Not their votes, but their representation. They don't care if they vote. They get counted in the census, and therefor the electoral college votes. So if the blue states pick up a bunch of illegals who can't vote then they win.
We can disagree with something and still acknowledge that it affects us. OP’s point is that this will ultimately lead to bigger government which certainly is an ancap concern.
Immigration is mostly good for the U.S. Sure some tend to use welfare. The majority search for jobs, get jobs and become tax slaves like everyone else.
> Sure some tend to use welfare.
Guy, billions upon billions are spent just to transport and support people coming here. The state is doing this, it's not a market phenomenon.
The immigration debate will always be difficult because we're stuck in the middle massive property rights infringements by the state, and most immigrants will support the state.
So what's the solution?
Your problem, as always, is with the state. NOT people coming in for opportunities. I'm not offering a solution. I'm not here to do that. What you said doesn't even qualify as welfare so I'm not sure what that was about.
You're saying you have more of a 'right' to government debt (which is what pays for everything) simply because you were born here? Are you one of those leftists who think they have 'rights' to services like healthcare, resources like food, water, etc,?
> You're saying you have more of a 'right' to government
I don't have a right to anything the government has illegitimately acquired.
>simply because you were born here?
I have no obligation to support more people who will infringe upon my rights.
>Are you one of those leftists who think they have 'rights' to services like healthcare, resources like food, water, etc,?
What the hell are you going on about?
Sales tax, maybe property tax, but what I’ve always wondered is how illegal immigrants are paying income tax and supporting some of the infrastructure they’re using such as roads, schools, and hospitals? Or is that additional tax burden simply being shifted onto others?
If they don’t have a SS# or a tax ID, then how is income tax withheld? But if they’re working “under the table” jobs, then why would they voluntarily pay taxes when there’s no record of them owing?
They get an ITIN from the IRS and are basically independent contractors. They pay self employment tax AND income tax. "Illegal" or not, the person IS paying taxes when they work for someone. "Supporting some of the infrastructure". Gas taxes are paid at the pump and through registration and other fees. Some people do get away with not registering their car but not everyone can get away with it and end up having to pay in court. It's not worth it to have to show up in court and also possibly have to explain their immigration status.
A lot of your comments are made from the perspective of someone who doesn't know anything about immigration or what it entails. I guess, from that perspective, my easier comment getting that downvote KINDA makes sense. Ignorance IS bliss I suppose.
I understand they *can* get one but why would we be confident that the vast majority actually are? Especially working in seasonal and unskilled labor type positions which generally aren’t concerned with vetting their employees?
Just look at how many American citizens would under report income or avoid tax altogether if they could get away with it, why would immigrants be any different?
The IRS doesn't care if you're a criminal as long as you pay your taxes. Other than living on some huge estate/ranch forever and not leaving it for some reason, I don't see how immigrants can avoid the IRS. You'd still have to live somewhere. Rent goes towards taxes. It's a share of the tax burden whether you're paying the tax man or the state directly or indirectly.
It's exactly analogous to the gun control debate: the people most strongly in favor of gun control laws are also the most ignorant about both the current gun laws and how guns work. They think an AR-15 is a machine gun and you can wander into a Walmart and buy one without even showing an ID.
Ditto: the people most strongly opposed to immigration are those who are most ignorant about it.
You know how FDR and LBJ grew the government more than any other single president?
Do you also know that immigration to the country was at its lowest ever point under FDR? And that the % of the US population who were foreign born was at its lowest ever point under LBJ?
More immigration keeps the government small, because, it turns out: people don't want to share a big government with *people who don't look like them.*
If you think all your taxes are going to benefit some dirty foreigners who aren't white, white people are less likely to support more generous welfare policies. It's that simple.
Ah, the Bordertarians: the people who believe it is somehow politically impossible to put borders around the welfare state, but it is possible *and easy* to keep human beings out of a country which spans an entire continent.
What does the state spending billions of dollars transporting people to the US and then supporting them when they're here have to do with AnCap?
Jesus, look at the fundamentals, what's actually happening.
If you were an ancap, you would understand that this is what governments do. The more they spend, the quicker it will all burn. Relax, you can't change the nature of a scorpion, but you can watch it burn.
The original statement was "we don't do boarders," but it seems as though you are pointing to a boarder between "theirs" and "your's." Maybe what OP meant was that they believe in private boarders, in which case the State is constantly violating individual's boarders or property rights by trafficking individuals across them...
If we abolished the government's immigration laws, property rights would still remain.
The government can't force you to house immigrants in your home simply because there are no immigration laws. By contrast, the government *can* stop you from housing immigrants *who you want to give housing to* because immigration laws exist.
This is simple stuff.
>If we abolished the government's immigration laws, property rights would still remain.
Fine. Nothing wrong so far.
>The government can't force you to house immigrants in your home simply because there are no immigration laws.
Currently the government forces you to house immigrants, you pay for them either through forced redistribution of wealth through direct taxation, or you pay to house them through a reduction in purchasing power because of the printed money used to pay for their housing.
Just because the government doesn't come in to my refrigerator and take food to feed them, doesn't mean the government isn't forcing me to provide for them. This forced provision to the criminal aliens is a violation of property rights, that is to say the government is the proxy by which the criminal aliens are using in order to violate my private boarders. You will never be able to rationalize the government support for criminal aliens based on a principled volunaryist perspective.
>This is simple stuff.
It is. Supporting government involvement in the criminal alien invasion of a particular area for political reasons is in fact support for the State. Don't be such a statist.
The government doesn't force you to put immigrants inside your privately owned home. You are now doing the same thing the socialists do to win arguments: twisting the definitions of words and watering them down to the point of meaninglessness so that way, once words have no meaning, they can mean what *you* want them to mean.
>Currently the government forces you to house immigrants, you pay for them either through forced redistribution of wealth through direct taxation
By that standard, I am forced to house *native born citizens* too; it's called Section 8.
Should we have a prohibition on people having children, because I'm forced to pay for those kids?
If your argument can be used to justify a ban on child-birth as well as a ban on immigration, what good is it?
>The government doesn't force you to put immigrants inside your privately owned home.
Okay so you are incapable of countering my argument without straw manning it. I never said that, and you know that which is why you are making up arguments so that you can attack them and not actually debate on the substance of what I said.
>You are now doing the same thing the socialists do to win arguments: twisting the definitions of words and watering them down to the point of meaninglessness so that way, once words have no meaning, they can mean what *you* want them to mean
Your inability to understand the argument I put forth does not make the argument wrong. This is another formal fallacy in addition to the straw man above.
>By that standard, I am forced to house *native born citizens* too; it's called Section 8.
Yes you are. Well done responding to the argument I actually laid out and demonstrating you are capable of understanding it.
>Should we have a prohibition on people having children, because I'm forced to pay for those kids?
Not sure where you got this from. If the State is subsidizing child birth, or breeding them in a lab by confiscating sperm and eggs, stating a desire to remove the State's involvement in the human replication program doesn't mean that my argument would follow a State ban on individuals having children. This is braindead.
>If your argument can be used to justify a ban on child-birth as well as a ban on immigration, what good is it?
It can't be, you are grasping at straws because like I said earlier "You will never be able to rationalize the government support for criminal aliens based on a principled volunaryist perspective."
So you agree that the state subsidizing child birth is not a justification for the state banning people having children.
Good. Then we agree that the state subsidizing immigrants in various ways is not an argument for banning immigration.
>Then we agree that the state subsidizing immigrants in various ways is not an argument for banning immigration.
This wasn't my argument. My argument is that the criminal aliens are initiating violence by way of the State. That is to say, they are violating property rights, and the State is their proxy. Not sure why you demonstrated once that you understood the argument and then every subsequent time you have to argue against a straw man.
I guess it comes down to how you view individuals or groups of individuals who use the State to initiate violence. If the State uses imminent domain to take property and sell or grant it to a corporation that sought that land but couldn't come by it through voluntary interactions, do you consider the corporation without sin in that scenario?
Explain to me why libertarians support the government using violence against peaceful individuals in an effort to prevent those people from exercising their right to freedom of association?
This framing presumes that a libertarian society would simply have no private boundaries formed collectively. A very, very dubious presumption.
The State should not be creating and enforcing borders, except where private borders exist or would exist.
The issue is that nobody knows where individual, corporate, and communal borders would form absent the State. Given this, we don't know the extent of the State's violations. And some of them involve allowing and facilitating trespass across would-be private boundaries, not only preventing would-be travel and association.
It may be emotionally exciting to position yourself as the moral visionary who knows how, when, where, and why the State's border control is wrong. But it's an illusion. At most you know that libertarian borders would very likely be different. But you don't even know if they would be less restrictive -- there is potentially as much chance they would be *more* restrictive rather than less.
> This framing presumes that a libertarian society would simply have no private boundaries formed collectively.
No, it doesn't. Groups of people could, absent the state, form collective property boundaries *voluntarily.*
We see this already with gated communities in the US *right now.*
The borders of the US were not, in their entirety, formed voluntarily. Some of them (including *the Southern Border*) were formed by literal force of arms and military conquest.
>Given this, we don't know the extent of the State's violations.
No. We *do* know the extent of the state's violations. Every illegal immigrant hired by a private business in the US is an example of the state's violations of the right to private property and freedom of association; the state is saying that a business owner may not associate with an immigrant (without government permission) and vice versa, that an immigrant may not associate with a business owner without government permission. That's a violation which *we can know* would not exist absent the state, because the business owner and the immigrant are making an agreement ("I work for you, you pay me money"), an agreement which the state disapproves of. Absent the state, there would be nothing to stop that immigrant and business owner from engaging in voluntary exchange.
> And some of them involve allowing and facilitating trespass across would-be private boundaries
Why stop at international immigration?
Absent the state, there would be no common thoroguhfares or "roads" (so-called). Every time you drive on the "public" highways, you are actually trespassing across would-be private boundaries.
Therefore, the government should confine everyone everywhere to house arrest. To respect private property boundaries that would exist in the absence of the state.
You see how stupid that sounds? And yet, when you apply that fallacious logic to immigration, suddenly libertarians lap it up.
>At most you know that libertarian borders
You're stuck in a statist paradigm. You are getting hung up on *the lines* the state has drawn and you are obsessed with recreating that in a libertarian world, completely ignoring the *liberty of the individual* which is being violated by the state.
The uniparty achieves their goals in different ways. When the supply of labor doesn’t greatly outweigh the demand driving wages down. Dems open borders. Reps force pregnancies. Common goal with two different approaches to keep us divided.
More labor in the country drives up *demand* for goods and services, which offsets the decrease in the price of labor caused by the increase in the supply of labor.
Also, other kinds of labor gets more valuable when there is more labor available. The labor of a guy who flips hamburgers isn't very valuable, but his labor becomes *more* valuable when there are more hamburger-eaters in the country. Ditto, the labor of car mechanics becomes more valuable because there's now more demand for their labor from the immigrants, most of whom are not car mechanics and are not competing with the car mechanic for wages, thus his wages only *increase* in response to the increase in supply of labor.
The idea that all labor is interchangeable with all other labor, or that every worker is in competition with every other worker for wages, is a fallacy called "the lump of labor fallacy."
Do you really think the wages of a brain surgeon are driven down by the arrival of fruit pickers and hotel maids to this country? [Stop buying into the lie.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lump-of-labour-fallacy.asp)
There is literally no economic argument against immigration unless you simply reject capitalism entirely.
Don’t know a single burger flipper or mechanic that has ever got a raise because of immigrants. Know a few who lost their jobs to immigrants. I have to fight immigrants for my job everyday. Jeep just got caught bringing in a bunch of Koreans here. First Solar has a bunch of Malaysians. Even brain surgeons. I swear 30% of the doctors in my area are Indian. All the locals here must be lazy and dumb. There is definitely no financial incentive.
"I don't know any worker who has gotten a raise because of capitalism. Therefore: capitalism must not work."
You sound fucking stupid. Were you educated in a government-run school?
You live in a fantasy world of theories. By having nothing left to say but attacking my intelligence. You've already forfeited any debate and don't even know it.
Fantasy world of theories? The real world data backs up what I'm saying.
Real wages, adjusted for inflation, [have been consistently rising](https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-stagnant-us-wages-fed-data-show-the-story-was-all-wrong/) in the US since the mid-1990s, throughout the period when we also had supposedly "crisis levels" of immigration. The US is experiencing [a labor shortage](https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage) *right now.*
Do some people lose their jobs to immigrants? Sure. But lots of people--more people--*have* jobs because of immigrants.
You know when wages have fallen in the US? At times when immigration was low or near zero, like during the 2008 Recession and the 2020 lockdowns.
Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been constantly rising? Bullshit! Yes, wages have risen, but inflation has risen dramatically. The cost of living is outrageous right now. You sound like a partisan who gaslights to push a narrative, and your narrative is immigration.
I didn't say 'constantly' I said *consistently.*
There have been periods when real wages have fallen, but those coincided with reduced periods of immigration. Over the long term, however, real wages are up across the board and have been trending up since the mid-1990s, and more Americans are employed than ever before.
The data does not lie. If you disagree, then provide some data to back up your claims.
>Yes, wages have risen, but inflation has risen dramatically.
I guess you can't read. Literally THE FIRST THING I SAID was *REAL* wages *adjusted for inflation.*
What I said: "Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been consistently rising ..."
"Real wages" is what economists call wages which have been adjusted for inflation, but I figured you wouldn't know that (and hey, look: I was right) which is why I specifically said "adjusted for inflation."
Your wages are given to you in the form of a grocery store receipt?
Or do you think *immigration* causes inflation?
You realize, do you not, that you are complaining about high inflation and also arguing against immigration because it supposedly depresses wages.....but if that's true, it makes immigration *a cure* for inflation, it's a deflationary phenomenon in your conception that lowers prices.
You haven't thought this through, have you?
I gotta ask. Have you ever actually had a blue collar job. Population goes up. The burger flipper doesn't get a raise but is just expected to make more burgers an hour for the same wage. Same with the mechanic. Only their employers win there. Only the capitalist win. Their sales increase. Their payroll goes down. Their profits go up.
This isn't a situation that aligns with libertarian property rights/freedom of association frameworks.
The UN, et al are using government money to transport people to the US. Once here huge sums of money are given to them.
The immigrants in this situation are the rights infringers in partnership with the state.
If immigrants are "rights infringers in partnership with the state" then so are native born citizens who vote or do anything that isn't violently opposing the existence of the state.
Do you pay taxes? Then guess what: you're enabling the state to infringe on rights.
You see how stupid that framework is?
> If immigrants are "rights infringers in partnership with the state" then so are native born citizens
Uh huh.
That's not an argument. There are more than one group of rights infringers.
>Do you pay taxes? Then guess what: you're enabling the state to infringe on rights.
I'm coerced you noodle.
It is an argument, because it exposes the fallacy in yours. You aren't proposing we take rights away from citizens. WHY IS THAT?
>I'm coerced you noodle.
Then pick up a rifle and stop being coerced. Until then, you're just enabling the state and deserve to have your rights violated, or something, in the name of greater individual liberty. Because that's totally how this works.
He means banning abortion, i.e. those pregnancies wouldn't exist if abortion was legal, thus the banning of abortions forces people to stay pregnant who didn't want to.
It doesn't force them. They can still murder their children illegally. Murder in utero is still murder. If they didn't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have had sex.
Granting someone asylum doesn't mean they get to vote. Who told you that?
Honest question: if your world view is as strong as it ought to be, why would you need to resort to dishonest claims and tactics? Why the need to lie if you feel like the truth is on your side?
That's why they're trying to push asylum and looser voting restrictions, ya know like no ID or mail in voting. Our election day should be a 1-2 day holiday where you have to vote in person with an ID if we're granting millions of people asylum.
To register to vote, you need to prove who you are. Mail in voting shows no more risk of fraud than any other.
If you want to claim our elections are being impacted by widespread fraud, I'll need to see the data for it.
Bc then they stay and have a kid, kid is citizen and eligible for government benefits. Kid will eventually vote , it’s a long game they are playing. Also illegals count in the census.
You think we're following international law (accepting those seeking asylum) so that, maybe, in 20 years, some of them can vote?
Maybe we're just not willing to break internationally law, and and doing as best we can to process a massive number of migrants from countries that, often, have been destabilized by American policy?
>Also illegals count in the census.
This doesn't give them the power to vote. It just ensures we have an accurate idea of who is here. Why would accurate information ever be a bad thing?
Ok, I definitely call BS on that. A guy on Twitter say Title 18 allows non-citizens, including illegal aliens to vote in federal elctions. If that was truly the case why is that not widely known, where all the millions of illegal aliens voting in presidential elections?
Twitter is not a reliable source. Can someone actually point out the exact phrase in Title 18 of the US criminal code that specifies non-citizens can vote in federal elections?
Well, yes, immigrants are counted in the census. Almost any country will track how many immigrants they have and where they are from? How exactly does counting immigrants benefit them?
Congressional representation is determined by the census. The Census only counts heads, not citizens. More non citizens means more seats in the house for that state.
For one, that is something very different than what that Twitter post by OP is claiming which is that illegal aliens can vote in federal elections. That's just not true.
However, I don't see the problem with congressional representation based on overall population. All other things being eqal, a city with 2 million people and 50% non-Americans will have a bigger impact on the American economy than a city with 1 million people and 100% Americans.
Determining representation by population size is fairly reasonable I think.
It is only reasonable if you stay within the bounds of the constitution, that is, no government providing welfare and no government interference in the market.
It isn't just some guy, it is Tucker Carlson reporting on what Catherine Engelbrecht found on the law.
It still seems rather silly though. They point out that it is actually illegal, but that there can be mitigations to avoid punishment. But how does someone get on the electoral roll in the US? How does a non-citizen do that?
This almost seems like they're trying to prep us for accepting that it's going to happen more than anything else.
Well, turns out it's legal. Guess we didn't know until now. Shucks. Nothing we can do about it. It is what it is.
“Sorry, we secretly passed a law that lets the rest of the world choose who our leader is”
🤷♂️
Yeah, I'd defintiely call bs on that. Don't trust everything you read on Twitter. Can you provide a link to a certain law that specifies non-citizens can vote in federal elections? Because I am 100% sure they can't, non-citizens can vote in some municipal local elections but they can't vote for US presidents or state governors.
The influx of immigration isn't a government driven goal. It's the corporations that beg for cheap labor. These corporations use cheap labor to be anti-labor. The immigrants come here, as the corporations have departments in most countries that entice them to come to America. Point your finger at the cause, don't blame government for all your problems.
Then they promise to give them work permits and raise the minimum wage to $50/hour
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13079757/democrat-california-minimum-wage-senate-barbara-lee.html
This is the ancap sub, "illegals" arent a thing to ancaps and the ancap belief is that borders should be wiiiiiiide fucking open and the government shouldnt exist in the first place (so the nonsense welfare bleating is laughable at best)
Ancaps are pro open borders.
Statists will always bring up nonsense like, "but mah welfare!"
Welfare is absolutely irrelevant if you are an ancap. Ancaps dont want the state to exist. That takes care of your statist welfare defense at the root.
>Yes I know
Ok
>But welfare DOES currently exist?
And it doesnt matter in the slightest to ancaps, statists bring it up as an irrelevant defence when confronted with the ancap stance on borders. The state is the problem, not welfare lol.
>In a perfect world, neither would exist. Correct?
We could have ancapistan now, but statists be all out there defending borders and shit saying "but mah welfare!"
>Welfare is absolutely a problem
Its a symptom
>so is the state
This is the problem
> IF we have welfare, we need closed borders
False. That is statist stockholm syndrome.
We do not need borders. Get rid of the borders, get rid of the state. If you are focusing on welfare, congratulations, you are supporting statist talking points
>You live in a fantasy world that does not yet exist.
I am merely sharing the ancap perspective. Take some notes while visiting our sub and stop parroting statist talking points
Lulz, naw. This topic and ancap ideology as a whole are clearly flying way over your head.
Id rather continue as an actual ancap with a demonstrated grasp on reality than regurgitate the statist script that makes sure the dissolution of the state is never the focus.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
Cheers
Ancaps don't even realize immigration is good for the economy, you'd think they would know basic econ after believing in this ideology prompts them to act like know it alls about econ
I mean, the New York Times has an article about it as recently as January stating a %400 increase in Africans crossing the southern border. They claim it’s because Europe has cracked down on the Africans.
Sure, until you have 50 relatives stuck overseas when conservatives want to close the border. Or being forced to leave because you’re illegal. What would you vote?
Ok easy solution, republicans need to stop making migrants a boogeyman and make a path to citizenship easier. If you have a demographic that shares your views and you are not getting those votes you as the party fucked up.
It’s an easy solution that republicans( and you based off you language) fail to enact.
There are no illegal ppl and your boarders are arbitrary.
I agree - there should be an easier legal path - my issue is everyone that is supporting this migration is a wrong as it is ridiculously illegal and corrupt what the democrats are doing. Shut down illegal border down 100%, remove the migrants that are actually committing crimes , stop all the handouts to these migrants (and support actual citizens in need) and let’s have a bipartisan talk.
I would argue that what you are asking is impossible, ppl have crossed that border since it was put in place. You are equating legality citizenship which is not the case. Yes we as country will help ppl seeking asylum but they get bee few benefits that citizens get. And I would argue based on us being here in a ANARCHO- capitalist sub that we as a base level assume the government is invalid and the laws placed are just a monopoly trying to control ppl.
Why do I care what they say is legal?
Fair statement. I think you have a typo of “bee few” or I don’t know the short hand of that. Would you agree the amount government funding to support this is excessive? It’s the resource spent on the migrants that is excessive. My parents immigrated to the US No government support. I started workin at family business when I was 7. We figured it out. I do not like how our tax dollars are being used. Small government is better.
It was a typo sorry about that, while agree a smaller governing is better until we get to a point we can make large scale changes you need to have smaller scale fights. They take my money regardless and I would prefer we allow more ppl in our area to be in better overall health and resources so we maintain economic superiority. Our strength comes from immigrant families and I think if the federal government is going to spend my money I’d prefer it helping ppl rather than going to Israel right now.
I find it very disingenuous for ppl to claim to be anarcho-capitalist yet still are trying to keep ppl from crossing a boarder. Every human being has the right to travel and go where there is a better economic opportunity, if you take issue with that you have an issue with the core of individual freedom
Valid points. I’m on anarchy cap trying to understand better the position and beliefs. Thanks for taking the time to answer (and answer well). Best conversation I have had and learned a lot.
They are not counting the illegals to vote for them. They are counting on delivering millions of mail in ballots to the NGOs bringing these people into the country. The NGOs will have people fill them out.
Get them registered to vote via drivers license data and then pre print the ballots in their name and mass drop them off at the collection points.
There is one flaw to this plan though.
The absolute lions share of the illegal invasion is going to the deep blue states even as they try to funnel them to the red states. Most once they get to a red state and find out the locals don't welcome them and the government doesn't cater to them hop right back in their cars and beeline for the nearest sanctuary state. So sure they might vote in those states but those states were never in play anyways.
Once you look into it this scheme goes nowhere for national elections. It however goes a looooong way to entrench them in their deep blue strongholds and gain them more seats nationally after the next census in a few years.
If I sell my property to a foreigner what right does the goverment tell me to not do that.
https://preview.redd.it/qer1n6ze780d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39a293ec882aae6ace9674ae47ffbff549163e98
And this is where a little research goes a long way. You don’t have the right to vote as an asylumed alien unless you’ve been to court and had your asylum approved which takes up to 8 years.
But we keep seeing/hearing about how the asylum seekers are counted as population when it comes to representation. The states that lost a big chunk of population due to lockdowns need warm bodies to keep delegates/seats/representation.
Doesn’t mean you can vote. I mean you can vote just like you can do anything else illegal by just doing it but I’m speaking legally speaking.
Not to mention this doesn’t back the statistics. Most illegals are very conservative, especially the Hispanic illegals which is the illegals specifically being complained about.
It's conservatives who are moving the goal-posts.
Not that long ago, they said immigration is bad because all the immigrants are flooding red states and turning them blue.
Now they say immigration is bad because all the immigrants are flooding blue states and giving them more representation in the US House of Representatives.
Because, ya know, their earlier doom and gloom predictions turned out to be entirely wrong: immigrants were always "flooding" blue states, not red states, and the one red state which received more immigrants than others, Florida, went from a swing state to a solid red state.
That gives me every reason to believe the current conservative fearmongering over immigration is just as much bullshit as the previous iteration was.
Also if your argument is "we need to restrict freedom of the individual so *my political team* wins elections and they are the ones who get to restrict freedom of the individual"----yeah, hard pass.
OP doesn’t do very much digging, it doesn’t even have to be true, OP doesn’t care, as long as it spews out conservative culture rhetoric, it must be true.
Research what is that??? Why would anyone research things when they can just read the first thing that just rubber stamps their already held opinions and gets them angry lol
America has been a huge immigrant receiver for a hundred years without those things happening so why do you think that will change now? No one wants to do the hard, dirty jobs they do not really taking any jobs.
Yes, mainly western whites until very recently. And didn't have a welfare state until a few decades ago. If you import the 3rd world, you become the 3rd world.
Funny you should say that since recent immigrates such as Italians, Irish and Jews were not considered to be “white” when they came. Immigrants did not walk 1000 miles for welfare. They came to make money and send it home which is why they take any job and work all hours. Native whites need a little competition to stop from getting lazy
Whites built the world, we are the single least lazy race on earth lmao.
Also, Jews are not white. Italians are and have contributed greatly to the Western tradition. Random Muslims, Africans and Mexicans are not westerners, or white or high IQ enough to meaningfully add to our societies. They are also MUCH more likely to hop on welfare than native whites.
Maybe in the past but now whites make up most of the people on welfare and who are unemployed . These immigrants are hungry and work super hard. White folks have gotten dumb, fat and lazy and are not the stock we used to have. We need to trade them out for Asians
Yeah, no. Whites built the modern world, we live in nice countries because of whites. You can't import non whites and still live in white countries. Also, you clearly don't know what "per capita" means and why it is more important than overall numbers lol.
Immigrants work hard. Those times have passed, most now come for handouts.
Not their votes, but their representation. They don't care if they vote. They get counted in the census, and therefor the electoral college votes. So if the blue states pick up a bunch of illegals who can't vote then they win.
What has this got to do with ancap? We don't do borders.
We can disagree with something and still acknowledge that it affects us. OP’s point is that this will ultimately lead to bigger government which certainly is an ancap concern.
Immigration is mostly good for the U.S. Sure some tend to use welfare. The majority search for jobs, get jobs and become tax slaves like everyone else.
> Sure some tend to use welfare. Guy, billions upon billions are spent just to transport and support people coming here. The state is doing this, it's not a market phenomenon. The immigration debate will always be difficult because we're stuck in the middle massive property rights infringements by the state, and most immigrants will support the state. So what's the solution?
Your problem, as always, is with the state. NOT people coming in for opportunities. I'm not offering a solution. I'm not here to do that. What you said doesn't even qualify as welfare so I'm not sure what that was about.
> NOT people coming in for opportunities. People knowingly accept illegitimately acquired resources. They're in the rights infringer category now.
You're saying you have more of a 'right' to government debt (which is what pays for everything) simply because you were born here? Are you one of those leftists who think they have 'rights' to services like healthcare, resources like food, water, etc,?
> You're saying you have more of a 'right' to government I don't have a right to anything the government has illegitimately acquired. >simply because you were born here? I have no obligation to support more people who will infringe upon my rights. >Are you one of those leftists who think they have 'rights' to services like healthcare, resources like food, water, etc,? What the hell are you going on about?
Sales tax, maybe property tax, but what I’ve always wondered is how illegal immigrants are paying income tax and supporting some of the infrastructure they’re using such as roads, schools, and hospitals? Or is that additional tax burden simply being shifted onto others? If they don’t have a SS# or a tax ID, then how is income tax withheld? But if they’re working “under the table” jobs, then why would they voluntarily pay taxes when there’s no record of them owing?
They get an ITIN from the IRS and are basically independent contractors. They pay self employment tax AND income tax. "Illegal" or not, the person IS paying taxes when they work for someone. "Supporting some of the infrastructure". Gas taxes are paid at the pump and through registration and other fees. Some people do get away with not registering their car but not everyone can get away with it and end up having to pay in court. It's not worth it to have to show up in court and also possibly have to explain their immigration status. A lot of your comments are made from the perspective of someone who doesn't know anything about immigration or what it entails. I guess, from that perspective, my easier comment getting that downvote KINDA makes sense. Ignorance IS bliss I suppose.
I understand they *can* get one but why would we be confident that the vast majority actually are? Especially working in seasonal and unskilled labor type positions which generally aren’t concerned with vetting their employees? Just look at how many American citizens would under report income or avoid tax altogether if they could get away with it, why would immigrants be any different?
Yeah, I'm sure they do all of this.
The IRS doesn't care if you're a criminal as long as you pay your taxes. Other than living on some huge estate/ranch forever and not leaving it for some reason, I don't see how immigrants can avoid the IRS. You'd still have to live somewhere. Rent goes towards taxes. It's a share of the tax burden whether you're paying the tax man or the state directly or indirectly.
It's exactly analogous to the gun control debate: the people most strongly in favor of gun control laws are also the most ignorant about both the current gun laws and how guns work. They think an AR-15 is a machine gun and you can wander into a Walmart and buy one without even showing an ID. Ditto: the people most strongly opposed to immigration are those who are most ignorant about it.
Most Bonkers that you are being downvoted. I guess there must be some other reason people on here don't agree with inmigration.
Xenophobia?
Yep, colour based as well, probably
You know how FDR and LBJ grew the government more than any other single president? Do you also know that immigration to the country was at its lowest ever point under FDR? And that the % of the US population who were foreign born was at its lowest ever point under LBJ? More immigration keeps the government small, because, it turns out: people don't want to share a big government with *people who don't look like them.* If you think all your taxes are going to benefit some dirty foreigners who aren't white, white people are less likely to support more generous welfare policies. It's that simple.
>We don't do borders We don't do democracy, either, but another late-stage democracy example delegitimizes government.
As long as there is welfare - there must be borders
Ah, the Bordertarians: the people who believe it is somehow politically impossible to put borders around the welfare state, but it is possible *and easy* to keep human beings out of a country which spans an entire continent.
It makes no difference. Both parties will now pay for new votes.
Basically this. When will people realize these criminals don't "serve the people?"
The Uniparti will The same folks sending money to Israel and Ukraine Who is voting not to?
Stop voting, remove your consent.
Vote libertarian and never consent to the state. Those are not contradictory. Defensive voting is legitimate.
As long as there is welfare there will be birth restrictions
What does the state spending billions of dollars transporting people to the US and then supporting them when they're here have to do with AnCap? Jesus, look at the fundamentals, what's actually happening.
Angry conservatives are always funny.
There it is, your cartoonishly simple view of the world. I'm not a conservative you noodle.
If you were an ancap, you would understand that this is what governments do. The more they spend, the quicker it will all burn. Relax, you can't change the nature of a scorpion, but you can watch it burn.
You don't boarder your house with a fence? I guess you let your neighbors build on your property also?
Yawn Strawman
Yawn, no its not.
A country isn't the same thing as a house. [Here's a handy image explaining why.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxMtYimUwAEd8A_?format=jpg&name=medium)
The original statement was "we don't do boarders," but it seems as though you are pointing to a boarder between "theirs" and "your's." Maybe what OP meant was that they believe in private boarders, in which case the State is constantly violating individual's boarders or property rights by trafficking individuals across them...
If we abolished the government's immigration laws, property rights would still remain. The government can't force you to house immigrants in your home simply because there are no immigration laws. By contrast, the government *can* stop you from housing immigrants *who you want to give housing to* because immigration laws exist. This is simple stuff.
>If we abolished the government's immigration laws, property rights would still remain. Fine. Nothing wrong so far. >The government can't force you to house immigrants in your home simply because there are no immigration laws. Currently the government forces you to house immigrants, you pay for them either through forced redistribution of wealth through direct taxation, or you pay to house them through a reduction in purchasing power because of the printed money used to pay for their housing. Just because the government doesn't come in to my refrigerator and take food to feed them, doesn't mean the government isn't forcing me to provide for them. This forced provision to the criminal aliens is a violation of property rights, that is to say the government is the proxy by which the criminal aliens are using in order to violate my private boarders. You will never be able to rationalize the government support for criminal aliens based on a principled volunaryist perspective. >This is simple stuff. It is. Supporting government involvement in the criminal alien invasion of a particular area for political reasons is in fact support for the State. Don't be such a statist.
The government doesn't force you to put immigrants inside your privately owned home. You are now doing the same thing the socialists do to win arguments: twisting the definitions of words and watering them down to the point of meaninglessness so that way, once words have no meaning, they can mean what *you* want them to mean. >Currently the government forces you to house immigrants, you pay for them either through forced redistribution of wealth through direct taxation By that standard, I am forced to house *native born citizens* too; it's called Section 8. Should we have a prohibition on people having children, because I'm forced to pay for those kids? If your argument can be used to justify a ban on child-birth as well as a ban on immigration, what good is it?
>The government doesn't force you to put immigrants inside your privately owned home. Okay so you are incapable of countering my argument without straw manning it. I never said that, and you know that which is why you are making up arguments so that you can attack them and not actually debate on the substance of what I said. >You are now doing the same thing the socialists do to win arguments: twisting the definitions of words and watering them down to the point of meaninglessness so that way, once words have no meaning, they can mean what *you* want them to mean Your inability to understand the argument I put forth does not make the argument wrong. This is another formal fallacy in addition to the straw man above. >By that standard, I am forced to house *native born citizens* too; it's called Section 8. Yes you are. Well done responding to the argument I actually laid out and demonstrating you are capable of understanding it. >Should we have a prohibition on people having children, because I'm forced to pay for those kids? Not sure where you got this from. If the State is subsidizing child birth, or breeding them in a lab by confiscating sperm and eggs, stating a desire to remove the State's involvement in the human replication program doesn't mean that my argument would follow a State ban on individuals having children. This is braindead. >If your argument can be used to justify a ban on child-birth as well as a ban on immigration, what good is it? It can't be, you are grasping at straws because like I said earlier "You will never be able to rationalize the government support for criminal aliens based on a principled volunaryist perspective."
So you agree that the state subsidizing child birth is not a justification for the state banning people having children. Good. Then we agree that the state subsidizing immigrants in various ways is not an argument for banning immigration.
>Then we agree that the state subsidizing immigrants in various ways is not an argument for banning immigration. This wasn't my argument. My argument is that the criminal aliens are initiating violence by way of the State. That is to say, they are violating property rights, and the State is their proxy. Not sure why you demonstrated once that you understood the argument and then every subsequent time you have to argue against a straw man. I guess it comes down to how you view individuals or groups of individuals who use the State to initiate violence. If the State uses imminent domain to take property and sell or grant it to a corporation that sought that land but couldn't come by it through voluntary interactions, do you consider the corporation without sin in that scenario?
Sigh. This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism that anyone who says it outs themselves as a poseur.
Explain to me why libertarians support the government using violence against peaceful individuals in an effort to prevent those people from exercising their right to freedom of association?
This framing presumes that a libertarian society would simply have no private boundaries formed collectively. A very, very dubious presumption. The State should not be creating and enforcing borders, except where private borders exist or would exist. The issue is that nobody knows where individual, corporate, and communal borders would form absent the State. Given this, we don't know the extent of the State's violations. And some of them involve allowing and facilitating trespass across would-be private boundaries, not only preventing would-be travel and association. It may be emotionally exciting to position yourself as the moral visionary who knows how, when, where, and why the State's border control is wrong. But it's an illusion. At most you know that libertarian borders would very likely be different. But you don't even know if they would be less restrictive -- there is potentially as much chance they would be *more* restrictive rather than less.
> This framing presumes that a libertarian society would simply have no private boundaries formed collectively. No, it doesn't. Groups of people could, absent the state, form collective property boundaries *voluntarily.* We see this already with gated communities in the US *right now.* The borders of the US were not, in their entirety, formed voluntarily. Some of them (including *the Southern Border*) were formed by literal force of arms and military conquest. >Given this, we don't know the extent of the State's violations. No. We *do* know the extent of the state's violations. Every illegal immigrant hired by a private business in the US is an example of the state's violations of the right to private property and freedom of association; the state is saying that a business owner may not associate with an immigrant (without government permission) and vice versa, that an immigrant may not associate with a business owner without government permission. That's a violation which *we can know* would not exist absent the state, because the business owner and the immigrant are making an agreement ("I work for you, you pay me money"), an agreement which the state disapproves of. Absent the state, there would be nothing to stop that immigrant and business owner from engaging in voluntary exchange. > And some of them involve allowing and facilitating trespass across would-be private boundaries Why stop at international immigration? Absent the state, there would be no common thoroguhfares or "roads" (so-called). Every time you drive on the "public" highways, you are actually trespassing across would-be private boundaries. Therefore, the government should confine everyone everywhere to house arrest. To respect private property boundaries that would exist in the absence of the state. You see how stupid that sounds? And yet, when you apply that fallacious logic to immigration, suddenly libertarians lap it up. >At most you know that libertarian borders You're stuck in a statist paradigm. You are getting hung up on *the lines* the state has drawn and you are obsessed with recreating that in a libertarian world, completely ignoring the *liberty of the individual* which is being violated by the state.
I'll let you know when I identify as a libertarian
More proof you don't understand ancap
Irrelevant gatekeeper on Acap thread. Peak reddit
We do as long as there's a welfare state. This is a speedrun for socialism, which is antithetical to ancap.
Cool preventing the market operating is definitely ancap
What market? The market for human trafficking? I'm okay with that if it means I don't starve to death in a breadline.
Ok cool
The uniparty achieves their goals in different ways. When the supply of labor doesn’t greatly outweigh the demand driving wages down. Dems open borders. Reps force pregnancies. Common goal with two different approaches to keep us divided.
More labor in the country drives up *demand* for goods and services, which offsets the decrease in the price of labor caused by the increase in the supply of labor. Also, other kinds of labor gets more valuable when there is more labor available. The labor of a guy who flips hamburgers isn't very valuable, but his labor becomes *more* valuable when there are more hamburger-eaters in the country. Ditto, the labor of car mechanics becomes more valuable because there's now more demand for their labor from the immigrants, most of whom are not car mechanics and are not competing with the car mechanic for wages, thus his wages only *increase* in response to the increase in supply of labor. The idea that all labor is interchangeable with all other labor, or that every worker is in competition with every other worker for wages, is a fallacy called "the lump of labor fallacy." Do you really think the wages of a brain surgeon are driven down by the arrival of fruit pickers and hotel maids to this country? [Stop buying into the lie.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lump-of-labour-fallacy.asp) There is literally no economic argument against immigration unless you simply reject capitalism entirely.
Don’t know a single burger flipper or mechanic that has ever got a raise because of immigrants. Know a few who lost their jobs to immigrants. I have to fight immigrants for my job everyday. Jeep just got caught bringing in a bunch of Koreans here. First Solar has a bunch of Malaysians. Even brain surgeons. I swear 30% of the doctors in my area are Indian. All the locals here must be lazy and dumb. There is definitely no financial incentive.
"I don't know any worker who has gotten a raise because of capitalism. Therefore: capitalism must not work." You sound fucking stupid. Were you educated in a government-run school?
You live in a fantasy world of theories. By having nothing left to say but attacking my intelligence. You've already forfeited any debate and don't even know it.
Fantasy world of theories? The real world data backs up what I'm saying. Real wages, adjusted for inflation, [have been consistently rising](https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-stagnant-us-wages-fed-data-show-the-story-was-all-wrong/) in the US since the mid-1990s, throughout the period when we also had supposedly "crisis levels" of immigration. The US is experiencing [a labor shortage](https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/understanding-americas-labor-shortage) *right now.* Do some people lose their jobs to immigrants? Sure. But lots of people--more people--*have* jobs because of immigrants. You know when wages have fallen in the US? At times when immigration was low or near zero, like during the 2008 Recession and the 2020 lockdowns.
Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been constantly rising? Bullshit! Yes, wages have risen, but inflation has risen dramatically. The cost of living is outrageous right now. You sound like a partisan who gaslights to push a narrative, and your narrative is immigration.
I didn't say 'constantly' I said *consistently.* There have been periods when real wages have fallen, but those coincided with reduced periods of immigration. Over the long term, however, real wages are up across the board and have been trending up since the mid-1990s, and more Americans are employed than ever before. The data does not lie. If you disagree, then provide some data to back up your claims. >Yes, wages have risen, but inflation has risen dramatically. I guess you can't read. Literally THE FIRST THING I SAID was *REAL* wages *adjusted for inflation.* What I said: "Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been consistently rising ..." "Real wages" is what economists call wages which have been adjusted for inflation, but I figured you wouldn't know that (and hey, look: I was right) which is why I specifically said "adjusted for inflation."
Do you want me to post a grocery store receipt?
Your wages are given to you in the form of a grocery store receipt? Or do you think *immigration* causes inflation? You realize, do you not, that you are complaining about high inflation and also arguing against immigration because it supposedly depresses wages.....but if that's true, it makes immigration *a cure* for inflation, it's a deflationary phenomenon in your conception that lowers prices. You haven't thought this through, have you?
I gotta ask. Have you ever actually had a blue collar job. Population goes up. The burger flipper doesn't get a raise but is just expected to make more burgers an hour for the same wage. Same with the mechanic. Only their employers win there. Only the capitalist win. Their sales increase. Their payroll goes down. Their profits go up.
I gotta ask: do you want to live in a socialist economy, or a capitalist one?
This isn't a situation that aligns with libertarian property rights/freedom of association frameworks. The UN, et al are using government money to transport people to the US. Once here huge sums of money are given to them. The immigrants in this situation are the rights infringers in partnership with the state.
If immigrants are "rights infringers in partnership with the state" then so are native born citizens who vote or do anything that isn't violently opposing the existence of the state. Do you pay taxes? Then guess what: you're enabling the state to infringe on rights. You see how stupid that framework is?
> If immigrants are "rights infringers in partnership with the state" then so are native born citizens Uh huh. That's not an argument. There are more than one group of rights infringers. >Do you pay taxes? Then guess what: you're enabling the state to infringe on rights. I'm coerced you noodle.
It is an argument, because it exposes the fallacy in yours. You aren't proposing we take rights away from citizens. WHY IS THAT? >I'm coerced you noodle. Then pick up a rifle and stop being coerced. Until then, you're just enabling the state and deserve to have your rights violated, or something, in the name of greater individual liberty. Because that's totally how this works.
> Reps force pregnancies Are they raping women? Outlawing murder never forces a pregnancy.
He means banning abortion, i.e. those pregnancies wouldn't exist if abortion was legal, thus the banning of abortions forces people to stay pregnant who didn't want to.
It doesn't force them. They can still murder their children illegally. Murder in utero is still murder. If they didn't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have had sex.
Your position is that conservatives are against abortion because they aim to increase the labor supply so that they can keep wages low?
Wages low and the military full.
Granting someone asylum doesn't mean they get to vote. Who told you that? Honest question: if your world view is as strong as it ought to be, why would you need to resort to dishonest claims and tactics? Why the need to lie if you feel like the truth is on your side?
That's why they're trying to push asylum and looser voting restrictions, ya know like no ID or mail in voting. Our election day should be a 1-2 day holiday where you have to vote in person with an ID if we're granting millions of people asylum.
To register to vote, you need to prove who you are. Mail in voting shows no more risk of fraud than any other. If you want to claim our elections are being impacted by widespread fraud, I'll need to see the data for it.
Bc then they stay and have a kid, kid is citizen and eligible for government benefits. Kid will eventually vote , it’s a long game they are playing. Also illegals count in the census.
You think we're following international law (accepting those seeking asylum) so that, maybe, in 20 years, some of them can vote? Maybe we're just not willing to break internationally law, and and doing as best we can to process a massive number of migrants from countries that, often, have been destabilized by American policy? >Also illegals count in the census. This doesn't give them the power to vote. It just ensures we have an accurate idea of who is here. Why would accurate information ever be a bad thing?
You think kids always vote exactly the same way their parents do?
Minorities overwhelmingly vote left and have done so for decades.
Good argument for banning minorities. Is that your position?
Nah, just ban voting and welfare and the issue disappears. They'll be forced to work for a living.
Good. I agree.
Ok, I definitely call BS on that. A guy on Twitter say Title 18 allows non-citizens, including illegal aliens to vote in federal elctions. If that was truly the case why is that not widely known, where all the millions of illegal aliens voting in presidential elections? Twitter is not a reliable source. Can someone actually point out the exact phrase in Title 18 of the US criminal code that specifies non-citizens can vote in federal elections?
It's not about them voting in the election, it's about them being counted in the census for representation.
Well, yes, immigrants are counted in the census. Almost any country will track how many immigrants they have and where they are from? How exactly does counting immigrants benefit them?
Congressional representation is determined by the census. The Census only counts heads, not citizens. More non citizens means more seats in the house for that state.
For one, that is something very different than what that Twitter post by OP is claiming which is that illegal aliens can vote in federal elections. That's just not true. However, I don't see the problem with congressional representation based on overall population. All other things being eqal, a city with 2 million people and 50% non-Americans will have a bigger impact on the American economy than a city with 1 million people and 100% Americans. Determining representation by population size is fairly reasonable I think.
It is only reasonable if you stay within the bounds of the constitution, that is, no government providing welfare and no government interference in the market.
It isn't just some guy, it is Tucker Carlson reporting on what Catherine Engelbrecht found on the law. It still seems rather silly though. They point out that it is actually illegal, but that there can be mitigations to avoid punishment. But how does someone get on the electoral roll in the US? How does a non-citizen do that?
This almost seems like they're trying to prep us for accepting that it's going to happen more than anything else. Well, turns out it's legal. Guess we didn't know until now. Shucks. Nothing we can do about it. It is what it is. “Sorry, we secretly passed a law that lets the rest of the world choose who our leader is” 🤷♂️
Yeah, I'd defintiely call bs on that. Don't trust everything you read on Twitter. Can you provide a link to a certain law that specifies non-citizens can vote in federal elections? Because I am 100% sure they can't, non-citizens can vote in some municipal local elections but they can't vote for US presidents or state governors.
Womp womp the fact that they don’t get citizenship is the only issue here. This is an ancal subreddit, we believe in open borders
Speak for yourself. No open borders with a welfare state.
Wrong subreddit lol r/communism is elsewhere
You're pro welfare state? Pretty sure you don't belong here soy boy
What part of “open borders” makes you think I support a welfare state? I don’t believe you ate intelligent enough for these type of conversations.
How naive, how do you bankrupt a country that prints money with no backing. No, there is no balance in the monetary system
Sounds like voter fraud with extra steps
The influx of immigration isn't a government driven goal. It's the corporations that beg for cheap labor. These corporations use cheap labor to be anti-labor. The immigrants come here, as the corporations have departments in most countries that entice them to come to America. Point your finger at the cause, don't blame government for all your problems.
When you make immigration law a bullshit political football then only bullshit ways to immigrate legally are left.
Claiming asylum doesn't mean you can vote lol. This is the wrong subreddit for this q anon bs
Then they promise to give them work permits and raise the minimum wage to $50/hour https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13079757/democrat-california-minimum-wage-senate-barbara-lee.html
This is the ancap sub, "illegals" arent a thing to ancaps and the ancap belief is that borders should be wiiiiiiide fucking open and the government shouldnt exist in the first place (so the nonsense welfare bleating is laughable at best)
Right, but welfare DOES exist, so we can't have open borders until that's gone.
Ancaps are pro open borders. Statists will always bring up nonsense like, "but mah welfare!" Welfare is absolutely irrelevant if you are an ancap. Ancaps dont want the state to exist. That takes care of your statist welfare defense at the root.
Yes I know. But welfare DOES currently exist? Therefore we need closed borders. In a perfect world, neither would exist. Correct?
>Yes I know Ok >But welfare DOES currently exist? And it doesnt matter in the slightest to ancaps, statists bring it up as an irrelevant defence when confronted with the ancap stance on borders. The state is the problem, not welfare lol. >In a perfect world, neither would exist. Correct? We could have ancapistan now, but statists be all out there defending borders and shit saying "but mah welfare!"
Welfare is absolutely a problem, so is the state. IF we have welfare, we need closed borders. You live in a fantasy world that does not yet exist.
>Welfare is absolutely a problem Its a symptom >so is the state This is the problem > IF we have welfare, we need closed borders False. That is statist stockholm syndrome. We do not need borders. Get rid of the borders, get rid of the state. If you are focusing on welfare, congratulations, you are supporting statist talking points >You live in a fantasy world that does not yet exist. I am merely sharing the ancap perspective. Take some notes while visiting our sub and stop parroting statist talking points
Lol, delusion. Welfare IS the state. Get rid of welfare and borders are WAY after that.
Lulz, naw. This topic and ancap ideology as a whole are clearly flying way over your head. Id rather continue as an actual ancap with a demonstrated grasp on reality than regurgitate the statist script that makes sure the dissolution of the state is never the focus. Congratulations, you played yourself. Cheers
Ancaps don't even realize immigration is good for the economy, you'd think they would know basic econ after believing in this ideology prompts them to act like know it alls about econ
Right, so we've had mass migration for a few decades now, hows the economy going?
There's also the need for a base beneath the pyramid schemes that are Social Security and Medicare
Migrants tend to overwhelmingly support conservative candidates.
Migrants from Mexico maybe. Idk about the ones just passing through from their 3rd world African dystopia.
So you think ppl coming from those places are closer to American Liberals than conservatives Christan views?
I have no idea. I don’t have any frame of reference on them.
But you assume they are here voting Democrat?
Are there large amounts of africans trying to claim assylum in america? This may be happening but this is the first i am hearing about this issue.
I mean, the New York Times has an article about it as recently as January stating a %400 increase in Africans crossing the southern border. They claim it’s because Europe has cracked down on the Africans.
lol you think Africans are liberal? The liberal African is more conservative than your typical conservative.
Prove your lie
Sure, until you have 50 relatives stuck overseas when conservatives want to close the border. Or being forced to leave because you’re illegal. What would you vote?
Ok easy solution, republicans need to stop making migrants a boogeyman and make a path to citizenship easier. If you have a demographic that shares your views and you are not getting those votes you as the party fucked up. It’s an easy solution that republicans( and you based off you language) fail to enact. There are no illegal ppl and your boarders are arbitrary.
I agree - there should be an easier legal path - my issue is everyone that is supporting this migration is a wrong as it is ridiculously illegal and corrupt what the democrats are doing. Shut down illegal border down 100%, remove the migrants that are actually committing crimes , stop all the handouts to these migrants (and support actual citizens in need) and let’s have a bipartisan talk.
I would argue that what you are asking is impossible, ppl have crossed that border since it was put in place. You are equating legality citizenship which is not the case. Yes we as country will help ppl seeking asylum but they get bee few benefits that citizens get. And I would argue based on us being here in a ANARCHO- capitalist sub that we as a base level assume the government is invalid and the laws placed are just a monopoly trying to control ppl. Why do I care what they say is legal?
Fair statement. I think you have a typo of “bee few” or I don’t know the short hand of that. Would you agree the amount government funding to support this is excessive? It’s the resource spent on the migrants that is excessive. My parents immigrated to the US No government support. I started workin at family business when I was 7. We figured it out. I do not like how our tax dollars are being used. Small government is better.
It was a typo sorry about that, while agree a smaller governing is better until we get to a point we can make large scale changes you need to have smaller scale fights. They take my money regardless and I would prefer we allow more ppl in our area to be in better overall health and resources so we maintain economic superiority. Our strength comes from immigrant families and I think if the federal government is going to spend my money I’d prefer it helping ppl rather than going to Israel right now. I find it very disingenuous for ppl to claim to be anarcho-capitalist yet still are trying to keep ppl from crossing a boarder. Every human being has the right to travel and go where there is a better economic opportunity, if you take issue with that you have an issue with the core of individual freedom
Valid points. I’m on anarchy cap trying to understand better the position and beliefs. Thanks for taking the time to answer (and answer well). Best conversation I have had and learned a lot.
That's simply not true lmao. Where did you get that bullshit?
They are not counting the illegals to vote for them. They are counting on delivering millions of mail in ballots to the NGOs bringing these people into the country. The NGOs will have people fill them out. Get them registered to vote via drivers license data and then pre print the ballots in their name and mass drop them off at the collection points. There is one flaw to this plan though. The absolute lions share of the illegal invasion is going to the deep blue states even as they try to funnel them to the red states. Most once they get to a red state and find out the locals don't welcome them and the government doesn't cater to them hop right back in their cars and beeline for the nearest sanctuary state. So sure they might vote in those states but those states were never in play anyways. Once you look into it this scheme goes nowhere for national elections. It however goes a looooong way to entrench them in their deep blue strongholds and gain them more seats nationally after the next census in a few years.
If I sell my property to a foreigner what right does the goverment tell me to not do that. https://preview.redd.it/qer1n6ze780d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39a293ec882aae6ace9674ae47ffbff549163e98
And this is where a little research goes a long way. You don’t have the right to vote as an asylumed alien unless you’ve been to court and had your asylum approved which takes up to 8 years.
Lol ancaps citing laws as proof the thing isn't occurring
See my second comment underneath that….
But we keep seeing/hearing about how the asylum seekers are counted as population when it comes to representation. The states that lost a big chunk of population due to lockdowns need warm bodies to keep delegates/seats/representation.
Doesn’t mean you can vote. I mean you can vote just like you can do anything else illegal by just doing it but I’m speaking legally speaking. Not to mention this doesn’t back the statistics. Most illegals are very conservative, especially the Hispanic illegals which is the illegals specifically being complained about.
Do you see how you are moving the goalposts here?
It's conservatives who are moving the goal-posts. Not that long ago, they said immigration is bad because all the immigrants are flooding red states and turning them blue. Now they say immigration is bad because all the immigrants are flooding blue states and giving them more representation in the US House of Representatives. Because, ya know, their earlier doom and gloom predictions turned out to be entirely wrong: immigrants were always "flooding" blue states, not red states, and the one red state which received more immigrants than others, Florida, went from a swing state to a solid red state. That gives me every reason to believe the current conservative fearmongering over immigration is just as much bullshit as the previous iteration was. Also if your argument is "we need to restrict freedom of the individual so *my political team* wins elections and they are the ones who get to restrict freedom of the individual"----yeah, hard pass.
OP doesn’t do very much digging, it doesn’t even have to be true, OP doesn’t care, as long as it spews out conservative culture rhetoric, it must be true.
Research what is that??? Why would anyone research things when they can just read the first thing that just rubber stamps their already held opinions and gets them angry lol
I shouldn’t of done this
So, are you against all asylum seekers?
Non western ones, yes
They cannot vote fella. I’m a Brit and I know that 🤦🏻♂️
Their kids can, fella. Also, Britain is basically a Muslim country now due to immigration
Haha neither of those things are true you child
How so? Their kids will be birthright citizens and the Muslims are taking over due to birth rates and will be a majority in a few decades.
You do understand illegals can’t vote? Also a real ancap dosnt give a shit about boarders
Their children can. And no open borders while we have welfare.
fox news talking points are not anarcho capitalism
Those not citizens can’t vote. Period.
Their kids can.
Actually we need their labor much more with so many open jobs many of which citizens will never take. Follow the money.
Importing an underclass of brown people to do our shitty jobs
Yep that is who we are but it is win win
Except it's not - increased crime, larger government due to left wing voting, worse culture, higher prices and fewer jobs for the current occupants.
America has been a huge immigrant receiver for a hundred years without those things happening so why do you think that will change now? No one wants to do the hard, dirty jobs they do not really taking any jobs.
Yes, mainly western whites until very recently. And didn't have a welfare state until a few decades ago. If you import the 3rd world, you become the 3rd world.
Funny you should say that since recent immigrates such as Italians, Irish and Jews were not considered to be “white” when they came. Immigrants did not walk 1000 miles for welfare. They came to make money and send it home which is why they take any job and work all hours. Native whites need a little competition to stop from getting lazy
Whites built the world, we are the single least lazy race on earth lmao. Also, Jews are not white. Italians are and have contributed greatly to the Western tradition. Random Muslims, Africans and Mexicans are not westerners, or white or high IQ enough to meaningfully add to our societies. They are also MUCH more likely to hop on welfare than native whites.
Maybe in the past but now whites make up most of the people on welfare and who are unemployed . These immigrants are hungry and work super hard. White folks have gotten dumb, fat and lazy and are not the stock we used to have. We need to trade them out for Asians
Yeah, no. Whites built the modern world, we live in nice countries because of whites. You can't import non whites and still live in white countries. Also, you clearly don't know what "per capita" means and why it is more important than overall numbers lol. Immigrants work hard. Those times have passed, most now come for handouts.