2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[TexRex]

What is the purpose of caps then?

To...limit the number of immigrants?

There needs to be some balance.

Why? What is "balance."

 

[Exorcet]

Everything that is covered by the term infrastructure, be it housing, healthcare, schools. You have to be sure you can cope with x amount of additional people before you open the country up fully.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the same apply to the native population? If so shouldn't there restrictions on reproduction just as much as immigration?

 

[Danoff]

Everything that is covered by the term infrastructure, be it housing, healthcare, schools. You have to be sure you can cope with x amount of additional people before you open the country up fully.

Do you have the same thoughts around pregnancy? (this was tree'd by Exorcet, but I had typed it before I saw that response so I kept it)

In the US, you have to pay for your own healthcare. So immigration doesn't play such a factor. Our situation with schools is complicated, but ultimately you have to pay for your public school as well either through rent or taxes. For housing the same is true - immigrants must pay their way. If too many immigrants show up in a particular area, the price goes up and they go elsewhere. The market effectively moves them around (and marginalizes them, but that's another story).

I couldn't say for the US. Note the civil unrest may come from the groups who were already in the country.

Your note is actually a point I was going to make to you since it really cuts against the idea that this is a problem with immigration. Allowing a diverse group of immigrants makes it less likely that a group from a specific nation will be likely to attempt to fight for control of the region they immigrate into. This is not an issue we're facing the US.

What I don't think is a good idea is unchecked, free for all immigration. There needs to be some balance.

What exactly is the "balance"? Just... available resources vs. number of people?

You are aware that we don't build schools and housing and roads and trains until there the people are present right?

 

[TexRex]

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the same apply to the native population? If so shouldn't there restrictions on reproduction just as much as immigration?

Right?!

"Illegal migration is a phenomenon that can fundamentally jeopardise the internal stability and security situation in the destination countries."

https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/migration.aspx?q=Y2hudW09Ng==

So can legal immigration.*

...

Edit: Oh, for ***'s sake, so can population growth through conventional reproduction within the citizen population.

 

[TheCracker]

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the same apply to the native population? If so shouldn't there restrictions on reproduction just as much as immigration?

White babies = good. People of colour = bad. The GRT which lets face it, is the real reasoning behind immigration scaremongering, requires more of the former because of the later. It's also what the abortion bans are about, just hiding behind religion in this case.

 

[TexRex]

It's also what the abortion bans are about, just hiding behind religion in this case.

I mean that's likely to be one reason for abortion prohibitions. Another reason is every aborted pregnancy represents a child that can't be molested.

 

[Danoff]

I mean that's likely to be one reason for abortion prohibitions. Another reason is every aborted pregnancy represents a child that can't be molested.

That's a hell of a zinger.

 

[Famine]

We have more liquid gold and wealth under our feet than any other nation. We have more liquid gold, oil and gas. More liquid gold. Well, I just met non-liquid gold. You know where it was? Iowa. It's called corn. They have... it's non-liquid. That's my take. You have more non-liquid gold. They said "What is that?" I said, "Corn." They said "We love that idea". You know, it’s a pretty cool thought, isn’t it? That’s a nickname in its own way but we came up with a new word for – a new couple of words for corn.

But we’re also going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you from your... you know, your political beliefs, what they do. They want to debank you. We’re going to debank— think of this. They want to take away your rights, they want to take away your country. The things they're doing. All electric cars give me a break. If you want an electric car good but they don't go far, they're very expensive, they're gonna be made in China.

Biden's absolutely senile.

 

[McLaren]

“they want to take away your country”

Damn, gave it away with that line.

 

[HenrySwanson]

To...limit the number of immigrants?

OK....

And why would you (not you, but countries that do) want to limit the amount of immigrants?

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the same apply to the native population? If so shouldn't there restrictions on reproduction just as much as immigration?

I think that can be mitigated against more readily than a sudden mass influx.

Do you have the same thoughts around pregnancy? (this was tree'd by Exorcet, but I had typed it before I saw that response so I kept it)

In the US, you have to pay for your own healthcare. So immigration doesn't play such a factor. Our situation with schools is complicated, but ultimately you have to pay for your public school as well either through rent or taxes. For housing the same is true - immigrants must pay their way. If too many immigrants show up in a particular area, the price goes up and they go elsewhere. The market effectively moves them around (and marginalizes them, but that's another story).



Your note is actually a point I was going to make to you since it really cuts against the idea that this is a problem with immigration. Allowing a diverse group of immigrants makes it less likely that a group from a specific nation will be likely to attempt to fight for control of the region they immigrate into. This is not an issue we're facing the US.



What exactly is the "balance"? Just... available resources vs. number of people?

You are aware that we don't build schools and housing and roads and trains until there the people are present right?

Why? What is "balance."

You have one of the most attractive places to live and work, if not the most on the planet. There are 8 billion people on the planet. If you had an (for lack of a better term, but I'm not sure what barriers you would have) open door policy, can you not see how problems may emerge?

This might be because you're not based in Europe that you haven't appreciated the scale of catering for a large and rapid population change.

 

[TexRex]

OK....

And why would you (not you, but countries that do) want to limit the amount of immigrants?

...

So that there aren't as many immigrants. Do note that limiting the number of immigrants doesn't actually limit the population.

I want you to stop noping past this question: DID YOU SUSTAIN A BRAIN INJURY? IMPACT OR PENETRATION?

You have one of the most attractive places to live and work, if not the most on the planet.

Thanks, I guess?

There are 8 billion people on the planet.

Neat!

If you had an (for lack of a better term, but I'm not sure what barriers you would have) open door policy, can you not see how problems may emerge?

I'm not about to speculate on what may result from a hypothetical scenario. This is a logical fallacy. Any claims I could make are unfalsifiable and are of no value to discussion beyond the validation of the nativist parasite's viewpoint.

Again, it seems like your concern is that country which is not yours (even in the colloquial sense, which is to say that you are a citizen or legal resident) may be "overrun." I know you said "eh, not 'overrun'" (or something to that effect, prior to veering off-topic by bringing up the politics of a country which is not the United States, which was weird because that the focus of this thread is the United States should be apparent; it's right there in the thread title) but what is the point of acknowledging the desirability of living here and invoking global population if not to feign concern as the nativist parasite does? And why does the nativist parasite feign concern that a locale in which the nativist parasite doesn't reside may be overrun?

Do any supposed problems represent an inherent violation of individual rights? If so, what rights are violated and how does the presence of the individual (any collective is made up of individuals) constitute a violation? If not, why is it a problem?

Did you know that current law violates individual rights, including the rights of citizens and legal residents? It's a violation of federal law to employ an individual not recognized by the government as a citizen or legal resident. A citizen or legal resident found in violation of the law may be deprived of property (financial penalty) and/or freedom (imprisonment).

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or other entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien, as defined in subsection 1324a(h)(3).

Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is or has become an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.

Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a "pattern or practice" of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom such a violation occurs, imprisoned for not more than six months for the entire pattern or practice, or both. The legislative history indicates that "a pattern or practice" of violations is to be given a commonsense rather than overly technical meaning, and must evidence regular, repeated and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic or accidental acts. H.R.Rep. No. 99-682, Part 3, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), p. 59. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(k).A scheme for civil enforcement of the requirements of § 1324a through injunctions and monetary penalties is set forth in § 1324a(e) and § 1324a(f)(2).

1908. Unlawful Employment Of Aliens -- Criminal Penalties

www.justice.gov

The law violates the right to freely associate, as employment constitutes association.

 

[Danoff]

You have one of the most attractive places to live and work, if not the most on the planet. There are 8 billion people on the planet. If you had an (for lack of a better term, but I'm not sure what barriers you would have) open door policy, can you not see how problems may emerge?

You think all the people on the planet will move to America? A lot of them can't. Literally. Not just because of a lack of means for crossing various oceans, mountains, or chartering flights, but also because their governments prevent it and/or our government prevents it not on grounds of immigration caps or resources but on grounds of safety from terrorism or covert military action.

But even if there were no concern of terrorism from various countries, or from military action from various countries, and the US had an open door policy, AND people had a means of getting here from the other side of the world, many would not choose to leave because they have family, friends, homes, national pride, or a different culture that is comforting to them. All kinds of reasons. Also Jerusalem is not here. So we've got that going for us. Anyone who lives someplace that doesn't have Jerusalem nearby, just take a second and enjoy that.

I'm not in favor of a strictly open-door situation, mostly because of concerns about terrorism, criminals fleeing prosecution, and military operations. But I'd be in favor of a far more open door policy than we have.

People are good. People work, people contribute, people create. People expand the economy of a nation.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not in favor of a strictly open-door situation, mostly because of concerns about terrorism, criminals fleeing prosecution, and military operations. But I'd be in favor of a far more open door policy than we have.

It should also be said that caps, upon which one is leaning heavily, don't address these legitimate concerns. They can't.

People are good. People work, people contribute, people create. People expand the economy of a nation.

 

[HenrySwanson]

...

So that there aren't as many immigrants. Do note that limiting the number of immigrants doesn't actually limit the population.

I'm asking for reasons....

You're giving me reasons for why you shouldn't have restrictions - why do you think so many countries don't follow your logic?

I'm not about to speculate on what may result from a hypothetical scenario. This is a logical fallacy. Any claims I could make are unfalsifiable and are of no value to discussion beyond the validation of the nativist parasite's viewpoint.

Hence why I said it's a bit myopic.

I've given you the recent examples of Germany and Sweden, the less recent one of Israel and the more distant example of Lebanon.

In terms of numbers only, there's also the UK.

You think all the people on the planet will move to America? A lot of them can't. Literally. Not just because of a lack of means for crossing various oceans, mountains, or chartering flights, but also because their governments prevent it and/or our government prevents it not on grounds of immigration caps or resources but on grounds of safety from terrorism or covert military action.

But even if there were no concern of terrorism from various countries, or from military action from various countries, and the US had an open door policy, AND people had a means of getting here from the other side of the world, many would not choose to leave because they have family, friends, homes, national pride, or a different culture that is comforting to them. All kinds of reasons. Also Jerusalem is not here. So we've got that going for us. Anyone who lives someplace that doesn't have Jerusalem nearby, just take a second and enjoy that.

I'm not in favor of a strictly open-door situation, mostly because of concerns about terrorism, criminals fleeing prosecution, and military operations. But I'd be in favor of a far more open door policy than we have.

People are good. People work, people contribute, people create. People expand the economy of a nation.

No doubt. The guys who I know that are here illegally work hard and are good people.

But....how much is the limit so that it's sustainable?

Remember that different communities will need additional investment so they can (hopefully) contribute economically and not feel neglected (thinking of France here)

 

[TexRex]

[a whole lot of nope]

DID YOU SUSTAIN A BRAIN INJURY? IMPACT OR PENETRATION?

 

[Danoff]

No doubt. The guys who I know that are here illegally work hard and are good people.

But....how much is the limit so that it's sustainable?

What makes it unsustainable?

I'll grant that a nation with universal healthcare and housing for the homeless and all of that might end up finding itself overrun with immigrants trying to use those services. There are many possible solutions to this issue. One is employment testing, not my favorite solution but it is a potential solution. In short, you don't get to legally immigrate into the nation unless you have an employer and can be presumed to be paying into the tax pool to fund those services. Another route, maybe a better route in my opinion, would be to have some kind of criteria for receiving the benefit. We use this for social security in the US. If you don't pay social security at any point, you don't get a social security check. Even though social security is a socialist program in the US meant to keep the elderly from starving and ending up homeless, we're not overrun with homeless trying to get into the social security program because you have to pay into social security to get the benefit.

I'm sure there are roughly 1000 other proposals.

Remember that different communities will need additional investment so they can (hopefully) contribute economically and not feel neglected (thinking of France here)

I honestly do not know what you're talking about with this. Please be specific.

I feel like you're worried about some kind of game going on. You're not the only member that does this with me, but I definitely feel it with our interactions. You're being a little cagey with your point, like you're worried about some kind of gotcha, or some sort of contest in which you'll get some kind of internet points scored against you or something. I'm here to search for the truth. If you have a point, I want to hear it. If you don't have a point, I want to know where the disconnect is. Just lay out your hand and let's go through it. It's more interesting that way, and we both have a chance to broaden our understanding as a result. That's what happened in the IQ thread and I think you and I had ended that discussion with more respect for each other.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The US population density is 96 people per square mile. High functioning, stable countries with good economies like Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, Belgium, and Japan have between 5-8x this density.

If all of Central America migrated to the US, all 181 million of them, our population density would still be only 150 people per square mile. If ALL of South America also came, we would still be only 1/3 the population density of Japan. Japan doesn't have the good fortune of enormous geographic areas that are totally flat, like the US does, to build housing for people.

You would have to compress the entire western hemisphere into the US, and then double that population (2bn people) to even get close to the population density of Germany in the USA.

I think we can handle some immigrants.

 

[TexRex]

I think we can handle some immigrants.

BuT hOw mAnY iS tOo MaNy?¡

 

[UKMikey]

I'm pretty sure you have it better than Canada and Australia for percentage of land that's inhabitable.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm pretty sure you have it better than Canada and Australia for percentage of land that's inhabitable.

Are we keeping or excluding Florida and Texas?

 

[UKMikey]

Are we keeping or excluding Florida and Texas?

 

[HenrySwanson]

DID YOU SUSTAIN A BRAIN INJURY? IMPACT OR PENETRATION?

I'm not sure how else to phrase the question.

What makes it unsustainable?

Hard to define, but I'd say keeping up with the demand while keeping the population (note, not just the "native/host" population) in a relatively comfortable state, without feeling alienated or not listened to. Maintaining the culture whilst embracing different cultures (so, not one culture replacing another).

I'll grant that a nation with universal healthcare and housing for the homeless and all of that might end up finding itself overrun with immigrants trying to use those services. There are many possible solutions to this issue. One is employment testing, not my favorite solution but it is a potential solution. In short, you don't get to legally immigrate into the nation unless you have an employer and can be presumed to be paying into the tax pool to fund those services. Another route, maybe a better route in my opinion, would be to have some kind of criteria for receiving the benefit. We use this for social security in the US. If you don't pay social security at any point, you don't get a social security check. Even though social security is a socialist program in the US meant to keep the elderly from starving and ending up homeless, we're not overrun with homeless trying to get into the social security program because you have to pay into social security to get the benefit.

I'm sure there are roughly 1000 other proposals.

Which I'm sure most people would be amenable to.

I honestly do not know what you're talking about with this. Please be specific.

Sorry, talking about France's history of migration.

Because of its colonial past, there was a lot of immigration from the former French colonies. A lot of immigrants and their descendants are trapped in the banlieues, suffering from a chronic lack of investment culminating in areas where unemployment is over 40%. This has led to a kind of ghettoisation, where people feel like they're living on the peripheries of French society and are demonised by the Far-Right.
There's a good article on the history of such areas here.

The US population density is 96 people per square mile. High functioning, stable countries with good economies like Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, Belgium, and Japan have between 5-8x this density.

As you know, population density isn't everything.

Incidentally Germany is going through some troubling times right now, with strikes and a lurch to anti-immigrant politicians....and its economy?

Scholz's advisors estimate that they need roughly a net increase of 400k immigrants a year to maintain their current performance, and he's recently become tougher on asylum seekers, with local authorities complaining they can't cope with the present situation.

BuT hOw mAnY iS tOo MaNy?¡

Despite the "comedy", that question is even being asked in the country of "a hundred thousand welcomes"

It's even led to nasty flare ups.

But sure, dismiss everyone who asks that as "nativist parasites"

 

[TexRex]

Jesus Christ.

 

[Danoff]

Because of its colonial past, there was a lot of immigration from the former French colonies. A lot of immigrants and their descendants are trapped in the banlieues, suffering from a chronic lack of investment culminating in areas where unemployment is over 40%. This has led to a kind of ghettoisation, where people feel like they're living on the peripheries of French society and are demonised by the Far-Right.
There's a good article on the history of such areas here.

So the concern is ghettos from immigration.

Means testing for immigration is the easiest answer (rather than caps). But it's not a particularly satisfying answer because much of illegal immigration consists of people who could not overcome whatever means testing we're talking about. The thing to keep in mind is not that poor communities are a bad thing, but being stuck in poor communities because of societal structure is bad. So as long as we're providing a path structurally for the people in those communities to better themselves, that should be sufficient. If the choice is for them to be poor over there with little hope (due to social structure) vs poor over here with more hope, which is what we're talking about, I'd rather they were poor here with hope for the future. But we have to make sure we're not making laws like the one mentioned in the conservative thread in which being hispanic is a compounding crime, because that kind of systemic issue is what keeps people (and communities) from improving.

 

[TexRex]

So the concern is ghettos from immigration.

Means testing for immigration is the easiest answer (rather than caps). But it's not a particularly satisfying answer because much of illegal immigration consists of people who could not overcome whatever means testing we're talking about. The thing to keep in mind is not that poor communities are a bad thing, but being stuck in poor communities because of societal structure is bad. So as long as we're providing a path structurally for the people in those communities to better themselves, that should be sufficient. If the choice is for them to be poor over there with little hope (due to social structure) vs poor over here with more hope, which is what we're talking about, I'd rather they were poor here with hope for the future. But we have to make sure we're not making laws like the one mentioned in the conservative thread in which being hispanic is a compounding crime, because that kind of systemic issue is what keeps people (and communities) from improving.

No but you have to restrict immigration or the ones that don't like immigration will be upset!

 

[Danoff]

No but you have to restrict immigration or the ones that don't like immigration will be upset!

I've posted about it before here, but when you see something like the difference between Juarez and El Paso, it's easy to think that there is something different about the people here vs. the people there. "Our" poor vs "their" poor. "Our" culture vs. "their" culture. But the reality is that it's the same people, in many cases in El Paso it's literally the same people moving back and forth across the border. The difference is not the people, but the country. The same people can do so much more here than there because we have better laws, policing, and courts.

I don't view immigrants as a burden, which I think is where the biggest disconnect is. I view immigrants as people who will work to better themselves, and that lifts all boats, mine included.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I think we can handle some immigrants.

Not disagreeing with your point, but it's interesting to ponder how much the "American way of life" would have to change to meet those kind of population densities.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So the concern is ghettos from immigration.

I can't speak directly for the French experience, but from what I've read it's one.

So as long as we're providing a path structurally for the people in those communities to better themselves, that should be sufficient.

Which would be ideal, however....

If the choice is for them to be poor over there with little hope (due to social structure) vs poor over here with more hope, which is what we're talking about, I'd rather they were poor here with hope for the future.

It would make the USA even more of a magnet for many, many people, and not just limited to Central/South America.... Surely you'd need some tangible target amount to ensure those that do arrive (and those that are already stuck in such poverty traps) can benefit from the investment, and that communities can successfully absorb the additional people?

 

[TexRex]

It's really bizarre to me the way nativist parasites purport to be so concerned about borders and yet they disregard borders themselves. "Immigrants are a 'problem'* here so they're a 'problem' everywhere."

*Though this isn't reasonably substantiated.

 

[Tornado]

I can't believe Actually-Homelander was found to be to be completely unelectable even after destroying his state to give himself a foundation to run.