Kamala is no joke; will vote for her again

Your entire structure of why you believe in your hard-line immigration stances like deporting humans in mass who have ties here is all based on a tautology. It's circular.


Humans naturally migrate. That has been an aspect of human species since our inception. There is a difference between how our current migration system works and what an "invasion" is even though people like you call migration a invasion. An invasion implies an attempt at replacing who controls the monopoly of violence in a region or state. An active invasion always has a goal of replacing the existing power structure and a new structure that controls the monopoly of violence. Illegal migrants coming in for avocado picking season or some meat packing factory gig aren't trying to replace the monopoly on violence when they illegally cross.

But illegal migrants are doing something humans have done without controversy for centuries which is migration based on economic trends, environmental trends etc.

If migration harmed the economics or safety of our capital interests from our capital owning class, there wouldn't be just one political party showboating about cruelty toward migrants as a mere distraction for white working class laborers to be angry about besides the people who rule them and do nothing actually effective to stop the natural flow of economic migrants. You'd see genuine attempts at mass arrests of people like employers and business owners who exist almost entirely on exploited migrant labor like the meat packing industry.


You can't use an argument that they create higher violent crime rates because the only state that keeps track of illegal migrants violent crime is Texas and they have a lower violent crime rate than citizens. You can't say they are a economic drain because then there would be actual mass enforcement because capital interests rule all in America and if migrants actually caused financial strain on our economy rather than being a exploited labor class then they wouldn't be here.

I'm sorry you've spent probably half a century of existence b****ing about the wrong things. It's frustrating. I get it.

 

It is not, actually. I am in favor of eliminating social welfare spending and then allowing open borders. Until that happens, I am in favor of enforcing the laws on the books, because they are the law.

You might want to check out what Muslim immigrants are saying in Denmark.

Enforcing the law has always been less controversial that breaking the law, generally speaking.

Illegal immigration actually benefits the "capital owning class". The harm accrues to the middle and lower classes (though some of the benefit does as well, by way of lower prices).

As I said above, the benefits and drawbacks of illegal immigration are not equally distributed. Of course business owners benefit from the importation of low-cost labor. People that are competing for the same jobs do not benefit. People who are at the lower end of the wage scale have a mix of benefit (lower costs of goods) and detriments (downward pressure on wages). People who have comfortable wages have the benefit of lower costs, but the detriment that their tax dollars are partially spent on more people that are not net taxpayers.

Don't worry about it, I spend very little time or effort on immigration, legal or illegal. I also get the bonus of convicting illegal immigrants of crimes that cause them to be deported (sometimes, not usually because California hates immigration laws and doesn't want to cooperate in deportation). So yay me!

 

"The law of the books" is what I refer to tautological. It's empty. Every civilization has understood the basic concept of discretionary enforcement in their own terms.

I don't know what this has to do with what your doom feed told you about what some Muslims in Denmark said.

Enforcing the law to the letter is much harder than ignoring the law. Go to your average interstate freeway and see the percentage of vehicles going 10 over the speed limit. It would be chaos if enforcement was to the letter.


I've already discussed that the only state that records violent crime data for illegals is Texas and they report they have power crime rates than citizens.

Now on to the economic impact.... I'm glad you've given up on Reaganomics and laugh at the laffer curve and how it doesn't apply to reality. That was just wealthy people trying to sell to the working class that their personal interests directly benefits the working class. You've shown growth as a human to ditch that laughable economic theory conjured up by frat bros when you tell how the profit extraction of business owners doesn't help the middle and working class.

Illegal immigrants benefit wealthy businesses owners. Wealthy businesses owners are the ones that want to maximize profits by by hiring labors willing to be paid under the table because they are exploited.

And this is where the basic fundamental difference in basic morality between us comes in. I put the onus on immoral behavior on the business owners and thus want them punished for undercutting pay for sectors like construction labor.

You don't need cruel practices of displacing impoverished humans just looking for opportunities. You can just imprison the people who have the actual power to stop the practice of undercutting pay.

 

That isn't a tautology though. If I said it is illegal because the law says it is illegal, that is a tautology. Enforcing the law because it is the law is just the faithful application of said law.

I guess you shouldn't speak on the issue then.

Of course it is easier not to enforce laws than it is to enforce laws. That isn't a very good argument for not enforcing laws. I am all in favor of eliminating speed limits, not because it would cause chaos to enforce them, but because speeding itself should not be illegal. More freedom is better.

Yet you thought it bore repeating for some reason. Illegal immigrants do not have lower crime rates than citizens, because 100% of illegals are guilty of a crime.

The Laffer curve is quite obviously real. There are two extreme points of taxation where tax revenue is zero. Moving away from those two extremes increases tax revenue. Therefore, outside of the single point that maximizes tax revenue (which would vary over time and thus cannot possibly be selected through legislation) there will be at least two different levels of taxation that return the same revenue. That is what the Laffer curve says, and it is self-evidently true.

Yes. It turns out you are right when you repeat what I say. Good job.

I would remove the category of illegal immigration entirely. Just get rid of social welfare spending and allow the free movement of labor. We could have lower taxes (less spending requires less revenue, less spending on law enforcement also requires less revenue), wouldn't have meaningless unenforced laws on the books, would still have people willing to work for low wages (get rid of minimum wage laws as well), and the people working would not have to live in an underground economy and fear law enforcement. The basic fundamental difference in morality between us is that you feel rich people deserve to be punished because they are rich, where I feel those who break the law deserve to be punished because they break the law.

You could have open borders and punish neither. Until we change those systems, we should punish both.

 

Both of yall are incredibly ****ed up.

 

It's an impass. You want to punish humans for migrating for jobs and I want to punish people who exploit other humans.

This is where we agree on everything up to the point of our views on morality. So ya, really nothing more to say.

 

I want to punish neither, but accept that we live in an imperfect world. The law says to punish both, so until the law changes, we should punish both. There is nothing inherently unjust about immigration laws or the enforcement thereof. I also disagree with the characterization of the relationship as exploitative. I would say it is a voluntary agreement for mutual advantage. No one is forcing people to immigrate illegally and work under the table for these wages, the people doing it view that as an opportunity.

 

So it's a tautological argument.

That's fine that that is the extent to which you can defend anti+migrant rhetoric.

 

No, once again that is not was tautological means. Enforcement of the law is a good in and of itself. It allows for the will of the people as expressed through legislation to be carried forward. It allows for people to have a fair understanding that what the law books say is how things will play out in reality. It provides a fair system where everyone is equally subject to the same rules of the same game. None of these statements represent a tautology. You are using buzzwords that you do not understand.

As I have expressed a desire for open borders, I am hardly the go to person for anti-migrant rhetoric. I am for the free movement of labor. I am just against subsidizing the people once they move. Other people coming where I am to live off of my money is not a system I support. People moving where there is a demand for labor and living off of the payment received for that labor is. My rhetoric is anti-communist, not anti-migrant. That's why it bothers you.

 

Lol… when you have to use 1000 words to try and win and argument and in the end just decide “fck it… I’m just going to call the guy a communist.”

Sounds like a winning argument to me. I’m sold. Where do I sign up for the Libertarian ticket?

Let me guess….

www.donaldtrumpforpresident.com

??

 

Since he is a self-admitted communist and his arguments are all based on communist theory, I have no issue addressing him as a communist. I'm sorry you don't like arguments that require reading. You can register for the Libertarian party at your local registrar of voters. The Libertarian party can be found at LP.org. Trump was heckled when he tried to speak at a Libertarian event and asked for our nomination. Given the above, I don't think you are the go to source for winning argumentation.

 

Okay. You are entitled to your opinion. Good luck finding, rounding up and deporting between 12 and 30 million people living in America. I am sure that the time, effort and manpower - combined with the lost labor of 5%-10% of the total population in the USA will not have any long-term impact.

If you don't want to reward people for breaking the law, then I assume you don't believe that Donald Trump should be running for President then.

 

I expect there would be long-term impacts both positive and negative. The finding doesn't tend to be an issue. The will to round up and deport is the issue. The country decided long ago that it would not strongly enforce immigration laws, making it seem especially arbitrary and capricious when they choose to deport someone.

I won't be rewarding him with my vote. The law is pretty clear on who is allowed to run, and the requirements are pretty sparse. Over 35, lived in the US for 14 years, and a natural born citizen. I would not impose additional restrictions without amending the Constitution.

 

If that old fuccker from Lowe’s would have said he’ll shoot Biden or Kameltoe, he will be face planted by the goonsquad from this regime and taken away and never will be seen or heard again like those Jan 6th folks.

 

Dark Brandon doing the work, Dementia Don playing the golf.

Illegal Border Crossings Plunged Over Past Five Months