US Immigration Crisis
I didn’t see an immigration thread so I figured I would add one. This problem seems to be worsening everyday of the current admin. Hopefully some of our new elected officials can help with this. Mr. Luttrell is a great start
Maybe they are given a choice. It's a problem that it's illegal to hire them, but that's not Texas' fault.
That's international law fault, because unions in most (european) countries many decades ago lobbied for that.
When international refugee rules were drafted (it was about the massive displacements of ww2 mainly, that was the context) unions were terrified about "job stealing".
Ie it was the left historically and structurally to be against "invasion of cheap labor", even the chinese exclusion act was passed under extreme union pressure.
Was talking with a Guatemalan guy a couple days ago whose brother is in the US without the proper documents, and he was saying that if Trump won the election that his brother would likely leave the US out of fear of being deported-- which I thought was a bit interesting because it wasn't like there were mass deportations in 2017.
No but they self deported more because they were treated much worse, at points to the limit of inhumanity in some cases tbh
That's international law fault, because unions in most (european) countries many decades ago lobbied for that.
When international refugee rules were drafted (it was about the massive displacements of ww2 mainly, that was the context) unions were terrified about "job stealing".
Ie it was the left historically and structurally to be against "invasion of cheap labor", even the chinese exclusion act was passed under extreme union pressure.
So, as a non-"leftist", you're not against the "invasion of cheap labor"? Great.
Unless the governor is lying explicitly about these matters, yes it's fully voluntary
/The migrants who are sent to other cities are apprehended and background checked by immigration officials at the Texas-Mexico border before they are released. The bus trips are voluntary and require migrants to sign a consent waiver, according to the governor’s office./
"Every migrant bused or flown to New York City did so voluntarily, after having been aut
Great! I saw people in Chicago complaining. Ridiculous. Their city has lost 700000 people since 1970. It's depopulating.
ye i am very in favour at 0 welfare, and without any automatic path to citizenship (not even to their offspring) unless proven worthy.
You can come and try but no one owes you anything, and citizenship is a privilege to be earned or inherited, not a right.
I am not scared about cheap labor at all, but i am scared of diluting the pool of voters with people who vote against my interest.
ye i am very in favour at 0 welfare, and without any automatic path to citizenship (not even to their offspring) unless proven worthy.
You can come and try but no one owes you anything, and citizenship is a privilege to be earned or inherited, not a right.
I am not scared about cheap labor at all, but i am scared of diluting the pool of voters with people who vote against my interest.
I don't agree or respect this pov. I don't think you have the right to decide that citizenship is a privilege that has to be earned or inherited and that, insofar as you are able to make the rules what you want, you are literally a thief (or worse - kidnapper if it comes to deportation).
I don't agree or respect this pov. I don't think you have the right to decide that citizenship is a privilege that has to be earned or inherited and that, insofar as you are able to make the rules what you want, you are literally a thief (or worse - kidnapper if it comes to deportation).
I don't think it's a human right to be part of a specific subgroup of people.
I don't understand your view, do you want democracy to be a world wide affair where indians can vote on your rights?
I don't understand how you can believe that allowing anyone to come and vote for how your stuff is going to be used , regulated, how you can live your life, is a smart choice.
You should only want to expand the franchise to people who *agree with your core values and will never vote to take what you consider important away from you*, given politics IS VIOLENCE
You and 6 other guys go eat weekly , and where to go is voted upon week by week. You let some other people come along, but would you let 15 people come AND FORCE the 7 of you to go where they want every time forever in the future? because that's what voting is.
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
I just want people to be able to go places, work, etc and mind their own business. I love freedom.
Me and 5 guys going out to eat can handle ourselves just fine thanks. If someone in Chicago or Guatemala votes on what I need to eat, then **** them, I'm still eating what I want. Insofar as I have a choice, I'm not going to pay someone to point a gun at someone who wants to go from Guatemala to Chicago because I'm afraid they might try to tell me what to eat. They didn't do anything wrong to me and I'm not going to preemptively **** them over because I'm afraid.
Are you serious here? roe v wade, role of federal agencies, smoking bans, you think everything is predetermined by "the system" and voting never changes those kinds of things?
why aren't plastic straws banned in all cities? why do some states have castle doctrine defense allowed, in others you have to flee from your home if people enter armed?
voting matters, the opinion of the people who vote in a place matter, they shape what is allowed and what isn't, they determine how much of your stuff is violently sequestered (taxes) and how it is used, and so on.
Me and 5 guys going out to eat can handle ourselves just fine thanks. If someone in Chicago or Guatemala votes on what I need to eat, then **** them, I'm still eating what I want. Insofar as I have a choice, I'm not going to pay someone to point a gun at someone who wants to go from Guatemala to Chicago because I'm afraid they might try to tell me what to eat. They didn't do anything wrong to me and I'm not going to preemptively **** th
I am saying work with me and others to change the rule, so the people who come from outside can't participate in changing the rules unless they share our love for freedom.
It's a quote. Don't take it so literally. Yeah, plastic straws.
Ye smoking bans in parks. Ye drugs, euthanasia, being legal or not.
Where does it start to matter for you? and it's all about voting, not some other strange conspiracy.
Otherwise, what would be the conspiracy, why does Oregon allow euthanasia and Texas doesn't
I am saying work with me and others to change the rule, so the people who come from outside can't participate in changing the rules unless they share our love for freedom.
If I don't like the way you vote, why don't I just kick you out?
It's because I don't believe I have the *right* to do that even if it would help me get the election results I want.
Ye smoking bans in parks. Ye drugs, euthanasia, being legal or not.
Where does it start to matter for you? and it's all about voting, not some other strange conspiracy.
Otherwise, what would be the conspiracy, why does Oregon allow euthanasia and Texas doesn't
I said don't take it so literally. The reason Oregon and Texas have different laws on euthanasia or abortion or smoking in parks is because rich people, multinational corporations, the donor and ownership class don't give a **** about those things. That's really the point of the quote (from Emma Goldman).
If I don't like the way you vote, why don't I just kick you out?
It's because I don't believe I have the *right* to do that even if it would help me get the election results I want.
because the rule of law is the pillar underpinning society (and all our freedoms), and by the rule of law you acquired a right to vote that only in rare, listed, specific occasions can be suspended/removed.
But the same rule of law doesn't require me to expand the franchise without limits or filters, and i can change , legally, within the rule of law, the rules determining how when if and why the franchise gets expanded.
So on one side i would obviously like it, if people with collectivist, anti freedom tendencies lost their right to vote. But i can't achieve that within the system, so i don't.
While i can try to make it so that new additions improve (in my subjective definition of improvement, ie make more libertarian) the pool of voters, by creating filters that select for libertarian tendencies
I said don't take it so literally. The reason Oregon and Texas have different laws on euthanasia or abortion or smoking in parks is because rich people, multinational corporations, the donor and ownership class don't give a **** about those things. That's really the point of the quote (from Emma Goldman).
If you believe that the donor and ownership class is a monolith i have a SALT deduction to sell to you.
Rich people, multinationals, and the ownership class don't give a **** about taxes? about right-to-work laws? about regulations? because those things differ state by state...
because the rule of law is the pillar underpinning society (and all our freedoms), and by the rule of law you acquired a right to vote that only in rare, listed, specific occasions can be suspended/removed.
But the same rule of law doesn't require me to expand the franchise without limits or filters, and i can change , legally, within the rule of law, the rules determining how when if and why the franchise gets expanded.
So on one side i woul
Not libertarian, but I guess they are just "tendencies".
And I'm not suggesting and end to the "Rule of Law", just that the USA goes back to being a free country like it was when my great grandparents just came here.
And in case it's not clear, Bill the Butcher is a bad guy.
And I'm not suggesting and end to the "Rule of Law", just that the USA goes back to being a free country like it was when my great grandparents just came here.
If you mean like when it I was unconstitutional to have a federal income tax, there was no EPA, no FDA, and fiscal intake as a percentage of GDP local+state+fed was in the single digits, sign me up!
