Wouldn’t they benefit from more people? Of course it would come with the condition of learning the language at an acceptable level and that being tied to residency.

  • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why would you voluntarily create a job scarcity in your own population? Immigration reduces wages, increases prices, strains public services and causes overall decrease in Quality of Life.

    Just look at the state of the USA with 28% immigrant population.

    • I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The immigrants were not the problem to get the US to the shit state it is in.

      That is like saying there is an inverse correlation between the decline in sea-faring pirates and the rising global temperature. Duh.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Just look at the state of the USA with 28% immigrant population.

      Which STILL has the 6th highest GDP per capita (10th if you count tax-haven microstates and overseas territories).

      Centuries of mass immigration built the US economy. Y’all are acting like economics is all zero-sum and more people = everyone is poorer, but the amount of jobs doesn’t stay constant as the amount of people increases. The US always had an influx of immigrants to fuel the ever-growing economic machine.

      There’s plenty of reasons why a lot of people in the US can’t afford to live in cities, etc. None of it is because of immigration, it’s mostly corporate greed and stupid zoning laws.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Immigration reduces wages, increases prices, strains public services and causes overall decrease in Quality of Life.

      So, you’re telling me that immigration is super profitable? Because that’s a recipe for profits

  • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Countries like Korea don’t have a cultire of welcoming people from outside and therefor you would have so many clashes that a huge number of imigrants - which is needed - would destroy the country. There is no one here who knows how to treat and integrate those immigrants. There are no programs for them, etc. and even if you know the language you still have huge culture clashes.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Because most low birth-rate countries are first-world countries, and they generally want to only accept people who can contribute to their society and not be freeloaders to the social system. This means they need to filter out the people that come in, and being first-world countries, there is no shortage of people trying to get in. Sometimes they want low-skill, not-highly educated people just for the cheap labor, but not the person actually staying permanently, hence temporary worker visas. If a foreigner really wants to stay permanently, they then need to ensure that you are educated, able to support yourself long term, do background security checks, and make sure you agree to integrate as you mentioned in the OP.

  • Jimmybander@champserver.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    You have to feed and house the people. The people currently living in those countries may have a shortage of housing already.

    I think the “baby boom” from years past has shown that there are too many people around. It’s too costly to raise their own kids. People are xenophobic and don’t want many immigrants changing their cultures.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wouldn’t they benefit from more people?

    The wealthy win when there’s more workers than work.

    Historically the greatest gains in workers rights and the times we make the most gains against wealth inequality is when there isn’t a surplus of workers.

  • Because people fear having their culture and race replaced by immigrants. Even if they’re not overtly racist, few people wish to become a minority in “their own country.”

    The US is famously a melting pot, and yet we still have a bunch of descendants of white immigrants from Europe who fear that South Americans will take over; that Mexican culture will replace good old-fashioned hodge-podge Western European culture. That their language will become less dominant. That they’ll find themselves strangers in their own country.

    It’s usually an indistinct fear. It seems obvious from the verbiage in the dog-whistles, but white European immigrant descendants don’t want to become second-class.

    Now, if we treated our own minorities well, they wouldn’t be so afraid. They wouldn’t be afraid that they’d be the ones with Hispanic cops kneeling on their necks; or that Hispanic immigrants would be living in giant homes and they’d themselves be the ones having to eak out a living as seasonal workers.

    I think it’s not despicable to want to preserve your cultural heritage, your cultural language, and to have your country legislated with the values you grew up with; but people react poorly when they think it’s happening.

    What I most despise in the Republicans in the US is that they’re advocating for preserving cultural values that never existed broadly in the US. The closest subculture to what they’re pushing is a return to the Confederate South: religion, and white supremacy. The Confederates got their asses handed to them, but the racist fuckers never gave up their values, most most Americans are blind to what their real agenda is. And they’ve been good insurgents, cleverly taking advantage of weak areas in our democracy to return power to a minority: themselves. It’s been said and it’s true: if America was a true democracy and we selected leaders by popular vote, no Republican under their current platform would ever be president again.

    Anyway, getting back to your question: immigrants bring their own culture with them, and very few completely abandon it and adopt the culture and language of their new country. This dilutes the host country’s native culture, and people are afraid of that. In the US, it’s the highest form of hypocrisy, because our native culture displaced the indigenous culture, and now we’re afraid of someone else doing the same to us.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Definitely agree with your points but maybe “dilyputes”. Isn’t the right term. I don’t think they’re worried about their culture being “watered down” or “thinner”, but replaced.

      I had a recent conversation with my brother that fits here. We grew up the same, but he became more conservative and moved to a conservative area, or maybe I became more liberal and moved to a liberal area. I’ve been exploring cooking, and actually this has been several conversations where I’m excited over learning about preparing a different cuisine, being able to appreciate what that brings, and he responds with “why can’t you make regular American food?” “Diluting” the cuisine we grew up with would be to use salsa instead of ketchup or mayo. But I have entire meals replaced with new and different. I have a much bigger spice cupboard full of new and different. I make meals that he doesn’t understand, doesn’t know how to prepare, so he gets defensive an out what he is comfortable with being replaced

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I talked to Japanese colleagues about this a lot. The issue isn’t just plain old xenophobia. In a lot of cultures, when someone gets married, there are considerations about marrying ‘the right kind’ for the family. As silly as that might sound to U.S. ‘melting pot’ ears, these could be tribal, economic, linguistic, geographic, class, education, age, gender, and yes, race.

    In traditional settings, the elders have to bless that marriage, welcome the person, and ideally have the families mesh together and be on the same page.

    Inviting foreigners with vastly different backgrounds on almost all those axes, it’s a pretty tall order to ask everyone to change those attitudes. And saying one family should close their eyes and do it for the sake of the country while their neighbors hold out for a ‘suitable’ match is going to be tough. The demographic ‘time bomb’ has been a known issue since the 80s and people are still resistant to change.

    At some point, though, realities catch up.

    My bet would be it would take a generational turnover and a few years of popular sitcoms normalizing it.

  • lorty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Xenophobia propped up by political groups. Many official immigration programs existed in the 19th century that, when allowed to, had immigrants integrated into society.

  • bifurtyper@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Similar to high turnover rate at major corporations is the justified fear that the current residents will be abandoned by their own government in an attempt to drive economic incentives

    Unless the system is built correctly, you could accidentally drive people away because you didn’t build with your citizens best interests in consideration

    For example Japan and South Korean (my heritage) has this exact problem still at large as they encourage people to have children yet systems like high working hours in combination with low wages means that people just can’t afford to have children

  • 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Xenophobia and racism, mostly. And yes, it’s a solution to the aging demographic crisis many countries face (at least in the medium-term).

    I remember seeing a video of a presentation back in the Bush years by some neo-con group that advocated for immigration to Pentagon or DoD officials or something. The argument for immigration was mostly the same: we have an aging population, so we could integrate immigrants (who are statistically younger) to solve this issue. I didn’t agree much with the broader idea of the presentation though. The broader idea was that there were still some parts of the world not a part of the global U.S.-led hegemony (mostly the middle-east and Africa), and we must spread democracy and capitalism to them. The argument was that globalism/capitalism ensures peace, and that both WWI and WWII happened because globalism was falling apart shortly before those wars. So, to ensure world peace, we need to globalize the entire earth and bring all countries into the the U.S.-led hegemony, even if that means starting wars to spread democracy, lol.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Good write up! My version was much snarkier.

      But other factors include

      • not every country can encourage significant immigration
      • even developing countries have a rapidly dropping birth rate

      Some countries, maybe like Japan and South Korea, have low birth rates and a history of discouraging immigration. I’d argue it’s too late for them: you can’t suddenly develop and support a large wave of immigration, especially when most developing populations are doing better, most are seeing lower birth rates. They have a lot of work to do and little chance of succeeding

      Other countries, notably China, have a rapidly declining birth and already see the impact, so are just going to discourage emigration. The supply of immigrants will quickly dry up (except refugees)

      So for example, the US has a history of significant immigration. We’re already in the scenario of insufficient birth rate to sustain our population but sufficient immigration to keep growing. Maybe I don’t know enough about other countries or I’m falling to some sort of exceptionalism, but to me this boils down to why doesn’t US encourage immigration. We have the easy case: if we can’t figure it out, how can we expect anyone else to.

    • letsgo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because salad is boring and fat-shaming is the last kind of bullying still considered acceptable.

      I was out on my bike the other day and someone yelled “YOU FAT BASTARD”. Fortunately I’m pretty thick skinned and have lined up a few choice remarks for next time.

      Imagine if fat had been replaced with black, or Chinese, or gay, etc. They’d be in jail for committing a hate crime quicker than I could get to the nearest Greggs.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m pretty thick skinned

        The generally acceptable response is “I’m just big boned”

      • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        They’d be in jail for committing a hate crime quicker than I could get to the nearest Greggs.

        No they wouldn’t. Shouting slurs is shitty but not a punishable offence. Touch grass and hit the gym you fatso.

      • cheddar@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        But being fat is not the same as being black. People do not get sick and die 30 years earlier because they are black, for instance. People are black not because they ignore physical exercises and eat too much. I don’t support bullying, but acting like this is a normal condition that we should cherish is wrong.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          People do die 30 years earlier because they’re black - thats often how racism works…

          Imo how do we know what “normal” is and has that been the case for the last 1000 years? The Japanese have employed sumo wrestlers to serve in a sport, for instance. I think its fair to say fat shaming is a more modern phenomena that’s occurred more recently as high calorie low nutrition food became mass produced and microplastics have accumulated in all our bodies.

          • cheddar@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Did you equate health issues caused by lack of physical activity and excessive eating to racism? I can’t even… Okay, if you want to ignore all the medical and scientific evidence, ignore them. It is your body and you are the one to face the consequences.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Did you equate

              No, I was correcting YOUR comparison. I think shaming racists is quite good, while shaming fat people is misguided.

              ignore all the medical and scientific evidence

              The point here is that our value judgements about health aren’t medical or scientific. Risky behavior isn’t universally frowned upon by society. Often its encouraged.

              In the US, for instance, automobile accidents are a lead cause of death for people under 35, yet we don’t treat driving with the same disdain as smoking or obesity. As far as “lack of physical activity” goes, car accidents represent a major source of injuries, which do make people less able to keep up healthy lifestyles. Yet again, little disdain.

              Smoking is a great comparison here, because if you want to take the medical literature seriously you can’t just handle it from the consumer end, you also have to deal with industries that employ swaths of food scientists to make bad food addictive and cheap.

              All in all, I do think we could benefit from thinking about why we shame people for things and ask ourselves if we’re applying these judgements in a consistent way.

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              This was in a conversation about what kind of abusive behavior is acceptable. Do you think it’s also acceptable to be mean to athletes because they too cause damage to their own bodies?

  • Vivendi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just add a “… Are they stupid?” To the end of the title, and repost in a shit posting community

    • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      “We cannot be outnumbered by immigrants!” *die out because their own population won’t make babies*