The left vs the right immigration

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,277
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
This is in terms of trends, not an explicit rule.

The left: Anyone who wants to deport undocumented immigrants is racist.

The right: It's not racist!  People coming here without documented is not a race anymore than sexual orientation.

Me: Hey left wingers.  Calling people names for disagreeing with me on an issue that doesn't effect me isn't my style, but if it's your style, you can try calling the right undocuphobic.  They can't really deny agreeing with that label as easily, because they are against people being here simply because they are undocumented.  Just saying.  The right may act all politically correct and stress the terms, "It's ILLEGAL!", then you can call them illegophobic (which really means they would be afraid of anyone who broke any law, even if it was speeding 5 mph above the speed limit).

I'm giving you guys some pointers for how you can get what you want politically on this issue and reduce unwanted pain as what you guys want to do (because I've heard that deportations produce a lot of pain for those involved).
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,959
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
We actually solved all the problems of illegal immigration by bussing them all to sanctuary cities. Democrat replacement theory.
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,846
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
It's all fun and games until they start to claim those people on the census and get more congressional seats "representing" their serfs. So will the backlash to kicking people out of hotels, schools, and perhaps apartments to house migrants be enough for the right-tribe to seize control and prevent illegal immigrants from counting towards apportionment? I don't know.

I feel as if it would be poetic justice to take left-tribe voters and send them to central America while transferring their citizenship to the people they invited over. Chances are the new guys would be much more useful, and probably vote against abortion too.
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,277
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Greyparrot
We actually solved all the problems of illegal immigration by bussing them all to sanctuary cities. Democrat replacement theory.
The democrat ideology isn't so much great replacement theory (LBJ was okay with right wing Cubans immigrating to the US without having to go through the legalization process).

Their belief is that the decision to whether or not to allow undocumented immigrants should not be up to the city, state, or county, but up to the household.

If your household wants undocumented immigrants (like if an undocumented immigrant is your father or spouse), your household can have undocumented immigrants, even if that household is in rural North Texas. If your household doesn't wants undocumented immigrants, your household doesn't have to have undocumented immigrants, even if that household is in urban Manhattan or San Fransisco.

The 10th amendment's ethos calling for local rule is applied the strictest when you leave the decision to the smallest form of government; the household.

But no matter which party you have a preference to, what party ends up benefiting objectively doesn't matter.  We can merge the New England states to be one state (and Democrats lose 10 senate seats) if it makes things even.

The GOP would then have to figure out which issues they would concede and which issues they would keep in order to stay electorally competitive.  It's nothing new.  Both parties have done these sorts of things throughout history (the GOP on gay marriage, the democrats on masks, vaccine mandates, and gun control (constitutional carry has become very common throughout the states; and it started with Vermont).

Immigration might follow suit as this country strides more towards the ethos of liberty.
Topic's author
#5
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,277
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's all fun and games until they start to claim those people on the census and get more congressional seats "representing" their serfs. 
The democrat ideology isn't so much great replacement theory (LBJ was okay with right wing Cubans immigrating to the US without having to go through the legalization process).  But no matter which party you have a preference to, what party ends up benefiting objectively doesn't matter.  We can merge the New England states to be one state (and Democrats lose 10 senate seats) if it makes things even.

The GOP would then have to figure out which issues they would concede and which issues they would keep in order to stay electorally competitive.  It's nothing new.  Both parties have done these sorts of things throughout history (the GOP on gay marriage, the democrats on masks, vaccine mandates, and gun control (constitutional carry has become very common throughout the states; and it started with Vermont).

Immigration might follow suit as this country strides more towards the ethos of liberty.

 So will the backlash to kicking people out of hotels, schools, and perhaps apartments to house migrants be enough for the right-tribe to seize control and prevent illegal immigrants from counting towards apportionment?
Nobody is advocating for kicking out tenants to make way for government housing.  The most I've seen is hotel rooms (that were already empty) being paid for by the taxpayer (which I don't even agree with because I don't like socialized housing; I unironically prefer letting people freeze and starve to death rather than take care of them because I call myself a fiscal conservative and I want to reduce government spending and if that means people, if that means children starve and suffer and freeze, so be it).  I don't expect everyone to have this view if I frame it like this, and that's fine.

But the 10th amendment allows localities to make their own decisions.  If the decision angers you enough and you live in a place like NYC, you can move to Westchester or Putnam County if you want, where they probably don't want to give the undocumented taxpayer paid for housing.

I feel as if it would be poetic justice to take left-tribe voters and send them to central America while transferring their citizenship to the people they invited over. 
If the individual left wingers consent, fine.  If they don't, it's not fine.  You may even make Central America Anglophone majority if that happens (that would be decent).  But if they live in a country they hate, they should leave (preferably to Cuba; it would be decent if Cuba became Anglophone).

But people are individuals and should be treated as such.


#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,846
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Immigration might follow suit as this country strides more towards the ethos of liberty.
I'm not even going to try to correct you. Basic facts seem to bounce off you so how much more impossible with abstract concepts.



If the decision angers you enough and you live in a place like NYC, you can move to Westchester or Putnam County if you want
Don't forget violence against the state. That's a classic... neolithic actually. Wherever there are governments, sometimes they just gotta die.


If the individual left wingers consent, fine.
Well if I can use the threat of violence to make their lives living hells of course they'll "consent", you know the same way "we" "consent" to taxes by not running away.
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,122
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Why are Trumpers atheists?  Proverbs 14:31 - Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him. 
#8
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
My view on it is very simple.

If you want to become an American citizen, you must apply to become a citizen. 
Now obviously the system we have right now is very bad and needs to be updated. 

But the point is clear. 
In order to be a country, you have to have a border in order to separate yourself from other countries. If the border doesn't do its job, then your country doesn't have a border. 
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,277
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you want to become an American citizen, you must apply to become a citizen. 
What about automatic green cards for immigrants?  They automatically get a green card when they enter the US.  They don't have to worry about deportation, and you don't have to worry about them turning the country permanently blue.

Now obviously the system we have right now is very bad and needs to be updated. 
How specifically would you update the system other than an open border policy.

Name 1 trait you get from being undocumented that if an American Citizen, it justifies your deportation.

What should be the point of spending thousands of dollars to the state (so a tax) to avoid deportation paid for by the American taxpayer?

In order to be a country, you have to have a border in order to separate yourself from other countries. If the border doesn't do its job, then your country doesn't have a border. 
So then have national borders be like state borders; Oregon would be different from Ohio, but an Oregon resident should be allowed to freely move into Ohio without fear of prosecution from the state simply because they didn't pay thousands of dollars in government fees to do go through Ohio's legalization process.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,277
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Why are Trumpers atheists?  Proverbs 14:31 - Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him. 
Some Trump supporters are religious Christians, some aren't.  Some Trump haters are religious Christians, some aren't (I define religious Christain as going to mass at least weekly).

I'm an atheist, I hate Trump, I like shooting guns, saying, "Fuck Fauci", I'm anti-abortion, anti-evolution, pro vasectomy, and celibacy before marriage, I don't want the US involved with Ukraine and all that globalist bullshit.  I am pro masculinity (it's why I like the collected personality of cops, soldiers, and firefighters even if I'm anti war.  I like the employee; not always their job); I think Andrew Tate is funny af.

I'm all over the place politically.

Epstein didn't kill himself!
#11
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
What about automatic green cards for immigrants?  They automatically get a green card when they enter the US.  They don't have to worry about deportation, and you don't have to worry about them turning the country permanently blue.
Are they an American citizen? 

How specifically would you update the system other than an open border policy.
More funding. Almost anything can be solved with funding to the right places. 

Name 1 trait you get from being undocumented that if an American Citizen, it justifies your deportation.
You don't have documentation.......................
But people born in America are required to..........

So, are you making the argument that if you just decide one day to come to America, you don't have to get documentation, but if your actually born here you should be required to?

So then have national borders be like state borders; Oregon would be different from Ohio, but an Oregon resident should be allowed to freely move into Ohio without fear of prosecution from the state simply because they didn't pay thousands of dollars in government fees to do go through Ohio's legalization process.
So, no countries? Just states?

Borders are a representation of where bad ideas stop, and good ideas start. 
America > Latin America.


Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,277
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Are they an American citizen? 
Nope; and it is totally irrelevant because legality does not equal morality.  It's why we are both anti abortion despite abortion being legal in most states.

More funding. Almost anything can be solved with funding to the right places. 
You sound like a liberal bud, and I know that's not your party.  More taxes; more spending!  More government!

So, are you making the argument that if you just decide one day to come to America, you don't have to get documentation, but if your actually born here you should be required to?
No; I'm saying nobody should be forced to go through an arbitrary state run legalization process under the punishment of deportation.  Government; get out of people lives!

But in order to vote, there needs to be tougher requirements to vote (but the native born and the immigrant should be held to the same standard as where you are born is totally arbitrary).

So, no countries? Just states?
You can have countries.  Just like Spain and France have open borders with one another.  They are both countries.

Borders are a representation of where bad ideas stop, and good ideas start. 
Not always.  The NJ-PA border is an arbitrary line.

America > Latin America.
Correct; it's why people are moving here.