[rohansood15]

Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?

Now expand that across socio-economic spectrum (not enough plumbers, teachers, AI experts, researchers etc). That is what legal immigration is meant for.

[invalidOrTaken]

But if the justification for immigration is prior immigration, is there a stopping point here? Like, after you import a bunch of doctors, is it going to turn out that now you need a bunch of fast food workers, back and forth?

[collingreen]

What?

Population growth can happen with or without immigration.

Also, what? Are you describing a healthy economy?

[qsera]

>Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors. Now they could train one over 10 years, or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?

But that is not what usually happens, right? What usually happens is that some hospital employs a doctor educated from some other country where standard of education is less, instead of someone who is educated from native institutions, because they accept to work for 10x less salary. In this case both the US Society as well as the US educated doctor losses, and the US Hospital and the migrant gains.

Feel free to expand this across socio-economic spectrum..

[joe_mamba]

>Let's say the government can't care for 100M people because of lack of doctors.

Then the government is proven to be severely incompetent and shouldn't be trusted with more migration because it will guaranteed fumble that too. Barring mass migration, populations don't naturally just explode overnight for you to suddenly end up with 100 million people and no doctors.

Governments have all the tools and data at their disposal to see population trends, piramid, emigration, immigration, job statistics, housing, etc. all this data you can use and plot out to determine how many doctors you'll need in the future as the population follows the trajectory and plan training and recruitment of doctors ahead of time so that when population reaches 100 million or 500 million there will be an proportional number of doctors.

So then why didn't the government do this preemptively when they had all the info and levers at their disposal? Could it be because they simply don't give a shit and they only care about winning the next election and not what happens in 20+ years when the population reaches 100 million and there's no doctors? Because they won't be in charge then when the shit hits the fan so they don't care to be preemptive for something that's not a pressing issue now. So then given this, why would you trust these same people with enabling mass migration on your behalf? They clearly don't care about the long term future planning and second order effects of their actions.

> or you could have one of the smartest doctors in the world come be 100M+1. Would you take that?

In which case do 1 million of doctors and only doctors and nothing else but doctors show up at your borders because if that were the case I guarantee you everyone would take them in no questions asked.

That's the classic bait and switch. Merkel also told Germans they're getting "doctors and engineers" in 2015 and the only thing that increases is sexual assaults rates, crime and welfare spending to the point where "doctors and engineers" became a meme phrase for migrant crime in the news.

>That is what legal immigration is meant for.

In theory yes, but just like Germany, in practice the system has always been abused to dupe voters to accept anything other than doctors so that corporations can get cheap labor and landlords more tenants. The overton window has gotten so bad on this topic that if you complain about migrant crime, they'll maliciously ask you back "but what about doctors, you don't want them either?". No, we want doctors, We just want the doors shut to people who aren't doctors, it's really that simple.

[rohansood15]

So ask for it. Seems like your issue isn't immigration, it is abuse. The recent changes don't do much to fix that, imo.

[joe_mamba]

>So ask for it.

Nobody in government wants to listen. They're too afraid of being called "far right" if they give airtime to people wanting less migration so what happens is that that only breeds resentment and a rise of the actual far right, leading to a self fulfilling prophecy that could be avoided if they just enable discourse to things they don't like to hear but are pressing issues of large voter base.

>Seems like your issue isn't immigration, it is abuse.

Because governments don't make the distinction between the two, you give them an inch, they take a mile. If you let them enable any migration over time they will abuse it to flood the market with cheap labor as their corporate lobbyists push them to, like they did with H1B since 1990, which was initially a a scheme to import top soviet scientist after the USSR collapsed(kind of like operation paperclip) and is now used for US companies to import "Microsoft Certified Specialists" from India.

If you want to stop the abuse you have to stop migration completely and then start political negotiations from that point of leverage, on a controlled points based migration system that accounts for actual shortages and domestic public resources.