[1718627440]

Well, there is immigration and there is immigration. There are people that move between similar socialized countries, directly from one high-paying job to the next. Every country wants to have them. Then there are basically refugees, that are only named immigrants, because they happen to flee through another country. They might also have had a well paying job, but they often need to learn the language, they often need to learn the economic system, the law system, the social norms, etc. This takes quite some investment, both in time and money from them and the society they migrate to. Learning these things already takes years for young people, whose only job is to do this. It's much harder for an adult, because learning complete new things is harder for adults and they also need to cover the bills. They can be the smartest person in their country, but they will still struggle. On top, they need to fight with the immigration offices, have family abroad they want to support, might intend to return to their home, instead of settling. Thus, they will be an investment first, rather then an asset. Some place the time frame for this to be 18 years. I question whether investing in children is really the worse approach. Even when it is, then it is quite immoral to let another poorer country pay the bills for their education and then import them.

> Immigrants built America.

These were masses building a new country, not integrating into an existing; they had a way lower living standard, a lot of them died. It did not go well for the existing society in America. The people forming the government were british rich aristocrats. And don't think these situations are comparable.

[questionableans]

It’s undeniably worth investing in immigrants, including refugees. Rhetoric otherwise is just veiled racism. These people already exist. It’s our duty to take care of them as global citizens, just like it’s our duty to care for the elderly and others.

I also think you’d be surprised how little time to pay off would actually be needed. Give people a calm space and community (including their friends and family), and we will all flourish.

[foxglacier]

> just veiled racism

Instead of using a thought-terminating insult, think about why people veil their racism, and why they have it. Different races are intrinsically different and some of those differences are harmful to society. You're probably shocked hearing this but most people are too scared to say it because the group will punish them so we end up with people like you somehow actively oblivious to reality.

[1718627440]

Thanks, but keep in mind that not every discrimination based on race is automatically racism.

[1718627440]

> It’s undeniably worth investing in immigrants, including refugees. It’s our duty to take care of them as global citizens, just like it’s our duty to care for the elderly and others.

These are different things. Yes we are required to provide the resources needed for life to refugees as well as to the elderly. That doesn't automatically mean that this is a worthy investment. What dividends do you intend to get from a bedridden old person.

> Rhetoric otherwise is just veiled racism.

No, it's not, were did a talk about race? If anything, you could accuse me of egoism, nationalism and social darwinism. Dealing with other perspectives by shouting you are bad guy(tm) won't advance anyone.

But I did not say, that any culture will perform worse than another. I did say a person robbed from his culture, law and economic system, and displaced into another will struggle. Putting on rose tinted glasses will help neither, your society, the refugee nor the refugees society.

> I also think you’d be surprised how little time to pay off would actually be needed.

Sure, that's why the societies with the refugees all outperform their neighbor and are way more peaceful.

> Give people a calm space and community (including their friends and family), and we will all flourish.

Sure, but why should this take place in your country, just because you have a self-inflicted lack of young people? That is very much egoistic and unfair, in my opinion. Providing money for education aid to developing countries and then sending ministers there to openly headhunt the well educated for your country, doesn't seem too far from colonialism and slave trade to me.

[questionableans]

Letting people who want to immigrate do so instead of pressuring people who don’t want to have kids do so is not slavery.

If we can’t get our act together and help each other out while living within our planet’s means, what kind of life are we even offering to future generations?

[1718627440]

So I shouldn't complain about someone putting bombs one your house, because you surely want to immigrate?

> instead of pressuring people

This is somewhat orthogonal.

> people who don’t want to have kids

Some people also don't want to and don't pay taxes.