[dextorious]

"""Both these objections are dead wrong. The truth is that the US economy needs immigration to work. If you doubt it, just look at Japan."""

Citation needed. Japan was flourishing in past decades, even without immigration. And the US is not that much better off, debt and economy wise now.

"""In fact, immigration is the largest wealth transfer program from developing countries to the developed. It is already bad enough that poor countries are paying for the upbringing, training and education of these skilled migrants for which they get no compensation."""

The majority of immigrants from development countries don't have that much training and education. "Skilled migrants" are the exception.

Not ever Indian immigrant, for example, is a programmer searching work in the Valley --actually, not even close to 1%.

[burgerbrain]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japa...

Your standards for national success in fact drive (or at least indicate) this sort of trend: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Demographic_t...

[dextorious]

Well, that's because of Aging of the population --not exactly the same question.

How about this: which is preferable: incentives to counter the aging of the population OR embracing immigration?

[burgerbrain]

Aging population is countered by immigration, something that Japan is notoriously harsh on. "Success" appears to have the effect of lowering birth rates, as my second link talks about.

There are of course efforts and policies in place to encourage people to have more kids, but focusing on those is ignoring the obvious and proven solution. Furthermore, they do not seem to work. At least not well enough.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aging_of_Japa...

[dextorious]

Well, if your number one priority is to have a young population (whatever it is), to keep the economy grinding, then that would be a solution. But then you're using people just as interchangeable economic entities, i.e "I need X young workers so that I have that economic outcome".

If, on the other hand, your priority is to preserve your way of live, your country's culture, etc, then encouraging immigration as thus, can lead to many problems, something a lot of countries can attest to.

Now, it's true that historically the US had been a "melting pot", which cultures joining and contributing, etc, but this is a notion of the past in an era with cheap travel, instant communications with the homeland etc. It's not 1890 anymore, when say immigrant workers had to more or less adapt to the "american way of life", separated as they were from their home culture. With a large enough immigrant population, as an immigrant you don't have to "melt" in the pot at all, you don't even have to try to learn english. Especially if the immigrant population, because it's unskilled, has no major aspirations besides some low end job.

[burgerbrain]

"If, on the other hand, your priority is to preserve your way of live, your country's culture"

This is all just xenophobic crap, and you should know that.

If all the people who don't want to work and don't want to fuck only want to speak English, but all the people who do want to work and fuck all speak Portuguese, then so be it. Life isn't a game and people who look the same and talk the same as you are not "your team". You don't "lose" if people dare have different ways of doing things on the same continent as you.

This talk of "the "american way of life"" makes me think of today's XKCD...

Regardless: You asked for a citation that strict immigration policies are hurting Japan, and I believe I have adequately provided them.

[cousin_it]

On the other hand, if the American way of life continues to attract immigrants, there must be something worth preserving about it...

[dextorious]

"""This is all just xenophobic crap, and you should know that."""

That's an idiotic oversimplification, and you should know that.

"""Life isn't a game and people who look the same and talk the same as you are not "your team"."""

Well, they are, and the team is called a "country" or a "nation". They don't have to look the same or talk the same, but they DO HAVE to share certain beliefs and agree on certain procedures.

"""You don't "lose" if people dare have different ways of doing things on the same continent as you."""

Actually, I do lose the ability to live in a country that operates the way I like.

With your reasoning, you can just as well move to Saudi Arabia, and you be fine with no free speech, women not voting/driving, religious hysteria etc.

I don't think that this is the case --you're just talking BS, secure in living in the specific environment that you like and are used to. For all your "diversity" talk, I don't think you could even make it for a week in rural Montana, much less with actual people --including people who could give a rat's arse about diversity.