US Immigration Crisis

Well, like I said, it's hardly anyone's actual policy. Most right-wing "libertarians" only love the freedoms they want for themselves (guns and sex with people under 18) and want cops shooting people who look at the border. But hardly anyone on the left wants open borders either, just Anarchists I guess and probably not all of them. So, by the numbers it's probably the chicken plant owning interest and some percentage of actually principled libertarians outnumbering Anarchists and skateboarders.

And I don't think it's inherently a right-wing policy. In fact, I think it's inherently left-wing, but many people use terrible definitions of left and right.

But in the previous posts I'm talking about how people identify, not what 'left' and 'right' should mean or are supposed to mean.

When I get some time this weekend i want to elaborate on what I said but the general crux of where we probably disagree, which my position may have been further pushed in that direction as a result of the wars of the last 3 years, is that the vision of some kind of communal living of sustainablity with peace just isn't a practical is we'd like to think - and as I've said before, history convinced me of that. But AI could change things.

Ok. I'm still not sure I disagree with you. I don't know where I promised any kind of utopia. I'm just saying I won't pay people to shoot other people to lock up my bit of paradise. At least I'd rather not pay them, but they take my money when I don't give it to them.

If corporations push for it and benefits them then I'm fine calling it right-wing but I suppose I'm simple like that.

if america gets worse, the engine of world prosperity starts to stutter, and technological progress worldwide slows down.

given technological progress is the main driver of human quality of life especially in the long term, you need to take great care of whatever makes it work as best as possible.

and that, as we know, is capitalism, with america the country that does it best of all.

how and why does America do capitalism better? my take is because America has more libertarian tendencies than basically all other countries.

so how do you preserve a unique, libertarian leaning america? by not giving the vote to too many collectivist, or you are done.

that's why immigration in the USA is particularly important for everyone's not just Americans.

keep taking in the best and the brightest (who for obvious reasons, being able to achieve great success personally, will on average have more libertarian tendencies when push comes to shove) but please please please avoid being flooded by people who want to tax others to get stuff.

take fugitives from communist regimes and so on.

and no an Haitian has no human right to benefit from the work of others and that includes all the work put into building America the way it is

it is an actual right-wing position to be pro open borders at no welfare and no vote.

no free stuff, no free privileges.

it is a very leftwing position to extend the franchise to you just because you exist, and a very very very leftwing position to use taxpayer money to help you even if you didn't contribute anything yet to a country

Cull the sinners/ Marxists.

The nuclear family can employ a migrant family until they're vetted. Then the family can earn more privileges or something, while they remain under scrutiny for any backsliding.

I have a plan, sire

companies could be allowed to sponsor as well as mentioned but for some reasons micro doesn't like that model either

What if a nuclear family were to fast-track a migrant's vetting?

Or do the protocols of non-Zion require a more uh rigid education?

it can be 2 different things and i think they got conflated here.

One is the general idea of a filter, like you treat the STEM phds and the nurses and so on a lot better than other people, you give more points for people who speak english, that aren't radical and so on, and you only let people with enough points in.

The other is the sponsor idea, where a private citizen or corporation becomes legally liable both civilly and criminally for what the immigrant he benefits from does. You can take in whomever but then you pay the costs personally (or as a corporation).

Then how you estimate the probability of a migrant committing crimes is up to you, you gamble your own freedom on that.

And if not even the people personally profiting from the immigrant are willing to take that risk *why would society that includes the people not profiting from the immigrant take it instead*

Or third option, you open up an insurance market for immigrants liabilities and to immigrate you need that insurance. Then it's people who as theit job assess risks that put a price and take the risk, and they tend to be pretty good at it.

Ofc that would entail explicit and implicit discrimination for all factors that are co-causal in crime, bad healthcare and so on, as it should be.

Anyway what has to go away completly is the objectively false notion that all people are equal in terms of their potential for society, and that you should take in first those who are rankable as better, then go down the list as long as you have room for others, then stop taking people in

One policy that Trump had in place was rapid DNA tests on families to ensure the children belonged to the parents and not being trafficked. Sadly Biden ended that and now children are being trafficked at a high rate

You're assuming your society has a greater need for STEM PhDs than for plumbers, which often isn't the case.

How do you measure who's "radical" and why is being radical a bad thing? Where would societies be now without radicalism? The French and Russians would have starved to death. Some of what you write is certainly radical (albeit mainly in a bad way).

That's a stupid policy. Some of the first genetic tests carried out on kids vs parents showed an unexpectedly large number of kids weren't the progeny of their male parent.

So the first genetic tests said the father wasn't the parent did it show the mother as the parent? Have the DNA tests improved. The current system under Biden ahs over 60,000 kids unaccounted for . That seems to be working well

idk what Biden is doing wrt this, but if what I do know about him is anything to go by I'm pretty sure it's also bad.

The safest way to ensure children aren't trafficked into the US is to let them in with their families, not do DNA tests on people ffs.

check the context, the context is that there is a court order forcing law enforcement to release aliens if they entered as a family.

so ofc aliens are misrepresenting to be families to be released, if DNA testing isn't used.

btw Biden kept that policy for many years, they stopped doing that in late 2023

luciom's ideology often leads to horrendous takes, but this one here is 100% accurate

it's a net negative for a society to focus around low end job markets, as shown by the fact that every country on earth which had the ability to outsource that to other countries has done so, and even the places it was outsourced to themselves eventually dropped them and they are now going somewhere else

usa/europe, then japan, then korea, and now china is in the process of shedding their low skilled manufacturing

advocating a reversal in this direction is the smoking gun here that one side isn't looking at this rationally but rather in a "there's a group of victims in this world, what can we do to provide them a month to month living in terrible conditions that's only marginally better than what they are fleeing - that'll help me feel better about the fact my family owns 3 cars"

A lot of manual work, on whatever degree of skill you want to say, from building roads, houses, agriculture, food prep can not be outsourced. The worst of the *******s in the most repressive of the wealthy countries want these kinds of jobs to be done by indentured workers who can work and be sent away. It's abhorrent.

This is the idea of what I am talking about.

if you have terrible work that's low paying to the point where native citizens refuse to do it

then the you're an @sshole if you want to bring in victims from abroad and let them do it instead

the solution can be done internally, without importing victims those places would either automate or raise wages dramatically in order to entice locals to take on those jobs

we have 41.2 million Americans living on foodstamps who still won't take those jobs because they'd rather be on food stamps than work in a slaughterhouse for $7.15 an hour

if that wage went up to $24 an hour and the cost of chicken went up by 3 cents a pound that's the ideal solution, not bringing in outsiders

covid put a huge slowdown on immigration and that result has forced places like mcdonald's to dramatically increase wages because now they need to hire locals

I don't know what the impact on chicken prices would be if working in a chicken slaughterhouse paid well enough for someone to live on without having to live in a chicken coop themselves and had reasonable safety procedures, but whatever that amount is, people don't want to pay it and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Welfare is just (as in fair/justice) btw. Ethically no one owns natural resources or everyone owns them equally. Those who use more than their share, either in consumption or production, should pay rent to those who use less.

https://ir.tyson.com/files/doc_financial...

it would be very low