Topic: "Deportation vs. the Cost of Letting Illegal Immigrants Stay" (Read 678 times)

Good find! Shut up these idiots, let them see the whole movement is rotten to the core!

"Michelle Malkin Follows the Money Behind the Push for Open Borders"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4eKJWBjYlw

leftists dont understand some fundamental things about societies

1. someone who lives in country a and works in country b votes in country a right and votes in country b left

2. societies are always shaped like pyramid systems

3. those that work (the so called good guys) tend to be the punished ones, therefore people become evil.

4. you cant controll money democratically people tend to distrust you

That's very unlikely. It is possible that governments will fade to a less significant influence on people...

It's the same in Europe. Hungary has been improving its Southern border since 2015. What is coming to Europe from Africa cannot be called immigrants or refugees, but a menace. Whoever has trouble understanding migration laws should read about the tunnels that were being built to smuggle drugs and people from Mexico to the US, or about those so called refugees from Africa burning cars and raping in Europe.


The thread is not about migrants, but illegal migrants. Some people in this thread seem to ignore it and put all of them in one basket. I'm not against migration, you won't find many people that are. Jumping the fence to enter the country because you're a citizen of the world and free to do what you wish is not simply migration.

Last time I checked immigrants enter the country on immigration visas.  That is why countries around the world issue them.

Nobody is scapegoating immigrants.  The people who cross the US southern border are not immigrants.  These people should be charged and convicted with illegal border crossing, making them illegible for any future immigration applications, and send back to their home country.

What is happening in the US is the Wild West.  I do not understand why this is allowed to continue.  Complete ignorance of the US laws.

Trump Wins ANOTHER Major SCOTUS Victory On Illegal Immigration, New Asylum Rules Will Be UPHELD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGq-GdXavfE

The point is bolded, below. In the case of the USA, the power would be taken away from the government cartel/gang, to send in their SWAT every time somebody is suspected of using a little MJ.


Mexico Judge Approves Recreational Cocaine Use in Landmark Ruling, Cites Drug's Ability to Provide 'Spiritual Experiences'

So why not move to Guatemala if everything is the same? It is much cheaper to live there. BTW, this isn't about patriotism, its about reality.

I never really cared much about being patriotic.  I just happened to be born on some piece of land and that doesn't mean I will fight or die for a country that is just run by wealthy people that are above the law.  Eventually the world will be one giant country and one government anyways, we are slowly heading towards that.

Here is a simple economics lesson even Marxists can understand:

"Immigration Poverty and Gumballs"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NPdx8wOh1O53/

Let 'em stay. But make them work as slaves for the rest of us.

Once again you conflate illegal immigration with all immigration. They are not the same thing. Furthermore The USA already takes in more immigrants than anywhere on Earth.






I never said anything about a budget. I said resources were already stretched thin. Money is not the same thing as resources, but I wouldn't expect a Marxist to understand this very simple reality of economics. There is no "both ways", you are arguing a different subject, not the premise of the subject of the thread. Once again, this is a non-sequitur logical fallacy. I don't have to defend myself against your argument because it is not based on the premise. All you are doing is telling me more theoretical ways you imagine things could work, not how they do work. I tell you we only have enough oranges on the tree to feed a classroom. You proceed to tell me that we could have enough oranges for the school if the 10 apples trees next to it were actually orange trees. None of your fantasizing makes more oranges exist.

You are arguing from a position of ethics now? I think what you mean is you are arguing from a position of pathos. Some people don't have enough to eat, that is bad and makes me feel bad, therefore everyone should have a right to eat as much as they want! This doesn't make any more oranges either. You just declaring it a right doesn't fill people's bellies. Building and maintaining an infrastructure that rewards farmers as well as serves consumers does. Your imagination doesn't feed anyone. You don't hold some new evolved more empathetic ideology than everyone else, you are just too ignorant to realize that just because you feel passionately about a subject doesn't fix the logistical issues with the solution that makes you feel good in your tum tum with the least amount of effort. In short you want to give lip service for these disenfranchised people, but only so much as it serves your narcissism, not to the point where you might actually have to live in the real world and draw a line where sacrifices are made in order to at least keep SOME of the people well cared for. What your plan results in is absolutely equality. Equality in poverty, ignorance, and squalor.


"You want to pick and choose that property rights are something people are entitled to while rights I advocate for are taking property from someone else.  Again, you are playing both sides and contradicting yourself.  The paradox is if people aren't entitled to property then how could any right entitle someone to someone else's property? The answer is that you believe people are entitled to the property they occupy and nothing else.    The concept of property ownership implies that some-people have an entitlement to property."

This is quite a trapeze act of semantic gymnastics. I am not "playing both sides" or "contradicting" myself, you are. This whole statement is a word salad inversion designed to confuse who is arguing what so you can some how snatch a sophistic win out of the jaws of logical defeat. The only property rights people are entitled to is those they either created via the fruits of their own labor, or that that they voluntarily contracted with another party to obtain. What you are conflating these property rights with are inalienable rights such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms. Inalienable rights are restrictions upon government and other entities from taking those rights from you. They are not rights to the commodities and time of others. Your triple semantic back flip, while quite distracting, is still based in projection and general horse shit.

You believe that these Marxist ideologies are some how different because they have small nuanced differences. Unfortunately just because you hold this belief doesn't make it so. The fact is all of these branches of Marxism all share basic ideological foundations which have very clear, stated, and historical goals that have made themselves evident over and over and over again. The very core of Marxism itself is to constantly infiltrate and occupy other organizations to use them as ideological cover to acheive other unstated goals. This so called nuance you point to is simply evidence of how Marxism infiltrates different organizations, and hollows them out to displace it with its own ideology and acheive Marxist goals.

If more people = a bigger economy, why is it Africa is not an economic powerhouse? How is it Japan has such a massive economy with a comparatively much smaller population? Your premise is laughable.


"Since the genocide of native american cultures, the culture of the USA has been multiculturalism.  "

Actually the culture of the USA has historically been European and Christian. Multiculturalism only exists to the extent that people assimilate to AMERICAN culture, and that it has a system for integrating everyone. This assimilation process is key to that. What you are advocating is totally skipping that assimilation step and just letting other cultures flood in ant take over. All cultures are not equal. There is a reason so much of the world wants to come here, and that is worth protecting no matter how many times you call it racist bigot homophobic etc, because not protecting it means creating more suffering than you can imagine.

Oh, that's very generous of you to phase out the border in steps. This is why Marxism is shit, because it never ends. It is always just a progressive chipping away at the foundations of society all the while crying about how it is just a small compromise over and over and over thousands of times. You get the compromise you want then you move on to pushing it even further. This is why Marxists are inherently deceitful. They think they are lying to you for your own good. The border being a barrier to human movement is literally the most important reason for having a border. You really just got done chastising me over your projections upon me for "having it both ways" then you tell me you want a border, but not one that people are stopped from crossing? This kind of statement is what demonstrates to me that you are very clearly either exceptionally ignorant and unable to control your own mental processes, or you are exceptionally deceitful and actively lying. There is a legal process for crossing borders. People can visit most places freely, but not just stay wherever they like. You are conflating the two ideas. Also The United States not only shares a similar culture throughout it, but also a unified legal system. You are really stretching hard to justify a failing argument. Show me some more of your Grade A Pathos based Marxist sophistry monkey boy.

More people can and has resulted in smaller economy, historically and in many cases.

You made the argument about budget when you said we didn't have enough resources to add more people as your main anti-immigration argument.  You can't have it both ways.

Again, it is a moral argument being made not a natural one.  You are correct in saying that not everyone has a right to food but my argument is an ethical argument that everyone SHOULD have a right to food, shelter, healthcare and education.  Its not just about identifying the way things are now but identifying ways we can fundamentally change the way society functions.  The only reason we have the rights we have today is because people advocated for more rights.   Property rights are even more arbitrary than commodity rights because property ownership is inherently subjective.    You want to pick and choose that property rights are something people are entitled to while rights I advocate for are taking property from someone else.  Again, you are playing both sides and contradicting yourself.  The paradox is if people aren't entitled to property then how could any right entitle someone to someone else's property? The answer is that you believe people are entitled to the property they occupy and nothing else.    The concept of property ownership implies that some-people have an entitlement to property.  

You continue to display that you have only skimmed the surface in regards to what you call "marxist ideology".  Your posts indicate that you see it as a monolith.  You basically only know about Stalinism and have no comprehension of troskyism, anarchism, classical marxism, hoxaism, etc.   You're unaware that there is more difference between different marxist ideologies than there is between stalinism and capitalism.   You have no concept of sliding scales or spectra either.  Everything is either "full blown" or nothing.  No concept of nuance.  You talk about things you know little about and ignore everything you outside of your current model of understanding.  

I would never expect a capitalist to not hate every style of marxist ideology, but anyone who intends on having constructive discussion should be expected to at least acknowledge the nuances of the different philosophies before critiquing them.  Imagine trying to have an in depth discussion on culinary arts with someone who can't get past the fact that they got food poisoning.
More people= Bigger economy

Since the genocide of native american cultures, the culture of the USA has been multiculturalism.  

I'm not saying we should get rid of the border yet.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be a barrier to human movement.  Just because people can cross a border doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  When people cross the new jersey border into new york, is new york no longer a state? Does new york not exist because there is no border check?  I don't get it.   I can go almost anywhere in the world back and forth across borders with very little inconvenience and I think that freedom should be extended to everyone.   How is there a cajun culture in Louisiana without a well-maintained border? Are France and Germany no longer different, independent countries with their own economies?  

https://www.axios.com/immigrants-founders-fortune-500-companies-7e883b5a-1b76-462c-83b5-be68e2e9cae4.html

Nice. 45% of top 500 companies in US were immigrant founded. I guess if we lost that GDP, we'd be better off /s

Really?

I would wonder, if you take a look at various categories of people who are excluded from US citizenship by statutes, if you agree or disagree with those statutes.

These people are in fact attempting an end run around those rules, so that they do not apply.

In turn this means, yes, thieves and rapists are in the groups.

If you have ever been convicted of one of the following, you are permanently denied U.S. citizenship:
murder, or
an aggravated felony (if the conviction was after November 29, 1990).
These bars are automatic. In other words, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer who interviews you and reviews your citizenship application will have no choice but to deny your application for naturalization.

Here is a summary list of the crimes that make you temporarily ineligible for citizenship:
You operated a commercial vice enterprise—for example, were a prostitute, ran a call-girl ring, or sold pornography.
You participated in illegal vice activities—for example, hired a prostitute.
You have been convicted of or admitted to a crime involving moral turpitude, such as fraud.
You spent 180 days or more in jail or prison for any crime.
You committed any crime related to illegal drugs other than a single offense involving 30 grams or less of marijuana. (Note also that, even without a criminal conviction, admitting to using marijuana or being part of the marijuana production industry can block your application for citizenship on good moral character grounds, regardless of whether its use is legal in your state; see Chapter 5 of the USCIS Policy Manual.) Also see Risks of Applying for Naturalized U.S. Citizenship: Denial or Even Deportation.
You have been convicted of two or more crimes, the combination of which got you a total prison sentence of five years or more.
You get most of your income from illegal gambling or have been convicted of two or more gambling crimes.
The crimes on this list prevent you from establishing the necessary good moral character during the required period (three or five years).


https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-will-prevent-you-from-receiving-us-citizenship.html

I mean...we're all immigrants my friend.


Source? I think there's a lot of hard working people coming up, not "thieves" or "rapists".

Then again, rehabilitative justice does wonders.

So according to your logic only immigrants are working. Check out countries with very low immigration. How come they aren't begging for scraps yet?
Is it better to put illiterate migrant thieves and rapist into the justice system and grind them down at the taxpayers expense?

Oh, so prisoners are less valuable that members of society? Maybe we shouldn't make them prisoners and let them work and pay taxes

They'll even have American born children one day.