>> An aging population and a declining birthrate among the native-born population mean a shrinking work force in many areas.
So the solution is to import fresh meat? Immigration(skills based) brings a lot of good things but to argue that we need immigrants due the natality problem is wrong. It doesn't fix the issue, it just delays it and along with it brings other issues.
I hate when politicians play this card, in Europe too. That's why they loose points and move people closer to far-right parties. If the natality is so low we should first ask ourselves why is that and fix it(i.e give more "family benefits", make the environment more friendly to families).
I see the "immigration solution" just as an insult: if you don't want to rise children under these shitty conditions we will find/import people who want. Your issues don't matter to us.
The whole problem with the article's line of thinking is that, for the most part, immigrants have just as little interest in living in these places as the ones who already left.
The contiguous USA has a population density of ~104 person/sq mile, which would put it at around 140 on the list of most dense countries on earth, just after Lithuania.
>> He proposes a program of “heartland visas,” in which skilled immigrants could obtain work visas to the United States on the condition they live in one of the counties facing demographic decline — with troubled counties themselves deciding whether to participate.
So, we're suggesting "encouraging" immigrants out of the cities, because why...they're putting pressure on housing? They're already self-selecting a small-town life in plenty of places. Our local population, small town Kansas, is already 10-15% hard-working Honduran immigrants of questionable immigration standing. This is a truism across the state.
"Our country is full" is racist for "whites are in danger of losing their ethnic voting majority to latin americans". Evidence is given by his continued support for immigration from european and asian countries but not latin american ones:
The urban areas are full, and that’s because those urban areas have jobs for low skilled/less educated people. Rural America is not an attractive option for educated, highly skilled people, let alone the opposite. That’s the real problem that exacerbates immigration issues. Build up the rural areas. Imagine if Amazon’s farcical contest for HQ2 had chosen Kansas, Alabama, or even Vermont. It would have revolutionized the place for generations.
8 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 42.7 ms ] threadSo the solution is to import fresh meat? Immigration(skills based) brings a lot of good things but to argue that we need immigrants due the natality problem is wrong. It doesn't fix the issue, it just delays it and along with it brings other issues.
I hate when politicians play this card, in Europe too. That's why they loose points and move people closer to far-right parties. If the natality is so low we should first ask ourselves why is that and fix it(i.e give more "family benefits", make the environment more friendly to families).
I see the "immigration solution" just as an insult: if you don't want to rise children under these shitty conditions we will find/import people who want. Your issues don't matter to us.
So, we're suggesting "encouraging" immigrants out of the cities, because why...they're putting pressure on housing? They're already self-selecting a small-town life in plenty of places. Our local population, small town Kansas, is already 10-15% hard-working Honduran immigrants of questionable immigration standing. This is a truism across the state.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/12/5776731...