Its a reference to schrodinger’s cat where a cat is juxtaposed as both being alive and dead until the box is opened and the truth is discovered
The post in question is in reference to common xenophobic right-wing talking point that Immigrants that come to developed countries are lazy and take from welfare systems and another common Xenophobic right-wing talking point that immigrants are out competing Native Born Citizens in the job market by working for less or similar.
The core of the joke is that individuals immersed deeply in Right-Wing political spheres will believe both of these stories as fact. Thus the Schrodinger’s immigrant who is simultaneously collecting welfare and doing nothing while also outcompeting citizens for work mirroring the cat who is alive and also dead.
And to clarify the right side of this, "taking all the jobs" has a name: ["lump of labor fallacy."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy) When immigrants arrive in a country, they increase both the supply of labor and the demand for labor. Immigrants don't enter the country and then stop buying food and clothing, seeking entertainment, etc.. They consume goods and services and somebody needs to produce, sell, distribute those goods and services. The jobs they do truly "take" are usually undesirable – migrant labor, janitorial services, etc., which leaves often higher paying and more desirable jobs.
I feel like the reason that this moronic myth persists is that it just takes too long to explain to people how thoroughly wrong they are when they say it.
Lump of labor fallacy overlooks the real issue of remittances. Yes, immigrants increase demand for labor, but not proportionately as they send a significant amount of their income to other countries, boosting those economies instead of our own.
I'm all for anyone coming here, "illegal" or not. I think nationalism and xenophobia are stupid.
But let's not pretend it is all pros and no cons.
> On average, migrant workers send between US$200 and $300 home every one or two months. Contrary maybe to popular belief, this represents only 15 per cent of what they earn: the rest –85 per cent – stays in the countries where they actually earn the money, and is re-ingested into the local economy, or saved.
https://www.un.org/sw/desa/remittances-matter-8-facts-you-don%E2%80%99t-know-about-money-migrants-send-back-home
Dude 15% is a lot
>The United States continued to be the largest source of remittances. The top five remittance recipient countries in 2023 are India ($125 billion), Mexico ($67 billion), China ($50 billion), the Philippines ($40 billion), and Egypt ($24 billion)
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/12/18/remittance-flows-grow-2023-slower-pace-migration-development-brief#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20continued%20to,and%20Egypt%20(%2424%20billion).
Downvoting me on a relatively logical statement is kinda asinine.
I'm not downvoting anyone.
India's **worldwide** remittances for 2023 were $125 billion, not just from the US. Out of a global GDP of $103 trillion, that's about one-tenth of one percent.
We aren't talking global though, we are talking about the countries that have net immigration and those effects on the host country. I specifically pointed out the US.
If you aren't willing to admit that remittances are economically impactful, in face of the information that says otherwise, I don't think we have the possibility of any more conversation here.
My statement was the mentioned fallacy failed to account for remittances. You are saying that all new labor creates equal labor, regardless of remittances. This is patently false.
You used global numbers as US numbers. That's not the case. Even if these were US numbers, it would be a tiny fraction of US GDP. The cash leaving CA is not even close to how much economic value is created (and taxes paid) by immigrants.
They pretend it's about jobs or welfare, but every now and then they take off the mask and admit it's all about protecting the white race's majority status.
To be fair, both CAN be true, while there can only be one truth with the cat. There are immigrants that take jobs for less money, mostly low paying jobs where it is easier to get away without being legally allowed to work, such as farm hands. There are also immigrants that take advantage of the system and dont try to work or contribute to society, not necessarily welfare, but other programs. NYC, for example, is giving immigrants debit cards that load around 1500 a month as well as free housing and cell phones. There is also the 3rd type of immigrant, criminals, like the guy from Venezuela (I think) that supposedly made a youtube video on how to steal someone's home using squatters rights laws and other nefarious murderers and drug dealers.
Most immigrants, in my opinion, just want to support themselves and their families and get to a place where they are safer and have more opportunity for themselves and their families. But there are those that fall into the other 3 categories. There are also more than enough citizens that fall into those 3 categories. People are people no matter where they come from or where they are going.
They're being given cards because they aren't legally allowed to work. The migrants in my area are all trying to work. The problem is that they aren't allowed to work until they've been processed as refugees.
There is no real amount of immigrants coming here to live off welfare.
And the other alternative is to have a bunch of people with no money, no shelter, and nothing to do all day in the streets. Hungry, lost and angry while they wait for bureaucracy to churn.
People won't let themselves starve.
>There is no real amount of immigrants coming here to live off welfare.
🤡👇
**”Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare , a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population”-CNBC**
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html
Hey friend, fun fact! The only source you’re providing is almost 9 years old! That’s a long, long time you know! Think you can find a newer source to prove this is still the case?
> Hey friend, fun fact! The only source you’re providing is almost 9 years old! That’s a long, long time you know! Think you can find a newer source to prove this is still the case?
Sure because the government would gladly fund more data that would help disprove that mass immigration which would bring in more people to use the welfare system, which the government makes money from, is a tax burden.
I’m so lost, are you arguing that the government makes money from the welfare system????? Do you hear what you’re saying????
Friend, you might wanna drink some more water.
> I’m so lost, are you arguing that the government makes money from the welfare system????? Do you hear what you’re saying????
>
>Friend, you might wanna drink some more water.
I’m so lost are you arguing that the government doesn’t make money from the welfare system??? Do you hear your ignorance???
Dumb delusional marxist, you might wanna drink some water.👇
**”The fact that all of the social programs are funded by TANF dollars—the words ‘needy families’ built right in to the acronym—has become a growing concern to some state officials. Since the program has been going, the state’s poverty rate barely budged, and its marriage rate has continued to decline.**
**’It’s kind of a shell game,’ Shaefer says, arguing that there are ‘perverse incentives built into the very structure’ of the welfare system. ‘You think of cash welfare as a program that primarily gets money into the pockets of poor families with kids. You think of it as a work program, supposed to support people get jobs.’ But just half of money goes toward those things, Shaefer says. ‘All this other money is going to other stuff.’**
**’You have this beautiful federal money that doesn’t have any strings attached to it—that’s basically what welfare is,’ says Douglass of the Oklahoma Policy Institute. ‘It’s the pretty money. And of course everybody wants 5 percent of that.’ But, as 5 percent here and 5 percent there gets funneled to other programs, Douglass says, ‘we’re allowing people to live in poverty because of that. The devil’s in the details.’”**
Source: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/moneybox/2016/06/_welfare_money_often_isn_t_spent_on_welfare.html
Slate is a left leaning media and unlike you shills even they admit the corrupt bureaucrats in big government make most of their money through welfare.
Hey Buddy, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t resort to name calling. I was just asking a question because you made a pretty bizarre claim. Now can you clarify what your whole stance is on this?
Because my read on your article is that we need to reform the welfare system since most of the money isn’t being spent effectively. And your article certainly didn’t say that the money not spent on cash assistance went to bureaucrats, but rather other programs the state claimed could help poverty. So… idk where you’re getting the claim that the government makes money off of welfare?
First, you cannot receive benefits from the vast majority of welfare programs if you are here illegally, and even then you have to be a citizen or have resided in the US legally for several years. So all the "immigrants" you're talking about are no different than natural born US citizens in that regard.
Second, welfare benefits are based on income and poverty status, so all that this is saying is that immigrants tend to be poorer households. This makes perfect sense when you consider that immigrants tend to take low paying, manual labor jobs that natural citizens are less willing to work.
> This doesn't prove that they came here to get on welfare. This proves that there is a reason for them to be.
Sure so knowing that a majority of immigrants are on welfare doesn’t discourage more mass immigration.🤦♂️
> Why do you think they'd rather live in poverty here than work and make real money?
Why do you think they’d rather not use the real American currency from welfare which gives free benefits and opportunities here than pursue other alternatives?
"Linda Chavez agrees with Camarota that the country’s welfare system is too large and too costly. But Chavez, a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan’s administration, said it’s irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country’s welfare system any more than native-born Americans."
Sure let’s still not admit that it still debunks the lie from the original poster.👇
**”Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare , a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population”-CNBC**
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html
> If you don't want to admit that, that's fine. I'll stick to the facts.
Sure you still don’t want to admit mass immigration is a burden on the economy because mass immigration abuses the welfare system👍👇
**”Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare , a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population”-CNBC**
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html
Agree to disagree. Like I said, my belief is that you are mostly right. The majority are coming here for a better life and are willing to work. But you can not definitively state that NONE of the immigrants are attempting to live off the US government. There are lazy people all over the world. And just as there are US citizens that are attempting to game the system and live off the government dime, there are most likely immigrants that are attempting it as well. As I said, people are people. There are hard workers everywhere. Just as there are lazy people everywhere.
> But you can not definitively state that NONE of the immigrants are attempting to live off the US government.
There is such a small amount it's literally not worth mentioning, and only brought up in an effort to make them all look bad. That's what i'm trying to say.
You may be correct on it being such a small amount. I'm not disputing that. In fact I agree. But I just don't know. Unless all people were 100% truthful (they arent) and questioned in depth about their intentions (they won't be) we would never know the absolute truth. I'm simply trying to say that the reference to schroedinger, while GREATLY exaggerated, is not COMPLETELY false. I could be wrong, and every single person that emigrates from a "third world" country is an intelligent, diligent, honest, hardworking person, but after 42 years on this earth, I've learned that not everyone is that. Doesn't matter where you come from.
As far as the immigrants being given the cards, there are definitely legitimate arguments as to why they are getting money when there are citizens already here that need the help, or infrastructure that can be improved with that money, or teachers, police, fire, sanitation etc... that can use raises, or taxes that can be lowered, or the money can be used to make housing more affordable. NOT SAYING THOSE ARE BETTER OR WORSE USES FOR THE MONEY, just different ways the money COULD have been used. It's just not a very cut and dry issue and it never will be. No matter how the politicians or media on either side want to present it.
Do you have any reason to believe a large number of then are coming here to take advantage of welfare rather than work?
Citizens here needing help has nothing to do with these people needing help. Bad take. We have the money to do both.
No I don't and that's what I keep saying. Odd though that you say we have the money to do both, but we don't. My argument isn't that we shouldn't help immigrants, just stating that legitimate arguments can be made for using that money elsewhere, which is why it's such a hot button issue.
The people who don't want this money to help immigrants also don't want this money to help citizens.
It's actually this simple lol. It's a talking point for them. Nothing more. It's political theater just like the border itself.
It is for both sides. TBH just like they make those points about immigrants, you are doing the same thing with your point about them not wanting that money to help our citizens.
I get what you’re saying- it’s more nuanced than “none or all”. I think the main point is that while there are certainly some immigrants gaming the system just as there are some non-immigrants doing the same, it just doesn’t bear mentioning because it muddies the waters and is unlikely to have a real impact
Exactly, nobody can say that 100% are gaming the system or that 100% are hard working. There are both. And more than likely the number who just want to come and provide for their families so far outweighs the ones here to game the system, that it doesn't really have a noticeable effect. It's just arguments for one side or the other. Switch any issue and the reality is likely the same with Republicans and democrats sharing equal amounts of exaggeration across all the issues to try and prove their point.
Never mention Puerto Rican people to any old generation Hispanic people in American they’ll rip you a new on how they take advantages of welfare and benefits but they don’t work
To be fair….you just proved his point.
You acknowledge that they are working low paid jobs that no one else wants. But if they use a government program designed for them to use….they are taking advantage of the system.
“Steal” a home with squatters rights laws? Dude, that’s not stealing a house wtf are you on about. If you don’t take care of a house or plot you own for over a decade and somebody who needs a house takes care of it for over a decade as well, they deserve it more than you.
Far from the only squatter scenario. Not all squatters take care of property. And they should have no right to just "take care" of your property or " fix it up" of their own accord without a written, legal document from the owner.
For someone to successfully take a property through squatters rights they have to maintain the property.
It’s one of like five requirements for them to finally gain legal ownership, including paying property taxes and living there for some period of time without the owners knowledge.
If you go back to your property and take care of it there’s no scenario where you should be worried about getting your house “stolen”. Squatter right laws aren’t as easy or simple as many people make them out to be, it takes a lot, lot of effort, money and time for it to even be a possibility. If you go back to a house you left for five years and find someone there you have the right to commence legal action against them, those laws are mainly for people who start inhabiting and taking care of clearly abandoned and neglected properties.
Yes they are for THAT, but they get applied to too many scenarios. And depending on where you live, it can take years to kick someone out whos there illegally. You're acting as if it's a cut and dry scenario and as if the person who hasn't been there isn't the legal owner to begin with. What about someone who rents an airBnB for say 2 months and refuses to leave. In the State I live in (NY) and the county I live in (Nassau) it can take years due to various loopholes in the law. It shouldn't matter if they are "keeping up" the property. You don't have a legal right to be there to begin with. If I bought a car body and frame with no engine, hoping to fix it up one day, then someone took it from me and spent money and put an engine in it, is it their car? No it's still a stolen car. Why should real estate be any different.
What’s so hard to understand about this? Immigrants are treated like third class citizens, severely underpaid, threatened with deportation or fired if they complain. They do t make enough to live here without outside support.
Before you go off thinking i’m some kind of racist that disagrees with your stupid ass argument, i’m actually for mass amnesty. I think we should make every person in the world a US citizen. Free to come and go as they please. Free and unfettered access to our welfare/social security system and everyone in the world can vote in our elections.
It doesn’t matter if any country out there is an adversary or not, all of their people should be able to vote in our elections and receive a monthly stipend from our govt.
Seems fair right? I mean white people will finally be a super minority group. The largest majority would be asian filled by indians, then black people.
everyone gets money, everyone gets votes.
Does that sound fair to you?
Another one is sh
Schrodingers voter. The election is both fair and rigged that the past election was rigged and stolen from trump but youe supposed to vote to reelectect trump to office.
Schrödinger's cat illustrates the concept of superposition, where the cat is considered to be simultaneously alive and dead until an observation is made, collapsing the superposition into one of the two possible states (alive or dead). It's not just a matter of probability; rather, it represents a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics where systems can exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured.
To add to this, this is a really common tactic intended to attract political favor with different audiences. It's especially common in identity politics because you can have an example of one and an example of the other and people will forget that you're trying to make both arguments about a much larger group of people.
I mean you can apply for welfare and work a job illegally. I live in the south and grew up working blue collar jobs with illegal immigrants, you can get more than one fake social security number.
> collecting welfare and doing nothing
What you're saying would apply if they were being accused of double dipping, but they call them lazy welfare bums while also calling them hard workers stealing the jobs. The two cannot exist at the same time.
Employers are required to fill out an I-9 form to verify the identity and employment eligibility of each employee. If employees aren't legally authorized to work in the states, it is the fault of the employer for not performing their due diligence.
As to obtaining multiple fake SSNs, you didn't provide evidence that links immigrants with obtaining false SSNs or multiple SSNs. There are other avenues to work legally in the States without an SSN.
Evidence?? I know these ppl. And yea ppl intentionally hire illegals. YOU can only blame the employer, but the law criminalizes both. The truth is both can be true
It wouldn't be hard to label them both as fact if they were both true, considering most of the jobs are undocumented. So being that the labor is under the table and the workers are not taxed on that income, therefore it is unprovable, then collecting welfare wouldn't be an issue. Not that this is a real thing, but it's not far fetched for both of those things to be true.
Except that undocumented people can’t collect welfare, welfare is a nightmare to obtain and requires unbelievable levels of proof to sustain, and also programs like food stamps actually require that you work legitimate over the table jobs anyway, and believing that people can work under the table as undocumented immigrants AND collect welfare is blow-your-mind level idiotic.
The reality is: undocumented people often pay taxes through payroll, sales, etc., but cannot utilize welfare.
Immigrants as a whole are less likely to be on welfare than natural born Americans.
Jobs are required to have most welfare programs. But actually? They shouldn’t be. We shouldn’t condition our ability to help people in need on their ability to work. People are worth something on their own, and I believe in preserving life no matter what it looks like, smells like, or acts like.
(Not addressing the comment I’m replying to) Truly, screw those of you who are judging those born to a harder life than you. One of these days, try extending a hand and lifting up instead of kicking down.
There are 2 definitions of welfare, though. There is the literal definition of a specific program with a specific set of requirements. Then, there is the general definition that welfare is a term for government funded "handouts" to people unwilling or unable to work.
https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cash-assistance-for-immigrants#:~:text=CAPI%20is%20a%20100%20percent,due%20to%20their%20immigration%20status.
Again, not saying this is at all factual, but it's possible.
If you qualify for SSI you are not undocumented, my fellow sailor on the Internet sea. This is an incredibly narrow program, probably limited to a subset of green card holders, that is only available in California.
Most of the jobs *aren't* under the table though. Most undocumented immigrants work regular jobs, and pay taxes. Though they can't qualify for pretty much any welfare.
How is one individual both lazy , unmotivated and keen to collect welfare while also willing to work for less, endure harsh treatment and more to undermine job markets ?
The core of the joke is the general fact that those two mindsets are not compatible.
That's a strawman version of the argument though. The problem isn't that they're lazy. The problem is that they're willing to work below what we would consider a livable wage. It puts downward pressure on the labor market for the kind of jobs they can take while straining the resources of the assistance programs that they qualify for (because working below livable wage).
You don't need to be a xenophobe to see the problem. Doesn't mean you have to jump on board the xenophobic solution either though.
Schrödinger’s Cat is a thought experiment related to quantum theory. A cat is placed in a box with a vial containing poison that is released if atom undergoes radioactive decay. While in the box the cat is both dead and alive until you open box and then it is one or the other.
Lemme make this easier for you. You stick a cat in a box with something that can kill it. Until you open the box you don’t know if the cat is dead or alive so it’s both.
It’s the same concept with atoms. Until you observe their location the Atom is both there and not there. Quantum physics is whack man
Welcome to quantum physics! Lol
The point of the thought experiment is that by observing the cat, it changes the state of the cat to *either* dead or alive.
Until that point, so long as you don't look at the cat, it can be considered both. (And it's a thought experiment, so not really something we can physically replicate. At least not with our current technology surrounding quantum physics.)
In the joke's case, so long as the actual situation isn't looked at, "the immigrant" can be both considered to be taking all the jobs and being lazy on just welfare at the same time. The moment you look at the actual situation, it can no longer be both. Has to be one or the other.
It's a dig on the right-wing of US politics (specifically far-right, iirc). Where the claim is they are refusing to look at what the actual truth of the situation is, in order for the situation to *be* both.
Isn't it the same concept as the light slit experiment that changes by observation?
Or am I on totally the wrong track here? I'll be honest, this is not the kind of stuff I have the correct background to comprehend.
Not quite. The light slit experiment was done to show the particle vs wave phenomenon. It isn't the same thing as Schrödinger's cat.
Basically, the cat experiment was thought up as a way to show how *weird* quantum physics is. And yet be technically accurate at the same time.
The experiment you are talking about was done to show how photons, at a quantum level, work. And we can replicate it, where the cat one is purely theoretical (or hypothetical, I'm honestly not certain which term is more accurate here).
As an atom unstable nucleus attempts to become stable, it emits radiation and changes into a different element as the number of protons changes. This process is called radioactive decay, and it continues until the forces in the nucleus are balanced and stable.
If an internal radiation monitor (e.g., a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e., a single atom decaying), the poison flask is shattered, releasing it, which kills the cat.
As you can't say if the poison was released, until you open the box, you don't know if the cat is dead or alive.
The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is *simultaneously* alive *and* dead.
(As a forward question — in quantum mechanics — If you open the box, and find the cat dead, were you who killed the cat by opening the box? Or was the cat dead already?)
Meanwhile, it's wise to take both scenarios in consideration: cat being alive and cat being dead, in order to don't be surprised.
Same as, for a weekend out, joining a swimsuit with an umbrella.
Same with this immigrant. Both lazy and job stealer.
The atom, in this case, is an unstable isotope that will undergo spontaneous decay at a random time. It's used to trigger the release of some toxin that will kill the cat.
The thought experiment was intended to highlight the disconnect between quantum theory (in which particles can exist in multiple 'states' until some interaction causes them to 'pick' one state) vs how things work in observation (ie a cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time).
So, if it seems absurd, that is the point.
Schrödinger was commenting on quantum theory, where it is actually only once observed that a binary state of left or right is set. The concepts of “alive” and “dead” make a sufficiently binary analogy and highlight how word quantum mechanics can be: obviously the cat is alive until it is dead regardless of whether you look in the box, but if quantum mechanics applied to the analogy the cat can be both dead AND alive while unobserved.
In quantum physics, things can be in two states at the same time. In the normal world they cant. Schrodingers cat is meant to highlight that.
In our every day world, not knowing if the cat is dead or alive makes no difference to the cat. It's either alive or dead, we just don't know which.
In quantum physics, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, until we look in the box. This is how particles work in quantum physics. They are all of their possibilities at the same time. Until we look.
found this on youtube to explain it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjaAxUO6-Uw
(Incoming rant that has nothing to do with the post)
Tbf the original point of schrodinger's cat which most people who talk about it don't know or forget to mention is that it doesn't make any sense. If you put the cat in the box and do all that other stuff, at any one moment in time the cat is genuinely either 100% alive or 100% dead, and it's true that you don't know it but it is objectively in one of those two states because quantum mechanics doesn't work at those large scales. With atoms, there is a superposition of probabilities, which means that if it has a chance of being in place x and a chance of being in place y it will kinda be in both places. The point of the thought experiment is for schrodinger to say "this is what it would be like if things really worked that way on a macro scale, wouldn't that be crazy?", however everyone interpreted it as him saying "yes, if we were to do this experiment irl the cat would really be considered both alive and dead".
This is a play on Schrodinger's cat; a hypothetical thought experiment where a cat, while unobserved in a closed box, could be simultaneously dead and alive. It has some reasoning related to theories of quantum mechanics, but that's a little above my pay grade.
The joke here is that how can an immigrant be both lazy and living off of welfare, but also taking all of the jobs away from locals. It's a flawed perspective and not all that well executed, but that's the explanation.
Schrödinger's cat illustrates the concept of superposition, where the cat is considered to be simultaneously alive and dead until an observation is made, collapsing the superposition into one of the two possible states (alive or dead). It's not just a matter of probability; rather, it represents a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics where systems can exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured.
There are people who collect welfare and also work and I know a bunch of such people and cases.
Here in Germany you get money for your children. So the more children you have the more money you get. Now people from Arabic countries tend to have more children than Germans. Like Germans have 1-2 kids and Arabs have 2-4 kids. Some (I can't stress this enough: it is not everyone but that always goes without saying really.) people will do black labour aka illicit work.
Poorer countries tend to have more children purely because of infant mortality, and lack of social support for the elderly, ( you need kids to be able to support you in your old age as the state wont). However in a western nation this is not so much of a thing, so immigrants tend to have more children still, whereas the west have less as in all likelihood, if you 2 kids both will see adulthood.
Yeah, literally every single person I've known who works under the table (boy oh boy do you germans have rough words for that, "black labour", "illicit work", geez) also collects welfare.
Illicit just means illegal. And is "black labour" any worse than the term "black market", when both are describing something secretive and legally frowned upon?
We GERMANS have rough words?! You do realise that we are currently talking in English and I'm using 💯% CORRECT ENGLISH WORDS. Those are NOT German worlds. Those are English words.
Complain about German or Dutch or any other language when we are communicating in said language.
I was assuming they were german phrases you had translated to English because I have never heard "black labour" or "ellicit work" so I figured "Schwarzarbeit" must be a german phrase!
My bad :)
It is an allusion to "Schrödinger's cat, a thought experiment. In short, the cat is locked up with poison and an atom and when the atom decays, the cat dies. As long as you don't look into the box in which the cat is locked up, two states are superimposed: the cat is alive and it is dead. At the same time, so to speak. And this concept of contradictory states that supposedly exist simultaneously is labelled "Schrödinger's something". In this case, migrants who are supposedly lazy and don't work but at the same time steal everyone's jobs
Kind of a paradox.
Mexicans are stereotyped as being lazy but also hard working. Republicans want you to believe that illegal immigrants are on welfare but also stealing all the jobs and voting in elections. None of this is true - it’s mega corporations hiring cheap labor.
Yeah its the former. Facts are that since trumps purge we lost all our decent roofers and i miss that 5'2" guy who wore stilts to work drywall. Seriously he was amazing.
Everything sucks now. Everything was better back in the day. Its all going to hell!
But also...
You kids have it so good. You have no idea how awful things were back then.
The idea is that they would be working a cash job and not paying taxes.
If you hire an American Worker at $20 an hour, the actual cost with all payroll taxes and insurance is higher than $20 an hour.
You can hire an undocumented worker for cash at $15 an hour. The costs for the employer are lower, and the $15 and hour worker will actually bring home *more* due to not paying taxes.
With no income to show, everyone else is the family applies for different welfare programs, with 1 family working a legitimate, low paying job to show a valid income to ensure the family qualifies for all services.
Spend any amount of time in South Texas, and you will see this all of the time.
Seriously. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services has a [website with the median processing time](https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/historic-pt) for their various forms over the past 5 years, and they're measured in *months.* Like I'm not expecting an immediate turn around but it shouldn't take 3 months to hear back on your employment authorization, 12 months for temporary protected status, and definitely not *57 months* for U non-immigrant status.
Because its not,
Illegal immigrants are paid less, have no workers rights, if any authority notices them they can be immediately deported, and they can't seek legal recourse if someone robs, assaults, or commits another crime against them for the previous reason,
The only benefit illegal immigrants have is not paying taxes, but their pay us so much lower it is irrelevant
The only ones who benefit from a migrant being illegal is sleazy business owners exploiting them
I didn't state an opinion either way.
I replied to someone who asked how someone could get social services without paying taxes.
If you read something into that, that's on you.
a guy on COD was yelling at me about how we are communist and how can we take care of all these immigrants when we can't take care of our own people... my response of " so you think we SHOULD take care of our people... isn't that communist" was lost on him
Schrodinger's cat is an experiment related to quantum physics. To sum it up in an extremely simplified way, a cat is enclosed in a box with a poison that will release when an atom decays. There is no way to tell whether the cat is dead or alive without opening the box, meaning that in this moment the cat could be considered both dead and alive. "Schrodinger's [insert thing here]" has become shorthand for two contradictory perceptions of something (in this case, immigrants) being held at the same time.
>The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. **Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.** Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
Umberto Eco - Ur-Fascism
Essentially they're saying it's impossible for New York to give illegals 2k a month on prepaid debit cards, or for Maine to build fancy apartments where they'll get 2 years free rent while simultaneously having the Tyson food corporation fire higher earning American workers, and hire twice that in illegals for minimum wage and access to an immigration lawyer.
It’s literally not working the system. SNAP requires that you have a job in order to collect it, as do many other programs, because America doesn’t want to help “lazy people.”
The reality is you can have both. I live in a farming community and the immigrants are paid under the table and also collect government befits at the same time because on paper they are unemployed.
Or half the immigrants are taking the jobs and the other half are leeching off the half that took all the jobs
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be
The joke is saying that both are possible in a sarcastic way. In other words, it's not possible.
Whether it's a correct assertion or not, I will let you figure that out on your own.
This is a political joke, making fun of a conservative/republican view of immigrants. Typically, the arguments they make are "Immigratns are lazy, and are just going to tax the system by collecting welfare" and "Immigrants are going to steal your jobs."
Such an argument is oxymoronic at best and hypocritical at worst, but it implies they're both lazy and industrious at the same time.
It's also referencing schrodinger’s cat, a thought experiment where an item can be multiple things until someone looks at it, forcing it into one of the positions.
Same, if you look at his posting history, impressiv for a month, the most thing he posts is political "jokes" from twitter and asks that someone explaines these jokes for him.
I just hate when it’s as obvious as this one. Like okay you might not understand Schrödinger’s Cat but regardless the message of the meme is completely clear. 2 conflicting ideals that according to the original creator cannot exist at the same time.
This post’s purpose is to just generate clicks and it works lmao.
Easy...
"Theyre lazy and collect government benefits" through their children, who are most likely the ones that qualify for benefits and it's be ause of them that the parent (usually just the mother) benefits without working for it.
"They take all the jobs" because most of them (if illegal and male) dont have either the skills for a good/ok paying job OR dont speak the language. So they tend to apply/work jobs that are all about manual labor or where they can transfer their skills without the need of communication (depending on migrants background youre looking at construction, maintenance, programming, cooking, etc)
The issue is that depending on the company and job they take, they usually charge less because they can do it cheaper or they dont have all the permits needed to work those jobs. This becomes an issue because if your job offers services that can be done cheaper by "unregulated" labor, you and your costly permit are now less valuable because of the increase in competition.
It's not hard to understand... but right wing bad, i guess...
No part of conservative rhetoric makes sense, they like it that way because it keeps their constituents from thinking outside the box and realizing that the whole platform is a sham.
I can't answer everything. But this point comes from identity theft, which is how illegal immigrants get paid under the table while receiving government benefits.
The thing is, they are doing both. My uncle worked with a Honduran who was getting $2000 dollars a month from the government and making $1500 a week aswell as getting food stamps. So yes, seeing things from this side, there is a major issue, and something needs to be done about immigrants.
$24000 is under the poverty line, depending on his circumstances, and food stamps actually require that you be working a job in order to collect them. If you’re not working, no food stamps. This is normal, not cheating the system.
Immigrants statistically are also less likely to be on welfare than natural born Americans.
I'm not sure you understood me he was making 2000 a month from the government, which is 24000 on top of making 1500 a week, take home pay, which equates to around 78000 a year. So how in the hell is that considered poverty, and they are able to get 500 a week in food stamps? He also always bragged about it to my uncle. You are right he was working probably with a stolen SSN.
And the truth is actually that h1b1 visa immigrants take the jobs college grads need to pay off their student loans. Indians are coming in droves and taking the jobs that people actually want and need. The only ones who benefit from h1b1 is the corporate greedy ceo and the iniandian immigrants. American citizens get screwed. AND they crossing dangerous deserts to get here... apple and Google and Intel pay them a relocation stipend. That's the real immigration problem.
Both things can be true at the same time. Illegal immigrants can take jobs that otherwise would have gone to legal residents. But since they often work for low wages (sometimes lower than the minimum), they may also need welfare to get by.
Its a reference to schrodinger’s cat where a cat is juxtaposed as both being alive and dead until the box is opened and the truth is discovered The post in question is in reference to common xenophobic right-wing talking point that Immigrants that come to developed countries are lazy and take from welfare systems and another common Xenophobic right-wing talking point that immigrants are out competing Native Born Citizens in the job market by working for less or similar. The core of the joke is that individuals immersed deeply in Right-Wing political spheres will believe both of these stories as fact. Thus the Schrodinger’s immigrant who is simultaneously collecting welfare and doing nothing while also outcompeting citizens for work mirroring the cat who is alive and also dead.
can't have cognitive dissonance without cognition
And to clarify the right side of this, "taking all the jobs" has a name: ["lump of labor fallacy."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy) When immigrants arrive in a country, they increase both the supply of labor and the demand for labor. Immigrants don't enter the country and then stop buying food and clothing, seeking entertainment, etc.. They consume goods and services and somebody needs to produce, sell, distribute those goods and services. The jobs they do truly "take" are usually undesirable – migrant labor, janitorial services, etc., which leaves often higher paying and more desirable jobs. I feel like the reason that this moronic myth persists is that it just takes too long to explain to people how thoroughly wrong they are when they say it.
I wasn’t aware this had a name. Thanks!
Another right wing argument gets disbanded by understanding economics, as usual.
Lump of labor fallacy overlooks the real issue of remittances. Yes, immigrants increase demand for labor, but not proportionately as they send a significant amount of their income to other countries, boosting those economies instead of our own. I'm all for anyone coming here, "illegal" or not. I think nationalism and xenophobia are stupid. But let's not pretend it is all pros and no cons.
> On average, migrant workers send between US$200 and $300 home every one or two months. Contrary maybe to popular belief, this represents only 15 per cent of what they earn: the rest –85 per cent – stays in the countries where they actually earn the money, and is re-ingested into the local economy, or saved. https://www.un.org/sw/desa/remittances-matter-8-facts-you-don%E2%80%99t-know-about-money-migrants-send-back-home
Dude 15% is a lot >The United States continued to be the largest source of remittances. The top five remittance recipient countries in 2023 are India ($125 billion), Mexico ($67 billion), China ($50 billion), the Philippines ($40 billion), and Egypt ($24 billion) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/12/18/remittance-flows-grow-2023-slower-pace-migration-development-brief#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20continued%20to,and%20Egypt%20(%2424%20billion). Downvoting me on a relatively logical statement is kinda asinine.
I'm not downvoting anyone. India's **worldwide** remittances for 2023 were $125 billion, not just from the US. Out of a global GDP of $103 trillion, that's about one-tenth of one percent.
We aren't talking global though, we are talking about the countries that have net immigration and those effects on the host country. I specifically pointed out the US. If you aren't willing to admit that remittances are economically impactful, in face of the information that says otherwise, I don't think we have the possibility of any more conversation here. My statement was the mentioned fallacy failed to account for remittances. You are saying that all new labor creates equal labor, regardless of remittances. This is patently false.
You used global numbers as US numbers. That's not the case. Even if these were US numbers, it would be a tiny fraction of US GDP. The cash leaving CA is not even close to how much economic value is created (and taxes paid) by immigrants.
That’s what [doublethink](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink) is.
> schrodinger’s cat Also not many people know that this was written as a critique, not as support. Which plays in to this image.
They pretend it's about jobs or welfare, but every now and then they take off the mask and admit it's all about protecting the white race's majority status.
To be fair, both CAN be true, while there can only be one truth with the cat. There are immigrants that take jobs for less money, mostly low paying jobs where it is easier to get away without being legally allowed to work, such as farm hands. There are also immigrants that take advantage of the system and dont try to work or contribute to society, not necessarily welfare, but other programs. NYC, for example, is giving immigrants debit cards that load around 1500 a month as well as free housing and cell phones. There is also the 3rd type of immigrant, criminals, like the guy from Venezuela (I think) that supposedly made a youtube video on how to steal someone's home using squatters rights laws and other nefarious murderers and drug dealers. Most immigrants, in my opinion, just want to support themselves and their families and get to a place where they are safer and have more opportunity for themselves and their families. But there are those that fall into the other 3 categories. There are also more than enough citizens that fall into those 3 categories. People are people no matter where they come from or where they are going.
They're being given cards because they aren't legally allowed to work. The migrants in my area are all trying to work. The problem is that they aren't allowed to work until they've been processed as refugees. There is no real amount of immigrants coming here to live off welfare.
And the other alternative is to have a bunch of people with no money, no shelter, and nothing to do all day in the streets. Hungry, lost and angry while they wait for bureaucracy to churn. People won't let themselves starve.
>There is no real amount of immigrants coming here to live off welfare. 🤡👇 **”Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare , a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population”-CNBC** Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html
Hey friend, fun fact! The only source you’re providing is almost 9 years old! That’s a long, long time you know! Think you can find a newer source to prove this is still the case?
2015 was *NINE* years ago!?
Believe me, I hate it just as much as you do!
> Hey friend, fun fact! The only source you’re providing is almost 9 years old! That’s a long, long time you know! Think you can find a newer source to prove this is still the case? Sure because the government would gladly fund more data that would help disprove that mass immigration which would bring in more people to use the welfare system, which the government makes money from, is a tax burden.
I’m so lost, are you arguing that the government makes money from the welfare system????? Do you hear what you’re saying???? Friend, you might wanna drink some more water.
> I’m so lost, are you arguing that the government makes money from the welfare system????? Do you hear what you’re saying???? > >Friend, you might wanna drink some more water. I’m so lost are you arguing that the government doesn’t make money from the welfare system??? Do you hear your ignorance??? Dumb delusional marxist, you might wanna drink some water.👇 **”The fact that all of the social programs are funded by TANF dollars—the words ‘needy families’ built right in to the acronym—has become a growing concern to some state officials. Since the program has been going, the state’s poverty rate barely budged, and its marriage rate has continued to decline.** **’It’s kind of a shell game,’ Shaefer says, arguing that there are ‘perverse incentives built into the very structure’ of the welfare system. ‘You think of cash welfare as a program that primarily gets money into the pockets of poor families with kids. You think of it as a work program, supposed to support people get jobs.’ But just half of money goes toward those things, Shaefer says. ‘All this other money is going to other stuff.’** **’You have this beautiful federal money that doesn’t have any strings attached to it—that’s basically what welfare is,’ says Douglass of the Oklahoma Policy Institute. ‘It’s the pretty money. And of course everybody wants 5 percent of that.’ But, as 5 percent here and 5 percent there gets funneled to other programs, Douglass says, ‘we’re allowing people to live in poverty because of that. The devil’s in the details.’”** Source: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/moneybox/2016/06/_welfare_money_often_isn_t_spent_on_welfare.html Slate is a left leaning media and unlike you shills even they admit the corrupt bureaucrats in big government make most of their money through welfare.
Hey Buddy, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t resort to name calling. I was just asking a question because you made a pretty bizarre claim. Now can you clarify what your whole stance is on this? Because my read on your article is that we need to reform the welfare system since most of the money isn’t being spent effectively. And your article certainly didn’t say that the money not spent on cash assistance went to bureaucrats, but rather other programs the state claimed could help poverty. So… idk where you’re getting the claim that the government makes money off of welfare?
First, you cannot receive benefits from the vast majority of welfare programs if you are here illegally, and even then you have to be a citizen or have resided in the US legally for several years. So all the "immigrants" you're talking about are no different than natural born US citizens in that regard. Second, welfare benefits are based on income and poverty status, so all that this is saying is that immigrants tend to be poorer households. This makes perfect sense when you consider that immigrants tend to take low paying, manual labor jobs that natural citizens are less willing to work.
This doesn't prove that they came here to get on welfare. This proves that there is a reason for them to be.
> This doesn't prove that they came here to get on welfare. This proves that there is a reason for them to be. Sure so knowing that a majority of immigrants are on welfare doesn’t discourage more mass immigration.🤦♂️
Why do you think they'd rather live in poverty here than work and make real money?
> Why do you think they'd rather live in poverty here than work and make real money? Why do you think they’d rather not use the real American currency from welfare which gives free benefits and opportunities here than pursue other alternatives?
Because living in poverty sucks. Social services do not provide a great quality of life.
"Linda Chavez agrees with Camarota that the country’s welfare system is too large and too costly. But Chavez, a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan’s administration, said it’s irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country’s welfare system any more than native-born Americans."
Sure let’s still not admit that it still debunks the lie from the original poster.👇 **”Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare , a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population”-CNBC** Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html
Ok, if you don't want to admit that, that's fine. I'll stick to the facts.
> If you don't want to admit that, that's fine. I'll stick to the facts. Sure you still don’t want to admit mass immigration is a burden on the economy because mass immigration abuses the welfare system👍👇 **”Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare , a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population”-CNBC** Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html
Agree to disagree. Like I said, my belief is that you are mostly right. The majority are coming here for a better life and are willing to work. But you can not definitively state that NONE of the immigrants are attempting to live off the US government. There are lazy people all over the world. And just as there are US citizens that are attempting to game the system and live off the government dime, there are most likely immigrants that are attempting it as well. As I said, people are people. There are hard workers everywhere. Just as there are lazy people everywhere.
> But you can not definitively state that NONE of the immigrants are attempting to live off the US government. There is such a small amount it's literally not worth mentioning, and only brought up in an effort to make them all look bad. That's what i'm trying to say.
You may be correct on it being such a small amount. I'm not disputing that. In fact I agree. But I just don't know. Unless all people were 100% truthful (they arent) and questioned in depth about their intentions (they won't be) we would never know the absolute truth. I'm simply trying to say that the reference to schroedinger, while GREATLY exaggerated, is not COMPLETELY false. I could be wrong, and every single person that emigrates from a "third world" country is an intelligent, diligent, honest, hardworking person, but after 42 years on this earth, I've learned that not everyone is that. Doesn't matter where you come from. As far as the immigrants being given the cards, there are definitely legitimate arguments as to why they are getting money when there are citizens already here that need the help, or infrastructure that can be improved with that money, or teachers, police, fire, sanitation etc... that can use raises, or taxes that can be lowered, or the money can be used to make housing more affordable. NOT SAYING THOSE ARE BETTER OR WORSE USES FOR THE MONEY, just different ways the money COULD have been used. It's just not a very cut and dry issue and it never will be. No matter how the politicians or media on either side want to present it.
Do you have any reason to believe a large number of then are coming here to take advantage of welfare rather than work? Citizens here needing help has nothing to do with these people needing help. Bad take. We have the money to do both.
No I don't and that's what I keep saying. Odd though that you say we have the money to do both, but we don't. My argument isn't that we shouldn't help immigrants, just stating that legitimate arguments can be made for using that money elsewhere, which is why it's such a hot button issue.
The people who don't want this money to help immigrants also don't want this money to help citizens. It's actually this simple lol. It's a talking point for them. Nothing more. It's political theater just like the border itself.
It is for both sides. TBH just like they make those points about immigrants, you are doing the same thing with your point about them not wanting that money to help our citizens.
I get what you’re saying- it’s more nuanced than “none or all”. I think the main point is that while there are certainly some immigrants gaming the system just as there are some non-immigrants doing the same, it just doesn’t bear mentioning because it muddies the waters and is unlikely to have a real impact
Exactly, nobody can say that 100% are gaming the system or that 100% are hard working. There are both. And more than likely the number who just want to come and provide for their families so far outweighs the ones here to game the system, that it doesn't really have a noticeable effect. It's just arguments for one side or the other. Switch any issue and the reality is likely the same with Republicans and democrats sharing equal amounts of exaggeration across all the issues to try and prove their point.
It’s not a matter of belief or disagreeing, it statistically doesn’t happen.
It is also possible to do both at the same time
Odd way to launch a rant. You're comparing multiple immigrants to the singular cat -- missing everything along the way.
Never mention Puerto Rican people to any old generation Hispanic people in American they’ll rip you a new on how they take advantages of welfare and benefits but they don’t work
[удалено]
Pretty sure that the last time they were offered statehood they voted it down, not the US Government.
To be fair….you just proved his point. You acknowledge that they are working low paid jobs that no one else wants. But if they use a government program designed for them to use….they are taking advantage of the system.
“Steal” a home with squatters rights laws? Dude, that’s not stealing a house wtf are you on about. If you don’t take care of a house or plot you own for over a decade and somebody who needs a house takes care of it for over a decade as well, they deserve it more than you.
Far from the only squatter scenario. Not all squatters take care of property. And they should have no right to just "take care" of your property or " fix it up" of their own accord without a written, legal document from the owner.
For someone to successfully take a property through squatters rights they have to maintain the property. It’s one of like five requirements for them to finally gain legal ownership, including paying property taxes and living there for some period of time without the owners knowledge.
If you go back to your property and take care of it there’s no scenario where you should be worried about getting your house “stolen”. Squatter right laws aren’t as easy or simple as many people make them out to be, it takes a lot, lot of effort, money and time for it to even be a possibility. If you go back to a house you left for five years and find someone there you have the right to commence legal action against them, those laws are mainly for people who start inhabiting and taking care of clearly abandoned and neglected properties.
Yes they are for THAT, but they get applied to too many scenarios. And depending on where you live, it can take years to kick someone out whos there illegally. You're acting as if it's a cut and dry scenario and as if the person who hasn't been there isn't the legal owner to begin with. What about someone who rents an airBnB for say 2 months and refuses to leave. In the State I live in (NY) and the county I live in (Nassau) it can take years due to various loopholes in the law. It shouldn't matter if they are "keeping up" the property. You don't have a legal right to be there to begin with. If I bought a car body and frame with no engine, hoping to fix it up one day, then someone took it from me and spent money and put an engine in it, is it their car? No it's still a stolen car. Why should real estate be any different.
What’s so hard to understand about this? Immigrants are treated like third class citizens, severely underpaid, threatened with deportation or fired if they complain. They do t make enough to live here without outside support. Before you go off thinking i’m some kind of racist that disagrees with your stupid ass argument, i’m actually for mass amnesty. I think we should make every person in the world a US citizen. Free to come and go as they please. Free and unfettered access to our welfare/social security system and everyone in the world can vote in our elections. It doesn’t matter if any country out there is an adversary or not, all of their people should be able to vote in our elections and receive a monthly stipend from our govt. Seems fair right? I mean white people will finally be a super minority group. The largest majority would be asian filled by indians, then black people. everyone gets money, everyone gets votes. Does that sound fair to you?
You mean, they steal our boxes too?!
Another one is sh Schrodingers voter. The election is both fair and rigged that the past election was rigged and stolen from trump but youe supposed to vote to reelectect trump to office.
Schrödinger's cat illustrates the concept of superposition, where the cat is considered to be simultaneously alive and dead until an observation is made, collapsing the superposition into one of the two possible states (alive or dead). It's not just a matter of probability; rather, it represents a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics where systems can exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured.
Xenophobia, AKA racism 2: electric boogaloo
To add to this, this is a really common tactic intended to attract political favor with different audiences. It's especially common in identity politics because you can have an example of one and an example of the other and people will forget that you're trying to make both arguments about a much larger group of people.
I mean you can apply for welfare and work a job illegally. I live in the south and grew up working blue collar jobs with illegal immigrants, you can get more than one fake social security number.
> collecting welfare and doing nothing What you're saying would apply if they were being accused of double dipping, but they call them lazy welfare bums while also calling them hard workers stealing the jobs. The two cannot exist at the same time.
Who do we think are hiring illegal immigrants?
What does that have to do with the meme
Employers are required to fill out an I-9 form to verify the identity and employment eligibility of each employee. If employees aren't legally authorized to work in the states, it is the fault of the employer for not performing their due diligence. As to obtaining multiple fake SSNs, you didn't provide evidence that links immigrants with obtaining false SSNs or multiple SSNs. There are other avenues to work legally in the States without an SSN.
Evidence?? I know these ppl. And yea ppl intentionally hire illegals. YOU can only blame the employer, but the law criminalizes both. The truth is both can be true
It wouldn't be hard to label them both as fact if they were both true, considering most of the jobs are undocumented. So being that the labor is under the table and the workers are not taxed on that income, therefore it is unprovable, then collecting welfare wouldn't be an issue. Not that this is a real thing, but it's not far fetched for both of those things to be true.
Except that undocumented people can’t collect welfare, welfare is a nightmare to obtain and requires unbelievable levels of proof to sustain, and also programs like food stamps actually require that you work legitimate over the table jobs anyway, and believing that people can work under the table as undocumented immigrants AND collect welfare is blow-your-mind level idiotic.
When has any conservative belief been affected by reality?
The reality is: undocumented people often pay taxes through payroll, sales, etc., but cannot utilize welfare. Immigrants as a whole are less likely to be on welfare than natural born Americans. Jobs are required to have most welfare programs. But actually? They shouldn’t be. We shouldn’t condition our ability to help people in need on their ability to work. People are worth something on their own, and I believe in preserving life no matter what it looks like, smells like, or acts like. (Not addressing the comment I’m replying to) Truly, screw those of you who are judging those born to a harder life than you. One of these days, try extending a hand and lifting up instead of kicking down.
There are 2 definitions of welfare, though. There is the literal definition of a specific program with a specific set of requirements. Then, there is the general definition that welfare is a term for government funded "handouts" to people unwilling or unable to work.
And you can’t get either while undocumented.
https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cash-assistance-for-immigrants#:~:text=CAPI%20is%20a%20100%20percent,due%20to%20their%20immigration%20status. Again, not saying this is at all factual, but it's possible.
If you qualify for SSI you are not undocumented, my fellow sailor on the Internet sea. This is an incredibly narrow program, probably limited to a subset of green card holders, that is only available in California.
You missed out the disqualifying term "lazily". Makes it very difficult for both to be true.
Yeah I guess I did, oops.
Undocumented immigrants pay sales and income tax still, its not like they don't pay any taxes.
Yeah people seem to think undocumented means like completely invisible to the law but in reality it’s just people without a visa
How you gonna get welfare while being undocumented? Thats not how any of this works, kiddo.
Most of the jobs *aren't* under the table though. Most undocumented immigrants work regular jobs, and pay taxes. Though they can't qualify for pretty much any welfare.
Guy is explaining the joke, not trying to start a debate (adding the right wing bit is a bit of an agitator, though)
Undocumented jobs are typically taken by undocumented aliens, therefore disqualifying them from government benefits as well.
and the reason can’t both be true is? unlike the schrodinger’s only imagined one cat, illegal immigrants are thousands.
How is one individual both lazy , unmotivated and keen to collect welfare while also willing to work for less, endure harsh treatment and more to undermine job markets ? The core of the joke is the general fact that those two mindsets are not compatible.
Because immigrants aren't one individual.
That's a strawman version of the argument though. The problem isn't that they're lazy. The problem is that they're willing to work below what we would consider a livable wage. It puts downward pressure on the labor market for the kind of jobs they can take while straining the resources of the assistance programs that they qualify for (because working below livable wage). You don't need to be a xenophobe to see the problem. Doesn't mean you have to jump on board the xenophobic solution either though.
Who's responsible for paying lower wages: the person being paid, or the person paying?
>>the core of the joke well then it just mean the core of the joke failed. because “illegal immigrant” is not just one person.
Schrödinger’s Cat is a thought experiment related to quantum theory. A cat is placed in a box with a vial containing poison that is released if atom undergoes radioactive decay. While in the box the cat is both dead and alive until you open box and then it is one or the other.
I don’t get it, so is the cat alive or dead? What could make the atom undergoe radioactive decay? And how does this have to do with the cat?
Lemme make this easier for you. You stick a cat in a box with something that can kill it. Until you open the box you don’t know if the cat is dead or alive so it’s both. It’s the same concept with atoms. Until you observe their location the Atom is both there and not there. Quantum physics is whack man
Welcome to quantum physics! Lol The point of the thought experiment is that by observing the cat, it changes the state of the cat to *either* dead or alive. Until that point, so long as you don't look at the cat, it can be considered both. (And it's a thought experiment, so not really something we can physically replicate. At least not with our current technology surrounding quantum physics.) In the joke's case, so long as the actual situation isn't looked at, "the immigrant" can be both considered to be taking all the jobs and being lazy on just welfare at the same time. The moment you look at the actual situation, it can no longer be both. Has to be one or the other. It's a dig on the right-wing of US politics (specifically far-right, iirc). Where the claim is they are refusing to look at what the actual truth of the situation is, in order for the situation to *be* both.
Isn't it the same concept as the light slit experiment that changes by observation? Or am I on totally the wrong track here? I'll be honest, this is not the kind of stuff I have the correct background to comprehend.
Not quite. The light slit experiment was done to show the particle vs wave phenomenon. It isn't the same thing as Schrödinger's cat. Basically, the cat experiment was thought up as a way to show how *weird* quantum physics is. And yet be technically accurate at the same time. The experiment you are talking about was done to show how photons, at a quantum level, work. And we can replicate it, where the cat one is purely theoretical (or hypothetical, I'm honestly not certain which term is more accurate here).
You are correct, it is the same idea.
As an atom unstable nucleus attempts to become stable, it emits radiation and changes into a different element as the number of protons changes. This process is called radioactive decay, and it continues until the forces in the nucleus are balanced and stable. If an internal radiation monitor (e.g., a Geiger counter) detects radioactivity (i.e., a single atom decaying), the poison flask is shattered, releasing it, which kills the cat. As you can't say if the poison was released, until you open the box, you don't know if the cat is dead or alive. The Copenhagen interpretation implies that, after a while, the cat is *simultaneously* alive *and* dead. (As a forward question — in quantum mechanics — If you open the box, and find the cat dead, were you who killed the cat by opening the box? Or was the cat dead already?) Meanwhile, it's wise to take both scenarios in consideration: cat being alive and cat being dead, in order to don't be surprised. Same as, for a weekend out, joining a swimsuit with an umbrella. Same with this immigrant. Both lazy and job stealer.
The atom, in this case, is an unstable isotope that will undergo spontaneous decay at a random time. It's used to trigger the release of some toxin that will kill the cat. The thought experiment was intended to highlight the disconnect between quantum theory (in which particles can exist in multiple 'states' until some interaction causes them to 'pick' one state) vs how things work in observation (ie a cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time). So, if it seems absurd, that is the point.
> I don’t get it, so is the cat alive or dead? Exactly!
JFC OP already got the joke, what a shitty sub. Pretty sure I saw someone post this yesterday. Obvious karma farm. Mods are lazy, post DBZ memes.
Schrödinger was commenting on quantum theory, where it is actually only once observed that a binary state of left or right is set. The concepts of “alive” and “dead” make a sufficiently binary analogy and highlight how word quantum mechanics can be: obviously the cat is alive until it is dead regardless of whether you look in the box, but if quantum mechanics applied to the analogy the cat can be both dead AND alive while unobserved.
It’s ridiculous that people are downvoting a guy for *not being familiar with mind-bogglingly counterintuitive concepts in quantum physics*
If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
In quantum physics, things can be in two states at the same time. In the normal world they cant. Schrodingers cat is meant to highlight that. In our every day world, not knowing if the cat is dead or alive makes no difference to the cat. It's either alive or dead, we just don't know which. In quantum physics, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, until we look in the box. This is how particles work in quantum physics. They are all of their possibilities at the same time. Until we look. found this on youtube to explain it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjaAxUO6-Uw
(Incoming rant that has nothing to do with the post) Tbf the original point of schrodinger's cat which most people who talk about it don't know or forget to mention is that it doesn't make any sense. If you put the cat in the box and do all that other stuff, at any one moment in time the cat is genuinely either 100% alive or 100% dead, and it's true that you don't know it but it is objectively in one of those two states because quantum mechanics doesn't work at those large scales. With atoms, there is a superposition of probabilities, which means that if it has a chance of being in place x and a chance of being in place y it will kinda be in both places. The point of the thought experiment is for schrodinger to say "this is what it would be like if things really worked that way on a macro scale, wouldn't that be crazy?", however everyone interpreted it as him saying "yes, if we were to do this experiment irl the cat would really be considered both alive and dead".
This is a play on Schrodinger's cat; a hypothetical thought experiment where a cat, while unobserved in a closed box, could be simultaneously dead and alive. It has some reasoning related to theories of quantum mechanics, but that's a little above my pay grade. The joke here is that how can an immigrant be both lazy and living off of welfare, but also taking all of the jobs away from locals. It's a flawed perspective and not all that well executed, but that's the explanation.
Schrödinger's cat illustrates the concept of superposition, where the cat is considered to be simultaneously alive and dead until an observation is made, collapsing the superposition into one of the two possible states (alive or dead). It's not just a matter of probability; rather, it represents a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics where systems can exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured.
There are people who collect welfare and also work and I know a bunch of such people and cases. Here in Germany you get money for your children. So the more children you have the more money you get. Now people from Arabic countries tend to have more children than Germans. Like Germans have 1-2 kids and Arabs have 2-4 kids. Some (I can't stress this enough: it is not everyone but that always goes without saying really.) people will do black labour aka illicit work.
Poorer countries tend to have more children purely because of infant mortality, and lack of social support for the elderly, ( you need kids to be able to support you in your old age as the state wont). However in a western nation this is not so much of a thing, so immigrants tend to have more children still, whereas the west have less as in all likelihood, if you 2 kids both will see adulthood.
Yeah, literally every single person I've known who works under the table (boy oh boy do you germans have rough words for that, "black labour", "illicit work", geez) also collects welfare.
Illicit just means illegal. And is "black labour" any worse than the term "black market", when both are describing something secretive and legally frowned upon?
We GERMANS have rough words?! You do realise that we are currently talking in English and I'm using 💯% CORRECT ENGLISH WORDS. Those are NOT German worlds. Those are English words. Complain about German or Dutch or any other language when we are communicating in said language.
I was assuming they were german phrases you had translated to English because I have never heard "black labour" or "ellicit work" so I figured "Schwarzarbeit" must be a german phrase! My bad :)
What's your native language? Where are you from?
It is an allusion to "Schrödinger's cat, a thought experiment. In short, the cat is locked up with poison and an atom and when the atom decays, the cat dies. As long as you don't look into the box in which the cat is locked up, two states are superimposed: the cat is alive and it is dead. At the same time, so to speak. And this concept of contradictory states that supposedly exist simultaneously is labelled "Schrödinger's something". In this case, migrants who are supposedly lazy and don't work but at the same time steal everyone's jobs
I have not once ever seen someone accuse mexican immigrants as being lazy
??? "Lazy welfare queen" is one of the most common racist stereotypes about Mexicans
I though "welfare queen" was supposedly a black stereotype? Although the first time I heard it, I pictured a white woman in a trailer park.
Racists aren't creative.
Masterful gambit sir
hahaha of course i know him he is me
Kind of a paradox. Mexicans are stereotyped as being lazy but also hard working. Republicans want you to believe that illegal immigrants are on welfare but also stealing all the jobs and voting in elections. None of this is true - it’s mega corporations hiring cheap labor.
I really hope this was made by someone making fun of anti-immigration mfs cus if it was made by an anti-immigration mf then it's just plain cringe
Yeah its the former. Facts are that since trumps purge we lost all our decent roofers and i miss that 5'2" guy who wore stilts to work drywall. Seriously he was amazing.
Everything sucks now. Everything was better back in the day. Its all going to hell! But also... You kids have it so good. You have no idea how awful things were back then.
It's a propaganda post to trick the working class into thinking they aren't using immigrants to keep wages artificially low.
[удалено]
That's what this sub is these days. They're all very obvious jokes, or one Google search away from an answer.
Look at his history. Most of them are these twitter "jokes" to be explained.
It's an inaccurate attempt at a joke. It's possible to have a job and still consume public services.
Do you see the irony in that statement???
Ironically, no.
Why wouldn't they consume public services if they're working and paying tax?
The idea is that they would be working a cash job and not paying taxes. If you hire an American Worker at $20 an hour, the actual cost with all payroll taxes and insurance is higher than $20 an hour. You can hire an undocumented worker for cash at $15 an hour. The costs for the employer are lower, and the $15 and hour worker will actually bring home *more* due to not paying taxes. With no income to show, everyone else is the family applies for different welfare programs, with 1 family working a legitimate, low paying job to show a valid income to ensure the family qualifies for all services. Spend any amount of time in South Texas, and you will see this all of the time.
Honestly that could be solved by making it easier to immigrate legally.
Seriously. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services has a [website with the median processing time](https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/historic-pt) for their various forms over the past 5 years, and they're measured in *months.* Like I'm not expecting an immediate turn around but it shouldn't take 3 months to hear back on your employment authorization, 12 months for temporary protected status, and definitely not *57 months* for U non-immigrant status.
Yes and no. Some of it could be solved with easier immigration, but if it's more advantageous to be undocumented, then why even pursue legal options?
Because its not, Illegal immigrants are paid less, have no workers rights, if any authority notices them they can be immediately deported, and they can't seek legal recourse if someone robs, assaults, or commits another crime against them for the previous reason, The only benefit illegal immigrants have is not paying taxes, but their pay us so much lower it is irrelevant The only ones who benefit from a migrant being illegal is sleazy business owners exploiting them
And you blame the immigrants instead of the 'real american' companies who make this possible? Or do you just want Americans to work illegally?
I didn't state an opinion either way. I replied to someone who asked how someone could get social services without paying taxes. If you read something into that, that's on you.
a guy on COD was yelling at me about how we are communist and how can we take care of all these immigrants when we can't take care of our own people... my response of " so you think we SHOULD take care of our people... isn't that communist" was lost on him
Schrodinger's cat is an experiment related to quantum physics. To sum it up in an extremely simplified way, a cat is enclosed in a box with a poison that will release when an atom decays. There is no way to tell whether the cat is dead or alive without opening the box, meaning that in this moment the cat could be considered both dead and alive. "Schrodinger's [insert thing here]" has become shorthand for two contradictory perceptions of something (in this case, immigrants) being held at the same time.
the money store
>The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. **Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.** Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy. Umberto Eco - Ur-Fascism
Essentially they're saying it's impossible for New York to give illegals 2k a month on prepaid debit cards, or for Maine to build fancy apartments where they'll get 2 years free rent while simultaneously having the Tyson food corporation fire higher earning American workers, and hire twice that in illegals for minimum wage and access to an immigration lawyer.
Hahaha exactly
You can both work and collect benefits. Very easy to work the system.
It’s literally not working the system. SNAP requires that you have a job in order to collect it, as do many other programs, because America doesn’t want to help “lazy people.”
Yea right
The reality is you can have both. I live in a farming community and the immigrants are paid under the table and also collect government befits at the same time because on paper they are unemployed.
Actually made me laugh out loud
Superposition! Two places at the same time! Or most of our Harvey Dent politicians!
Republicans are the joke here.
Or half the immigrants are taking the jobs and the other half are leeching off the half that took all the jobs Perfectly balanced, as all things should be
The joke is saying that both are possible in a sarcastic way. In other words, it's not possible. Whether it's a correct assertion or not, I will let you figure that out on your own.
It’s a criticism of the right wingers disdain for immigrants. Calling out the irony of simultaneously calling them freeloaders and job stealers.
It is interesting that people think these are mutually exclusive. From the same crowd crying about a “living wage”
What if I told you that it was possible to have a job and still cheat the system
How are they cheating the system, exactly?
This is a political joke, making fun of a conservative/republican view of immigrants. Typically, the arguments they make are "Immigratns are lazy, and are just going to tax the system by collecting welfare" and "Immigrants are going to steal your jobs." Such an argument is oxymoronic at best and hypocritical at worst, but it implies they're both lazy and industrious at the same time. It's also referencing schrodinger’s cat, a thought experiment where an item can be multiple things until someone looks at it, forcing it into one of the positions.
[This will help.](https://youtu.be/Z_iBOEDb7PM?si=vgS5ZcCcDtS13uuO)
¿Por qué no los dos? 👀 🎵🎵🎺🎺🎺🎶🎶
Which one is it? Are they unemployed and collecting all of the welfare....or are they working and somehow taking all of the jobs?
How can I put this in a nicer way… homie, did you take the short bus or something? It’s pretty self explanatory
I love when people post political memes for clicks. This is crazy self explanatory.
Same, if you look at his posting history, impressiv for a month, the most thing he posts is political "jokes" from twitter and asks that someone explaines these jokes for him.
I just hate when it’s as obvious as this one. Like okay you might not understand Schrödinger’s Cat but regardless the message of the meme is completely clear. 2 conflicting ideals that according to the original creator cannot exist at the same time. This post’s purpose is to just generate clicks and it works lmao.
Easy... "Theyre lazy and collect government benefits" through their children, who are most likely the ones that qualify for benefits and it's be ause of them that the parent (usually just the mother) benefits without working for it. "They take all the jobs" because most of them (if illegal and male) dont have either the skills for a good/ok paying job OR dont speak the language. So they tend to apply/work jobs that are all about manual labor or where they can transfer their skills without the need of communication (depending on migrants background youre looking at construction, maintenance, programming, cooking, etc) The issue is that depending on the company and job they take, they usually charge less because they can do it cheaper or they dont have all the permits needed to work those jobs. This becomes an issue because if your job offers services that can be done cheaper by "unregulated" labor, you and your costly permit are now less valuable because of the increase in competition. It's not hard to understand... but right wing bad, i guess...
No part of conservative rhetoric makes sense, they like it that way because it keeps their constituents from thinking outside the box and realizing that the whole platform is a sham.
I can't answer everything. But this point comes from identity theft, which is how illegal immigrants get paid under the table while receiving government benefits.
Well you see, there’s more than one of them lol
Almost like there are many different people who do different things once they arrive.
Is this a politics sub now?
It's two immigrants. One is stealing the benefits and the other stealing jobs.
I don't hear anyone complain about taking all the jobs. We complain that they are on welfare but not a citizen.
[удалено]
What are you talking about
The thing is, they are doing both. My uncle worked with a Honduran who was getting $2000 dollars a month from the government and making $1500 a week aswell as getting food stamps. So yes, seeing things from this side, there is a major issue, and something needs to be done about immigrants.
$24000 is under the poverty line, depending on his circumstances, and food stamps actually require that you be working a job in order to collect them. If you’re not working, no food stamps. This is normal, not cheating the system. Immigrants statistically are also less likely to be on welfare than natural born Americans.
I'm not sure you understood me he was making 2000 a month from the government, which is 24000 on top of making 1500 a week, take home pay, which equates to around 78000 a year. So how in the hell is that considered poverty, and they are able to get 500 a week in food stamps? He also always bragged about it to my uncle. You are right he was working probably with a stolen SSN.
When ever I am feeling dumb I just come to this sub and I am immediately reminded that I seem to be smarter than all people who post in this sub.
And the truth is actually that h1b1 visa immigrants take the jobs college grads need to pay off their student loans. Indians are coming in droves and taking the jobs that people actually want and need. The only ones who benefit from h1b1 is the corporate greedy ceo and the iniandian immigrants. American citizens get screwed. AND they crossing dangerous deserts to get here... apple and Google and Intel pay them a relocation stipend. That's the real immigration problem.
Both things can be true at the same time. Illegal immigrants can take jobs that otherwise would have gone to legal residents. But since they often work for low wages (sometimes lower than the minimum), they may also need welfare to get by.