What a shitty situation we're in where this is 'good' news. 70%+ of Americans have forgotten what's inscribed on Lady Liberty's base. Give me your tired, your poor...
Any other situation, I would say that this is terrible news. Our immigration system is fucking broken, and if putting extra weight on the break makes it more noticeable, than put the fucking weight on it. Not to mention the moral duty to provide refuge for those fleeing any kind of circumstance.
But we're also staring down a double-barrel shotgun of fucking fascism at the moment, so the opinions of our 70% of 'very concerned individuals' have to fucking matter in policy choices.
God, I hate humanity some days.
God, I hate humanity some days.
Only some days? Optimist.
Some days I just try not to think about it.
Would say that to Native Americans?
The ones who consider themselves American in the sense of belonging to the USA? Absolutely.
The ones who consider themselves belonging to sovereign (or semisovereign) nations that are under treaty with the USA, and do not consider themselves a part of the USA? Their opinions are not particularly relevant to the discussion, so I would see no reason to say that to them.
Yes they are. Theyre a historical example of what happens when you bring in an overwhelming amount of immigrants
I'm not really sure you understand the difference in the paradigm between 16th-18th century colonization and 19th-21st century immigration.
Okay, tell me what exactly is the difference here.
Colonization of the 16th-18th centuries consisted of organized groups of people under the authority of a state arriving in a land without a central government, seizing territory for a new settlement, carrying on their own ways with an intent to do so indefinitely, and extend the reach of the monopoly of force of their mother state over the surrounds.
Immigration of the 19th-21st centuries consists of individuals or small groups outside of the context of a state-sanctioned expedition being accepted in by the authority of the native state already exercising a monopoly of force over the area, and in doing so, renouncing other loyalties either implicitly or explicitly, arriving in settlements already dominated by the majority ethnicity, assimilating, and participating in upholding the social contract between government and citizens.
You will note, I hope, that colonization necessarily excludes the prospect of the colonizers joining the settlements of the pre-existing majority ethnicity of the land, that colonizers set up a state or an extension of a state that is non-native, explicitly refuse the prospect of assimilating into the majority ethnicity of the area (though to be entirely fair, there were few places with a true 'majority' ethnicity that managed to be colonized - that's another discussion entirely, though), and that colonizers do so in the form of organized groups seeking a collective gain for the group, not individuals and their families or small social circles seeking individual gain.
What the ever-loving fuck is that absolutely inane dogshite?
I can see why they turned comments off. You really buy into that? Like, that's the kind of thing my youth pastor in an evangelical church would've shown to all the kids when I was in 6th grade. "The GLOBALIST ELITE are TRICKING US into TAKING IN IMMIGRANTS who DESTROY OUR GOOD GODLY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (that we also want to defund for the poor, but ignore that for now)"
Just numbers. You don't like numbers? Empirical evidence not your cup of tea? Very well then, be happy with your feelings.
YouTune videos are not empirical evidence. You can quite literally say whatever you want and show whatever you want on there with no peer review.
"Just numbers" in the same way Ben Shapiro saying "Facts don't care about your feelings" has any validity - ie in the abstract, but not in context. But hey, if you're convinced because "One gumball small, many gumballs LARGE", God forbid I be the one to break you of your happy, simplified world.
Like I said, enjoy having your feelings as the foundation of your knowledge.
So, you are going to pigeon hole data because you have no data to refute it. Plus,one wonders if you understand the data in the first place.
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn't about that. It makes two points.
If the goal of immigration is to affect world poverty it will fail due to the scope of the problem.
In order to fight world poverty, attack it where it's at.
Both of these data sets are Not contradictory
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn’t about that.
Oh, it's NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That's definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.
Are you even trying?
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don't have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you're a California taxpayer, you're paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
You're taking an issue mentioned in passing as the total embodiment. I'm sure that you think you won something.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is 'tricking' people into having empathy to cause 'damage' to social services.
The goal of immigration is to have people move to a better place then they were in. It has nothing to do with poverty other than a large amount of people emigrate because of poverty. They come to America because of the opportunity to not be in poverty anymore.
Immigration and poverty are two separate issues that you are trying to smash into one issue, in order to make one seem like it’s bad or worse than it is.
It would be more beneficial for them to change where they are at. We have a way to do this through foreign aid. For instance, a medical doctor can immigrate to the US, but their home country needs doctors too. Yet, we wait until there is desperate need and then step in.
This only works when aid is allowed to be delivered. Just look at what isreal is doing to Palestinians. They are denying international aid and killing international aid workers.
And in many cases people immigrate to the US to learn how to be a doctor, for example, then go back to their home country to practice and teach there. Not all immigration is permanent too.
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
If we are going to go with what Washington would do, do you really think he would be cool with a millions of non-whites as immigrants?
Honestly, hard to say. Maybe, maybe not… those guys had a weird disconnect between ‘nice black man I met on the street’ and ‘slaves I own’. But even if he wouldn’t want them, what he said is still true. America should be open to everyone. Pretty much all of us are immigrants here, our families coming in search of a better life. We should be opening our doors to the world, not closing them.
My issue is how they pick and chose what they like and ignore the rest. The issue with opening our doors to the world is that we have a gigantic welfare system that they have access to. If that were closed I can see the option being good to some level.
‘Gigantic welfare system’? What alternate-universe US are you living in? Our welfare system is shit. We don’t even have universal healthcare!
Welfare should be to help support struggling people. Helping those who are struggling improves not only their lives, but all of society as well. This has been proven over and over again—just look at UBI programs. We should be offering more support, not less.
These people pay taxes same as legal Americans, through their employer. They should therefore get access to every American system except voting.
You are not aware of how the system works... If you are poor there is a huge amount of money and services you get including healthcare. Since the War on Poverty began, the US has spend something like $20 trillion.
What a shitty situation we're in where this is 'good' news. 70%+ of Americans have forgotten what's inscribed on Lady Liberty's base. Give me your tired, your poor...
Any other situation, I would say that this is terrible news. Our immigration system is fucking broken, and if putting extra weight on the break makes it more noticeable, than put the fucking weight on it. Not to mention the moral duty to provide refuge for those fleeing any kind of circumstance.
But we're also staring down a double-barrel shotgun of fucking fascism at the moment, so the opinions of our 70% of 'very concerned individuals' have to fucking matter in policy choices.
God, I hate humanity some days.
Only some days? Optimist.
Some days I just try not to think about it.
Would say that to Native Americans?
The ones who consider themselves American in the sense of belonging to the USA? Absolutely.
The ones who consider themselves belonging to sovereign (or semisovereign) nations that are under treaty with the USA, and do not consider themselves a part of the USA? Their opinions are not particularly relevant to the discussion, so I would see no reason to say that to them.
Yes they are. Theyre a historical example of what happens when you bring in an overwhelming amount of immigrants
I'm not really sure you understand the difference in the paradigm between 16th-18th century colonization and 19th-21st century immigration.
Okay, tell me what exactly is the difference here.
Colonization of the 16th-18th centuries consisted of organized groups of people under the authority of a state arriving in a land without a central government, seizing territory for a new settlement, carrying on their own ways with an intent to do so indefinitely, and extend the reach of the monopoly of force of their mother state over the surrounds.
Immigration of the 19th-21st centuries consists of individuals or small groups outside of the context of a state-sanctioned expedition being accepted in by the authority of the native state already exercising a monopoly of force over the area, and in doing so, renouncing other loyalties either implicitly or explicitly, arriving in settlements already dominated by the majority ethnicity, assimilating, and participating in upholding the social contract between government and citizens.
You will note, I hope, that colonization necessarily excludes the prospect of the colonizers joining the settlements of the pre-existing majority ethnicity of the land, that colonizers set up a state or an extension of a state that is non-native, explicitly refuse the prospect of assimilating into the majority ethnicity of the area (though to be entirely fair, there were few places with a true 'majority' ethnicity that managed to be colonized - that's another discussion entirely, though), and that colonizers do so in the form of organized groups seeking a collective gain for the group, not individuals and their families or small social circles seeking individual gain.
https://youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE?feature=shared
What the ever-loving fuck is that absolutely inane dogshite?
I can see why they turned comments off. You really buy into that? Like, that's the kind of thing my youth pastor in an evangelical church would've shown to all the kids when I was in 6th grade. "The GLOBALIST ELITE are TRICKING US into TAKING IN IMMIGRANTS who DESTROY OUR GOOD GODLY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (that we also want to defund for the poor, but ignore that for now)"
Just numbers. You don't like numbers? Empirical evidence not your cup of tea? Very well then, be happy with your feelings.
YouTune videos are not empirical evidence. You can quite literally say whatever you want and show whatever you want on there with no peer review.
"Just numbers" in the same way Ben Shapiro saying "Facts don't care about your feelings" has any validity - ie in the abstract, but not in context. But hey, if you're convinced because "One gumball small, many gumballs LARGE", God forbid I be the one to break you of your happy, simplified world.
Like I said, enjoy having your feelings as the foundation of your knowledge.
You have fun peddling immigration bullshite that no economist, sociologist, or policy wonk takes seriously, but is wildly popular for some strange and entirely unknown reason amongst the alt-right.
So, you are going to pigeon hole data because you have no data to refute it. Plus,one wonders if you understand the data in the first place.
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn't about that. It makes two points.
If the goal of immigration is to affect world poverty it will fail due to the scope of the problem.
In order to fight world poverty, attack it where it's at.
Both of these data sets are Not contradictory
Oh, it's NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That's definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.
Are you even trying?
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don't have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you're a California taxpayer, you're paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
So now you are admitting that the video discusses American immigration and economics, great. Glad we could clear up that much. Perhaps the next step should be "How many of those people want to move to the US?" or "What are the effects of emigration on the countries who they are emigrating from?"
You're taking an issue mentioned in passing as the total embodiment. I'm sure that you think you won something.
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is 'tricking' people into having empathy to cause 'damage' to social services.
The goal of immigration is to have people move to a better place then they were in. It has nothing to do with poverty other than a large amount of people emigrate because of poverty. They come to America because of the opportunity to not be in poverty anymore.
Immigration and poverty are two separate issues that you are trying to smash into one issue, in order to make one seem like it’s bad or worse than it is.
It would be more beneficial for them to change where they are at. We have a way to do this through foreign aid. For instance, a medical doctor can immigrate to the US, but their home country needs doctors too. Yet, we wait until there is desperate need and then step in.
This only works when aid is allowed to be delivered. Just look at what isreal is doing to Palestinians. They are denying international aid and killing international aid workers. And in many cases people immigrate to the US to learn how to be a doctor, for example, then go back to their home country to practice and teach there. Not all immigration is permanent too.
Its not our "moral duty" to provide "refuge".
What on earth gave you that idea?
Some dweeb with no relevance to our country idk
If we are going to go with what Washington would do, do you really think he would be cool with a millions of non-whites as immigrants?
Honestly, hard to say. Maybe, maybe not… those guys had a weird disconnect between ‘nice black man I met on the street’ and ‘slaves I own’. But even if he wouldn’t want them, what he said is still true. America should be open to everyone. Pretty much all of us are immigrants here, our families coming in search of a better life. We should be opening our doors to the world, not closing them.
My issue is how they pick and chose what they like and ignore the rest. The issue with opening our doors to the world is that we have a gigantic welfare system that they have access to. If that were closed I can see the option being good to some level.
‘Gigantic welfare system’? What alternate-universe US are you living in? Our welfare system is shit. We don’t even have universal healthcare!
Welfare should be to help support struggling people. Helping those who are struggling improves not only their lives, but all of society as well. This has been proven over and over again—just look at UBI programs. We should be offering more support, not less.
These people pay taxes same as legal Americans, through their employer. They should therefore get access to every American system except voting.
Edit: relevant post lol
You are not aware of how the system works... If you are poor there is a huge amount of money and services you get including healthcare. Since the War on Poverty began, the US has spend something like $20 trillion.