Bangladesh migrants, the citizens of no man's land

[Mad Indian]

so retard you don't know how to calculate iq and talking about it, your whole post have nothing but retard and all words, you think mullas as your brother , go then invite them to your home
.
I was using quite civilian language but can't controll now, talking about coal and don't know its quality, talking about management and don't know we are already facing overpopulation, china have much after area than us though they killing children and you want to invite bds
.
this fool capitalist don't know bds will cost 20 rs low labour but the producer will sell it at market rate/ original rate instead of low cost , what they want is 20 rs more profit
.
he don't know what crisis of oil we will have to face with crisis of oil , water etc.
.
as far as economics concerned , THE INCREASE IN DEMAND HIKES THE COST, now the boost won't gonna lower but it will increase
.
and who cares he is capitalist or marxist or socialist or liberal

As far as indian coal , it produces more ash as well as more the poisonous gases, so if this bds come, we will have to produce more energy, which will result in more poisonsous gases in low time span , more pollution .
.
if this bds come, they will use kerosene for day to day life instead of cng, more pollution and government have to say for subsidies on kerosene
.
they will use fuel and resulting in more pollution and more subsidies by government
.
and they will come, more trees will be cut down to built their house, for their windows etc.
.
many houses are built on agriculture land instead of NA and govt will use agriculture land to build them house
.
so more pollution, more trees cut, and farmers losing their land

Yout post reeks of everything I can expect from a single digit IQed idiot. I can destroy evry single shit you have posted but you being a single digit IQed simpleton simply wont understand. So I wont waste my precious time and energy doing that. Continue the crap.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

You looks like capitalist version of mamata banerjee, just crying foul cries
.
don't waste your time for foul cries and prepare for AIIMS (best of luck for exam

 

[Vishwarupa]

General VK Singh is made Cabinet Minister to over see N-E region along with Jr Defense Minister portfolio. I am sure Modi & VK Singh have worked out a plan to expel all the bangladeshis back to BD.

 

[Ray]

Renewable internal freshwater resources per capita (cubic meters) | Data | Table

Sir pls look at the WB data. India has better access to water than Israel, Netherlands, Belgium and comparable water resource to Italy, denmark, Germany, etc. So why are those countries facing water shortages like we do? Ours is a one screwed up govt and a messed up bureacracy- thats why!

And I think free housin is a very bad idea. Instead govt should open up the market and create jobs to empower the poor to build their own houses


Basic law of economics-" there is no such thing as free lunch."

Have you ever been poor?

If not, you will not understand.

I have not said free housing.

I have said build and then take from them affordable instalments.

An example: when I was in Kashmir, the villagers came and requested that I (the Army that is) build them a Mosque with material and labour. Obviously, it was to them was to be a free lunch, as you put it.

I declined. I said I would give the material, but they would have to build it themselves, and if they wanted, we would give technical help.

Thereafter, we gave the material and they built it themselves.

Ownership with one's own effort makes one protect and preserve their gain.

 

[Mad Indian]

Have you ever been poor?

If not, you will not understand.

Yes, Communists and obviously the people of west bengal understood poor and were very compassionate about them and so they decided communism and socialism are the way to go and free stuff is the best stuff they could give to their poor.

Thats why, from being the richest state at the time of independance, WB's PCI has now become only 50% that of Maharashtra. We should try to eliminate poverty and not add to their misery with awesome socialist nonsense


I perfectly know what their condition is and that is why I get enraged whenever socialists spew nonsense on saving them , which would actually make the condition of the poor even worse

I have not said free housing.

I have said build and then take from them affordable instalments.

If it is affordable for them, they will buy it themselves. How did you think countries like US, South korea industrialised and moved their country out of poverty?

 

[Ray]

Yes, Communists and obviously the people of west bengal understood poor and were very compassionate about them and so they decided communism and socialism are the way to go and free stuff is the best stuff they could give to their poor.

Thats why, from being the richest state at the time of independance, WB's PCI has now become only 50% that of Maharashtra. We should try to eliminate poverty and not add to their misery with awesome socialist nonsense


I perfectly know what their condition is and that is why I get enraged whenever socialists spew nonsense on saving them , which would actually make the condition of the poor even worse



If it is affordable for them, they will buy it themselves. How did you think countries like US, South korea industrialised and moved their country out of poverty?

Could you come out more clearly as to what you mean?

Compassion and vote chemistry are an interesting mix, where the so called compassion is basically to generate a majority that votes without understanding the convoluted vote wizardry.

 

[Tony HMG]

So far you have not answered a single point/question I have raised and are continuing to assert what you " believe" to be true , from years of indoctrination. Seriously, if your only way of debating is to assert what you "believe " and not listen/answer my question, dont bother quoting.

I will ask one final time,

1.will you be ok with skilled workers- doctors and engineers immigrating to India from Pak/BD?

2. Who is the net beneficiary of US immigration?

3. If you are asserting that US is prosperous due to skilled immigrants from various nations, then India too would benefit by allowing skilled immigrants from paki/BD and so would it be wise to do so? If not why?
Answer these questions and go through the thread again to actually "understand" what I am saying.

From what I can understand, you dont even seem to understand my stance and yet are arguing with me

i dont think any skilled paki or bangladeshi would come to India. They normally work in the middle east or Europe. Even if they come here, I want transmitters attached to their asses.

 

[Mad Indian]

Could you come out more clearly as to what you mean?

Compassion and vote chemistry are an interesting mix, where the so called compassion is basically to generate a majority that votes without understanding the convoluted vote wizardry.

What I mean is what I have always meant- immigration is actually a very good thing for a country to happen from an economic standpoint. Its the case everywhere, irrespective of whether it is a high waged labor or a low waged one. The problems with immigration are the socio-political issues religion, language ,culture, crime etc. I want honesty when it comes to this important issue of immigration from BDs.

So what I am saying is in a nut shell is that the immigration from BD is a problem only because it is composed of immigrating muslims.

 

[Mad Indian]

i dont think any skilled paki or bangladeshi would come to India. They normally work in the middle east or Europe. Even if they come here, I want transmitters attached to their asses.

You dont understand what I am trying to say, I dont want even scientists coming into India from Pakistan and "former" pakistan. All I am saying is that immigration is a positive force on the economy(unlike how it is usually portrayed as though it hurts the local economy) and its benefits should be analysed against its socio political impacts.

 

[Ray]

What I mean is what I have always meant- immigration is actually a very good thing for a country to happen from an economic standpoint. Its the case everywhere, irrespective of whether it is a high waged labor or a low waged one. The problems with immigration are the socio-political issues religion, language ,culture, crime etc. I want honesty when it comes to this important issue of immigration from BDs.

So what I am saying is in a nut shell is that the immigration from BD is a problem only because it is composed of immigrating muslims.

Immigration to any country causes problems.

 

[Mad Indian]

Immigration to any country causes problems.

What kind of problems for the host? Economic or Social?

 

[Ray]

What kind of problems for the host? Economic or Social?

That apart many more. Study the US, Europe and you will find a host of issues.

UK is wanting to leave the EU all because of the free traffic of people from poorer parts to the UK and taxing their economy and social services, even though they are on the same religious group(s)

 

[Mad Indian]

That apart many more. Study the US, Europe and you will find a host of issues.

And how exactly have the EU and the US lost out on economic side due to immigration into them? You do remember that US is a land of immigrants right?

UK is wanting to leave the EU all because of the free traffic of people from poorer parts to the UK and taxing their economy and social services,

Of course it causes economic hardships, because of their useless welfare programs and NHS nonsense, which provide doles for the unemployed. India is not that crazy(yet) in the subsidies department and so immigration into India wont have so much hardship on India.

Also, the moment India starts to give welfare to its citizens and noncitizens, it will make immigration a net negative for the economy of India.

Watch this video if you want to understand how immigration affects a welfare and a non welfare state. Only then you will understand what I am saying:

even though they are on the same religious group(s)

Socio poltical issues are due to religion AND culture

But, I pinpointed Religion alone wrt India and Bangladesh, because Bangladeshis are the "same culture" as the Indians(West Bengalis to be specific enough) and so differ only on the religion wrt Indians. So the socio political issue with their immigration is limited to religion alone and not the cultural one.

But, wrt Britain, immigrations from other areas of EU will be from different "culture groups" and hence will cause cultural issues to be predominant in the socio-political problems. Of course, they would much more happily allow EU christian into their country than a Muslim Paki(where there is both cultural and religious difference) , all other thing being the same.

 

[Ray]

And how exactly have the EU and the US lost out on economic side due to immigration into them? You do remember that US is a land of immigrants right?

You should read the issues of UK, US and also of the North Africans moving into Europe in detail and you will realise the problems. Even historically, Europe has been having problems with the Roma people. Of course, the US is a land of immigrants, but have you realised how divide the Americans are on the Mexican and Spanish immigrants?

Of course it causes economic hardships, because of their useless welfare programs and NHS nonsense, which provide doles for the unemployed. India is not that crazy(yet) in the subsidies department and so immigration into India wont have so much hardship on India.

It is because you have no idea about the NHS that you condemn it as nonsense. Even Obamacare is aimed to help the poor. So, if these rich countries realise that unless they keep their people in fine trim, to include the poor. then I wonder what makes you go overboard with everything handed over to the private sector. Are you aware that half the operations that the private sector hospitals do, are actually not required? And do you know how much it costs? It is all very well to talk from the high horse, but when it will strike you, you will realise where the penny pinches and where the shoe hurts.

Also, the moment India starts to give welfare to its citizens and noncitizens, it will make immigration a net negative for the economy of India.

Your view and not an universal view.

Watch this video if you want to understand how immigration affects a welfare and a non welfare state. Only then you will understand what I am saying:

Heard he said that 'It would flood us with immigrants from India'? It is the real reason. Racial disparity and the loss of power of the white citizens as has already been experienced because a Black could win to become a President!
And he says, then the US will be driven to bare consistence level. How come such a thought was not there when the Irish, Poles and Italians landed penniless in the US?

Free immigration to jobs and no free immigration to welfare says the man. What welfare is there in the US, may I ask? Who says that if you don't work in the US you can live, if that were the case, then they would not have coined the pharase 0 there is nothing called a free lunch.

The speaker is merely soft soaping to present the white American view. The basic issue is that the immigrants changes the demographic equation of the WASP and others and that is a danger to those who have ruled the USA ever since their birth.

He is complain about the illegal Mexicans. But are you aware that the very parts where the illegals are entering are actually parts of Mexico at one time.

Area Mexico ceded to the United States in 1848, minus Texan claims. The Mexican Cession consist of present day U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, about half of New Mexico, about a quarter of Colorado, and a small section of Wyoming.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 is what is shown above, but not the part of the areas east of the Rio Grande which had been claimed by the Republic, The Texas annexation resolution two years earlier had not specified Texas's southern and western boundary. The Mexican Cession was the second largest acquisition of territory in the US history of 520,000 sq. miles



Socio poltical issues are due to religion AND culture

If that was the case, then why are the Britons complaining about the Poles, Romanians etc who have come to work in the UK?

Towns in the UK are 'swamped' by EU migrants, Cabinet minister warns
Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, says that communities in the UK are "under siege" from European Union migrants as he says the Tories will unveil a series of policies to "restrain" the number of foreign workers in Britain
Towns in the UK are 'swamped' by EU migrants, Cabinet minister warns - Telegraph

[quoe]But, I pinpointed Religion alone wrt India and Bangladesh, because Bangladeshis are the "same culture" as the Indians(West Bengalis to be specific enough) and so differ only on the religion wrt Indians. So the socio political issue with their immigration is limited to religion alone and not the cultural one.[/quote]

Culture maybe so but then where is the issue of religion? Aren't there a large Muslim population in West Bengal and have they not lived peaceably since Independence? Do we have had riots like elsewhere in India where the Hindu and Muslim are also culturally the same? Therefore, the point that the socio political issue of immigration is religion based is not valid. It is based on the view that once the Indian Muslims got their country based on religion and broke up the entity of India, then they cannot come into India because they divided India for their own convenience and now they cannot come in to usurp the territory that they had abandoned.. Simple as that.

But, wrt Britain, immigrations from other areas of EU will be from different "culture groups" and hence will cause cultural issues to be predominant in the socio-political problems. Of course, they would much more happily allow EU christian into their country than a Muslim Paki(where there is both cultural and religious difference) , all other thing being the same.

So, culture affinity is OK for India (as you have mentioned above), but when it comes to Europe, it becomes a cultural issue!

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[santosh10]

Half a house is on the Indian side and half in Bangladesh in many places!

and these people would be send back to US/UK, whose spies have been helping these infiltrators in other countries like india, to organize terrorism/violence here :thumb:

there must be a punishment for these drug addicted western nations, for any type of crimes they organize in india and other countries :......

 

[Mad Indian]

You should read the issues of UK, US and also of the North Africans moving into Europe in detail and you will realise the problems. Even historically, Europe has been having problems with the Roma people. Of course, the US is a land of immigrants, but have you realised how divide the Americans are on the Mexican and Spanish immigrants?

I already told you they are "socio-political" issues with culture/religion as background, which I agreed is an issue with immigration. You were the one who told that immigration causes economic hardships on the host nations. Tell me how US/UK became poorer because of Immigration and then we can talk

It is because you have no idea about the NHS that you condemn it as nonsense.

I know its nonsense because it is. I am a doctor remember? I know a system is ----ed up if a simple operation which should take a week to get done takes three months to happen.

Even Obamacare is aimed to help the poor

Lol. Obamacare is a massive failure

. So, if these rich countries realise that unless they keep their people in fine trim, to include the poor. then I wonder what makes you go overboard with everything handed over to the private sector.

Yes, they became rich and "after that" and "only after becoming rich" did they decide to squander their wealth by robbing the rich to fund their welfare. Since then their economies have stagnated. What is the growth rate of these welfare countries and what is that of India? Do you also want to dissipate our meager wealth and stop growing, when we are already piss poor to begin with? If four decades of socialism and its economic decadence dint teach you people to be wary of socialism, I dont know what will

Are you aware that half the operations that the private sector hospitals do, are actually not required?

LOL. Yeah, another crap which socialists and morons throw around. Show me a statistic which claims so. I can claim shit regarding 50% Army officers selling national secrets to Pakis. Wont make it true

And do you know how much it costs? It is all very well to talk from the high horse, but when it will strike you, you will realise where the penny pinches and where the shoe hurts.

And because Govt does it you think it happens for free

Who pays the govt for its expenditures on health, aliens from outer space?

Your view and not an universal view.

So are arguing from the in Argumentum ad populum now?

Heard he said that 'It would flood us with immigrants from India'? It is the real reason. Racial disparity and the loss of power of the white citizens as has already been experienced because a Black could win to become a President!
And he says, then the US will be driven to bare consistence level. How come such a thought was not there when the Irish, Poles and Italians landed penniless in the US?

Sir Please re watch the video. He dint claim any such shit

Free immigration to jobs and no free immigration to welfare says the man. What welfare is there in the US, may I ask? Who says that if you don't work in the US you can live, if that were the case, then they would not have coined the pharase 0 there is nothing called a free lunch.

Social security, limited healthcare exists in US , in case you dint know

The speaker is merely soft soaping to present the white American view. The basic issue is that the immigrants changes the demographic equation of the WASP and others and that is a danger to those who have ruled the USA ever since their birth.

He is actually arguing in favor of free immigration and you are accusing him of racism? Did you even watch it properly? Re-watch it sir!

He is complain about the illegal Mexicans. But are you aware that the very parts where the illegals are entering are actually parts of Mexico at one time.

Area Mexico ceded to the United States in 1848, minus Texan claims. The Mexican Cession consist of present day U.S. states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, about half of New Mexico, about a quarter of Colorado, and a small section of Wyoming.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 is what is shown above, but not the part of the areas east of the Rio Grande which had been claimed by the Republic, The Texas annexation resolution two years earlier had not specified Texas's southern and western boundary. The Mexican Cession was the second largest acquisition of territory in the US history of 520,000 sq. miles

. rewatch the video. He is for free immigration. he is actually saying that free immigration from mexico helps the country. Watch the video again

Socio poltical issues are due to religion AND culture

If that was the case, then why are the Britons complaining about the Poles, Romanians etc who have come to work in the UK?

Because Poles, Romanians etc are of different culture that Britain? Duh

But, I pinpointed Religion alone wrt India and Bangladesh, because Bangladeshis are the "same culture" as the Indians(West Bengalis to be specific enough) and so differ only on the religion wrt Indians. So the socio political issue with their immigration is limited to religion alone and not the cultural one.

Culture maybe so but then where is the issue of religion? Aren't there a large Muslim population in West Bengal and have they not lived peaceably since Independence?

What happened "during" partition? Was it a RSS consipiracy?

Do we have had riots like elsewhere in India where the Hindu and Muslim are also culturally the same?

You do have it. Just because your media hides it does not change the fact that it happens. Also, riots alone does not equate to tensions on the religious lines. Dont tell me there is no tension between the Hindus and muslims in India

Therefore, the point that the socio political issue of immigration is religion based is not valid. It is based on the view that once the Indian Muslims got their country based on religion and broke up the entity of India, then they cannot come into India because they divided India for their own convenience and now they cannot come in to usurp the territory that they had abandoned.. Simple as that.

Yes, they broke when they could and they would again if they could. No doubts in that. All the places where they are in majority, we hear crap about not singing national anthem, not saluting national flag, riots and such, like Kerala

So, culture affinity is OK for India (as you have mentioned above), but when it comes to Europe, it becomes a cultural issue!

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

What are you talking about? Where did I claim that? Did you even understand what I said? Quote me will you?

 

[Mad Indian]

No, we have enough low-skilled workers at the moment. And there is a massive, huge disguised unemployment in the rural hinterland. 18% of India's GDP is contributed by agriculture. And it employs 55% of India's population. Therein lies the problem.

Agricultural yields can double, while employing 10% of the people it employs now. The remaining 90% are surplus labour, which exist only due to lack of alternative employment opportunities. We are talking of 600 million labourers here.

As India continues urbanizing, industrializing and modernizing, we will gradually absorb all this surplus labour of 600 million people into alternative professions. Truck drivers, vegetable sellers, welders, carpenters, coal miners, factory workers, painters, pizza delivery men, car mechanics, waiters, cooks, etc. etc. etc.

Only a mad nation would accept low-skilled labour from other nations when we have a surplus of 600 million people here, who need employment.

Your views on this subject are an extension of your views on population control, which is the one subject on which I strongly disagree with you. You gave your family's example, where your mother and aunts were gainfully employed. Your mother's case comprises 5% of the nation's births. In 95% of the cases, we end up with surplus of unskilled labour, of which we already have abundance - 600 million people. Providing employment to those 600 million people will take 50 years, in the very best case. If you add another 600 million by that time, you are chasing a moving target, and will never achieve national prosperity.

Wow. I dont know where to begin. This is a very deep seated bias(bias against population and immigration) so I think I should try arguing with a different example.

For that I need you to, atleast for the sake of the argument, think that I am not a mad man . For instance, I used to think like you or @pmaitra as late as the mid 2013s-

1. Population is bad. We dont have enough room. Population causes poverty etc etc etc
2. Immigration of high skilled labors- doctors , engineers etc out of India = bad for India due to brain drain,
3. Immigration of low skilled labors- like construction workers, manual laborers etc to ME and other countries = bad for India, because they are working for the betterment of their host nations, instead of betterment of their own society(India)
4. Immigration from other countries like Bangladesh is bad, because they steal out jobs?

(pls note the contradictory 3rd and 4th points )

What changed now? May be because I became mad in a single year? Or may be I probably thought about it deeper and came to the conclusion that my previous positions were wrong?

So you guys should atleast consider that I am not mad and that I might have a point before we argue on this subject. I think this issue is a very serious one and frankly it is worth thinking about. And I am not intending any sarcasm or pun here, just acknowledging that my views might come across as a view of a mad man for anyone with "mainstream" thought. Even I would have come to the same conclusion about someone if they had said the same thing two years back.

So shall debate about it? At worst you guys are going to waste your time for one hour or so, and if you guys make convincing argument, I will go back to my previous "mainstream" view on this matter ?
@Bangalorean @pmaitra ??

 

[tarunraju]

In some parts of Hyderabad, there's an unwritten labor hiring rule. If somebody seeks a low-skill labor job, and speaks Bengali or has a Bengali accent/inflection, and he claims to have a Hindu name, the first thing that happens to him is his unmentionable inspected. That decides if he gets the job.

 

[Bangalorean]

Wow. I dont know where to begin. This is a very deep seated bias(bias against population and immigration) so I think I should try arguing with a different example.

For that I need you to, atleast for the sake of the argument, think that I am not a mad man . For instance, I used to think like you or @pmaitra as late as the mid 2013s-

1. Population is bad. We dont have enough room. Population causes poverty etc etc etc
2. Immigration of high skilled labors- doctors , engineers etc out of India = bad for India due to brain drain,
3. Immigration of low skilled labors- like construction workers, manual laborers etc to ME and other countries = bad for India, because they are working for the betterment of their host nations, instead of betterment of their own society(India)
4. Immigration from other countries like Bangladesh is bad, because they steal out jobs?

(pls note the contradictory 3rd and 4th points )

What changed now? May be because I became mad in a single year? Or may be I probably thought about it deeper and came to the conclusion that my previous positions were wrong?

So you guys should atleast consider that I am not mad and that I might have a point before we argue on this subject. I think this issue is a very serious one and frankly it is worth thinking about. And I am not intending any sarcasm or pun here, just acknowledging that my views might come across as a view of a mad man for anyone with "mainstream" thought. Even I would have come to the same conclusion about someone if they had said the same thing two years back.

So shall debate about it? At worst you guys are going to waste your time for one hour or so, and if you guys make convincing argument, I will go back to my previous "mainstream" view on this matter ?
@Bangalorean @pmaitra ??

My take on this is:

If you have a population that is productive, and which enhances national prosperity (GDP or whatever), that's one thing. But if you have a population that simply adds to the surplus labour pool of 600 million people, it is a bad thing.

In India, about 600 million people are underemployed in the agricultural sector, which accounts for only 18% of GDP. All those people need to be moved to industry/services. India's agricultural output can double, and the number of people it employs can be reduced by 90%. Mechanization, consolidation of landholdings, etc. These hundreds of millions are still in agriculture because there is no other employment option. As we generate jobs, they will be moved into other sectors. Bus drivers, mechanics, plumbers, welders, factory workers, waiters, vegetable vendors, etc. etc.

If your GDP is Rs. 100, and the population is 100 - the GDP per capita is Re. 1. If the GDP growth rate is 10%, the GDP becomes 110. If the population growth rate is 1%, the GDP per capita becomes 110/101. You have improved. Each citizen is more prosperous, has higher living standards, etc. If, however, the population growth rate is 10%, the GDP remains stagnant.

Now, the critical question to answer is: this additional population that you are adding - will they contribute to a GDP increase proportional to their numbers? If every one among the 10 people you added to population becomes an entrepreneur (hence, super-productive), then sure, you can keep adding population ad infinitum. If however, your 10 new people are all landless labourers, it doesn't really help.

 

[Mad Indian]

My take on this is:

If you have a population that is productive, and which enhances national prosperity (GDP or whatever), that's one thing. But if you have a population that simply adds to the surplus labour pool of 600 million people, it is a bad thing.

In India, about 600 million people are underemployed in the agricultural sector, which accounts for only 18% of GDP. All those people need to be moved to industry/services. India's agricultural output can double, and the number of people it employs can be reduced by 90%. Mechanization, consolidation of landholdings, etc. These hundreds of millions are still in agriculture because there is no other employment option. As we generate jobs, they will be moved into other sectors. Bus drivers, mechanics, plumbers, welders, factory workers, waiters, vegetable vendors, etc. etc.

If your GDP is Rs. 100, and the population is 100 - the GDP per capita is Re. 1. If the GDP growth rate is 10%, the GDP becomes 110. If the population growth rate is 1%, the GDP per capita becomes 110/101. You have improved. Each citizen is more prosperous, has higher living standards, etc. If, however, the population growth rate is 10%, the GDP remains stagnant.

Now, the critical question to answer is: this additional population that you are adding - will they contribute to a GDP increase proportional to their numbers? If every one among the 10 people you added to population becomes an entrepreneur (hence, super-productive), then sure, you can keep adding population ad infinitum. If however, your 10 new people are all landless labourers, it doesn't really help.

OK i think you are right in most of your assumpitions- except on the part of productivity of low skilled people. Anyperson who can support his own weight in any economy should be logically a benefit in that economy is what I am arguing- be it a high productive one or a low productive one(obviously the high productive one is more valuable but that does not mean low productive one , so long as he does not smooch off others is a bad thing on the economy)!

Coming to my argument, for example, hypothetically, let us say tomorrow, a huge invention takes place and we have robots like that in the I Robot movie, which does all the low level manual Human work like carpenting, works in agriculture, coal fields for 50% of the cost of employing human labor, would you accept such robots into our country or not. Will it be beneficial to our country or not? Explain why?