In the U.S. Immigration is a very complex issue I would like to know what the meritocracy party’s policies are on this issue.
Immigration
What do you think the party’s policies should be on this issue in the US?
to complex of an issue lol. honestly I would need to do some more research to give a valid educated opinion but I was hoping to hear from others who are more informed on this matter.
I will attempt to address the complex issue of an immigration policy from an ideological standpoint, in Western countries(where it largely occurs in modern times)
In a truly Meritocratic global system, I think that immigration will have a much lower level of frequency, and volume, and will thus avoid becoming a contentious issue. In short, I think that immigration should be based on the following factors:
- availability of space, and infrastructure to accommodate more people
- qualifications for skills needed
- basic ideological, and identity compatibility. This doesn’t need to be strict but some limitations(the least possible) will be necessary. A genuine admiration or curiosity to live in the country ought to extend beyond economic migration(this problem will be addressed later).
- basic language requirements
An immigration policy should learn and adapt. In this situation, I would state that a mass unregulated immigration policy is to be avoided, as is a strict closure. Low scale immigration is almost always innocuous. A balance can be struck, and to do so could lead to getting at some much deeper issues. The state of the nation should also be considered. For example, Canada is a new nation(in it’s current form) without much of an identity. There is a general realization that it’s a large country, where most people are recent immigrants. However, since most people move to large cities, the issue of overcrowding and infrastructure is certainly valid. For Europe(and most places on the planet), there is an historical population and identity. This is where we see the rise of the’right-wing’, which is based predominantly on immigration and identity.
Meritocracy would attempt to improve the life quality of everybody, and to eliminate poverty, and perhaps even low skill labour as a main source of livelihood. By doing so, you also eliminate most of the reasons for mass immigration. If people are educated, free, and have an overall good quality of life, there is little reason to move. When the profit principle rules over the people principle, mass immigration will always occur. The elite benefit from mass immigration in numerous ways. Wages and production costs can be kept much lower for the population at large if people move from a ‘poorer’ country a ‘richer’ one, as it’s invariably an improvement for the immigrants economic situation. However, money and materialism can never be a cultural force for cohesion as a sole entity, especially when some have vastly larger sums which are now unavailable to all others. This inadvertently prevents the ‘richer’, or more developed country from continuing to develop, in this sense of wages and production costs, and the safety standards of low skill labour that this largely occurs within. This is evidenced by production increasing 90% over the last ten years, while wages have only been increased at about 3%(excuse me the details are not 100% accurate, but they are very close).
The positives of immigration policies gone wrong, is that it aids in bringing the deeper imbalances of the world to our doorstep in a way that eventually becomes unavoidable. The conflicts will draw out solutions. Because of it, we are acutely aware of the global problems. If people want to solve immigration in their own countries(and many do), we must at every level shift from the profit, to the people principle. This means to end exploitation at all levels, ie wars, slave-wage materialism, and just in general thinking about how much money can be made in a venture, rather than what the higher purpose of the venture is.
We are all humans, live on the same planet, and breath the same air. Where does your merit put you in relation to the resource game of efficiency for all? Where do your talents or desires as a passionate individual belong? Then that is where you belong.
Any system that interferes with ones ability to relocate to a location of personal interest for societal benefit is out of line with any type of good advancement and meritocratic progress.
Where do you belong? And what part of the current system is holding you back?
Tackle it.
For myself, I am flipping houses without correct licensure. Leaving me in a position of loosing it all even though any rightful inspector would appreciate my work. The inspector is valid, the extortion of money and time to be licensed and insured is not.
Where are you pushing the envelope for your freedom from segregation of government and country borders?
Immigration is an issue fueled by those who desire segregation as a divisive tool for the advancement of elitist wallets, thus power.
1 Like
Hi Catalyst,
Thanks for your thoughts based off of my quoted contribution…
Certainly we are all humans, living on the same planet, breathing oxygen. Merit was absolutely factored into my blueprint. I acknowledge that nations and borders are to an extent, social constructs. Borders represent a demarcation where perhaps there is more of a gradation. Still, there are many particularities which exist among people, places and cultures which I think ought to be respected, but not over-exaggerated, and over-valued. My goal in putting this plan forward was not to suggest segregation, division or to increase the size of anyone’s wallet; the opposite is true. The goal is to find a balance with the particularities and universals. Stating purely that we are all the same only takes the universal into account. Similarly, passions, emotions, and desires must be balanced by reason and logic. Admittedly, reason and logic must also be balanced by passions, desires and emotions.
Unless we are advocating anarchy or libertarianism(which I don’t), there will be a governmental body in place. At some point there could be an international Meritocratic body, but it would still likely be in relation to regional Meritocratic bodies. These regional bodies, ie governments, have a responsibility and mandate. The primary responsibility of a regional governmental body is to implement a mandate in service and wisdom of the people whom are within it’s jurisdiction. Not to financial interests, and not to people outside of it’s jurisdiction. Still, it is in the interest of any governmental body to establish quality relations with as many regions as possible. These are the secondary and tertiary elements that a government must consider. An interest in others is also an interest in yourself, although I wish to stress that I don’t mean exploitation. Ideally, all regions would have good relations. When a government takes interest in another region, this could involve investment, and exchange(whether temporary or permanent) of skills, knowledge, resources, and people to help fulfill this task.
My goal is not to be too restrictive towards anybody. The maximal amount of freedom possible is something that I think and feel very strongly about. Conversely I am suggesting a policy that refrains from a type of freedom which could be too destructive. I think that it is important to present alternatives to the models that we already have in practice, and not to further them. I’m not expecting kudos for this, but we’ve got to start somewhere.
Wherever the rate of births exceed the rates of deaths, immigration must be very carefully and strictly controlled. It’s an issue of sustainability.
Hi Somebody_Nobody, and others.
Actually I thought that particular quote I quoted just sounded really good so I added it the end of my personal perspective on ‘why immigration is complicated and what we as individuals can do about it.’ Because we know it is complicated and unnecessarily so based on the current problem system we have. So my comments were not based on the quote or your reply, it just fit.
With the problem identified, my solution was to push the envelope of whatever institution affects one personally. In America, the Mexicans and many other Spanish speaking people of Latin and South America are indeed negatively affected by the U.S. immigration policy so that is likely why Manuel desires answers from the group concerning what is affecting him in his personal life. But is leaving your native lands - which you likely love - the right solution to begin with Manuel?
Freddie brings up a legitimate point which makes for another problem in this issue. If everyone comes to the U.S. looking to buy into the American dream that has been sold-out since the seventies then sustainability is out the window and then we ravage this great land even more than we have to this point. Turning our land into a dessert like most of yours brother. (Big ag plays their role in that too, not hardly just excess population.)
And that is the solution, so where can we make steps in our own life, where we already exist, to make life better instead of falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, “the grass is always greener on the other side.” No it is not…! So chasing the city of gold myths is near %100 propaganda every time, and so was the American dream myth, which, you have to be asleep to believe in as George Carlin said.
Another part of this conversation is our own government enabling more immigration and easier (believe it or not), which, will in turn help bring American excess down and in line with the rest of the world. Nothing necessarily bad given our unreasonable wasting here, but how about lets try bringing everyone else up to our level while eliminating waste? You know, abundance for all.
I have no doubt why many want to leave the south lands and come north; corruption, gangs, drug lords, lack of opportunity, fear of death, and certainly for a better life. Well, for one it is the same business here just more ‘civilized’ if you can even call it that, and for two how do you feel good about yourself when the mere act of going elsewhere actually affects other people negatively? Because it does. Overrunning the U.S. makes life worse for us.
That is another big problem (yes I have no problem dwelling on problems as the solutions are found within them) and Somebody_Nobody eluded to this saying:
And here is the solution as my personal philosophy states, “Matters of Taste - that which affect no one but the experiencer - and, Units of Reality or universals, - that which is the same for each and every one of us - are the social construct of The Dyadic Principle of Universality.” It is dialectical. If it doesn’t affect anyone but the doer then you are free to do it, everything else is a universal truth and should be respected as so. Pretty simple.
In today’s society we judge one by their shoes, but refuse to judge one by their religion? What the fuck? Shoes are a matter of taste that affects no one but the wearer, religion is universal like it or not and some have simply been proven wrong and should not be allowed at all outside of saving them as history.
If this basic social philosophy is widely followed then at least over time freedom becomes something apart from truth entirely; as it should be. If you are wrong about something and it can be proved, then the new social norms will simply put you out of commission. That is to say like a business that does not perform well, then no one will buy from it and they go out of business.
Now this personal change of how one walks through their own life and the interactions that person has with society can be shifted and allocated to other parts of ones life as well. Instead of paying to play the lottery of a new homeland, how about what can you do with whatever Matters of Taste you enjoy and Universals you know that can make even the tiniest of steps toward bettering your own life where you are now without affecting others negatively? What are the chances that if your idea works others will do it to? If your right to do said idea is compromised by ‘authorities’ then how many will stand on your side if you affected them positively? Can one who wants to relocate, make big enough changes in their own life and community to actually stand in defense against that which “affects” them negatively by pushing that envelope and thus staying put?
Wouldn’t you rather stay where you are? If not and your desires or ambitions or talents say to go elsewhere, then I welcome you to my land and piss on anybody who tells me not to welcome you.
Sweet, thanks for letting me share and elaborate.
1 Like
Thanks for the clarification, Catalyst. I understand your communication style much better now. I can see how I misinterpreted your quoting of me. In the back of my mind(should’ve been in the front) I could sort of tell that I might be doing that.
That’s a great point, and I think it applies not only with importation of people(as strange as that sounds to say) but also with the import export of ideas. When the rest of world looks to “develop” the look to the unsustainable models that we have created, instead of coming up with vast improvements of parallel means of development. Of course, it follows that they often want the same things ie, consuming material goods to live “the good life”.
That is a very fascinating comment that I completely agree with. I have always found it rather idiotic that people “judge a man by his shoes”. Well, apparently Pythagoras didn’t wear shoes, so people should put that in their pipes and smoke it! I’ve even known a philosophy ‘professor’ who thought that shoes were an accurate judge of character. In terms of judging, I have even seen women(I can only presume) in full clad burqas with flashiest, tackiest shoes and cellphones accessories that you could image. So that’s the dream is it? That’s the freedom? We might as well as be wearing burqas while we accessorize ourselves with the latest products.
Lastly, I would like to touch on the idea that immigration causes massive brain drain. Those with greatest earning potential (and often education), leave for where they can be rewarded to a greater capacity. One can only wonder if their entire decision maker process was always(at least partially) geared towards learning something that earns money.
The more I reflect on the major issues, the more apparent it becomes that they are almost completely psychological. Of course, our psychology has to function with our physical world, and it is this rather innate unconscious instinct that seems to lead us astray. In a sense our relationship to the physical aspects of life is what needs to be more deeply understood so that this instinct is properly directed.
That’s the spirit! And other great points as well.
Knucks…