Originally posted by Eladar
I meant check. I suppose you look down on how Americans spell words.
Yes, that does say it all.
Are countries running surplus budgets each year? If they are not, then why bring in people you can't afford to feed?
'Check' and 'cheque' are different words - they are just homonyms. They are spelled differently for that reason. The American incapacity to grasp such details of language is depressing. Dumbing down can be taken too far. You are turning into a nation of creationists and illiterates, which is mad, since literacy and bible reading once went hand in hand.
One can "bring in people" because we can afford to feed them and they are net contributors, as shown in countless studies around the world. Migrants are typically younger and more economically active, more likely to be highly motivated and more likely to be prepared to put in the hard work required to succeed. The intelligent question is if the developed countries can afford not to draw in migrants and most informed studies think not.
In any case, migrants are people with their own rights and needs which we do need to respect. The idea that the wealthy can live in a fortress from which they exclude all migrants is just foul and ultimately self defeating anyway. .
Government budget surpluses, despite the current mantra, are not associated with economic success but with economic stagnation. The determination of neoliberal economists and politicians to drive our economies into the mud by sucking all dynamism out of the economy is wildly distressing. If you do not invest you will not prosper. If you look into the way people lived in the 19th century you will see nothing attractive about it. You are an idiot to want to go back to those conditions. (The free land and natural resources America enjoyed through its expanding frontier have been enclosed and privatised and that pathway to opportunity will not return.)