7 ms·
Yup, that's what they will do now. Which is indeed a benefit for their countries. And is a loss for the US. The brain drain was real and the US was the benef
by addicted 11mo ago
Yup, that's what they will do now.
Which is indeed a benefit for their countries.
And is a loss for the US.
The brain drain was real and the US was the beneficiary and that may be ending soon.
Not sure what your point is? Are you happy that the US will be worse off than it was before?
- the_real_cher 11mo agoI think America will be ok.
- LPisGood 11mo agoBeing okay is a lot different from maintaining academic, innovative, and cultural dominance which provides a standard of living many have grown used to.
- the_real_cher 11mo agoAre you saying America was a backwater nation until non-european immigrants rescued them?
- LPisGood 11mo agoI think it’s pretty clear that’s not what I’m saying.
- triceratops 11mo agoAre you saying America was ok taking immigrants only as long as they were European?
- the_real_cher 11mo agoThat was the law up until the the Hart Cellar act of the 60's.
- triceratops 11mo agoI'm asking about things working better when only Europeans were allowed, not the law. You were implying the former with your comment.
- the_real_cher 11mo agothere's objective evidence That things were working better when only Europeans were allowed. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
- churchill 11mo agoI don't think that website implies what you're thinking. The only significant thing that happened in 1971 is that Nixon suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold, giving the US leeway to run unlimited deficits, paying for imports with paper. Now, America wants to reduce its debt and curb industrial powers like the EU, Japan, China, etc. but it doesn't want to give up its exorbitant privilege that got it into the debt whole in the first place. You can't have it both ways.
- the_real_cher 11mo agoIts just data. It could be a result of numerous causes. My point still stands.
- churchill 11mo agoNo, your point doesn't stand at all. It's completely baseless. You took a detailed resource referencing America's departure from a gold standard and you're twisting it to support your pet immigration policy. Now, if you want to limit non-European immigration, it's a personal opinion and you have a right to it, but you can't make a blanket statement that, "everything worked better," or misinterpret data to say what you want. Don't pretend you're being data-driven when you've made up your mind and now you're trying to torture the data into saying what you want. What metrics are you measuring by? So, while it seemed like you were trying to argue logically, it appears your argument is: I don't like non-Europeans. And you're trying to massage the data into showing your opinion is data-driven because it can't stand on its own merit. But, feel free to change my mind with more data.