Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Heathen Hammer]

He said increased immigration levels, not mass immigration. And your claims need to be sourced.

Semantics. My claims are based on common sense and basic economics. I recommend Thomas Sowell as a starting guide.

[irontaino]

Semantics. My claims are based on common sense and basic economics. I recommend Thomas Sowell as a starting guide.

So nothing to back up your claim?

[Infidel144]

How it started:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How it's going:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There must be some error, comrade. I had been repeatedly and reliably informed, for four years, that denying entry to people claiming to be refugees was proof positive of Nazism (as was keeping children in cages). As none of those who stood strong against the fascists for 4 years, have spoken out against this, then it must be fake news, made up and intended to discredit the success of the Glorious Fortified Revolution.
Next we will be told that Comrade Vice Chancellor of the Reic... er, I mean Vice President Harris told the poor and hungry unfortunate to stay in their own countries...

[Vanoi]

Semantics. My claims are based on common sense and basic economics. I recommend Thomas Sowell as a starting guide.

Common sense can be sourced.

[Heathen Hammer]

So nothing to back up your claim?

I didn't make a claim, I simply referenced conventional economics. If you don't get the latter, see above recommendation with Thomas Sowell. Or just google "scarcity".

[Vanoi]

I didn't make a claim, I simply referenced conventional economics. If you don't get the latter, see above recommendation with Thomas Sowell. Or just google "scarcity".

If you were referencing conventional economics you can definitely provide a source. It's not my job to provide evidence for.your own post.

[irontaino]

I didn't make a claim

Really now...this is lazy

Semantics. My claims are based on common sense and basic economics. I recommend Thomas Sowell as a starting guide.

Lol

[Heathen Hammer]

If you were referencing conventional economics you can definitely provide a source. It's not my job to provide evidence for.your own post.

I already did, basic economics by Sowell.

[Prodromos]

There are other pragmatic reasons as for why mass-importation of foreigners is bad for the economy. Mass-immigration is a net-liability for the working class and middle class as well. The only part of society that stands to benefit are megacorporations, that benefit from keeping value of labor down and morally bankrupt politicians that could use more voters by basically selling them welfare and privilege's in exchange for the votes.

Besides being untrue, this post reveals the socialist assumptions behind nativism. Like every other form of socialism, it disdains free markets, individual rights and equal treatment under the law. Instead, it aims to empower government to plan society and the economy to the benefit of a favored group at the expense of other groups. For nativists, the favored group is natives, while for racial nationalists it's their race and for Marxists it's the proletariat. It all boils down to the subjective will to power of one tribal coalition against the rest of humanity.

Depends on which type of "nativist" you're talking about. Do you think people who only oppose illegal immigration are part of this group?

Any actual nativist is prejudiced toward immigrants as immigrants; their legal status is irrelevant. Whether someone can be a nativist if they oppose only illegal immigration, that depends on several factors, such as: do they feel more strongly about immigration law violators than they do about other types of law violators? If so, that may indicate a prejudice against immigrants.

I like how you're using language to try and frame the nativists as the bad guys in this scenario.

Immigrant status, like race or sex, is not a morally significant category, which makes anti-immigrant prejudices bad. It's doubly bad when these prejudices make their way into law, since it's one thing for a man to be personally prejudiced against immigrants and quite another for the State to commit violence against them.

By the same logic, I could argue that anti-abortion laws (or even opinions) are fundamentally incompatible with liberty.

No, that doesn't quite work. Abortion, being the deliberate and unlawful killing of an innocent child, necessarily violates a human being's rights, whereas immigration does not. The anti-abortion advocate seeks to bring a murderer to justice, whereas the anti-immigrant advocate seeks to commit violence against people who haven't violated anyone's rights.

[Heathen Hammer]

Besides being untrue, this post reveals the socialist assumptions behind nativism. Like every other form of socialism, it disdains free markets, individual rights and equal treatment under the law. Instead, it aims to empower government to plan society and the economy to the benefit of a favored group at the expense of other groups. For nativists, the favored group is natives, while for racial nationalists it's their race and for Marxists it's the proletariat. It all boils down to the subjective will to power of one tribal coalition against the rest of humanity.

Indeed working class scum is forgetting its place and that privilege's of empowering government in favor of certain groups is strictly reserved to woke cosmopolitan billionaires and military-industrial complex executives.
Not willing to sell your children's future for interests of Blacrock and Raytheon is Un-American.

[Prodromos]

Indeed working class scum is forgetting its place and that privilege's of empowering government in favor of certain groups is strictly reserved to woke cosmopolitan billionaires and military-industrial complex executives.
Not willing to sell your children's future for interests of Blacrock and Raytheon is Un-American.

But you're the one arguing for arbitrary power and privilege, in favor of native-born citizens, members of your cultural group, and workers in certain sectors of the economy. I'm arguing for free markets, individual rights and equal treatment under the law.

[Heathen Hammer]

But you're the one arguing for arbitrary power and privilege, in favor of native-born citizens, members of your cultural group, and workers in certain sectors of the economy. I'm arguing for free markets, individual rights and equal treatment under the law.

None of those things really exist in America.
America doesn't have a free market, its actually a semi-privately-owned command economy, except with Blackrock instead of Gosplan.
Nor does America have individual rights - good luck with right to bear arms in certain states, or to smoke some reefer in others.
And rule of law is also a joke - as we can see in almost every faucet of American society, from how protesters are treated depending on what they protest for to how celebrities and elites can get away with literally anything.
The liberal democratic America is dead. What is called America today is a dystopian corporate oligarchy that rules strictly in favor of oikophobic cosmopolitan ruling class, which is treating general population as cattle to be drained of its wealth and used as cannon fodder for profit wars.
Don't get me wrong, free market, individual rights and rule of law are great - but you won't have any of those things while those elites are in place.

[athanaric]

Any actual nativist is prejudiced toward immigrants as immigrants; their legal status is irrelevant. Whether someone can be a nativist if they oppose only illegal immigration, that depends on several factors, such as: do they feel more strongly about immigration law violators than they do about other types of law violators? If so, that may indicate a prejudice against immigrants.

The term "nativist" indicates preference, not prejudice.

Immigrant status, like race or sex, is not a morally significant category, which makes anti-immigrant prejudices bad. It's doubly bad when these prejudices make their way into law, since it's one thing for a man to be personally prejudiced against immigrants and quite another for the State to commit violence against them.

Hang on, you're saying that immigrant status is a genetic trait? This oughta be interesting.

No, that doesn't quite work. Abortion, being the deliberate and unlawful killing of an innocent child, necessarily violates a human being's rights, whereas immigration does not. The anti-abortion advocate seeks to bring a murderer to justice,

Well yes, it does work. Your position is based on the assumptions that a) a fetus qualifies as a human being from day one, and b) that its rights trump those of its parents or third parties. This becomes a problem when those fine principles encounter the real world, for example if a fetus is the result of rape. Advocating for an abortion ban means you're not Libertarian.

whereas the anti-immigrant advocate seeks to commit violence against people who haven't violated anyone's rights.

Resources, including land, are finite. If you immigrate to a certain place, you will by necessity make use of resources that belong to another community. They may be willing to share if you can contribute something they need in return, all the while adhering to the local laws. If you cannot contribute anything of positive value and/or you've broken the law (say, by immigrating illegally), you are violating other people's rights. There are logical reasons why people apply more rigorous standards to recent immigrants than to native-born people. If you're an immigrant, the local community owes you nothing, and has to be able to trust you.

By the way, I'm pretty sure most "anti-immigrant advocates" are content to have immigrants returned by non-violent means.

[Vanoi]

I already did, basic economics by Sowell.

Then link it please I'm not doing your work for you.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Well yes, it does work. Your position is based on the assumptions that a) a fetus qualifies as a human being from day one, and b) that its rights trump those of its parents or third parties. This becomes a problem when those fine principles encounter the real world, for example if a fetus is the result of rape. Advocating for an abortion ban means you're not Libertarian.

The rape case is easy to rationalise an exception for abortion. Fetuses that enter wombs from rape are illegal immigrants and must be evicted at once, lest they gain squatters rights by being in the womb too long.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

After the flood:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/w...y-belgium.html

[Sir Adrian]

People from Georgia, South Carolina, Cali etc, is it true that you have to sign a pledge that you will not publicly disparage or criticize the state of Israel and it's government to get public funding or to be able to work as a contractor for the state?

[Cope]

Pretty sure that laws of that nature are routinely overturned by SCOTUS for violating the 1A.

[PointOfViewGun]

Quite many states indeed passed laws against boycotting Israel or its occupied territories if one is looking for government contracts. In certain states these laws were struck by courts after years of legal battles. Some seems to remain.

[sumskilz]

People from Georgia, South Carolina, Cali etc, is it true that you have to sign a pledge that you will not publicly disparage or criticize the state of Israel and it's government to get public funding or to be able to work as a contractor for the state?

No, it isn't true. Several state governments have passed laws mandating that the state won't contract with businesses that boycott Israel. As far as I know, every legal challenge against these laws has been successful on first amendment grounds, but so far all the plaintiffs have been US citizens who are either independent contractors or small business owners, with the result generally being a change to the law so that it won't apply to such individuals.