalists ploy to force wages down and keep the pyramid standing .
    right wing scum claim capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services, yet when they find there are too few labourers they bring in new (desperate) workers rather than pay higher wages BEACUSE THE WORK IS OF VALUE ! GET IT ?
    so in conclusion she is a bit stupid and a bit evil .



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *