Anonymous #1 1w

I didn't say that

14

Anonymous OP 1w

It was implied. You said that simply crossing the border illegally is harmless, and that people should be tried for committing crimes after the fact, not because of the fact. Therefore the logical conclusion is that as long as they don’t commit any crimes, they can just enter illegally without consequences

1

Anonymous #1 1w

I think the process for becoming a citizen is too needlessly complex and strenuous on our already underfunded and under supported beurecracy. The best solution is investing in an easier path to citizenship bc migration is a completely normal phenomenon that again doesnt actually hurt anyone. The second piece of that would be not fucking w other countries by doing interventionism or imperialism bc that worsens conditions there leading to migration here

6

Anonymous OP 1w

I agree that we need to be less interventionist. How would you solve the citizenship process?

4

Anonymous #1 1w

It’s possible to still regulate the people coming in through both traditional methods and finding the people that aren’t documented and giving them a fair shot too. We have a super advanced crazy surveillance state so why not at least try to use it for some form of good while training our names and faces on AI models

4

Anonymous #2 1w

While they* not at all in support of the surveillance state or what it’s used for

5

Anonymous #2 1w

So we can use traditional methods and surveillance. How would you actually use those things to solve the citizenship process?

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Im not a polician or poli-researcher so I couldn't give specific policy changes off the top of my head but Id probably start with damage control by making some kind protected status for those undocumented within the country rn (especially those w citizen children, those who have citizen family, and those already in the workforce), spend the next year hiring interpretors and translators to communicate their rights under this gov to them and develop a path to integration into us gov systems

3

Anonymous #2 1w

That sounds hellish. I would not want that

3

Anonymous OP 1w

I agree, a surveillance state sounds horrible.

3

Anonymous #1 1w

The entire problem conservatives pretend to have with undocumented immigrants is the undocumented part, well facial recognition technology is already everywhere over our streets scanning us every day so it can obviously tell if someone is documented or not. You can have someone given their fair shot in court instead of being unilaterally deported with no due process

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So what will we do with the border? From what I can gather from this, is that illegals get protected and get an easier path towards citizenship. So my original point still exists, what happens with the border if there are no consequences for crossing it illegally? If I misunderstood your statement then I apologize

3

Anonymous #2 6d

The problem is comprised of a few things, but a big one, is that they’re ILLEGAL. “Undocumented” is just a word used to pretend like they aren’t foreign nationals that are illegally entering and residing in our country

3

Anonymous #1 6d

You sound fun at parties. Hope you get over your bigotry and come to the real world one day 🙏

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Depends on on who you ask for this one tbh. I personally think that the govt shouldn't focus on punitive justice as much so I don't think there needs to be an additional consequence or punishment. If the US has a good relation w its neighbors it should check if they have commited a crime in a an allied country and extradite if its called for but otherwise I think borders exist for govts not for individuals. Its a matter of jurisdiction and freedom lf movement shouldn't be limited unless theres..

1

Anonymous #2 6d

You do realize that the term foreign national is a correct term right? There’s nothing bigoted about wanting secure borders. I want all my fellow Americans, whether they be Asian-American, African-American, etc.

3

Anonymous OP 6d

some kind of an emergency that calls for it, like a war or disease out break or something

1

Anonymous #1 6d

To be safe and not have to worry about the border

0

Anonymous OP 6d

That’d be hard to do since Mexico is effectively controlled by the cartels, so the Mexican government wouldn’t likely be much help

0

Anonymous #1 6d

we already live in a surveillance state?

10

Anonymous #3 6d

huh so it is my b on that detail. but I do think my underlying analysis is still true. It doesn't cause any kind of harm by itself except for the strain it puts on the immigration system which should be reformed rather than militarized to account for that rather than causing needless violence

7

Anonymous #3 6d

First offense is treated as a misdemeanor & after that it’s a felony

1

Anonymous OP 6d

0 immigrants, legal or illegal. Period. End of story.

-5

Anonymous #6 6d

That would destroy the country are you secretly trying to destroy the U.S. lol

5

Anonymous OP 6d

So what’s your limiting principle then? Should anybody who hasn’t committed some sort of additional crime be allowed to come here?

2

Anonymous #5 6d

Nope. White ppl can stay

-5

Anonymous #6 6d

Got it so you are trying to destroy the country. Having a white only ethnostate would destroy the country

5

Anonymous #6 6d

without immigration the U.S. economy would collapse, we have a birth rate below replacement level and an aging population, we need working-age immigrants to keep our social programs afloat

1

Anonymous #5 6d

he’s a racist POS

1

Anonymous #6 6d

oh nvm you’re a piece of shit racist

1

Anonymous #4 6d

This is a common talking point, but how come nobody ever stops and wonders why the birth rate is below replacement in the first place…?

9

Anonymous #4 6d

aah they got you too

-4

Anonymous #5 6d

literally wouldn't btw but I'll hear you out

-4

Anonymous #6 6d

oh you’re a Nazi lmfao

5

Anonymous #4 6d

I think we do yea. I don't like it lol. Im a CS major and ultimately I don't trust corporations w that data and I doubt the US is gonna like nationalize Palantir anytime soon although i probably wouldn't be super fond of that either. Just in general I think traditional means are food enough

6

Anonymous #3 6d

it’s bc having children is too expensive rn, Americans are overworked and underpaid, no wonder they don’t want children No birth rate issues until developed nations under capitalism existed, as per usual, capitalism is the issue

6

Anonymous #4 6d

Couldn’t we just increase taxes on billionaires and mega corporations and use those funds for social services to increase the population growth naturally?

5

Anonymous evil_sheep 6d

that’s possible, but most developed nations, even ones with social safety nets, also have declining birth rates everyone gets maternity leave and time off in Scandinavia and their population is still declining too if I’m not mistaken

1

Anonymous OP 6d

Social infrastructure and regulations need to catch up a whole lot before I personally feel comfy with even considering that tech being used en mass in anyway tbh

3

Anonymous evil_sheep 6d

You’re talking about a wealth tax on billionaires, no? Also, taxing mega corporations is practically impossible given the current state of things internationally…

1

Anonymous #4 6d

Do you have a shred of evidence to support that claim? How come the population is declining in a communist country like the PRC then?

1

Anonymous #3 6d

PRC had the one-child policy for decades which created social norms surrounding having less children than replacement rate They’re also seeing pretty fast increases in how much it costs to raise a child, similar to here

7

Anonymous #4 6d

So how about the Nordic countries with democratic socialism? They’re also experiencing a falling birth rate, no?

1

Anonymous #3 6d

yes, many people there are prioritizing their careers over family building also, liberal democrats in Scandinavia are starting to take down the safety net which is making having children more expensive although not as drastic of a rise in cost as here or China

5

Anonymous #4 6d

Even so the population would return to a equilibrium some day. With those race dollars we could easily fund social services for a good long while till automation and AI pics up the slack of population decline.

6

Anonymous #3 6d

Yes I think so. I think I answered this further down the thread but unless there is a genuine emergency like war or a disease outbreak that should limit freedom of movement then borders should be for governments and not for individuals. Obviously theres a lot of steps in between this ideal and now and I would understand that there may be times when immigration may need to be halted for valid reasons Im not thinking of but in general the default should be a process for everyone to get in

1

Anonymous evil_sheep 6d

But how would you actually tax billionaires like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos? Force them to liquidate their holdings on the stock market? That would only succeed in crashing the whole market? As for the corporations, it’s always only small businesses that pay high corporate taxes, never mega corporations, because they can just “move” overseas…

1

Anonymous OP 6d

Ok, so would be fine with 50 million people coming in within a year?

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Ideally that many wouldn't come in bc we would try to work with the countries we've fucked over with imperialism and interventionism to return them to stable and safe partners in the international community but if need be then yea I think that it is the job of the govt to accomodate migration to the best of its ability not attempt to control it unless absolutely necessary. But Id also be open to some level of stop-gap or some kind of policy that slowed that down if it proved to be too much of...

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Target overseas money movement more specifically Switzerland, Cayman Islands and other locations were we can’t get a good idea of what money they have and where as a start. Increase cost on companies that make x amount of money that is abroad. Increase fines and regulations on illegal practices. Prevent stock from being used for collateral. If not then tax it when it is used as collateral for loans.

3

Anonymous OP 6d

a strain on govt systems at once. Also all this specific policy stuff is so far removed from the current situation that idk what comditions we would need to adapt this policy to as we develop it but ik that the goal that I personally would want this govt to reach for is one where we could have that kind of freedom of movement be the default.

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 6d

Also I fw evil sheeps analysis on this as well. Ive agreed w most of what they've said about seizing the assets of billionares. Im sure if the US continues to have dollar hegemony they could probably convince a lot of countries to cooperate with an international tax investigation to make sure all major multinational corporations aren't avoiding taxes in several nations and we could probably economically sanction the nations that do not cooperate like cayman isles or switzerland

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Not enough people can afford a kid so not enough people are having one. Pretty simple.

1

Anonymous #8 6d

I believe that borders should be for govts to determine the jurisdiction of their laws and not demarcations that unnecessrily limit freedom of movement. So borders shouldn't matter much to people but violence should and colonization is an inherently violent process. Its not like White colonizers immigrated to the Americas and submitted themselves to whatever customs indiginous people had for migrating peoples. They brutally occupied the land and ethnically cleansed the natives.

2

Anonymous #8 6d

Its a witty line but ultimately also a false equivalency that kinda just shows how vibes based people's belief systems are on this subject a lot of the time

4

Anonymous OP 5d

Back then they battled for land and conquered land if the land was conquered they won it. I don’t think it should be done that way now. Do you think the illegals should come in here and obliterate us for our land since white guys did it a bunch of years ago so it’s ok? We have laws, and none of us are above it to decide who’s illegal action is harmless or not. They’re put in place for some kind of order and regulation.

1

Anonymous #8 5d

Brother people make the laws. Are a you a mideval peasant that thinks laws are passed down to the executive by fucking god? The laws themselves should be just and punish according to the harm done by the crime. Simply entering as Ive stated harms nobody and so the punishment needn't be the violent dentention in a barely livable gulag. Also that literally isn't happening. There is no horde of "illegal" barabarians at the gates, its just poor families who want better lives for the most part.

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Bottom line is you don’t decide what is the law and what’s not 💀 doesn’t matter who makes them in this argument. They’re there to be followed and no one gives a f if you think a crime isn’t bad enough to have consequences. Is it ok if someone breaks and enters into your house bc it was cold out and they needed a better temp to sleep in?

1

Anonymous OP 5d

You're focus on rhe imagnined violence of impoverished migrants is blinding you to the massive mechanisms of structural and state violence in our country. Like even if a couple migrants enter with the express intention of causing problems in america, committing crimes, etc. they are still nowhere near as dangerous as the deregulated well-funded internal military with the backingof the richest and most violent country in the world. And that is what ICE is.

0

Anonymous #8 5d

YES. I would give them a blanket. Its fucking freezing out rn and believe it or not I actually give a shit about my fellow humans. And also laws change. People change them. Politics in a democracy ideally is regular people organizing to change laws and policy to better suit peoples needs and this country is supposed to be a democracy.

1

Anonymous OP 5d

I didn’t say give them a blanket, I said let them stay in your house to sleep. You absolutely would not lol you’d probably call the cops you want to defend if they refused to leave.

4

Anonymous #8 5d

Defund*

3

Anonymous OP 5d

The laws change yes, but if they havn’t changed, they are as they stand. No matter how much you don’t like it.

6

Anonymous #8 5d

so what you want people to just shut up and comply with what is the biggest push into authoritarianism of any executive? truly some of the most bootlicking shit Ive ever heard lol

-2

Anonymous OP 5d

Ok, respectfully, that’s just not true. You forget that Obama literally droned American citizens abroad without any due process—absolutely nothing. Where was the outrage over that?

11

Anonymous OP 5d

That’s not what I said but if you break the law, there are consequences 🫠 you don’t change the law by repeatedly breaking it. Lol you can peacefully protest it or demand change and all that until it gets voted and changed, but until then.. if you break the law that’s in place there’s a consequence. This mentality you have sounds like when little kids play a game and change the rules because they said so when they don’t like how it’s going.

6

Anonymous #3 5d

Ive lost what this is replying to. What isn't true? I am outraged that happened. That was also a major step into authoritarianism that enabled DT to domwhat he's done. Im in no way an Obama apologist. He's also a war criminal.

1

Anonymous #8 5d

What mentality? When did I say breaking the law doesn't have consequences? Im talking about what goals and policy Id like to see the country pursue in the furture rather than the terrible policy its instituting now. And you seem to be sayin "well its not like that rn so u might as well stop talking about it".

1

Anonymous OP 5d

It did also happen when I was like in middle school so my bad I wasn't mad enough for you while I was still figuring out what politics was 🤷🏾‍♂️

1

Anonymous OP 4d

No I invite talking about it and I actually appreciate you for being able to have a conversation without raging. I’m not against changing the policy, id actually be for it. Im just for doing things correctly. Right now crossing the border and residing here without documentation is illegal. Overstaying without documentation is illegal. Same as ANY other country. Wait what happened in high school, someone -broke into- your house and you guys said welcome in buddy here’s a place to stay?

1

Anonymous #8 4d

I don't see how that line of reasoning is productive tbh. Bc what do you do when people in power bend or break the law? They don't recieve consequences for that usually. Either that or the comsequence is designed to affect a normal person significantly more than someone with the institutional power and wealth they have. It seems incredibly naive to me to say all protest and resistance to injustice needs to abide by laws shaped to prevent them from seizing any of the levers of power.

1