10-26-2018, 01:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2018, 01:27 PM by Eric the Green.)
(10-25-2018, 08:49 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(10-23-2018, 03:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(10-23-2018, 01:57 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(10-22-2018, 11:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We already live in a world society, since 1892. We only tried to hold back the inevitable tide in the 1920s, and now people who grew up in a white country are wondering what happened again to their white country. Immigration restriction laws were always racist. I documented that in a previous post. Again, as I keep reminding you, no, the immigration issue doesn't have to be partisan. That's why Bush and Obama agreed on a reasonable approach, and why a bipartisan group in the senate proposed a reasonable law and passed it. But the fanatical right-wing idiots in the Tea Party House blocked it. It proved to be the best issue for Trumpty Dumpty to run on. "They're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, their bringing crime; they're rapists..." Bullshit.
More immigrants will not make us a shithole country. Sure, we need to cut down on population growth, in a humane way by increasing womens' rights and prosperity in all countries.
1. Legal immigration policy shouldn't be political. Likewise illegal immigration shouldn't be political. Illegal immigration is bad because you get too many people and I think that immigration is a privilege, not a right.
2. So you have two stupid positions. Assigning bad stuff like drugs,criminality, etc. is not correct for legal immigration. Likewise anyone who supports illegal immigration is also wrong. There are limits to the amount of resources available in the US. Immigration policy needs to take that into account. Also, illegals work under the table so that drains tax revenue. It also gives unfair advantage to employers who hire them. So with that, we need to have E-verify strictly enforced with strict fines for back taxes, tax evasion, and a huge fine for hiring illegal aliens to keep companies from doing that stuff. I bet it was a fabulous issue for Trump because nobody has done squat about illegal immigration. Folks are fed up with that nonsense. And... I don't care for race baiters who say any restrictions whatsoever on immigration is "dats razzists."
3. More people = more shit. Yeah we're already a shithole country, so more people will by default make us even moreso.
4. "Immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers." Really? That's the exact position of Neoliberals! Honestly, I truly hate Neoliberals and want them all to burn in hell. Maybe climate change will send a lot of their shit into the water to be homes to the fishes.
5. Women's rights and family planning. Yes, that's an excellent idea. That's one of few things I'd support foreign aid on.
1. "Too many people" is a worldwide question. I live on Planet Earth. The USA is an abstraction.
2. It is too hard for some deserving immigrants to come here. There needs to be liberal asylum availability, given the amount of tyranny in the world. True, it would be better if they stayed in their country and fought a civil war. But that's really asking them to get killed. Illegals shouldn't work under the table. They should be required to be paid minimum wage. They should be asked to pay a fine and show themselves to be good citizens. Not enough resources? I don't know what that means.
Obama was doing a lot on illegal immigration; he was Deporter in Chief and illegal immigration went way down. Trump did not use the issue because it was necessary; he used it only because he knew there are a lot of prejudiced, hateful people in the USA that he could rally behind him with false accusations, and who would vote for his hate-pandering. There was nothing to be "fed up with" at all, except to be fed up with Trump's race-baiting.
4. I didn't know neo-cons were those who say immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers. No, liberals say that, because it's the truth. Neo-cons start wars for no reason except to impose our economic needs and greeds upon other countries.
1. OK, "borders=abstractions". They may or may not be abstractions. How about when a wolf pack sent marks, then is that an abstraction known by wolf packs. Humans don't know where human borders are and humans don't know any wolf pack borders. They are real when it comes down to the species in question. Cats also do territories.
So , then "be known by the company you keep", then means (humans,wolves,cats) then territory [borders] is real enough to matter. So in the case at hand, that means there is a known procedure to control the population density in a bordered area that make it happen.
2. "The whole planet is running out of resources we don't need anymore. ..." Yes, we agree with "whole planet is running out of resources." Obviously too many peoples = fewer resources per capita.
And...
"Not enough resources? I don't know what that means" As for specifics, food and water for starters. Next is proper shelter, and no potty problems. Next, you have the things make the US in general modern. So this is where the real difference lies. OK, I'll start at 10,000,000 folks are allowed to come in. You can allocate that 10,000,000 amongst guest workers,refugees,and of course those already here. The thing to remember of course is to get to ZPG within 10 years. This is among things which can readily be done but ain't because assorted panderings here and there do happen.
3. It's the neo-liberals who say immigrants make good workers and business people and good customers.
"No, liberals say that, because it's the truth." Are sure that all liberals think that way? And... of course "immigration = better economy". It depends on who you are and the statistics. So does immigration increase the per capita GDP, does it affect how does this affect available resources? Neoliberals of course lap immigration up. This is simply the more people of any sort whatsoever, the more profits. Neoliberals are of course blind whether by profits or ignorant,, because unlimited growth on limited resources is a fail.
It could be that you are looking at resources within a nationalist perspective. So, if we allow millions more immigrants into our country, they could use up more resources within the United States.
It is true that we need fair trade, and I don't like the idea of free trade that allows poorer nations to get rich while our own industry and economy are hollowed out because factories and jobs are exported for cheaper costs, whose products are then imported back into the USA and replace local business.
Nevertheless, a fair trade world economy is possible, and in that perspective, the question is not population growth through immigration into the USA that affects "resources," but world population that affects resources, since our resources now come from all over the planet. What I favor is availability of birth control, female emancipation, and economic growth through fairer distribution of wealth and power in all countries. Some kind of international policy is needed to promote this trend, which many nationalists oppose and accuse of being a conspiracy to impose world control.
As for neo-liberals, most of them are Republicans, and while they certainly support more population growth to create economic growth to gain and hog more profit for themselves, most of them today are deferring to Trumpism, whose leader has captured their party, and so are going along with anti-immigration schemes with little protest. Only a few like Jeff Flake are staying true to their neo-liberal philosophy in that regard. Most Democrats are only neo-liberals to an extent, that extent being the feeling that they must sometimes compromise and submit to the great power and false appeal of deceptive, immoral Republican/Reaganoid/Tea Party free-market neo-liberal ideology in our politics today.