NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can say is holy crap. Although on the bright side they will be legal. This sounds absolutely crazy. Could the US absorb this much immigration?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm

Can the US possibly increase the country's population by a third in such a short period in time?

Can the US possibly increase the country's population by a third in such a short period in time?

A group of friends and I were discussing this exact issue. Number one the infrastructure of the US would have to be increased. New homes, roads, fire, police, social services and a whole group of other things. The competition for jobs would probably have a chilling effect on wage increases. Not to mention Social Security would most likely be wiped out due to the older immigrants collecting money they never put in. Sounds like a train wreck if you ask me.

It makes sense. The Sinocoms have more people than the U.S.! We must close the population gap!

Security would most likely be wiped out due to the older immigrants collecting money they never put in. Sounds like a train wreck if you ask me

Immigrants are generally young, which gives them plenty of time to pay into social security. (Some countries such as Australia put some effort into attracting old people, but they make a point of only letting rich ones in.)

Uh, social security is already a train wreck.

And yeah, we're going to have to increase infrastructure due to population growth. This is a fact regardless of this immigration bill. Better get used to it.

All I can say is holy crap. Although on the bright side they will be legal. This sounds absolutely crazy. Could the US absorb this much immigration?

According to the link, an amendment tacked on after the story was first posted has reduced the projection to 66 million.

Even so, that comes to almost 3.3 million immigrants a year. That kind of rate seems neither sustainable nor likely given the trickle of legal immgrants we already have. None of the legislation I've ever seen could have such a radical impact on immigration rates.

Not to mention Social Security would most likely be wiped out due to the older immigrants collecting money they never put in. Sounds like a train wreck if you ask me.

That isn't how social security works. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

The social security payments made by workers are what pay beneficiaries.

SS is not a deposit-and-withdraw program, it is pay-as-you-go.

Ideally, SS would have held all the excess payments of the baby boomers in trust, but much of that trust fund has been wasted by governments through the years.

Problems really only come up when the number of retirees rises relative to the number of workers at a given time.

Viva La Zapatistas!! Tierre Y Libertad!!!!

According to the link, an amendment tacked on after the story was first posted has reduced the projection to 66 million.

Even so, that comes to almost 3.3 million immigrants a year. That kind of rate seems neither sustainable nor likely given the trickle of legal immgrants we already have. None of the legislation I've ever seen could have such a radical impact on immigration rates.

The U.S. has a population of 300 million so that's only a 1% increase per year. Australia Canada and the U.S. have all gone through periods of rapid immigration and all three have come out okay.

Anyway, increased immigration is the only way the U.S. is likely to keep this superpower thing going. I'm surprised that no one seems to be looking at it from that perspective, seeing as Americans generally dig being a superpower.

Even so, that comes to almost 3.3 million immigrants a year. That kind of rate seems neither sustainable nor likely given the trickle of legal immgrants we already have. None of the legislation I've ever seen could have such a radical impact on immigration rates.
That's about 1.4% pop growth per year. Given the falling rates of natural growth it really doesn't seem unreasonable. It might, in fact, become outright necessary to keep a growing economy.

That isn't how social security works. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

.


My knowledge of this is from Russian immigrants in my local area recieving SSI checks soon after they arrived. These being retirement age immigrants. Unless of course I misunderstood the story in the paper about this awhile back. But just giving a real life example from what I know. As you well know how something should work on paper and how the government administers the program are two different things at times.

The U.S. has a population of 300 million so that's only a 1% increase per year. Australia Canada and the U.S. have all gone through periods of rapid immigration and all three have come out okay.

Anyway, increased immigration is the only way the U.S. is likely to keep this superpower thing going. I'm surprised that no one seems to be looking at it from that perspective, seeing as Americans generally dig being a superpower.


That is an angle to take. However the task is massive to adjust these individuals into our economy. This would be the largest wave of immigration into the states by a factor of 2. Twice as big as anything previously done. Will be interesting if this Senate bill passes. I have no problem with immigration. In moderation of course.

That isn't how social security works. This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

.

Here is a few links to explain what I am talking about. Dates may be old but it does apply.

http://www.laohumrights.org/restore.html

This particular group was granted SSI benefits. Also SSI does get granted to disabled and veteran immigrants. It is not that tough in this country to be labled disabled. If one does not recieve an SSI check directly becuase they do not fall under certain catagories. The drain on the social services is enough to make me grab my wallet. Taxes may be increased dramatically to pay for all of these people coming in.

My knowledge of this is from Russian immigrants in my local area recieving SSI checks soon after they arrived. These being retirement age immigrants. Unless of course I misunderstood the story in the paper about this awhile back. But just giving a real life example from what I know. As you well know how something should work on paper and how the government administers the program are two different things at times.


This doesnt address your original post or my response.
SS isnt a deposit-and-withdraw system, it isn't funded by an individual's previous contributions.

Unless the guest-worker program in the bill somehow allowed a great deal more retired old people to come in than actual workers, social security should see no adverse effect.

Uh, social security is already a train wreck.

And yeah, we're going to have to increase infrastructure due to population growth. This is a fact regardless of this immigration bill. Better get used to it.


Well that is a no brainer. But if 100 million did show up over the period of time they stated. It would be far beyond ordinary population growth. Taxes most likely would have to be raised by a fair margin to pay for the extra over and beyond costs to infrastructure.

Well that is a no brainer. But if 100 million did show up over the period of time they stated. It would be far beyond ordinary population growth. Taxes most likely would have to be raised by a fair margin to pay for the extra over and beyond costs to infrastructure.


Unless, of course, the economy and the tax base grew on account of the great influx of new worker/consumers.

This is not good.

Call your senators and tell them NO!

Or mail a brick and a thing of lube to them. IF they don't take the hint and build a wall, they can use the lube and shove it up their ***.

Unless, of course, the economy and the tax base grew on account of the great influx of new worker/consumers.

Yes that is a consideration. However you know as well as I that most immigrants would not have well paying jobs to begin with. The vast majority would have low pay jobs to start out with. Although I am sure many would show some talent and rise fast. The majority would most likely be in the range of lower middle class to poverty. Under the current tax system these people contribute very little to the Federal tax roles.

Here is a few links to explain what I am talking about. Dates may be old but it does apply.

http://www.laohumrights.org/restore.html

This particular group was granted SSI benefits. Also SSI does get granted to disabled and veteran immigrants. It is not that tough in this country to be labled disabled. If one does not recieve an SSI check directly becuase they do not fall under certain catagories. The drain on the social services is enough to make me grab my wallet. Taxes may be increased dramatically to pay for all of these people coming in.


Refugees are something completely unrelated to guest-workers.

Guest-workers are admitted on the basis of their ability to work and our need for their labor, refugees are admitted because of intolerable conditions in their home countries.

The former group is overwhelmingly young, working, SS-contributing people.

Yes that is a consideration. However you know as well as I that most immigrants would not have well paying jobs to begin with. The vast majority would have low pay jobs to start out with. Although I am sure many would show some talent and rise fast. The majority would most likely be in the range of lower middle class to poverty. Under the current tax system these people contribute very little to the Federal tax roles.


Nevertheless, they are a consumer base and do cause the economy to grow.

The US infrastructure is in increasingly desperate need of overhaul, in any case, and population will grow regardless of immigration.

Refugees are something completely unrelated to guest-workers.

Guest-workers are admitted on the basis of their ability to work and our need for their labor, refugees are admitted because of intolerable conditions in their home countries.

The former group is overwhelmingly young, working, SS-contributing people.

Yes I do understand that. But living in this nation I do know one thing. Once the door is propped open a bit on benefits. Some politicians will kick it all the way open to gain political contributions and support to get re-elected.

That is an angle to take. However the task is massive to adjust these individuals into our economy. This would be the largest wave of immigration into the states by a factor of 2. Twice as big as anything previously done. Will be interesting if this Senate bill passes. I have no problem with immigration. In moderation of course.

Really? If it's greater than post war immigration I'd be surprised but I don't know the figures for the United States. Australia took two million immigrants in the 1950's and 60's with population of 7.7 million in 1950, which was a 1.3% increase per year. Australia came out of it okay. In fact, the economy did very well and unemplyment was low and wages increased.

Nevertheless, they are a consumer base and do cause the economy to grow.

The US infrastructure is in increasingly desperate need of overhaul, in any case, and population will grow regardless of immigration.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am under the thought that it will cost far more in the begining before benefits of this influx is seen. Things will always even themselves out in the long run. I don't know if in the short run the average American wan'ts to shoulder the burden of our new friends. I can see taxes being raised to increase infrastructure right away. I also agree that we need the overhaul.

Really? If it's greater than post war immigration I'd be surprised but I don't know the figures for the United States. Australia took two million immigrants in the 1950's and 60's with population of 7.7 million in 1950, which was a 1.3% increase per year. Australia came out of it okay. In fact, the economy did very well and unemplyment was low and wages increased.

It would be the biggest influx for the US. Hopefully it can be managed correctly and everything comes out smelling like roses.