Most highly unequal countries do not have immigration because such a large percentage of the population is poor, there is not much draw for more immigration. "Most ships that are sunk do not have water pouring into them. Therefore, if you are on a ship and see water pouring into it, you have nothing to worry about." "Most poor people have not lost large amounts of money in the stock market. Therefore, you should not worry that losing large amounts of money in the stock market could likely make you poor." You see are looking in isolation for a correlation between A and B, without looking at how X causes A and B. A country will effectively have no immigration if it is a bad country. We know very high amounts of inequality is associated with bad countries (even if we do not agree on the causes of that). Therefore, in addition to there being a positive correlation between immigration and inequality, there is also a negative one. Now, show me a country that does not have huge numbers of desperate poor people, which has had high levels of immigration for a long time and a low level of overall inequality.
Wrong. The USA, HK, Saudi Arabia, etc. are all highly unequal, yet all have lots of immigration (the Saudis and other oil-rich Gulf states don't allow permanent immigration, but have huge numbers of foreign workers). People seeking to leave their own countries are attracted to opportunity, not equality. Invalid analogy, as proved above. Australia, Canada, and many other countries that have had lots of immigrants pouring in for centuries are in no danger of becoming highly unequal. Other countries that have never had significant immigration are nevertheless highly unequal (i.e., have sunk despite never having had water pouring in). Therefore, your analogy is invalid and your hypothesis falsified. That is in fact correct: it is very unusual to become poor by losing money in the stock market, and stock market investing has almost no chance of making you poor (unless you are really stupid). No, you have decided that A causes B when it actually doesn't, and are therefore blind to the fact that C causes B. Wrong. Bad countries will have immigration as long as there are worse countries that permit emigration. See the Gulf states and their foreign workers' source countries. Inequality and being a bad country are both caused by the same thing: privilege. Nothing to do with immigration.
They have lots of immigration because they have more opportunities compared to other countries. If anything, now your argument seems to show that higher levels of inequality seem to be a good thing, which I suspect is the complete opposite of what you would want to argue. You can't have it both ways.
But that's another disingenuous argument that brings up a complicated issue. Australia and Canada had lots of open space and unsettled areas during most of their history of immigration, and these immigrants were settling in new places. Immigration moving into areas in which there are not already many people is a different matter. Someone homesteading on a prairie or starting a ranch in the outback isn't going to be detrimental.
America is a Federal Republic, just a fact of life. Federal government of the United States - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Federal_government_... The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government) is the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions. Seat: Supreme Court Building Founding document: United States Constitution Main organ: Cabinet Headquarters: The White House List of federal agencies · American Government (textbook) · State governments
You lost context of the argument. Your point here is meaningless to my argument. I notice you seem to lose perspective of the bigger picture very often in these threads. If I'm wrong, please tell us how that has anything to do with my argument.
Only the early European-source-country immigrants. Wrong again. Almost all immigration to Canada and Australia for the last 50 years has been to urban centers, not rural areas.
Right. Wrong again. Inequality =/= opportunity. You can't get me to fall for your non sequitur and strawman fallacies.
We should look at a graph to see how the inequality rate has changed relative to the immigration rate, over this period of time. Do you agree, in theory, with that idea?
No, it would be completely uninformative both because there is too little variation and because there are too many other variables.
I am sure we all agree with that... The inequality started in early 80s. Falls in line with Reagans huge tax cuts to the very rich. At the same time they shut down the Unions and opened the flood gates for immigration. This wasn't a Democrat policy, but an Art Laffer policy supported by the Globalist Jewish Super Rich, and the Anglo Saxon Military filthy rich... All whom wanted CHEAP LABOR. I have said it before, I lived it and remember it well. I adjusted of course, but millions are not smart enough to do that. Unions via republicans - It is better for you to not pay union dues and stick that money in your pocket. Unions via Democrats - They are allowing immigrants in by the millions that are stealing jobs and destroying unions to lower your pay. Republicans - we need CHEAP labor to pick the fruits and veggies, plus, no American wants to cut grass, immigrants are willing to do it cheap. This helps keeps YOU food prices down. Democrats - With time this will only lower the overall labor costs for the rich and wealthy. They will take away your worker rights. Republicans - No, we dont think big corps would destroy pay scale for their workers, if the worker is a good worker he will be paid accordingly. No big business would do that ! Fast forward 35 years. Democrats - All the immigrants need protected as humanly possible since they are already here and part of America. Republicans - Send them back, I dont have time for humanity !
