@Sivad Forgot you were in this thread, my bad.
It's not a bare assertion, you're just denying the obvious.
Telling me I'm denying the obvious kinda doesn't do a lot to convince me.
Institutionalized corruption in the form of state capture is definitely a major cause of poverty around the world.
I don't disagree, and my disagreement wasn't that corruption wasn't a problem, but that immigration (particularly immigration of unskilled workers to the US which is what we were discussing) isn't a driving factor perpetuating corruption.
Most societies are poor because their governments have been taken over by multinational corporations and enact policies that benefit those entities at the expense of the people and the environment.
Let's break this down. Obviously it is trivially true that countries are poor because they lack strong economies (by which I mean they do not produce goods efficiently and thus the population lacks purchasing power and an ability to consume goods at the same level as the west). Why that is is a very important question.
Your argument is essentially that multinational companies create a weak economy. I would argue that depending on the country it is their policies, governmental structure, resistance to opening to the global market, corruption of their government, and refusal to make hard choices that retards economic development.
A particular issue is countries with authoritarian regimes that aren't reliant on economic development and a happy populace to maintain power. Particularly resource rich countries that do not need an educated or well fed workforce to get at those resources. It's in this that I do think you have a point, because in poor but oil filled countries it has been common for western companies to provide the expensive high tech capital needed to drill and process crude oil.
However generalizing past that I don't agree, many African countries have been ravaged by dictators that simply leech wealth from the populace in a way not possible in a more advanced economy. It requires no special intervention of a global multinational. (this particular point of view on countries can be summarized by a particularly good video by CPGrey if you are interested
Now this is an important point I don't want to be misunderstood on. Policy of the united states and other western countries can definitely help or hurt the growth of local economies. However any help those countries are going to be able to do will be within the bounds of capitalist policy and will also require multinationals to bring in capital. Here it is important to note that the lower labor costs in these countries is also something that drives this, however over the long run the developing economy will drive up these wages.
These countries can definitely be taken advantage of, or helped tremendously, by how the west manages this process. However any help we do provide will always use this fundamentally capitalist mechanism.
Note here, that no where in my response is a mechanism for corruption to be furthered by immigration. Also note that I am not offering solutions that will radically help the populations of these countries in a year or two. These mechanisms are long slow processes and in places have been hampered by well and poorly intentioned top down controls. (many of my arguments about the economic crisis in Venezuela is essentially an argument that they hampered their own development by well intentioned reliance on oil and never diversified their economy and when oil prices fell that weakness caused massive problems).
To try and get back to the point a little, my argument is that corporations are on their own not a driver of global poverty, and indeed in many countries (particularly many in south east asia and africa) economic partnership with the US and the west have spurred a great deal of positive growth and a decrease in poverty.
I suppose a summary would be that I disagree about your particular narrative about the drivers of global poverty.
It has nothing to do with punishing people.
You may say that your goal isn't to punish people, but that is what you are doing when you stop them from finding a better life.
It's a pretty simple, straightforward concept that's easy to understand. It only stands to reason that if a lot of the people who would be agitating for social reform leave the country then social reform becomes much more difficult to achieve.
Immigration from mexico is at net 0, the poorest least educated citizens of a country are rarely the ones that push social change, and even if immigration were some positive value such that 1 in 10000 Mexicans were immigrating to the United states (a staggering immigration figure I'll point out) we are not in an era where they are powerless to push change even if that 1 in 10000 leaving somehow neutered the power of the other 10000.
The point is "simple, straight-ford and easy to understand" because it's overly simplistic an understanding. In fact I'd argue that the people who come here and are no longer worrying about food and shelter, get access to information, and get access to the resources to educate themselves, would be more likely to have a positive effect on social change by creating a population of better educated and informed people to fight to get their country back.
So when we take in millions of immigrants from one of these countries we are effectively draining that society of its potential for reform.
I disagree. Perhaps I am very dense but this doesn't seem nearly so compelling a conclusion as you make out.
There is a reform movement in Mexico but it can easily be argued that large scale immigration to the US has deprived the movement of the critical mass it needs to be successful.
Even if it were true that immigration deprived mexico of valuable revolutionaries I fail to see how you could just go straight to the conclusion that it is a critical mass of them.
Stress is what motivates people to take social action and demand change and to the extent that remittances mitigate that stress the movement is weakened.
This is a massive oversimplification of the development of social movements. Dire poverty and the stress of not knowing where your next meal will come from is liable to have the opposite effect on a movement. Education and information are vital to social movements. Resources beyond just warm bodies are required. There are a thousand other factors as well.
In 2015 Mexico received more in remittances($25 billion)than it did from oil revenues, remittances are now Mexico's largest single source of foreign revenue, so that likely relieves quite a bit of economic stress.
And provides people resources that could just as easily empower them to understand the situation and take action as make them suddenly blase about their own government.
I reiterate this point not because I assert this to be universally true but to point out that your conclusion here is hardly ironclad unarguable logic.
You'd understand it better if you gave it some thought.
I give lots of things lots of thought, I'm a rather verbose person and spend a lot of time arguing about these issues on various platforms and in real life.
Movements need a critical mass in order to be successful. Most successful movements never have the support of more than small fraction of the population, so if a significant percentage of the most disaffected and motivated leave that will seriously hamstring the cause.
Again, this doesn't seem to be so cut and dried as you make out to me. Many mass movements were supported by huge numbers of people, others were made by minuscule numbers of people who were well organized. Yet others started out well organized and used that organization to spread awareness and grow the size of the faction. To boil down social movements into some kind of critical mass algorithm as if it were some physical force obviously lacks explanatory power.
That's uncharitable and a bit dishonest, I never accused anyone of lying. Academic capture is a real thing and you should probably not be appealing to academics until you understand what it is and its implications for the reliability of the soft sciences.
Then you argue what? That their data was wrong?
Your original statement, as I remember it your claim was that academics intentionally down play the negative effects of immigration. Which is certainly lying. I also don't appreciate being told that I cannot appeal to people who spend their lives studying these problems and the research they do and the data they collect.
I do not try and form political policy around philosophy or some ungrounded logic. I go with what they data tells me because my own inherent biases will inhibit me from having any meaningful positions if I simply ignore the clear data and research of the field.
Academic capture is the same insidious conspiracy theory nonsense that creationists use to cast aspersion on all biology research. Perhaps some set of papers is influenced by economic incentives, but the preponderance of economists, scientists, and various other researchers get their funding from a variety of sources and when the preponderance of the research agrees on a point I am not going to be swayed by some vague hand-waving about academic capture. Unskilled labor fills jobs that we have labor shortages in, and thus has a reduced to no effect on the prevailing wages of people in those labor markets, that is the conclusion of the entire field of economics and I will not simply abandon it because you have appealed to a vague force, it is the best information available to me.
"social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone." - Paul collier, professor of economics and public policy in the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford
Is he accusing many of his colleagues of being liars? No, he's just honestly acknowledging that his discipline is heavily influenced by various pressures.
Like I said, I'm not interested in the personal anecdotes of one researcher. Michael Behe says many of the same sorts of things about biologists to defend his position against evolution.
Does Immigration Harm Working Americans?
Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers
Linking me to media organizations, particularly organizations that play to left populist audiences that are anti immigration, is hardly convincing evidence.
That backlash is occurring across the developed world and it's growing every year in terms of both numbers and outrage, that alone is good reason to rethink your position.
I cannot simply decide to believe something I believe to be wrong simply because other people are racist. Other people being racist is not an argument for...really anything.
This issue is fueling the rise of the extremist hard right and they are now a real threat, so even if you're right you're still following a very dangerous course.
The same could be said about my desire for protections of LGBT people. Sadly for me I cannot stop being gay in order to make bigots less angry.
I will not simply abandon what I believe to be the correct and moral position because all of the sudden you've discovered that your actually a massive pragmatist despite being a socialist.
I know exactly what neoliberalism is and the damage it's done. Neoliberalism is the filth of our age, it's a frighteningly depraved ideology.
Yar Har matey, I've come to negotiate a free trade deal!
I'm sure it has nothing to do with all the cheap labor, that's probably just paranoid thinking.
Are you denying the importance of the hispanic vote in electoral politics?