[h4kunamata]

Tungsten is the least of their problem. When a population cannot afford health care system, and have to walk with their passport so they are not sent to jail, you have a broken country. Not to mention the financial problems.

Tungsten won't matter when there is no country.

[PKop]

> walk with their passport so they are not sent to jail

No, it's broken because we've allowed millions of foreigners to come in and raise said healthcare and housing costs. Checking that people here actually belong here else they're deported is part of the "cost of living" solution, in addition to crime.

[dtauzell]

I think overall immigration is a net benefit: https://www.cato.org/white-paper/immigrants-recent-effects-g...

[PKop]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46968194

[pstuart]

You beat me to it. Here's another report by that woke Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-legal-immigration-system-broke...

[PKop]

For one thing that document argues that one of the single greatest costs to citizens of immigration is somehow a benefit: increased housing costs. They talk of higher property tax collections from increased home values, this is just another way to say immigration is increasing housing costs and taxes for native population.

The Federal Reserve confirmed this a couple years ago that housing inflation was in part due to a large increase in immigrant population over last few years.

[robocat]

> we've allowed millions of foreigners to come in and raise said healthcare and housing costs

They also raise your GDP by a lot more than they cost.

Australia and New Zealand have about 30% foreign born population, and we do fine.

Maybe add 100 million more people into the US before you would have problems that get difficult.

The biggest cost of healthcare is staff, and a lot of the staff here come from overseas so it's kinda self-sustaining (in the short term). The biggest cost of housing is people whinging and whining about it. NZ and AU does build plenty of housing (land isn't a constraint). Many people in the building industry were born overseas.

It isn't all rainbows, but it mostly works for us.

The US has about 290 million native-born citizens and 25 million naturalized citizens. It has maybe 15 million unauthorized immigrants (of which approx 80% are of working age).

One should always compare population densities, rather than absolute numbers.

[PKop]

Foreigners competing for jobs and housing stock and territory is bad for current citizens. Add to it the political effect of shifting the politics away from national and citizen interests and towards more support for foreigner interests, and it's worse.

The net fiscal impact from the cohort of immigrants we get now is negative; they cost taxpayers more than they contribute. They take more from welfare and social services than than they pay in and more than current citizens. Additionally there is increased crime. There are so many of these that are not adding any economic benefit period, and for those that do, that benefit accrues to a small subset of business owners and politicians, not the general population of citizens. H1B expansion of foreign worker visas for example is bad for displaced American workers. The mindset that considers their own fellow citizens lacking such that they want to replace them with foreigners is insane to me. None of these western countries needs something such that they must get it from others; they can cultivate all of this from their own people, and birthrates would increase if not for the crowding out through increased costs especially housing, insurance, and depressed wages from importation of immigrants.

When I drive on the roads, when I shop for housing or apartments, when I want to pay for car insurance, when I got public spaces, parks, cities, vacation spots, got to stores.... I've never ever had the thought "You know what would make my quality of life better? If we had 100 million more people especially those that come from a different culture and speak a different language here and everywhere else right now". That is such a ridiculously foolish mindset, and disservice to one's own neighbors and such. Makes no sense to me.

[robocat]

My point is that your opinions are not universal facts. Some of what you say might be true for the US, and we've heard of other countries with severe issues due to immigration. But your opinions appear to me to be simply unbalanced anti-immigrant.

Australia and especially New Zealand use immigration to help their economies and while that can cause problems, those problems have mostly been addressed over time. We are using immigration as a bandaid to help fix the demographic problem of too many retirees versus not enough workers. Many countries have the same problem, and the problem is getting worse as people choose not to have children. I admit it is an unstable workaround given that those immigrants eventually become retirees. But it is a functional workaround.

Over the last decade, New Zealand’s housing stock has grown by approximately 16% (mostly through densification). I believe Australia is similar. The US administration or culture seems to lack the ability to do the same, but other countries are managing to do it so that's where it look for reasons why.

> That is such a ridiculously foolish mindset

No need to be rude. I have given you examples of how New Zealand and Australia have mostly successfully dealt with a large percentage of immigration. This is fact not fantasy.

The US was built on immigrants with great outcomes, there's no economic reason the US can't pull finger and do it again.

[PKop]

Australia has all the same problems with immigration, just much worse. [0]

I've come across so many Australians online holding the same sentiments as myself. "Per capita" measures of "economy" mean more to me than nebulous claims of the the overall economy benefiting from immigration. When I look over time the quality of life and level of development in Australia, nothing points to any such need of an influx of millions of foreigners for most Australians. It's obvious why some businesses want to improve labor margins and why politicians benefit from diluting domestic voters base and important a voting block, though mostly it's a sort of civic religious belief apart from any practical concrete benefit so many leaders support it because they think it is a moral obligation.

Lower birth rates, massively unaffordable housing, strains on public programs and healthcare, as well as reshaping the character and ethnic makeup of the country all to the detriment most especially of young people are all reasons why I think Australia's mass immigration program is traitorous to its own citizens. Japan has more of an immigration policy I think is worth emulating, which is to the benefit of it's own people.

So much of "living in a place" is a zero-sum competition for resources with everyone else around you. Doubly so when you take into account intangible social loyalties and support networks, trust, sense of community etc that all go down as diversity rises. But again, just the massive increase in people in and of itself is huge punch in the face to young people and other citizens. What these people do not need is a rise in competition over space, and rival claims on democratic political power.

I think there is no mainstream policy you can advocate for that is as detrimental to and harms your fellow citizens more than immigration.

[0] https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/the-austral...

[robocat]

The issue is what to do about aging demographics?

My few paragraphs or your few paragraphs can only encompass trite answers.

There is no obviously good solution. We can only hope our glorious leaders find good compromises.

I am mostly trying to suggest you look at how different countries manage (positively and negatively) their "demographic time bomb".

It is unclear whether immigration is a strongly beneficial solution since it does cause friction.

> Australians online > same sentiments

Please take care with your arguments because anecdotal evidence generalises poorly (especially for topics that are common in echo chambers - it is difficult to avoid ones own biases).

It is clear that immigration is broadly unpopular. The question is whether the rewards are worth the risks?

https://www.amp.com.au/resources/insights-hub/the-economics-...

Immigration is an economic response to aging demographics. It is a very imperfect response.

> Japan

"South Korea is over" is a response to that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufmu1WD2TSk

I predict Australia and particularly New Zealand will continue to use immigration to help their economies, despite pitfalls.

I don't feel confident to predict anything about the US. The government there (either party) continues to surprise me with its recklessness; however systematically it surprises me with its resilience.

Last year I was in New Orleans for a month and as an in person snapshot I saw a lot of negative signals for the future.

I try to care about economics as a topic because for retirement investment I kinda have to invest overseas. However, this year I've withdrawn from the US stock market (later I will learn if that was a mistake).

Your link is irrelevant because (a) New Zealand already has that specific problem in spades - it isn't a scare tactic here, and (b) while it is difficult to find unbiased links - you can try to avoid obviously biased links

[queenkjuul]

Get a load a this guy, he thinks immigrants invented private health insurance

[skulk]

> No, it's broken because we've allowed millions of foreigners to come in and raise said healthcare and housing costs.

The idea that deporting every undocumented person will reduce the bloat and profit extraction in our health care system is making me giggle.

And do you really think checking every person is a strategy that scales? Why not just indiscriminately jail the people who hire them and thereby create a strong incentive to come?

Maybe those workers actually belong here more than you'd like to admit, but the powers that be enjoy keeping their status uncertain to use as a piñata they can beat whenever they need political candy.

[PKop]

>Why not just indiscriminately jail the people who hire them and thereby create a strong incentive to come?

We definitely should do this, yes.