I Read 100 Studies on Immigration

SOURCES: lewwaller.com/immigration-a-l...
CHAPTERS:
00:00 - Studies on Immigration
03:44 - Immigration & Wages
09:10 - Immigration & The Economy
12:40 - Socioeconomics, Cultural Factors, Qualifications.
14:22 - Immigration & Crime
17:03 - Multiculturalism
22:03 - Immigration & Islam
24:17 - Undocumented Migrants
27:38 - Creating a Progressive Narrative
Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:
amzn.to/2ykJe6L
Follow me on:
Facebook: thethenandnow
Instagram: / thethenandnow
Twitter: / lewlewwaller
Subscribe to the podcast:
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2i...

[@MartinKuek]

There needed to be a section dedicated to housing. I see every angle covered, from wages to economics to social but not the one that really matters, housing.

[@johnw574]

Only pays any attention to studies which support his preferred bias and ignores anything that goes against it.

[@youknow6968]

Love your presentation style, no drama, no loudmouth claims, pure facts presented with reasoned interpretation, and leaving an opening for other's to contribute.

[@sionsmedia8249]

28:45 Interesting fact which might be relevant is that Scotland only has less than 7% of it's population being immigrants, compared to the wider UK average of about 15%. It is much easier to support an issue if that issue doesn't actually effect you.

[@DocRealTalk]

You really remind me of someone I knew a long time ago...I can't put my finger one it. Either way, great video. This channel is actually one of the best British KZbin channels I have come across. I always used to watch economic and political channels, but most of them were based in the US or Canada.

[@androgyme]

I think now the trick would be to look at historical patterns of global migration, having pretty thoroughly dealt with the relatively short time span socio-economic effects of immigration of the last century…and/or adding a geo-political context to help see into the future, which you mention as part of the goal of your research ~1:10 in the intro to this video

[@Zabuzakashi]

I think historical migrations before the advent of (somewhat) socialized nation states are mostly irrelevant in this conversation

[@henryjubeda7617]

It just didn't happen without a war or without resulting in war and this time is no different. Move away from the cities if you want to live.

[@Zabuzakashi]

@@henryjubeda7617 we have a wacky prepper here

[@badylbadyl]

Right. 100 studies...mostly “liberal” I guess, since “right wing” studies are mostly Haram. On avarage native workers don’t get pay less because of immigration. Well, on avarage you and your dog have three legs. High skilled workers and City boys definitely are not hurt by immigration, but maybe you should focus on labour and working class.

[@Zabuzakashi]

@@badylbadyl Show me any "right wing" study that's scientifically sound. They just don't exist my dude

[@FluffRecordings]

Some more details on Australia for anyone who is interested. I posted this in response to another commenter’s question, but I thought I’d post as a general comment as well. Prepare for a short thesis. Details below, with sources. TLDR: Australians consistently show consistent high support for the positive impact of immigration, multiculturalism and diversity, and relatively high support compared to other comparable countries for immigration intake (number of immigrants). But Australians take a hard stance on perceived ‘illegal’ immigration, consistently supporting boat turn-backs and offshore detention policy. I didn’t investigate perspectives as to why, but I can if anyone is interested. According to a review of the empirical literature, "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations" [1]. Another study [2] found "More than 70 percent of Australians considered the impact of immigration on the national economy and culture as positive". The Scanlon Foundation Mapping Social Cohesion Survey 2018 [3] puts this at 61% or 55% depending on how the question was asked, while 26% / 32% do not believe that immigration has had a positive impact. The same survey finds support for multiculturalism consistently very high - between 77% and 86%, depending on year and showing a slight decreasing trend. On the other hand, results are mixed on public attitudes toward immigration intake - the amount of immigrants entering Australia. Scanlon Foundation compilation of 2018 polls suggests between 37-63% think immigration is too high or should be reduced while 4-23% believe the opposite [3] (the range accounts for differences in polls, organisations, and differences in question asked). For a specific figure: Do you think the number of immigrants allowed into Australia nowadays should be reduced or increased? Reduce - 2010: 56.8% -> 2016: 44.2%; increase - 2010: 11.7% -> 2016: 25.1%; approx. 30% stay the same across the years [4]. (2010-2016 is significant as the time when immigration and asylums seekers loomed large in Australian politics - boat turn-back and offshore detention were major political debates; asylum seeker / refugee arrivals by boat peaked in 2012-2013) Meanwhile support for the policy of turning back boats carrying asylums seekers remains high: in 2010, 54.7% agree while 26.7% disagree; in 2016 48.5% agree while 31.4% disagree [4]. Support for offshore processing and detention is also high. A 2014-2015 poll showed 60% support for the conservative government’s hard line approach and polls between 2012 and 2015 show 67% support for offshore detention [5]. Most of these studies also show that attitudes map well to political views and party support as one might expect. Conservative right leaning = more negative toward immigration; Progressive left leaning = more positive. Overall, support for immigration, multiculturalism and diversity is consistently high in Australia and far higher than comparable countries like UK and Germany [2, 5]. I’ll finish with this quote to summarise: “The broad pattern of findings indicates that majority Australian opinion is favourable to both the country’s relatively large immigration and refugee intake; the concern is with unregulated mode of arrival, which is seen to pose a challenge to immigration policy and the integrity of a nation’s borders. Despite the hardened stand against boat arrivals in recent years, the level of anti-refugee sentiment has been less than in a number of Western countries.” [5] (In case anyone is interested in qualifications, I am a Sociology PhD student and teach in the field at Universities in Australia. I’m not an expert. My topic is unrelated to immigration, but it is my supervisor’s main focus) [1] Markus, A (2014) ‘Attitudes to immigration and cultural diversity in Australia’, Journal of Sociology, 50(1), pp.10-22. [2] Ueffing, P, Rowe, F and Mulder, Clara H (2015) ‘Differences in attitudes towards immigration between Australia and Germany: The role of immigration policy’, Comparative population studies, 40(4), pp.437-464. [3] Scanlon Foundation Social Cohesion 2018 report: scanlonfoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Social-Cohesion-2018-report-26-Nov.pdf [4] Gravelle, TB 2019. ‘Party identification, local context, and Australian attitudes toward immigration and asylum policy’, Social Science Research, 81, pp.77-90. [5] Markus, A & Arunachalam, D (2018) ‘Australian public opinion on asylum, Migration and Development’, Migration and Development , 7:3, 4, pp.35-447.

[@koalasarecool7823]

phenomenal

[@spoonikle]

sounds more like - people recognize that they themselves are immigrants (white settlers) while at the same time saying - “its enough, we got all the positive (white) immigrants. Gate Keep the boarder” Australia is not inclusive. Australia is very much an exclusive culture where being a “real Australian” is important, and they don’t included the native peoples. Australia did not suddenly divorce itself from racism when it became “politically correct” - adults simply learned to not speak in public, their private opinions and our optimism has effectively silenced them and we blissfully ignore the truth - that we all still hold positive colonial “WS” programming.

[@casteretpollux]

You are looking at attitudes but not causes of attitudes or impacts of press headlines. On an unrelated matter, blazing headlines including the word SUICIDE provoke a rash of suicides. Press coverage is controlled by a very small number of wealthy people. My personal observation is that press coverage of emigration tends to separate the event of migration with he cause and represents emigration as a personal choice of the individual, not the outcome of specific events. The impacts of US sanctions as a driver of sanctions is ignored generally. This video for example refers to "the Syrian civil war". In reality this war was a US proxy war aimed at ousting Assad and replacing him with a compliant US proxy. The outcome for sanctioned countries of loss of skilled persons is ignored in this video. As is the incidence of immigrants who are working in jobs in which they are not using their higher skills in the job. E.g. taxi drivers with IT degrees. A serious problem of this "study of studies" is that the quality of research generally is uneven. Language also is an ignored. But overall it is a worthwhile exercise if not over relied on.

[@hootcompute]

Your video clarified my understanding of this issue and helped me understand things more clearly. Thanks for this. 🇨🇦

[@williamoldaker5348]

Highly educational content as always. Thank you for the video.

[@universome511]

We were always paying a million dollars for a shitty flat, We were always not able to safely go into parts of our cities, we were always unable to understand the foreign languages spoken by the people around us and we were always getting beheaded and run over and blown up

[@zljmbo]

I'm loving this, great job

[@marimota5083]

As usual, an amazing job putting a topic in a knowledgeable, fact base way

[@alayoncito001]

Would check on sound dampening equipment for the live recordings, Thanks for everything you are amazing.

[@neonnoir9692]

Need to know who funded each study and note legal vs illegal immigrants.

[@davidsmith-fc9cu]

My ancestors were Huguenots who came to Britain in 1700 in 1760 they were still registering births deaths and marriages in French. Even in 1790 French was still being used. it takes a hundred years to fully integrate people to a new land, and to forget the old.

[@Olematonnimi]

100 years? Way too long.

[@vincenzhog8347]

nice new format for your channel

[@Gruuzii]

I'd be interested to know what you have found out about the status of seasonal migrants and their wages. People who are imported and exported to pick fruit or harvest crops for much lower wages than natives would prefer.

[@henryjubeda7617]

Minimum wages don't apply to migrant workers. Natives are not allowed to take jobs below minimum wage and instead they get paid to sit at home and consume harmful things.

[@Gruuzii]

@@henryjubeda7617 the point is that there does in fact exist a form of work going on within the borders of European countries that can only exist by not paying a good wage to the natives who populate it.

[@samaraisnt]

If that seasonal import of workers didn’t exist…literally the whole world would starve, those crops just wouldn’t get picked. That is BACK BREAKING work, very few local people would even consider that as a job. Literally ask any fruit farmer if they could exist without seasonal workers. This comment feels so out of touch with reality.

[@Gruuzii]

@@samaraisnt so you're saying the world would starve if you couldn't pay a group of people below minimum wage to harvest crops?

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

I suspect if countries like the US and Europe weren't so reliant on bringing in low wage workers we might be much further along in automating these tasks so noone has to do the backbreaking work.

[@unhumanote]

I'm not first but interested on the video, you always do a great work, keep on going!

[@p0nyboy362]

GREAT information. thankyou

[@Turnil321]

28:39: why do you name Australia as a country that is pro-immigration? I thought Australia was very conservative with its immigration policy.

[@adetolaayodele3425]

Yes, at best conservative. My brither was vigorously scrutinised before he was allowed in. Africans generally are not liked.

[@9000ck]

We let in alot of skilled migrants. We are terrible on refugees. Really terrible.

[@samuel5742]

@@9000ck We do pretty well, they're intercepted, illegal migrants don't make it into the country and those that are are locked up offshore to serve as a warning to the rest.

[@organicod2438]

Depends on the colour to a certain degree, but also on the qualifications and the reasons for the workers being there. There are a lot of Irish nurses, for example. A lot of Chinese scientists and students. A lot of foreign workers on fruit farms. A lot of foreign workers in Abattoirs. Industries that have high turnover in staff and use the strict immigration policies to throw the workers back out of the country after they are no longer needed, cost too much or have taken what they needed from the country (e.g. an education). Meanwhile, a lot of highly educated Australians leave to other countries in the brain drain, because they can't find permanent jobs in sciences, for example. They are often welcomed in other countries because they are highly skilled and not seen as the standard "foreign migrant worker".

[@iexist1300]

It's mainly if you come in a boat your life is over, if you come in a plane, we welcome you with open arms.

[@MickyAspire]

For Europe, studies from pre-2015 are basically irrelevant as far as today is concerned. The type of immigrant has drastically changed.

[@geoffreycanie4609]

Great job!

[@quakeknight9680]

As someone who is pro-welfare, pro-urban planning, pro-choice and non-religious this is the only thing i'm against.

[@ashtimbo]

congrats you're centre left bernie

[@quakeknight9680]

@@ashtimbo Damn, i thought i was Center-Right

[@Eddison33]

Good video! Now, I would like you to also address the issues with the countries people migrate from. migration is usually good, or at least not bad, for the developed countries that have something to offer. But developing countries have more of a 'brain drain' problem rather than a fear of illegal migrants from somewhere else.

[@badylbadyl]

Okay...ish :) 100 studies...mostly “liberal” I guess, since “right wing” studies are mostly Haram. On avarage native workers don’t get pay less because of immigration. Well, on avarage you and your dog have three legs. High skilled workers and City boys definitely are not hurt by immigration, but maybe you should focus on labour and working class.

[@billmartins5545]

Wow you are clueless. I'm from North/West Europe and immigration has cost our societies tremendously.

[@Tocoolant]

The distaste for the other as an unconscious competitive mechanism, the small jealousy and possessive thinking of what can be taken from me. The empathy towards what is similar and rejection of what is different than we are used to. The fear of losing something valuable through the changes. The protective impulse towards our siblings and alike. The projection of our history and common legacy in our ego. The tacit menace of losing power and control. The fear of the unknown as a self defense mechanism. Overcoming these natural feelings requires more than a couple of studies and having all the facts in hand. Requires a will to move towards the uncomfortable that very few can. Unfortunately no one believes in facts that disprove their emotions and most will always prefer a narrative that justify their impulses than one that does not. I still have hope but will take a long time...

[@daddy6757]

yet, another well made video.

[@shanefoster2132]

Is this a re-upload?

[@TheMutantProductions]

Great stuff, how many hours did you spend reading these documents?

[@korte0198]

Probably not that many. Or he just wasn't as open minded as he had claimed to be from the get-go. Many of his conclusions were rather superficial and could've (at times) just as easily gone into the other direction (if had been motivated to).

[@user-dz4eb5rb3g]

@@korte0198 he still had to read about 100 documents if he was really superficial please tell us how Imigrabts are bad

[@zacharybittner6003]

@@user-dz4eb5rb3gI have to agree with him. I have read these same conclusions from studies but they don’t really explain their logic. Consider the logic of these two statements: “immigrants do not cause lower wages except marginally for low income individuals” “Immigrants are over represented in management and business ownership and the highest paid jobs” How do immigrants simultaneously not lower wages, but are over represented in the highest paid jobs? If those immigrants were not in those highest paid jobs it is as if those job cease to exist.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

Yeah I'm pretty sure he went into this knowing what he wanted to find or justify.

[@berkcanbilgi4638]

Perfect video!!

[@thorakvideos2495]

Fantastic work!

[@michaelking5961]

What you aren’t accounting for is identity. It’s isn’t all about economics. A nation is a home.

[@abelabel3664]

If there are homes as big as 1 billion+ people, then there can certainly be a home for 8 billion

[@randalhopkins9984]

And how is a nation's identity threatened by an immigration?

[@ManicEightBall]

How can you say that wages are going down for the bottom 20%, and up for the top 20%, and that somehow this is "overall" a good thing? That just means the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. That's a bad thing! There is no "overall" in this. It's like saying one guy got murdered, but one woman had a kid, so it's good overall. It's not for the murder victim, and this is not good for poor people.

[@victorcode2075]

Bullseye. That's what a lot of these studies show. Things get worse at the bottom and better at the top, but the rich benefit so much it 'outweighs' the costs.

[@martinkurien8813]

So you stopped 5 minutes into the video on the very first study and ignored the rest which don't have this finding? Very telling. Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer is a real problem. I agree. Most do. It is absurd to put this on the immigrants (often low wage earners themselves) and not against the owning classes who suppress wages across the board for profit. This exact division prevents strong unity in workers identifying their common enemy in wage suppression. Workers then fight each other rather than demanding their share in the profits they generate.

[@onetwo3411]

To say immigration does or doesn't drive down wages for existing populations without properly considering the composition of the current workforce and other industrial and economic trends is a complete oversimplification though I do agree with the majority of the video's sentiment.

[@frankie5373]

Title should be "I cherrypicked 100 studies"

[@abelabel3664]

I wonder what number would be high enough to characterize it as non-cherry-picking...

[@Aidan42781]

Surely you, Frankie, would never cherry pick *100* whole ass studies. Surely, you would take an unbiased approach, provided you bothered to do any research at all.

[@raphaelradespiel9970]

Great job my friend

[@daniellealessi1838]

This is by far and away my absolute favorite channel…I love everything about your documentaries…this is where KZbin shines…channels like this that educate and captivate remind me why platforms like this should exist… thank you! ❤

[@Burningpaladin1]

Hmmm while generally I agree, I'd like to push back a bit on the idea that immigrants would still be as entrepreneurial in a more open border state, as those results are likely screwed by the fact that those immigrants have the easiest time moving due to the demand for their degrees, and so the results are likely screwed in that instance

[@TheMusicalFruit]

It should be possible to tease this out by comparing countries with more and less open immigration policy. I think you'd find that demand usually outstrips supply even in the countries with the most permissive policies, but I could be wrong.

[@Imanfly]

Skewed*

[@EdwardSkihands]

I don't have a study to back this up but, common sense says: Those people that immigrate to other country are more often than not extroverted and willing to take their chances against unknown odds of success.

[@tylercross8877]

Adding a comment for the algorithm. Will stan you on Twitter too

[@MattFRox]

I am not hearing any argument here that I haven't heard for the past ~20 years. I just want to stop yawning.

[@rustyshackleford1465]

No one will complain about Immigration, if the new neighbors are peaceful, civilized Buddhists for an example...

[@Godsen5]

I think the most urgent follow-up of this video concerns the most problematic issue: our relation to Islam and all its different groups and sub-cultures (because there are many, and with a wide variety of takes both on their identity, their culture, our culture and their intersection). How do we deal with Islam? It is a matter of social policies but it comes back hard on the philosophical facet of the matter.

[@ordohereticus3427]

This topic does need to be discussed by good faith analysts on the left as opposed to the knuckle draggers on the reactionary right (who have flooded the comments with their usual “my people are being replaced” spiel). But it also needs to be done with perspective and without jingoisms.

[@Godsen5]

@@ordohereticus3427 Also a video on "the great replacement" would be pretty educative, informative, interesting and again come back to philosophical discussione underneath. But while this would still be "we the rightful judge another conspiracy theory", one video confronting Islam would be "what are the real conceptual and practical limits of the inter-culturalism we still support?". The numbers in the survey kind of beg the question: "How do we talk with people that don't want to talk with us? How do we mix and exchange with people that don't seem interested in it?". That challenges us more. But again, a thorough analysis of the "replacement theory" would be urgent, given the European Zeitgeist.

[@ammanite]

Muslims have no problems integrating in the US and Canada. The issue is with you Europeans.

[@abelabel3664]

We educate people so that they soften their religious beliefs. That is what happened with other religions and that is what happened to the vast majority of muslims.

[@henryjubeda7617]

Just don't let them in and deport the ones that are here. I have no interest in religion spread through fire, rape and the sword and neither should you.

[@violetaisling]

I find it really interesting that you count Australia among the countries that have positive asylum seeker/migrant policies. The data you cite is really intriguing to me, considering we've had extremely strict (I, and most people I know, would argue despicable and violent) policies regarding "illegal" immigration since at least 2008 (accelerating in severity since the introduction of "Operation Sovereign Borders" in 2013). Part of OSB has involved paying off smaller neighbouring countries to hold asylum seekers for what is oficially called "offshore processing", but would more accurately be described as concentration camps (Manus Island and Nauru having become particularly infamous for their inhumane conditions). The increasing unpopularity of these camps is at least one of the contributing factors in the previous government's loss at the last election, however 100+ days into the new regime and the new government hasn't announced any plans in this area which is beginning cause tension with more left-leaning groups (for the past six months there have been weekly protests and demonstrations in my city re: the treatment of asylum seekers). I would hazard a guess that the stats you're referencing relate to "legal" immigrants or previous waves of migration (we had a big boom in our Vietnamese population during the 70s and 80s, and in our Sudanese and Ethiopian population in the 90s and 00s).

[@Pensnmusic]

I would love clarification. The Australian off shore detention of asylum seekers is as racist as it is inhumane, from what I've seen. I would assume, though, that Australia doesn't count asylum seekers they prevented from so much as touching the mainland as immigrants. It's also a relatively recent policy, right? There's probably no data available for the people suffering under that policy available.

[@vojislavl6665]

Funny hearing that Australia is somehow seen as a positive example, as you mentioned. However while it is unpopular with many in Australia, it is popular among other groups, unfortunately. The liberals, as much as i hate admit it, do well electorally on this agenda as they use monstrous propaganda and fear tactics to scare Australians, and many of them eat it up. So to say it is deeply unpopular the way Australia treats asylum seekers, is a bit of a stretch. It is more like 50/50 on this, imo.

[@organicod2438]

It would have to be because the data doesn't differentiate between the kinds of immigrants. Those kept in detention centres are a small percentage of the many immigrants who travel to Australia. This doesn't justify the use of such barbaric methods, but only explains why the data shows a net positive influence on immigration policy. It has long been a debate as to whether foreign students should be counted as immigrants, because it has political weight. Considering that education is a primary export of Australia, one can see how the data can easily be skewed.

[@nuvisionprinting]

@@Pensnmusic from what I have managed to gather as an Australian who is a little more than left leaning. They border on torture camps and also slave labour camps. Which is really quite disturbing given the amount of money that I've heard/read has been thrown at this so called issue. Some figures show around 1 million per prisoner per year kept in these conditions so they should have access to things like some degree of education, food and shelter etc yet have been kept in hut like conditions and are generally malnourished.

[@huhuhuh3217]

@Pensnmusic it isn’t racist, wanting to protect your country from illegal immigration is not racist. If those that were coming illegally were white they’d get the same treatment. It isn’t our fault that the people illegally coming to Australia are non-white.

[@organicod2438]

You know what would be interesting with regards to the perception of immigration in colonised countries is the relative perception towards integration of the indigenous peoples. A lot of countries expect integration from migrants, but it's a far more difficult topic with regards to indigenous integration and how it is handled or whether it even should be.

[@Pensnmusic]

The obvious answer, to me*, is that "integration" isn't an inherent good and *can* be a form of genocide if it's forced onto a population. Having a diverse set of cultures and histories within a society give it many unique perspectives from which to draw. I don't see any benefit to integration beyond preventing highly anti social behavior that isn't somehow mitigated or explained by material circumstances (like stealing food, while being desperately poor, to feed your family).

[@organicod2438]

@@Pensnmusic It seems to me it would only be seen as a form of genocide if you subscribe to the notion that humans are racially different, and some form of genetic purity is linked to culture. Integration goes both ways and culture is fluid. Most issues arise when people hold too firmly onto a perceived sense of "culture". When different cultures mingle, they're shared and combine, typically for the better and anti-social behaviours (in the greater context) are generally abandoned. Food is typically the great integrator, but language often also is a good sign of cultural integration in various nations. I'm interested now as to why you think it can be a form of genocide. That seems like an extreme term.

[@deathbyastonishment7930]

@@organicod2438 Have a look at Australian history for example, where the official government policy was to “breed out” aboriginal people (and destroy the aboriginal culture) by stealing aboriginal children and raising them in white communities, and by forcing all “half bloods” off the reservations where aboriginal people were forcefully confined. The idea was to integrate the aboriginal people into the white population, without keeping any traces of their culture, the result would have been a genocide were it completed.

[@myla6135]

I agree. Integration is interesting. You are right when in your reply to Pensnmusic you say mingling will ensure integration but if the level of immigration is very high it can sometimes stop that mingling. Partly because birds of a feather etc but sometimes for very low paid immigrants (someone who works a menial job with very long hours) there's no time or opportunity (or money) for mingling. For higher paid immigrants it's much easier. Also it requires two or more parties to mingle and the host population cannot expect integration unless they play their part in that. Again much, much easier at higher paid levels. In fact I sometimes think an Italian banker has far more in common with an English banker than he has with an Italian street sweeper. Often integration happens most easily at school level, especially so for the lower paid. But even here once a school is majority immigrants it gets less easy.

[@organicod2438]

@@myla6135 Very good points. I also think it's mostly children/generational immigrants who go on to integrate. You make a good case for why immigrant populations should be supported so as to promote mixing and prevent over-concentration. It tends to be in more capitalistic societies that quasi-"ghetto" areas develop. It is understandable for foreigners to come together, birds of a feather, but through schooling and community infrastructure, the mingling is promoted. Obviously, this requires measures to prevent bigoted notions hindering integration from both sides. In most situations, host populations are typically inviting, but the loudest voices are often the bigoted minority. Furthermore, as you implied, the most affected portions of the host populations are usually the worse off financially. In the end, the best remedy is a more equal society and a better educated society. However, a country with good social support and a welcoming community often results in higher stress due to higher immigration, as the country is more inviting.

[@jaimelugo4428]

Such a useful video. Great job

[@epochphilosophy]

Such a great video. Your output and quality amazes me. This one hits extremely home with me. I'm from Kansas City, as many know (many do not) there is a Kansas City, Missouri, (what most think of) and a Kansas City, Kansas. The Kansas side is one of the most diverse areas in the United States due to immigration. Since then, white populations have, for the most part, slowly left. There is this attitude that it is a "rough" or "bad area" where you don't want to go or live. This attitude has all but gotten worse since the white-flight that happened after the end of American manufacturing. Yet, crime in the area with the rise of immigration has shrunk. It is less than what it was with a traditional anglo-population. You ask most in the Kansas City area and they would be shocked simply by way of how stigmatized the area is.

[@epochphilosophy]

@Arbane's Sword of Agility Not sure what you mean by this. The point is, is there is no real, tangible statistical correlation with crime and immigration. And even in the case of my hometown, immigration lowered crime.

[@epochphilosophy]

@Arbane's Sword of Agility Saying words in a vacuum doesn't mean anything. A 3rd grader knows correlation doesn't default to causation. I don't know what you mean.

[@Vitlaus]

under reporting is preferable

[@karlhawkins5164]

@Arbane's Sword of Agility this has been shown over and over to be true, higher immigration, gets higher diversity, gets less crime

[@thejeweloffoursouls]

@Arbane's Sword of Agility okay but you can't use deductive reasoning with everything, that's not how we live our lives because for most things, we can only say what's highly likely or not to be the case based on inductive logic that looks at trends, so... your point?

[@kristis3410]

I wish the list of sources had dates noted. I imagine it would be very important to take into account the number of immigrants entering a country or area within a given period. An overburdened system for getting them settled could lead to worse outcome. An influx of a million within a few years is likely to have different effects than a million over the course of a decade. Just an idea.

[@robynbieber6312]

Or you can do the research on your own. 💁🏾‍♀️

[@Devedrus]

Has your team considered submitting these findings as your own meta-analysis? Most of the ones you cite in the video cover less than 100 sources, and the peer review process would likely help refine the arguments.

[@Zabuzakashi]

Summarizing some papers in a video is a lot different than performing statistics on papers spanning continents, decades and methodologies. Not to downplay the video - i think most arguments are sound - but there's a gap between this and an academic publication

[@korte0198]

What a ridiculous comment.

[@sense_maker1816]

Great work as always

[@avicennam7708]

I'm glad you see there is a difference between the UK and Scotland in mindset with immigration. As we are open to people coming to Scotland:)

[@counterweight320]

Scots aren’t the brightest bunch.

[@avicennam7708]

@@counterweight320 it is true 😆like no engineer, scientist, economists or philosophy come from Scotland lol. At least we have free university for Scottish nationals as we are needing the help.

[@luisbarrera1853]

excellent video, it helped me understand based on evidence this great and complex issue that is immigration. It means a lot to me, I am Venezuelan and like millions of my compatriots I will soon pass the ranks of being just another immigrant.

[@pattyofurniture]

Not just another immigrant, an adventurer.

[@destinyzroom]

Thank you for this video, I'm an undergrad studying environmental sustainability, so I learned a bit about international development. But we never discussed tabloids and other media outlets role in directing public opinion contrary to empirical findings. That seems super important to me and I wonder if I'll ever have time to study why that's allowed. I think it hinders those conversations about creative policy you mentioned. Is propaganda studies maybe where I'd find out more about this shift of public opinion by certain media? Thanks again!

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

I see the "problem with immigration" as being less about the potential economic downsides and more about the political, social, and cultural impact of mass immigration. There's a kind of political and social infrastructure operating in the background of daily life that we sort of take for granted, and immigration at too high or too fast a rate I think puts stress on this system and risks overloading it. What you want is immigration at a rate that doesn't produce so much social friction that it undermines social solidarity and our sense of civil equality, which I regard as a precondition for political cooperation. What you definitely don't want is to take on more immigrants than you can successfully integrate into our existing institutions, and produce a de facto underclass of unassimilable "others" whom the native born at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy are forced to compete with and ultimately start to resent. That's a recipe for rightwing populist reaction -- the very opposite of the class-based solidarity that is required for a more broadly egalitarian political project to succeed in the long term.

[@Caligula138]

Let me guess, he does not change his opinion

[@LuisCarruthers]

The way this guy skated over the Islam issue is incredibly revealing and tells you how in denial he is.

[@Aidan42781]

What, pray tell, is the "Islam issue?"

[@LuisCarruthers]

@@Aidan42781 Well he touches on it in the video doesn't he? Just very briefly. It's the fact that Muslims in the UK are far less liberal than the rest of the population. Given the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UK and that they have loads of children, this is not something that will just go away by us not confronting it. You know about the Batley Grammar School debacle? You know about the Quarangate situation in Wakefield? You know about the reluctance of the police and local councillors in Rotherham to take the grooming gangs issue seriously?

[@TonyRule]

It may not affect the wage numbers, but it certainly calms wage growth, so inflation does the damage. In any case, it's not solely the economic proposition that leads to opposition to immigration. This push for 'diversity' is utterly ridiculous in the extreme. The increasing of diversity is best achieved when you don't blend everyone together in one geographical location, but to have them exist largely in relative isolation. Why should the English culture get mashed up with that of North Africa and Albania? Think about why people move even locally within the borders of one country - from suburb to suburb - to be with people more in line with their own values, in locations more to their taste. Most migrants move only for financial gains. 10:19 *_"Migrants in the top 1% of earners contributed 8% of the income tax in the UK"_* This is a classic case of a misleading statistic delivery. It doesn't mention how much of the income tax the non-migrants contribute, nor their relative proportions of the 1%, not to mention the proportion of net taxpaying migrants, that is to say migrants that pay more tax than they receive in tax-funded services. 10:31 And there's another one that, without context and qualification, easily sounds definitively like something it does not mean. I mean, who knew? More people paying tax contributes to a greater tax income for the government - it's a miracle!

[@think2positive]

"i want to create a progressive narrative" hm how serius can i take all this when you go in with something this close to a pre-decided conclusion.

[@abelabel3664]

you are free to read the papers he mentioned yourself

[@jgomo3877]

​@@abelabel3664 alas, if only we were free to speak about it, and have our democratic wishes upheld. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with the sentiment that "all immigration is good, you're motivated by racism if you dont believe", then no matter how strong the public support for immigration reduction, or even stabilisation, you don't get it. In the UK almost 4 in 5 people like a reduction to immigration. This proportion has held almost constant for 10 years. Immigration continues to increase, against the wishes of the people.

[@robynbieber6312]

@@jgomo3877 so what is it then? If you don’t like the results you’re going to say the studies are wrong or, oh well, that’s not what the people want. Perhaps if the people are educated on the data they wouldn’t be adverse to immigration. 😵‍💫

[@jgomo3877]

@robynbieber6312 Nothing in any of these studies can excuse the deliberate and complete contempt with which the governments of Western countries have treated their own people, or their constant subversion of the democratic will of their people for lower immigration. No amount of economic growth or data will compensate for the destruction of their people's culture. No amount of benefits of any kind excuses a consistent 25 year+ campaign of propagandisation of their own people to promote immigration, and the suppression, and smearing of those who would campaign against it. The largest issue of all is that for decades, the government has moved consistently against the democratic wishes of the people, the implications of which should be disturbing to everyone regardless of which side you are on in the immigration debate.

[@jgomo3877]

@@robynbieber6312 Nothing in any of these studies can excuse the deliberate and complete contempt with which the governments of Western countries have treated their own people, or their constant subversion of the democratic will of their people for lower immigration.

[@SvartVargSkog]

imagine needing papers to know immigration only benefits a small rootless international clique but not the nations which are invaded

[@EdwardSkihands]

What..? You nazis just won't make any sense...

[@SvartVargSkog]

@@EdwardSkihands if you have to ask nothing and no one can save you. But for starters: immigration from low IQ countries keeps wages down, is a burden on social systems, uproots the common cultural narrative, destroys social cohesion and lowers social capital. All in all not a good deal. And we didn't even start the problem with demographic genocide .

[@SvartVargSkog]

Let's see if you also delete this comment

[@EdwardSkihands]

@@SvartVargSkog see? No sense what so ever, just a list of words.

[@EdwardSkihands]

Imagine being a nazi and thinking someone would argue with you instead of punch you on face

[@gustavogavanzo8903]

Thanks!

[@giodif]

Something worth noting here is that none of the statistics matter if the population doesn't want migrants, immigrants, or illegal aliens in their population. This video discusses a progressive narrative justifying why nations should accept migration of any sort (illegal or otherwise), but thats beside the point. Foreign-born individuals aren't entitled to the rights of properly naturalized or native citizens. At least in the US, many folks who oppose 'migration,' oppose what they view as the prioritization of illegals over natives. They oppose this so vehemently in part because the politics of immigration are volatile and those opposed to this 'progressive narrative' are branded as xenophobic, backward and evil. By and large, these folks aren't against immigration as a concept; they accept immigration as an element of the US's success. My understanding is that in 2020 about 3/4 of Americans considered immigration a good thing, but at the same time about 2/3 of Americans wanted illegal immigration curtailed. These two views aren't incompatible. Their problem with the 'progressive narrative,' is that it moralizes the desire to control the amount of immigration that a nation should accept. The US takes an enormous number of refugees each year and a large portion of the population is already non-native. The vast majority of Americans embrace these facts as an element of our openness, but it doesn't mean that borders don't matter or that we shouldn't uphold the rule of law. It is a hard pill to swallow for many Americans when they are painted as bigots for holding these views. I'm not supposing the speaker in the video has politicized the issue, but I live in the rural US and understand the views of at least some of those opposing his progressive narrative. Just adding color to the conversation.

[@randalhopkins9984]

But where have "illegals" as you call them been prioritized over US citizens? Without citizenship, one cannot obtain most (if any) benefits from the government, immigrants both legal and illegal are more likely to be in harsh socioeconomic conditions (which has been true for the entirety of American history, from the Irish to the Italians to the Chinese, so on and so on); if "illegals" were prioritized then I'm sure most people would take issue with that. However, prioritization of funds is not the same as space in which to live. I don't think any human or governing body has the right to tell any group of people from any nation that they cannot enter their nation; should people not be free to move where they please unless they, as an individual, have done something to restrict that access? Given that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than native born citizens, contribute more to the tax base per person than they take, etc. there seems to be minimal risk. As someone who's lived in numerous areas throughout the Northeastern US, I can say I definitely prefer my neighborhood that I live in currently to any prior one, and the population happens to be majorly Arab and East Asian immigrants, with a fair bit of Dominicans in recent years. These fears about immigrants seem to come from those who have never lived around anyone besides native-born Americans.

[@giodif]

@@randalhopkins9984 I'm not trying to argue against the economic benefits of immigration. As I stated, my comment wasn't intended to dispute statistics. My point is that the statistics shouldn't override the views of citizens. In reality, governments can and do disallow entry into their county for practical or political reasons. Border controls are exercised extensively by all other developed nations, many of whom have far fewer immigrants than the US. We have about 50 million. The country with the second highest number of immigrants has about 15 million. I think it's Germany. Roughly speaking. My numbers might be off. We should be clear and distinguish between legal and illegal immigration because progressive talking points often conflate the two by lumping all immigration into the general term of "migration." This positioning insinuates that those who oppose illegal immigration oppose all immigration, which isn't true. Most people resent illegal immigration specifically. The message to people who resent the significant uptick in illegal immigration can be summarized as: "Opposing illegal immigration is zenophobic. Statistics prove we know what's best for you, so get with the program." This sentiment heavily moralizes a simple proposition: nations should govern their borders, and citizens should have a say in who is allowed into their communities. The sentiment also misses the point that statistics should inform policy, not dictate policy. Americans should be able to curtail illegal immigration whether or not the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in country are "good for us" economically. Finally, it's unfair to assume that those who oppose illegal immigration have "fears" born out of insular lives. I currently live in the south-eastern us and have lived in many states in rural and urban settings. Immigrant communities can be found everywhere, in small towns and tier-one cities. Many immigrants in my state are from Mexico and Central America. Still, we have several Muslim, Korean, and India communities that are just as conservative as the reddest red state Republican. Some of the people who oppose loose borders are these same legal immigrants. For what it's worth, I think immigration is excellent. For all I care, we can import a million new Americans every year for the next fifty years. But they should come legally. In essence, that's all anyone wants. Respect US borders. Respect US laws. Other nations demand our citizens respect their laws. Citizens of other nations should respect our laws as well.

[@Ehuatl]

I didn't see you talk a lot about differences in immigration laws. For Example: Yes, Canada is depending quite a bit on immigration, but they steer immigration quite heavily by their point system. That kind of immigration is quite different from illegal border crossing from e.g. Mexico into the US. Immigration is a very diverse phenomenon, it's in my opinion not intellectually honest to just go for average of immigration, one would have to differentiate there between types of immigrants.

[@mooftwosnum1fan480]

Although I understand your point, if you check his sources linked in the description of the video, the vast majority of studies he referred to are studies either on America or meta-studies that include America, besides for some outliers justo not he UK

[@Ehuatl]

@@mooftwosnum1fan480 There must be quite a diversity in people immigrating into the US as well (immigration into Canada would be immigration into North America, so I guess by 'America' you refer to the USA). So even there you'd have to look at that, if you wanna be honest. Especially when one rich and well off immigrant can statistically make up for a lot of not so well off immigrants.

[@mooftwosnum1fan480]

@@Ehuatl well hypothetically if one rich immigrant making up for several less fortunate immigrants and the consequences thus are neutral, would the only consequence be the majority culture being a smaller share of the population? What’s the pressing problem?

[@Ehuatl]

​@@mooftwosnum1fan480 The consequences would only be theoretically - that is on average - neutral. Positive as well as negative consequences are not distributed equally over the population. It's basically the problem that's brought up in regard to wages, but wages are only one way in which socio-economic benefits and costs are distributed. (I think its fine that those reviewing economists think it doesn't come down on the side that Borjas argues for, but to believe them I'd have to see evidence, rather than take their words in a review for it.) And yes, distribution problems can be tackled, there. I think if one would really do that, and get the economic benefits of immigration to be felt by the ones that aren't well off, one instantly would have many more people supporting immigration. (I think really that that's what one would have to do if one wants to give an progressive approach, there. But to do that you need to analyze distribution of economic benefits and costs to begin with and I got a feeling that's rather something that's avoided to be looked at, for fear that that'd give 'the other side' ammunition.) Like on average where I live a full-time worker makes 4100EUR/month but the median income is at 3300EUR/month (both pre-taxes). So, on average, half of the population is at least 800EUR/month better off than they actually are. Yaaay [irony off]. Distribution matters.

[@MelGibsonFan]

@@Ehuatl Following along with this point, small groups of immigrants from say,East/South Asia, will skew statistics on crime when thrown into broad brush averages that include migrants from Mexico and Central America. The whole immigration debate is too deep in the culture for honest discussion in my opinion.

[@larsthorwald3338]

Ah, OK, so I shouldn't be concerned about an influx of migrants from a country where female infanticide is common, "honor killings" are rarely prosecuted and cases of murder due to insufficient dowry are officially classified as "cooking accidents." Got it. Thanks!

[@JtheCritic]

Most of these things happen not just because it is legal in those countries, but mandated and enforced by the community or even government officials. When moved into a western countries, where these things are illegal, looked down upon, and a threat to a migrant's chance of being able to stay, these practices fall by the wayside. Not to say no extremists ever commit these crimes, but that they are the extreme minority without the threat of community backlash or government action forcing them to do them.

[@camadams9149]

4:08 You mean immigration has a very large impact on the wages of low skilled workers. Listen, the pandemic halted ALL immigration (legal and illegal) for 2 years. We saw a massive surge in "labor shortages" and the wage gains that accompany a tight labor market. Im not interested in "studies". Why? Do I trust academic institutions (foreign students are cash cows), think tanks (funded by institutions that benefit from unlimited cheap labor), or financial groups (cheap labor boosts stock prices)? No, and they are the ones putting out these studies. No "credible" study is going to say "Yes. Mass immigration provides an infinitely large labor pool. It allows us to turn workers into wage slaves"

[@misirlou5179]

pretty convenient that any verifiable data that contradicts ur worldview is in some way fake and biased huh

[@robynbieber6312]

This is an ignorant take. How can you say you don’t “trust” something you’ve never read? Go research yourself instead of assuming everything is incorrect. Do you even know how to analyze academic papers?

[@camadams9149]

@@robynbieber6312 "How can you say you don’t “trust” something you’ve never read?" The same way I wouldn't trust a stranger convicted of abusing the disabled. I don't know them, but I know their work, so I can cut out the middle step of getting to know them. "Do you even know how to analyze academic papers?" Is that suppose to be a sloppy attempt at credentialism? I say all my academic achievements, you say those aren't the right achievement, you present your achievements, you assert you're right because you have the correct achievements & I could never be right because I do not have the right achievements. BORING. Glad we sped run that. No further research is needed because we already have the research: A tight labor market causes wages to rise. A slack labor market causes wages to stagnate. So, a mechanism that keeps that labor market slack will cause wages to stagnate

[@JAMUSMCGAMUS]

Broadly agree with what you're going for, but at least here(In New Zealand) the narrative revolves around cost of living/cost of housing, with immigration blamed for our inability to keep up with the populations demands in terms of housing supply, and general infrastructure. It's apparently meant to be similar in Australia with their housing prices/rents becoming obscene. People seem to like immigrants, at least the ones that aren't off the deep end politically do, but people don't seem to like immigration as a numbers game in these contexts. How could we approach this?

[@tkdyo]

Very good overall paper, but I think each of these sections needs a bit that focuses on illegal immigrants instead of just the spot at the end. Often what will happen, and what you see in these very comments, is that when pushed back on with these facts, the reactionaries will then say "oh, I am talking about illegal immigrants coming in from poor countries, not the good educated ones." I have no doubt they will find another way to move the goal posts to continue their scare mongering, but it would definitely put a big dent in it.

[@terrystevens3998]

When did we even start having legal vs illegal immigration.. it seems that not that long ago there were no illegal immigrants the word just meant person who moved to a new country.

[@samuel5742]

When the person enters another nation through an unrecognised port of entry, that is illegal. Even a hundred years ago people arrived on ocean liners at a port and spoke to a customs or immigration official equivalent, they didn't just sail up to another country, land on the beach somewhere and move in.

[@samuel5742]

Regarding moving goalposts, if you had completely addressed their argument and then they pretend they were arguing something else the whole time then yes, they would be guilty of that. However, if someone says "okay, on average it's beneficial but I'm still worried about illegal, refugee and unskilled migration" that's really just a case of "I'll concede points one and two, but you have failed to conceive me on points three to six, and so I remain unconvinced."

[@thecomfortinthesound]

@@terrystevens3998 I agree it’s been more criminalized in the past few decades. Im pretty sure they didn’t used to hunt people down and put them in what are basically prisons or worse. Seems like a disturbing sign of our trending toward the right-wing throughout the West.

[@werbnaright5012]

@@samuel5742 "they didn't just sail up to another country, land on the beach somewhere and move in." *Looks at the British, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, French...*

[@KnownNiche1999]

This video tells me that: - People entering the country *illegally* are less likely to break the law - More workers does not equal lower wages, because supply and demand went to sleep in these "studies" - People who leave their country instead of fixing it and go to a richer place are actually the most productive - That there was no increase in crime from migration (immediately disproving the claim by citing the French example, but pretending that it doesn't actually disprove it). Also, tell Sweden that illegal immigrants don't increase crime - went from the safest place in Europe to the capital of crime in 2 decades despite leftist political dominance. I call complete bs. The entire video just waves these "studies" without going into detail and says that 2+2 does not in fact equal 4, and that 2+2=4 is just a stereotype perpetuated by "right wing tabloids". I'm also incredibly curious to see who sponsored these studies, and if by any chance they happen to be wealthy individuals who just so happen to greatly benefit from more cheap, desperate labor pouring into their country

[@abelabel3664]

Feel free to read the studies and submit a formal rebuttal to the peer-reviewed journals they were published in. Journals do welcome criticism when the research did not adequately follow the scientific method. You can quite easily check who funded them also. The idea that wealthy individuals are often restricted to cheap labour where they live while we have a global economy is quite funny to me.

[@KnownNiche1999]

@@abelabel3664 Why would I waste time changing the opinions of corrupt institutions sponsored by my enemies? Imagine if a segregationist outlet sponsored by the government in the 50s wrote a study that "Blacks are stupid and violent", and you disagreed, and then somebody told you to go and "write a peer reviewed study" to totally own them. You are such a child. "Wealthy individuals restricted to cheal labor despite having a globalised economy" - many wealthy businesses exist in European countries and can't outsource all of their jobs. As a result, they must rely on workers inside the country. Take Mc Donalds as an example - they *need* workers on the spot in whatever country they are. And shop, any fast food restaurant, plantation, coal mine, needs local workers. This is incredibly obvious to anybody who doesn't blindly defend a narrative, which is exactly what you are doing

[@abelabel3664]

@@KnownNiche1999 Peer-reviewed journals are mostly committed to their scientific integrity. If you have proof that the research is not up to standard I am sure you would succeed in questioning them. There are mechanism in place to do exactly that. I am glad you see the issues of capitalism as well. Good luck on your quest for better science.

[@robynbieber6312]

You’re calling bs because you don’t like the results. 🤷🏾‍♀️

[@KnownNiche1999]

@@robynbieber6312 Oh yeah - I don't like the results of immigration

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

The entire conversation on the fundamental rights of nations against mass illegal immigration (who's official numbers you cited for the USA are years out of date and are really closer to well over 20 or 25 million), causation to correlation crime statistics, and near empty brushing aside of parallel societies that are considered dangerous to live in for certain inner cities and also in countries such as Sweden or France once again leaves the entire topic much to be desired, despite it being your second video on it.

[@badylbadyl]

Because he is biased. 100 studies...mostly “liberal” I guess, since “right wing” studies are mostly Haram. He says at one point: On avarage native workers don’t get pay less because of immigration. Well, on avarage you and your dog have three legs. High skilled workers and City boys definitely are not hurt by immigration, but maybe you should focus on labour and working class. Typical liberal propaganda for me.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@badylbadyl yeah, fair point.

[@iexist1300]

I think this is a good video overall, but it was very broad so I think you should focus on more specific things in other videos. Also I feel the idea of constructing a progressive narrative might push away people who arnt progressive, so I would have left that to the end. Also the coments section here is alot better than I was expecting.

[@BruceWasHere]

I think this video is a bit disappointing. The 'Immigration and Wages' chapter seems to say that immigration takes from the poor and gives to the rich but it's OK because it averages out to a net gain i.e. the rich gain more than the poor lose. If the state's only concern is raising tax revenue then it may share your view but I don't think you can be surprised if many of the individual people within that state choose to disagree with you. The focus on averages felt like a lack of nuance, wanting to treat immigration as a monolith that is judged as a singular entity, as though immigration was an everyone or no one proposition. The bulk of the chapters seem to focus on rebutting generic anti-immigration rhetoric (i.e. negating negatives) and only briefly in the final chapter do you give some examples of reasons that individuals might be happy to have migrants in their community (i.e. highlighting positives, such as doctors for rural communities). I think this video might have been more compelling had there been more focus on highlighting the positives.

[@haceofspades7682]

I think the wage issue at least partially fixes itself when other progressive/leftist reform ideals are introduced. The studies make it clear that the wage loss to lower-class workers is very frequently very small. Of course, when income is already low the effects of small changes is greatly amplified, so that definitely is a problem right now. But cant that be fixed by raising wages? Its part of the argument for raising taxes on the rich after all, their income and wealth are so large that most forms of taxes are negligible in affecting their wealth and would barely be felt. By raising wages for the working class as a whole, even if immigration ends up slightly decreasing it that decrease becomes closer to negligible and unnoticable.

[@Leah-br6xu]

It would be super interesting to see an unbiased but also unfavourite towards the UK /empathetic as hell (pls) to the indigenous population in Vancouver in first 50 years of Canada being what it is now. I’m 25% indigenous & fam comes from poverty so it’s always interested me ^.^

[@Leah-br6xu]

I don’t think it’s AT ALL due to immigration (from elsewhere anyway, English ppl could have idk tho) contributed substantially in a negative sense at that point. They were friends struggling with the same things with a similar “place” in this world

[@312yesman]

This video works well in general for the UK or US but I disagree with the conclusion of it being the same then for other parts in the world. Some of the arguments felt quite cherry picked imo

[@rosalindmartin4469]

Re Mariel boatlift. The Cubans have completely "taken" South Florida. I know. I lived in So. Fla. from 1944 to 1970 when I abandoned ship. As we joked, "Will the last American to leave turn off the lights and take the Flag."

[@TheOriginalJAX]

5 minutes in and I am done, You read 100 studies and so what? Did you look into where the data was sourced from those studies? no or the methodology by which said data was precured? no. but you get in front of a camera Mr. Progressive person and tell everyone what they should think even though you don't even know how to peer review a paper.

[@KodakKid]

“Mr Progressive” Well we’ve identified your bias. I also won’t speculate on how superficial your analysis on most political subjects might be either.

[@TheOriginalJAX]

@@KodakKid Good, Don't want to hear it.

[@sashamoore9691]

Foreal. Those findings are conducted by economist that want cheap labor so they can continue to underpay! This video is flawed and illegal immigration is detrimental!

[@tripleeyeemoji2685]

As a Canadian I can tell you most Canadians are not happy with the immigration policy. Unless of course you just immigrated here, which a large portion of Canadians have. Odds are your study was taken in a large city, likely liberal with lots of immigrants. Look up Canadian cost of living crisis, housing crisis, ect. Studies don’t tell the whole story.

[@chrisk1944]

One issue not at all addressed here, is far-reaching political influences. It is Cuban immigration - including the Mariel group - that DIRECTLY gave us G.W. Bush. This cemented the US's decline in GINI index scores and the democracy index, and the continuing trend of increasing poverty in the US.

[@pwesiti]

This work is important. Thank you for doing it. Take my engagement.

[@rutidan]

Since it is clear that very low immigration is certainly harmless and moral, and at some stage indeed very high immigration could change the country in a way perhaps even the immigrants would be wary of, we could agree on this concentrate the discussion on what number in the middle is acceptable to most, moral and reasonable.

[@alexandermalinowski4277]

What a nonsense! The guy starts with stating that people do not want immigration and that his motivation is to provide positive narrative about immigration.

[@greg4629]

Yeah but trying telling that to those in the lowest percentile !!!!!

[@petarsrdic4506]

I am addicted to your's videos

[@Peter.F.C]

Very high production values. Unfortunately the content is nothing but glossy unnuanced narrative. That narrative the strong personal ideological views of the presenter supported of course by somewhat glossy ‘evidence’. Evidence chosen and selected to support predetermined conclusions. This fellow would have a great future in advertising. Or maybe producing music videos.

[@blakebeaton8410]

12:40 - Immigrants are probably overrepresented in economic areas like top management positions because primarily highly educated immigrants are chosen. Are we comparing apples to apples? And what about the orchards where those foreign apples came from? Shouldn't those orchards reap the rewards of their labours? I'm pro immigration but also pro improving global inequality. Recognizing the destructive impact of capitalism is key to that.

[@algotrhythm4287]

13:20: "Immigrants are over-represented in top mananagement and research positions ... half of top companies were founded by immigrants". So why do all the studies on the effect of immigrants on pay think that their major effect will be on the pay of those without a high school qualification?

[@Lobanjolom]

Because of how numbers work, they are over-represented, witch doesn't mean that there is more of them in that field, it simply means there are more of them in relation to a different group in a small field. Remember being a top manager and an investor means you are a part of a small circle, not as huge as the entire labour force.

[@Pensnmusic]

Because those studies look at short term effects not long term effects You are trying to shoehorn the short term effects into the "long term effect" category. The video actually looks at the long term data to understand the long term effects. You have feelings that you're seeking to make the facts conform to.

[@ssa-irs5022]

Wanda Montanez Aids Life

[@bigdswinger]

You definitely have a bias towards immigration, like in with your example of immigration in Australia you make out like immigration was the primary cause of Australia's economic success, wherein in reality its a whole mix of factors like internation ore prices that affect things alot more. This is contrasted with your examples of the negative effects of immigration in where your very quick to research and disprove some of the claims of critics of immigration. I wish you had made your bias more clear at the start of the video though you still did a pretty good job considering

[@marcussassan]

thanks

[@adammurkin7496]

I think you have missed the main argument against immigration. Economic undermining of the people already in the UK. The skills that we are bringing into the country could be cultivated from the people here instead.

[@BigHenFor]

But they're not doing that are they? I wonder why?

[@tristanbruns5968]

He explicitly addressed this. It hurts the bottom 20% wage earners and those with lower levels of education. Make education free for everyone through college and I bet that disappears.

[@hes_alive]

@@BigHenFor it’s cheaper to import desperate workers…

[@adammurkin7496]

@@tristanbruns5968 No he doesn't. He pays it lip service at best and doesn't dive into the issue at all. And it won't disappear with free education, unless that free education helps people find a way to find meaning in this hollow globalist capital concerned cesspool. Coz the current education, that people pay for certainly doesn't.

[@adammurkin7496]

@@hes_alive FAXX

[@diveinnjim]

great vid, Ill forward this to all the daily mail, sun, express and times readers at work who have a very different view on immigration, thanks.

[@victorcode2075]

Notice he focuses on wages, not earnings. Cost of living goes up.

[@Lobanjolom]

Great video, incredibly researched.

[@Lobanjolom]

@Arbane's Sword of Agility stay mad

[@samuel5742]

I doubt this will do very much to dissipate the concerns of those with a more idealistic or cultural type of concern. Many opponents of immigration openly state that they'd rather have economic decline and the consequences of an aging population than to watch their towns and cities turn into unrecognisable areas populated by people practicing a foreign culture and speaking a foreign language. The long term consequences of multiculturalism and multireligiosity have yet to truly be felt, in another generation or two when people of migrant background have established themselves in positions of political power and can demand fundamental changes in their interests, what of the domestic population then? Their concerns are not just with jobs but with the long term trajectory of their nation and the future existence of their culture.

[@GUILLE832]

Exactly this. People are more than interchangeable economic units. Human psychology, society and culture go beyond the means of production. There are also customs that are not thought of as crimes which one might still find disagreeable because of how fundamentally opposed they can be to their idea of values.

[@samuel5742]

@@GUILLE832 Yes, there's not a lot of talk about cultural compapability when it comes to migration. Even if it is an economic necessity to accept skilled migration, does that make it necessary to change the way of life of the domestic population forevermore thereafter? Particularly those who opposed immigration for whatever reason in the first place. It would be less of an issue if expecting migrants to conform were the norm, but now one is called a racist for not valorising diversity and multiculturalism, so that's not an option any longer.

[@Diovanlestat]

But wouldn't the long trajectory of their nation and culture be extinction? Survival of the fittest surely gives a genetic advantage to people who can interbreed and marry anybody rather than those who will only reproduce with their own kind. I once saw a documentary on Germans in South Africa. They had privileged their "culture" and rejected intermixing. This eventually led to inbreeding and genetic malformations which saw their population decline rapidly. Now there are only two old people left. What now of their language and "culture". Already the UK facing staff shortages have massive problems in the NHS. The aging non working population dreams about culture whilst waiting 19 hours for an ambulance to save their life. They remember fondly the "culture " of the old high Street, but don't realise that an aging population and a small birth rate can't fill it. What use is culture when sick, dying and declining. They may privilege a culture that's already part of a forgotten history, but their young won't. Why should the young want to stay stuck in a stagnant old people's home?

[@gabrielbiaso]

@@Diovanlestat Now question why the native residents are having children and if the native government is aware of such changes and ask yourself why it is like that... It's deliberate.

[@Pensnmusic]

You assume immigrants (all immigrants or ...?) have different values inherently, different interests Why? That is a very strange conclusion to me, why would I assume an immigrant isn't a human just like me who will have similar interests to me like having shelter and food to eat and friends/family to make their lives more fulfilled. What exactly do you think immigrants *are* ?

[@EsotericCat]

So basically it hurts the working class of natives or recent immigrants but helps the bourgeois upper workers? Seems pretty simple to say that free trade and immigration HURTS blue collar workers.

[@SirRichard94]

did you even see the video?

[@ordohereticus3427]

@@SirRichard94 obviously did not.

[@olgagomes2767]

Good point! It's funny how nowadays the people who self-identify as leftists actually demonize the working class. Immigration is totally fine, after all it only affects lower class working people! I guess it's the poor person's own fault that they are being replaced by immigrants, right? They coudn't even be bothered to finish high school. How lazy! All jesting aside, this is how a lot of them think. They are the same people that celebrate the unfair dismissal of a honest working man just because he thinks a trans woman is not a woman.

[@SirRichard94]

@@olgagomes2767 the video shows how the effect on the lower class wages is minimal if any. at least in the studies he read, if you have other big studies that contradict that feel free to link them. they bring more jobs because they need more goods and services, that's how economy works.

[@edwardbeadle4514]

@@SirRichard94 The economy increases in near equal proportion to the size of the population increase. This does nothing for the people already in the country as they would only "feel" the benefits from per capita increases. A suggestion that immigration is necessary to maximise growth in gdp per capita is irrecoverable with the fact the most of the richest countries by gdp per capita are very small.

[@homierdawg]

Wow I’m early but great work! Love watching (listening at times) to your videos.

[@iouiscolingreen1373]

I think you could have talked about the problem of Islam more, as I previously assumed that a lot of the issues you brought up were just right wing scare mongering. The fact that it is indeed true that in a lot of cases ,so few agree with more modern or western ideas on gender and women's rights is surely an issue that needs to be discussed further.

[@LuisCarruthers]

Progressives decided long ago that they would defend Islam no matter what. That's why it's so hard to talk about grooming gangs, and that's why pretty much no MPs will touch the issue and when they do, e.g. Sarah Champion, they get in big trouble and are called racist. Nobody cares about the working class white girls who were the actual victims of this.

[@fredjones554]

Great video. However, I believe you have introduced your own bias into the discussion. You happily gloss over controversies and constantly highlight a selective viewpoint. Step back a bit and be more objective. I don't mind if you are partisan but don't represent yourself as non partisan but present a partisan argument.

[@KnownNiche1999]

Regardless of secondary benefits of immigration (even if thise really exist), it is in effect, the ethnic and cultural replacement of my own culture and people. I understand that Americans don't have an ethnically-based nation, but Europeans do. Germany should be for Germans, for example, ethnic and cultural simultaneously. It is a land for Germans, not anybody else. No outsider is entitled to their wealth, benefits or residence. Buzz words such as "cultural enrichment" are empty and meaningless, especially in the face or extinction of our peoples. Our birthrates are below 2 children per woman (under replacement levels) while immigration is not slowing down. This is a path to complete replacement over time. I, and many others, will never accept a voluntary extinction of our group.

[@abelabel3664]

No one is replacing you and your beloved ethnicity. No one is killing you or preventing you have as many children as you want to. Adding is not replacing, and if your precious little culture is so weak and pathetic it cannot even stand being around other cultures and skin tones, one really wonders if it should be preserved anyway... Ethnostates are terrible and you, as a german, should be aware of that.

[@KnownNiche1999]

@@abelabel3664 There is so much wrong with your comment I don't even know where to start. "Nobody is replacing you" - birthrates are on the floor, while our leadership is making sure as many foreigners come into the country as possible while not trying to fix the low birthrates whatsoever besides useless token measures like "welfare". "Adding is not replacing" - yes it is. The % of the total matters. "Little culture pathetic and easy to replace" - I hope you know how disingenuous this argument is? Any culture is easy to replace in its majority. It's not about "being able to withstand" - wtf does that even mean? There is no "war of cultures" - cultures simply mix together after being in close contact for long, and when that happens - both cultures are replaced with a new one. How much of a child do you have to be to summarize it as "wowzers, your culture so weak!". And finally, I am not a german, where did you pull that from? What a moron

[@abelabel3664]

@@KnownNiche1999 1. Birthrates (allegedly) falling is not a sign of replacement, since literally nothing is being replaced. No one is preventing you from having kids, right? Are you suggesting forcing "pure" women to have children? Is it some kind of Handmaid's Tale crap? 2. No, adding is not replacing. If I have one chair and I buy a second chair, I am not necessarily replacing it, am I? I have now two chairs. No replacement. 3. Why does the percentage matter? Why would you care if you have 20% instead of 2% of non-white people? 4. Cultures do not need to be a majority to survive over time by any means. There are plenty of examples all over the world. There is no limit to the amount of culture you can have. You can always add. So long you have the freedom to use language, religion, songs, cuisine, or whatever it is you value so much, there should not be any issue. Maybe stop watching YT videos as they put you in contact with other cultures and may "simply mix together" in your head... who knows? But yes, cultures change over time, regardless of immigration, no idea why you'd want to avoid that or why that is a concern. Let alone how... 5. You defended so vehemently that "Germany should be for Germans" that I thought you were German. My most sincere apologies. I guess you simply enjoy a lot Germany and its glorious past...

[@KnownNiche1999]

@@abelabel3664 "Birthrates allegedly" - do you live under a rock? They are literally falling non stop according to official statistics everywhere. Get the hell out with your bullshit. "Birthrates falling are not a sign pf replacement" - are you stupid or just pretending? I never said they were a sign of replacement ON THEIR OWN. But if you COMBINE it with non-stop mass migration, then it is literally, by habdbook definition, replacement. "Are you suggesting forcing women to have children" - jesus, you really can't survive an argument without strawmanning right? "Adding is not replacing" - What chair did you buy? There is a limited number of "chairs" in a country. By migrating into a country you aren't "expanding it", you are taking up space previously reserved for the locals and their future offspring. "Why does % matters" - funny how you used 2% vs 20% instead of, say, 80%? If 80% of the country are no longer, for example, Italians, then Italy (a country created for Italians - it's in the name) is now minority Italian and thus ruled by non-Italians, and it no longer a land of Italians, but land of whoever came here on a boat yesterday. "Cultures don't need to ve a majority to survive" - I know. I don't want just survival, I want the countries created by a certain ethnicity to still belong to the ethnicity and defend exclusively their interests, not be a cosmopolitan paradise for whoever decides to show up here. It's like if a stranger moves into my house, which was supposed to go to my son. And I am not against my culture naturally evolving, I am against my culture evolving as a result of mixture with others. Plus, I want to preserve my ethnicity. I don't want the future generations of my country to be non-white. "I guess you simply enjoy Germany's glorious past..." Please, write more meaningleds phrases at the end of your arguments ending with "..." , it is so cool and dramatic and totally makes have a "Uff, he got me!" moment. "You defend so vehemently" - I literally said "For example", and chose Germany. But hey, that classifies as "vehemently defending" in your book

[@abelabel3664]

@@KnownNiche1999 1. Do you know why people use parenthesis as I did in "allegedly"? I should have known you had a different and very distinct culture... To explain, I have no means to guarantee that is the case because I do not know where you are from, so the parenthesis communicate uncertainty. 2. I posed a question not a strawman argument. You pointing to birthrates and telling me something should be done begs the question as to what exactly you'd like to be done about it. But hey, you did not deny it either...so I may indeed be right. 3. There is a limited number of chairs in my house as well. That does not change the fact that me adding a new chair does not replace anything. No replacement, therefore. Choose a different word for your favorite conspiracy theory. 4. It could have been 80%. I would not mind either. 5. You say immigrants are "taking up space previously reserved for the locals and their future offspring" while you are having a tantrum about falling birthrates. This is both hilarious and self-defeating. Let us call that the Schrodinger's Future Offspring LMFAO. 6. Italy cannot be ruled by non-Italians because non-Italians are not allowed to vote or to be elected. Only someone with an Italian citizenship can vote, and anyone with an Italian citizenship is, per definition, Italian. 7. Most European countries are not ethno-states and many were not "created by" or to a single ethnicity. To use your example, Germany is the result of an amalgamation of different peoples with different cultures, dialects, religions and ethnicities that exists only since the 19th century. Its constitution allows the existence of German citizens with whatever ethnicity, religion and culture. What you want, in effect, is to change how things are: you want countries to *become* ethno-states. You are the one proposing changes and negating the values behind your own culture. Have you considered migrating to a place that suits your values better? 8. Seeing countries as property is a very bad analogy. Someone of your ethnicity and your culture who for whatever reason decides to have children will also, in effect, put strangers in your "house". You do not know every single person in the country where you live - most people in any given country are strangers to each other. What you call a "family member" and a "stranger" hinges solely on one's ethnicity, and that is racism - there is no other way to put it. 9. I write as many ellipses as I feel like... my culture allows that. 10. Nice that you used exactly Italy as another example after I pointed to the Germany example. Very telling, very well-thought. You are so pathetic you do not even have to balls to say what you really believe in... I have nothing else to add here. I won't read or reply further, as I am mostly concerned with whoever may read this thread. Have a nice pathetic life whining about the fear of losing your beloved and inherently arbitrary nation state whose values you disagree with.

[@memeverse9000]

The irony of the UK complaining that immigrants take more from the state, is that the UK possibly has taken (and continues to) 1000x from those poor countries.

[@otto_jk]

Video killed the radio star but instead singing Lots of Chinese killed in opium wars

[@blubre]

while the UK continues to sell arms it has no right to deny boats, who made their homes inhospitable?

[@memeverse9000]

@@blubre Ever heard of colonialism??? Open racism and slavery???

[@otto_jk]

@@memeverse9000 reading comprehension?

[@samuel5742]

Imperialism did more to develop colonised nations than was ever extracted from them.

[@soggmeisterlasagnagarfield]

A lot of immigrants come to the U.S. with no more than the clothes they're wearing. They then need immediate resources and necessities (housing, utilities, food, employment, etc (by employment I mean SUSTAINABLE employment)). This is almost impossible to provide if private ownership of resources and necessities exists as the current economic structure. Not to mention all citizens should have access to immediate resources and necessities as well. If we want a progressive way to deal with immigration, we first need a progressive system; a socialist system. Housing, employment, university education, food, medicine; these could all be available to everyone if we prioritized accessibility and productivity instead of profitability. We have so many societal issues that seem impossible to fix, but are literally solvable with a change of mind.

[@kbflorida888]

Improve the economies of Africa & Latin America and they’ll stay there!

[@Waibublz]

Looking at blanket immigration will almost always cast a favourable light. Well educated, driven people looking to make a better life for themselves almost always have a positive economic and cultural impact. And most migrants fit into one or two of these categories. The problem is; there is a minority of immigrants who do not fit into either (broadly speaking, certain individuals exempt of course). Refugees and people with low education. For example; in Sweden, only around 50% of refugees are employed after spending 7 years in the country. And it tapers out at around 70% employment rate after around ~18 years. Another stat; around ~45% of unemployed people in Sweden are people who were born abroad and currently has no high-school equivalent education. Not all immigration is the same, there is a bleak reality especially pertaining to certain types of immigration. And I don't believe that was adressed at all in this video, so I felt the need to comment.

[@youtischia]

This is a great point which the speaker in the video didnt think to talk about.

[@Lobanjolom]

I don't know where you read this, however even if this is true, it does not argue against immigration, it is an argument against bad policies, since there were a lot of sources mentioned in the video that support the fact that the economy is way better if there is a larger labour force, which honesty isn't surprising.

[@karlhawkins5164]

@@Lobanjolom as he mentioned in the beginning of the video with canada being an outlier, countries should model their immigration policies after ours. It could have to do with a difference in national identity, we take huge pride in being a country of many peoples, united as one. I believe the original confederation of states had a similar motto, out of the many, one (or something to that degree) we only have one party that takes reducing or eliminating immigration as an actual policy goal, and they can't even win an single seat in our parliament

[@youtischia]

@@Lobanjolom The statistics are easily found online. We went from 57 million in the early seventies to 65 million today. We are projected to go over 70 million in 2030. It does argue against immigration. It is an argument against uncontrolled illegal immigration. Large countries like US Canada and Australia are ok. At leaset they have the land. The UK doesnt.

[@karlhawkins5164]

Also OP, refugees are specifically not classified as immigrants. We take in immigrants for mutual benefits (they get presumably a better life, we get a larger work force, larger consumer base, and benefits of cultural diversity) whereas refugees are specifically taken in knowing at least for a single generation they will not be contributing productively to the country (this tends to flatten out after the first newborn generation of refugees, as they meld into domestic statistics)

[@lasselarsen5449]

I think you missed many vital points and weren't critical enough. These studies may look good on paper and that's something you yet don't question. A lot of these studies you use are founded by the government or in the interest of the government. Do you know why? because it's an ongoing problem that can't be fixed... I recommend you to read the book ''The strange Death of Europe'' to see it from both sides, so you can form a none biased opinion.

[@abelabel3664]

So if we cannot trust scientific studies because they are funded by governments (I guess we are ignoring how peer-review works...) then the book you mentioned does not rely on peer-reviewed studies. If it does not rely on peer-reviewed studies, it is nothing more than an opinion piece. It is similar to saying that peer-reviewed articles do not show any evidence for the existence of magic and then pointing at Harry Potter for evidence. P.S.: No idea why explicitly anti-immigration governments such as those of the UK, Hungary, Poland, Italy, etc are funding these allegedly flawed studies...but ok

[@counterweight320]

“I cherry picked 100 studies on immigration”

[@olgagomes2767]

You took the words right out of my mouth!😄

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

“I cherry picked 100 studies on immigration” Sounds like something one would say as part of a researched argument that has analysed the 100 studies among hundreds more to establish the cherrypicking. When are you posting your refutation?

[@frankie5373]

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict is that supposed to be your refutation? go back to reddit lol

[@SvalbardSleeperDistrict]

@@frankie5373 "is that supposed to be your refutation? go back to reddit lol" A random brainbro unable to tell difference between refutation and calling out of something that needs no refutation as it's not an argument detected.

[@frankie5373]

@@SvalbardSleeperDistrict why reply in first place 💀