Is supporting illegal immigration the same as supporting slavery?

Author: Savant
Immigration
Slavery

Posts

Total: 46
Topic's author
#1
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
Whenever a Democrat says that some part of the economy depends on illegal immigrants, they are usually compared to slaveowners who insisted that the economy relied on slavery. This talking point rarely makes sense in the context of the broader immigration debate.

Democrats are also accused (not without basis) of wanting to give free healthcare to illegal immigrants, wanting illegal immigrants to vote, caring more about illegal immigrants than native-born citizens, and wanting to offer full citizenship to illegal immigrants. So if the Democrats think that illegal immigrants should be treated like slaves, they're doing a bad job of it beyond the vaguely similar talking point of the economy depending on a particular group of people. How is the side that wants more rights for illegal immigrants across the board the side that wants to enslave them?

There was also a time when people wanted to ban Chinese laborers from the workforce or even black workers from machine work, so if the whole debate is about who can be compared to racists in the past, there's plenty of ammunition for Democrats to use.

And besides, is bringing up the economic impacts of immigration not warranted if Republicans bring it up too? If a Republican says "illegal immigrants will take our jobs and destroy the economy," that seems like it's inviting someone else to bring up positive economic impacts of illegal immigration, whatever those may be. If a Republican says "we don't owe these illegals anything," then shouldn't they want the illegal immigrants to be a servant class? It seems like Republicans solely care about the effect of immigration on natives until Democrats start talking about the effect of immigration on natives, then Democrats are suddenly racists who don't care enough about illegal immigrants (despite wanting illegal immigrants to have more rights).
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
A lot of the arguments against deporting them that are meant to appeal to conservatives is that American workers would cost more, insinuating that they are currently paid slave wages. So it does feel like they are saying that our economy depends on exploiting a vulnerable population with not much legal protection from employers. It's a response to one specific arguments that liberals make and it's us saying that we are principled and would rather the economy completely collapse than to rely on paying illegals below minimum wage. 
#3
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,913
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@WyIted
I will tell you something as a guy who literally went from one side to the other sort of.

We are not designed to harbor everyone in our homes, not even all the homeless. We equally are not designed to harbor packed cities in the countrysides.

So why are we told that we must take in all immigrants as a selfless act?

Now, Americans have way less of an issue. Yes, they have more illegals but their issue is largely Christians namely Catholics. Imagine if you have Islam growing above 10% in a nation or around there per European nation... Thats whats happening.

I dare not type more.

The reality is, legal or illegal comes down to the law. The law itself.

Also Wylted is very wrong on some things and his mentality woukd make all children of Muslims never be able to break free and become ex-Muslims.

Wylted has said it is some axiom That your parents always care the most of anyone for you. That is a lie and ironically was not true for him, himself.

The problem is however that empathy does not solve security.

When discussing immigration there is also the issue that they send a lot of money abroad. That means they are functionally using your nation at times to not actually contribute to the economy. Now, the settled do so. They pay their tax and often try. Some want Sharia though but that is not the debate here.

You want to talk about immigration yet you want to see it as 'kindess or not'.

Meanwhile, there is a big issue that the left keeps on denying. If an immigrant, especially illegal will enable an abusive employer and terrible workplace conditions, the only solution is to clamp down on both employer regardless and employee if illegal.

The system needs to be secure.

Another issue is this. If you go to Mexico, they will almost always hire a Mexican over any foreigner, espeically non Hispanic foreigner. If you go to America as an illegally immigrated Mexican there are several employers that will usually hire you over a local if they feel they can pay you less or exploit you more. At best it's equal. Remeber Mexicans dont hire equally. Same issue in India. India hies locals always above any outside (even intra ethnic preference over other Indian ethnicites or castes)

It is simply how they roll elsewhere. You do not realise how extreme of a double standard white maj nations are held to because often those rich enough to have travelled amd know, don't care and those poor enough to care are called dumb and uneducated.

Japanese and Chinese care only for their own kind tbh, this is an axiom in almost all nonwhite maj nations, your tribe comes first. So, those asking for equality and fairness are not realising that in a global sense they are actually demanding a double standard.

Imagine going to Pakistan and demanding them to let you dress and act liberal and western. How about Iran? 🤷‍♂️ 
Topic's author
#4
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
exploiting a vulnerable population with not much legal protection from employers
So we should deport the vulnerable population and send them to the country they don't want to live in?
#5
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
It's also kind of an admission that American workers would have more and higher paying jobs available if mass deportations happen when you claim that these industries will be wrecked because they have to pay higher wages and treat workers fairly. 
Topic's author
#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
we must take in all immigrants as a selfless act?
Only one side wants to control whether people invite immigrants into their houses, and it's the side banning them from the country.
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
So we should deport the vulnerable population and send them to the country they don't want to live in?
They are vulnerable here because they are illegal aliens. They aren't easy to exploit when they have legal standing  in their country. I am sure even with the exploitative practices they are better off here, but it doesn't mean their country is better off without them or that we should betray our own principles of treating workers fairly
Topic's author
#8
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
It's also kind of an admission that American workers would have more and higher paying jobs available
Not really. Other industries exist, often complemented by immigrant labor, and illegal immigrants are rarely doing the highest paying jobs.
#9
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
Not really. Other industries exist, often complemented by immigrant labor, and illegal immigrants are rarely doing the highest paying jobs.
Chinese children in sweatshops aren't taking high paying jobs either and the money probably helps their families survive. I am sure this also benefits the steel industry who helps build sweat shops
Topic's author
#10
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
So we should deport the vulnerable population and send them to the country they don't want to live in?
They are vulnerable here because they are illegal aliens. They aren't easy to exploit when they have legal standing  in their country. I am sure even with the exploitative practices they are better off here, but it doesn't mean their country is better off without them or that we should betray our own principles of treating workers fairly
How is allowing someone to have a job that makes them better off unfair to them? Also if they are paid less in their own country how would that be less exploitative?
Topic's author
#11
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
Chinese children in sweatshops aren't taking high paying jobs either and the money probably helps their families survive.
Yeah, which is what people who want to blindly shut down all sweatshops don't really understand. You have to compare the system to the alternatives.
#12
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Wylted has said it is some axiom That your parents always care the most of anyone for you. That is a lie and ironically was not true for him, himself.
My parents probably did. I never said they didn't love me, they just weren't very good parents. 
#13
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,913
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@WyIted
Dude by your logic how would a child of a tyrannical Muslim family ever escape and change?
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
Yeah, which is what people who want to blindly shut down all sweatshops don't really understand. You have to compare the system to the alternatives.
WTF I thought that would enlighten you to the problem with your mentality. I will give you credit, you are being ideologically consistent here. I think then we would have to shift the argument to our different axioms now that I know you are consistent. My argument was more about principles and you seem to have a more utilitarian perspective. When I do humor a utilitarian perspective it is extremely localized. 

I will say that utilitarian things like you suggest of keeping sweat shops and illegal immigrants, I believe are short sighted and only help in the immediate future while more disruptive change would create more good long term as people would be forced to come up with principled solutions
#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Dude by your logic how would a child of a tyrannical Muslim family ever escape and change?
This is a fair question and one I need to consider. We have this thing happening where Muslims are immigrating too fast and it risks spreading radical islam everywhere. But how would one escape?

The answer is uncomfortable because I think it is massive efforts to westernize middle eastern countries and it's uncomfortable because I think it's the right thing to do but would be done the wrong way. So my answer is a strong effort to spread out cultures and I think it should be an effort by the United States government to spread Christian values even if they can't spread Christianity to those nations
Topic's author
#16
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
My argument was more about principles and you seem to have a more utilitarian perspective. When I do humor a utilitarian perspective it is extremely localized. 
Okay, let's say you go to a place where everyone is paid a dollar a day and implement a $10 an hour minimum wage. Then all the businesses leave and everyone there starves. Is that a good solution that follows your principles?

Your standard is also arbitrary. What's considered normal today may be considered exploitative in 100 years. But it's still necessary to survive.
#17
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,913
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@WyIted
No need. Christianisation is already done in many. Lebanon now that Hezbollah is out finally has a swing back to Christianity big time.

We neednt force all to be 'white' or 'western' thats ridiculous. Thank God himself the rainbow flag concepts are barely there. The Islamic factions of those areas have actually helped them maintain strong gender roles and family values, just too extremely and in a corrupt way. Their cultures arent the issue.

You are not the same as me. I want actual nationalism of sorts, you pretend to. That is also why you are anti welfare and I am not.
I support the nation caring for the nation. I loathe too much individualism.

Anyway I learned the hard way not to trust you even in DMs. So I wont continue this further. If I do I may say something cancellable etc. 

#18
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
Okay, let's say you go to a place where everyone is paid a dollar a day and implement a $10 an hour minimum wage. Then all the businesses leave and everyone there starves. Is that a good solution that follows your principles?
As far as being a local politician no but foreign countries shouldn't trade with them unless it is a resource we can't create at home. 

They can grow food and trade locally. Make shoes. They have the same resources as anyone else and can make things happen locally. I mean the Jews live in a desert and are pretty self sufficient. 

If you make them reliant on $1 an hour they will never suffer enough to solve the problems that are keeping them from becoming a wealthy people. It's the problem with this sort of help in general. It takes away desperation which is needed for radical change. It's breads and circuses but a much more pathetic version and you are still thinking like a utilitarian in how you are analyzing this problem.
#19
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,407
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
"Is supporting illegal immigration the same as supporting slavery?" No, it means you willfully choose to pretend to not  know what illegal means and laws only matter to you when they work in your favor.

"NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW"  Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Tim Waltz, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Theodor Roosevelt................ On and on..................................
#20
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,913
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Savant
Will you reply to my arguments btw
#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I am shifting on the individualism  a bit. After taking a wider view of it, I think I was wrong. I see myself as an individualist and the left push for a collectivism of sorts so I though we were dealing with runaway collectivism but it's different they are not pushing for a welfare state or lawlessness as a result of a desire for collectivism they want welfare and degeneracy to be safe doing whatever they want with a fallback plan or without consequences. So it's perhaps not individualism that is the savior of mankind but in fact the problem. Places with strong communities don't have these problems with degeneracy and begging for handouts. 
Topic's author
#22
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
If you make them reliant on $1 an hour they will never suffer enough to solve the problems that are keeping them from becoming a wealthy people. It's the problem with this sort of help in general. It takes away desperation which is needed for radical change. It's breads and circuses but a much more pathetic version and you are still thinking like a utilitarian in how you are analyzing this problem.
Your argument is still utilitarian, it's based on the long-term effects. If you were purely arguing based on principle it would be irrelevant to you whether the people there repair their economy.

Also earlier you said earlier sweatshops were unjustifiable, now you think it's not suffering enough? What? Every rich country started with people earning low wages. Even rich countries today are getting richer. If desperation was needed, ever country would plateau.
#23
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 740
3
3
6
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
3
6
We are not designed to harbor everyone in our homes, not even all the homeless
I would accept a cute homeless person, but not the not cute one.

Topic's author
#24
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
Will you reply to my arguments btw
I thought you were only replying to WyIted? You never tagged me so I don't know which posts are addressing me.
Topic's author
#25
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@sadolite
it means you don't know what illegal means
Not necessarily. Some people are proud lawbreakers.
#26
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,913
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Savant
The first
#27
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,638
4
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
4
4
9
-->
@Savant
Your argument is still utilitarian, 
If your ethical framework is utilitarianism, obviously I would try to appeal to that I am not currently interested in a debate on it for the most part but I did want you to know you are either intentionally or instinctively using that argument so if you were interested at a later date you could research more into that framework. 

If you were purely arguing based on principle it would be irrelevant to you whether the people there repair their economy.
It's irrelevant to me, but if I feel like it is true and relevant for you than it should be okay for me to argue for it, should it not?

Also earlier you said earlier sweatshops were unjustifiable, now you think it's not suffering enough? What? Every rich country started with people earning low wages. Even rich countries today are getting richer. If desperation was needed, ever country would plateau.
Here this is important to discuss. 

Yes suffering a little can wreck your ambition. If you are fat and comfortable you aren't going to lose weight, but often people have to suffer more. They need the heart attack or to almost lose their kid because they can't run fast enough to push them from in front of a car. They need to actually increase their own suffering to avoid a fate worse than suffering, which is stagnation. So yes I am advocating for more suffering because I think the long term effects are happiness and or freedom. 

Yes the rich countries will fall if they are not willing to voluntarily suffer. Its literally the history of why empires rise and fall. It was an unwillingness to suffer that caused Rome to fall, that caused the British empire to fall. America also will fall if we aren't okay with suffering. 

You are pointing it out here. If illegal immigrants leave yes they will suffer but so will we and if we aren't able to deal with that suffering than we will keep seeking comfort because Karen is too good to work at a slaughter house for minimum wage. Or we want cheap shit so we will seek comfort and kill American jobs so we can have 3 televisions in our homes instead of one. So yes rich countries unwilling to suffer will die and a people willing to suffer will become dominant. Perhaps India. Indians are not afraid to get their hands dirty and bust their asses
#28
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,407
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Savant
I updated my post
Topic's author
#29
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@sadolite
I updated my post
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, etc. are hypocrites, but they're only a few of the people who support immigration (and I don't think any of them claim to support illegal immigration). Politicians just aren't the most moral people anyway.
Topic's author
#30
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,024
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
@AR
The first
It isn't really addressing the "slavery" talking point, which is the point of the post. If Democrats want to enslave illegal immigrants, why do they want to give them more rights?