American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

So assuming Republicans didn't torpedo any bill to actually address immigration how should immigrants be distributed?

States that want them get them, states that don't want them don't get them. 

If New York City and San Francisco have a bunch of laws that make it uneconomical to take in migrants, perhaps it can work on amending those first before they insist everyone else take them. If the dairy industry complains, then it can negotiate with the state governor or work on its own solution to manage employment, perhaps by raising prices or wages or instituting a training program for native citizens.

I really don't understand, you spend so much time and effort bitching in threads like this that billionaire executives have too much influence in "Our Democracy", but now you want the dairy industry and the Texas technocrats to have more of a say than the voted governor?

[Mjmd]

I was merely pointing out an efficient system. Immigrants currently travel 1000s of miles for work. I doubt sending them to one place will stop them from traveling a couple hundred to find work. I was just listing a local example where I know there was a high %. Are you going to start doing border crossing between states to prevent immigrants from crossing? Again, I think a federal solution to distribute people and resources here makes sense considering it is a whole country problem and the border is federal responsibility.

I don't understand how someone can hate someone who is just looking for a better life enough to think its a good thing they died to barb wire.

Again, I've written argument on why Immigrants are good for the US, which is why you say you oppose. You haven't attempted to actually fight that, but have pivoted, so you may want to do some self reflection on why you actually oppose.

[greenline]

If one wants to venture further into hypothetical solutions that lack political will, splitting the country up into regional economic and political blocs, as was briefly considered during the onset of COVID, would do wonders for creating zones where immigrants might be either welcomed in or discouraged, either at a border level or at a housing level. More decentralization in general would benefit most Americans rather than a one size fits all straightjacket being imposed by New England and California.

I do not think suicides are something to celebrate. I also think the fault of suicides is generally on the person who choses to kill themselves, and not the builders of razor wire or tall buildings.

[Mjmd]

So government funding and projects can work in a lot of different ways. Think about the infrastructure bill. Its not like it all went to the same type of infrastructure. Does your city need Spanish translators, maybe it needs more bus routes / extended hours, ect. You don't need to do regions. You can dedicate funds and have the local government apply for it by saying what it will use it for.

Heh I know people are trying to get in and I'm going to put a deadly obstacle in their path is a CHOICE. You know it could cause death.

You still refuse to actually debate the root issue. You don't like immigrants WHY. You've stated a reason, but I've argued there is no substance to it and why. You keep avoiding any kind of rebuttal.

[Amicalola]

If one wants to venture further into hypothetical solutions that lack political will, splitting the country up into regional economic and political blocs, as was briefly considered during the onset of COVID, would do wonders for creating zones where immigrants might be either welcomed in or discouraged, either at a border level or at a housing level. More decentralization in general would benefit most Americans rather than a one size fits all straightjacket being imposed by New England and California.

I do not think suicides are something to celebrate. I also think the fault of suicides is generally on the person who choses to kill themselves, and not the builders of razor wire or tall buildings.

As far as I'm aware, splitting the US into economic blocs by a division of pro-immigration and anti-immigration states would be unviable for the latter. Supposedly they are not able to economically support themselves without the help of the former (at least, that what I hear from across the seas).

[greenline]

So government funding and projects can work in a lot of different ways. Think about the infrastructure bill. Its not like it all went to the same type of infrastructure. Does your city need Spanish translators, maybe it needs more bus routes / extended hours, ect. You don't need to do regions. You can dedicate funds and have the local government apply for it by saying what it will use it for.

Heh I know people are trying to get in and I'm going to put a deadly obstacle in their path is a CHOICE. You know it could cause death.

You still refuse to actually debate the root issue. You don't like immigrants WHY. You've stated a reason, but I've argued there is no substance to it and why. You keep avoiding any kind of rebuttal.

I've made several coherent arguments against immigrants here. I can do more. Immigrants lend themselves very easily to a one party state structure, because immigrants increase district representational size and can easily be persuaded to only vote for the party that keeps letting them in. Immigrants have no inherent attachment to the values of the place they move to, and often degrade it instead (just look at the many muslim immigrants eagerly calling for a genocide of israelis, for instance! And people think "nazis" are the problem). Immigrants degrade civic nationalism, and corruption has historically and presently followed any place where they have been let in in large numbers. Immigration has a strong correlation with crime, as the children of immigrants make up much of the gang and criminal activity in any country that allows mass immigration. I could go on, but you would ignore such points as they come. Perhaps some other people might recognize the merit in them, though.

As far as I'm aware, splitting the US into economic blocs by a division of pro-immigration and anti-immigration states would be unviable for the latter. Supposedly they are not able to economically support themselves without the help of the former (at least, that what I hear from across the seas).

The anti immigration / red states provide food and raw materials, the blue / pro immigration states provide fiscal subsidies and doctors. The food and materials tend to be more essential, but one could imagine a situation where trade still occurs but movement of peoples is more restricted.

[Mjmd]

This is actually the first you've done arguments and I will first note you ignored all of mine, so I will assume economically you agree its a plus.

There is a fairly good chance a lot of the catholic immigrants would vote conservative. The thing keeping them from doing so isn't necessarily letting more people in, but the blatant hostility and threat to kick them out. And again, my argument is letting them in is a good thing. How you do so should probably be the campaign issue rather than IF.

Never take the part for the many is I believe something I keep saying to you. I am sure there are muslims that wish for genocide against Israel. I'm sure there are Israelis who feel the same. Don't take some youtube video recording a couple people for all.

I don't even know where to start with immigrants degrade nationalism. I guess by pointing out that many immigrants have served our country and made up our nationality from its inception.

Crime stats are complicated. If you look at incarcerated or violent crime rates, you are wrong. Shockingly things like driving without a license might be more common. In general police pick up rate amongst minorities has historically been higher, so minor offenses can stack up.

I mean a lot of the food is subsidized..... dear god the farm bill. How many immigrants are due to the fact we've subsidized food has made farming in other countries less sustainable. If you look at the history of economies you can import the food and material. Its not ideal, but hardly required.

[Dreylin]

I already said before in this thread that I see immigrants and migrants as competing with people like me and requiring resources from people like me to support.

Ignoring the whole "people like me" bit which is ... troubling.

To be clear you are against all immigration and migrants both illegal and legal? No fruit pickers, day labourers, academics, oil company employees, baseball players, actors, or CEOs of tech companies? Or is there a line in there where it becomes acceptable that they are not "like you"?

OK, so I didn't ignore it ... deport me.

[greenline]

People like me, who think that the benefits of this country should be reserved for the people who were born there, and not offered to the entire population of the earth as fast as they can move there. I have no more interest in seeing CEOs join than I do fruit pickers.

[Mjmd]

Except as I've argued they provide MORE than than they take. Both in taxes and in economic growth. Its almost like you are purposefully ignoring this.