> This would explain why they have a higher rate of poverty. It has nothing to do with America being uniquely bad at helping immigrants improve their lives.
My point is not regarding that, just that the amount of business owners does not help too much in seeing whether they do harder work than others or not.
> Exactly what are immigrants not allowed that citizens born in the US are?
Citizenship? Permanent residence? Seems like a pretty big deal to me.
> At some point in the past every one of those rich families had an individual who did something to achieve more than the average person.
That something could be anything, from working really hard to just being lucky. Not to mention that a lot of individuals probably did the same personal effort but circumstances were not optimal for that effort to do something.
> So, if you don't like it then it would seem that you're suggesting we just allow immigrants (or low class) people to skip that by giving them things?
Yes. Education, healthcare, the basics so that they live and work without worrying constantly about survival.
> Now, that would mean that everyone gets raised up to a similar level again and we're back in the same position where all the average people feel they're not being treated fairly because they don't have what upper class people have.
This is a very simplistic take of wealth redistribution. The purpose of redistributive policies is not to take everything (houses, money, material things), put it in a pile and then give to everyone the same thing. There will always be people better and worse off. The idea of redistribution is to reduce the distance between those groups, so that
- People that are worse off have a minimum life quality. Even from an utilitarian point of view it makes sense: a homeless person, or someone who's starving, is not going to contribute as much to society as if they had a home.
- People that are better off still need to contribute to society and don't have power over it. Meaning worker protections, and also heavier taxes on non-productive capitalistic activities.
My point is not regarding that, just that the amount of business owners does not help too much in seeing whether they do harder work than others or not.
> Exactly what are immigrants not allowed that citizens born in the US are?
Citizenship? Permanent residence? Seems like a pretty big deal to me.
> At some point in the past every one of those rich families had an individual who did something to achieve more than the average person.
That something could be anything, from working really hard to just being lucky. Not to mention that a lot of individuals probably did the same personal effort but circumstances were not optimal for that effort to do something.
> So, if you don't like it then it would seem that you're suggesting we just allow immigrants (or low class) people to skip that by giving them things?
Yes. Education, healthcare, the basics so that they live and work without worrying constantly about survival.
> Now, that would mean that everyone gets raised up to a similar level again and we're back in the same position where all the average people feel they're not being treated fairly because they don't have what upper class people have.
This is a very simplistic take of wealth redistribution. The purpose of redistributive policies is not to take everything (houses, money, material things), put it in a pile and then give to everyone the same thing. There will always be people better and worse off. The idea of redistribution is to reduce the distance between those groups, so that
- People that are worse off have a minimum life quality. Even from an utilitarian point of view it makes sense: a homeless person, or someone who's starving, is not going to contribute as much to society as if they had a home.
- People that are better off still need to contribute to society and don't have power over it. Meaning worker protections, and also heavier taxes on non-productive capitalistic activities.