Replies

Most are not 'anti-immgrant' or even 'anti-immigration.' They are anti-mass immigration. They want levels of immigration reduced...
. And by the way, most polls show a majority of Americans want the same thing.

Actually, that is because the question is not put to them in the correct form. Try it this way.

Considering the low birthrate over the last 30 years, and the massive retirement wave about to hit the econonmy, do you think it is OK if we bring in a massive influx of workers, so YOU can be sure to collect the Social Security, that you just paid into for the last thirty years, while keeping it run as a Ponzi Scheme?

You will recieve a much different answer.

Fed says immigrant wave may slow productivity

CHATHAM, Mass. (Reuters) - A new wave of U.S. immigrants over the next century will enlarge the labor pool at a time when a growing proportion of the nation will be retiring, but their arrival may slow growth in U.S. productivity, a Federal Reserve report said on Tuesday.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will grow more slowly over the next century than ever before and age rapidly, with the proportion of those over 65 years hitting record highs.

This will mean the U.S. will once again become a nation of immigrants, a report by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank said, noting immigration in the past decade had already neared proportions last seen in the early 1900s as Europeans flocked to U.S. shores. The Boston Fed is opening a conference Tuesday morning in Chatham on the economic impact of demographic change. The report is due to be presented at the conference.

The new wave of immigrants, mainly from Latin America and Asia, and their children, will account for more than half of the increase in the U.S. population over the next century, the report said.

``These demographic shifts are likely to trigger some major adjustments within the U.S economy -- many of which will play out in U.S. labor markets,'' said Jane Little and Robert Triest, Boston Fed economists and authors of the report.

From an economic standpoint, the key question is whether the new wave of immigrants, many of whom have relatively lower levels of schooling compared with U.S. natives, will be able to achieve the higher productivity -- output per worker -- needed to meet the living standards expected by the aging population.

Although economic analysis suggests productivity growth is fastest when population growth is slow, the report said this fails to take into account the past trend of increasing educational attainment.

``While immigration is projected to make a huge contribution to the growth in the U.S. working age population, this gain comes at a price, since the gap between the average educational attainment of the foreign- and native-born populations is large,'' the report said.

Actually, that is because the question is not put to them in the correct form. Try it this way. Considering the low birthrate over the last 30 years, and the massive retirement wave about to hit the econonmy, do you think it is OK if we bring in a massive influx of workers, so YOU can be sure to collect the Social Security, that you just paid into for the last thirty years, while keeping it run as a Ponzi Scheme? You will recieve a much different answer. So you prefer push polling. Fine, but why stop with your version of the correct form? Why not: Considering that immigration adds very little or nothing to GDP, or may even be a drain, should the US reduce present levels of immigration? or Considering that mass immigration was unleashed accidentally after the 1965 reform act whose sponsors promised would not result in increases in net immigration, or a change in the demography of the nation, yet did both, shouldn't we repeal that act? or Considering that current immigration policy brings in immigrants more likely to not have completed high school, and who are more likely to receive some form of welfare than the native born, shouldn't we change policy to favor immigrants who will not be a public charge? or To the extent that environmental damage and urban sprawl are caused by a rapidly growing population, and considering that immigration directly and indirectly accounts for over half of US population growth, should we decrease immigration? or Considering that affirmative action (i.e. racial preferences) began as a way to redress past wrongs done to victims of institutional racism --black Americans and American Indians--but has now been extended to non-white immigrants who have no such history of institutional discrimination all in the name of diversity; should we decrease immigration so as to lessen this importation of people who will then be given preference of white Americans? or Since it is clear that current immigration policy favors one political party over the other, should we decrease immigration so as to make it politically neutral? Thats' just a few examples. I would say mine are more based on fact, however, seeing as how it is undeniable that the 1965 act was predicated on either mistaken assumptions or lies, and it is undeniable that there is an unintended collision between racial preferences and immigration, and it is undeniable that immigration is the chief cause of population growth, and that the data on graduation rates are fact. Your example of immigration saving Social Security has its proponents, but the whole idea was effectively shot down by U of Michigan economist John Attarian in his study; 'Immigration: Wrong Answer for Social Security.' He found the claim that massive increases in already mass levels of immigration would not solve the problem, and that any positive effects (like more workers paying into the system) would be offset by the downward effect of such a wave on labor productivity and wages. In short, mass immigration will not save the hopelessly flawed Social Security system. Anyway, I'll assume you are a conservative, and as such it seems odd to favor one bad policy --mass immigration-- to prop up another bad one--Social Security. The only way that Ameicans will ever be secure in retirement is if they start saving for themselves early enough. Just about anything that helps bring that culture change about is a good thing. And if the US were to reduce immigration levels to say, less than 300,000 per year, our population would not suddenlty start declining. White Americans have a higher birthrate than European whites, especially in the conservative states. It is still above replacement level I believe, as is the birth rate of black Americans and of course Hispanic Americans. We would be in no danger of depopulation.