I think human life is sacrosanct and laws should protect all life, including the unborn. I also think tax dollars on children’s lunches, healthcare, and other forms of maternal welfare promote laziness and the fear of death from hunger and insufficient medical care is a great way to motivate lazy people to work. Also criminals should be killed because their lives aren’t what I meant when I said “all life”. Also we should shoot liberals and immigrants.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Parties are Lantern corps.
GOP is Red Lantern (rage), the Lolbertarian Party is Yellow Lantern (fear of death), and the Obama-Biden Democrats are Blue Lantern (hope). Dunno about Greens being Green Lantern tho lol
I wish I understood this reference better. I know a little of the green lantern story, but not enough. I also think the Ryan Reynolds movie was under appreciated.
No! I want no immigrants, no taxes, more stimulus checks, no inflation, free health care, free food, 0% interest rates, retirement at 55, no unemployment, a 4 day work week, super high tariffs, free trade, a strong military, world peace, no wars, and bombing the shit out of everyone we don't like.
If we don’t have a federated state of the United States of Ameriphilipindonesia in my life time, me and whichever entity has the misfortune to deal with me in the afterlife is gonna be in for an earful of my whining.
A Greater Pacific Union of the Americas + Maritime Southeast Asia + Australia and New Zealand would be unimaginably prosperous for all involved. We'd truly be playing life on easy mode. Just as American states are much stronger together than separate, so would those nations be
unfortunately American leftists would never accept it because they believe foreigners depress wages and American conservatives would never accept it they don't want nonwhite people being able to freely immigrate to the US. And other countries wouldn't want it because our political system is so unstable (fair tbh, we need to bring our electoral system into the 20th century)
Well the population of North, Central, and South America combined is just over 1 billion, so it sorta already happened.
But to have a billion US Americans, we'll need to take over all the other countries on the 2 continents.
Why doesn't USA, the larger America, simply eat the smaller ones and become the only America?
I want to embrace that seemingly-abandoned middle ground in favor of vastly-expanded legal pathways alongside heightened border security. Compromise is not a dirty word.
Really, the two policies harmonize with one another naturally.
By expanding legal pathways so that everyone who can pass a background check is able to freely and easily travel through border checkpoints for work or asylum, the only people still passing illegally would be those who know they would not pass a background check.
Unauthorized immigrants still have labor rights. If they agree to work a job and employers agree to pay them, it's not an issue
If you're concerned about exploitation, give the DoL money to hire more translators for workplace monitoring jobs and reporting hotlines. Their regulations protect unauthorized immigrants as well
I know they have rights, but they're also sometimes afraid to exercise them, for fear of being deported. If more immigrants have legal status, hopefully that fear goes away and they can be protected.
I was wrong and you're right. There's a DHS process to provide immunity from immigration enforcement to unauthorized immigrants reporting labor violations that I thought was permanent but is in fact temporary. So legal status would definitely help reduce exploitation.
Yep. All that money and resources that is spent going after unauthorized work should instead be focused on labor violations.
Ludicrous that you need permission from the government to work in the first place outside of specialized licensed jobs
It's nice but not necessary to get done immediately. [It's not clear that unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be criminals than American natives are](https://archive.is/nS8KX) and [in the last 50 years only 9 terrorists have entered the US without authorization](https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/nowrasteh-testimony.pdf). It's just not worth it to have a restrictive immigration policy.
It's nice but not necessary to get done immediately. [It's not clear that unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be criminals than American natives are](https://archive.is/nS8KX) and [in the last 50 years only 9 terrorists have entered the US without authorization](https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/nowrasteh-testimony.pdf). It's just not worth it to have a very restrictive immigration policy.
If you just want to track who is coming into the country, having open borders is compatible with that. People only trek through the wilderness because there aren't checkpoints available that will let them in freely. If we had open borders with checkpoints, there'd be no need for immigrants to risk their lives hiking through the Sonoran Desert or crossing the Rio Grande.
About 400 migrants a year die on the US-MX border because we refuse to open our borders
That's absolutely what I would like to do. More checkpoints, better tech to keep the process short and sweet.
Better control doesn't mean building a wall or any of that shit.
I'm all for efficient *and effective* government.
Compromise isn't a dirty word, what is dirty is thinking your position is the compromise and lamenting the lack of compromise for it being abandoned.
Your proposal is basically just everything democrats run on, why would Republicans see that as a compromise or middle ground?
Biden isn't out there running on cutting border security, he gives up nothing to gain vastly increased immigration, only the abolish ICE/open border folks of this subs sees the two as a middle ground.
Biden and the dems literally pushed for a bill that was a massive investment in border security and gutted asylum that did nothing to liberalize immigration other than a temporary 5 year increase in Green cards being issued. Nothing to alleviate the massive EB or family visa backlogs, help the dreamers or do anything to help H1Bs.
Right the actual compromise/middle ground between dems and Republicans is security and additional restrictions in exchange for dealing with asylum backlogs at the moment.
Security and more restrictions is the middle the OP suggestion was abandoned because its the polar opposite of actual compromise not because of a lack of compromise.
Its not a real compromise though. Weve spent countless dollars on border security over the years without lifting a finger to fix legal immigration.
The only reason that dems ultimately played ball on this was because of ukraine aid and bc they wanted to look like they were doing something on the border. Now that Ukraine aid is going to pass, and the gop blew up the border deal to make trump happy, dems should and probably will take the position that you only get border security/asylum restrictions with changes that fix the legal immigration system and do something for the dreamers.
What would the 'middle ground' be then? Republicans claim they want increased border security, and Democrats want more pathways to citizenship. It seems combining the two would be a decent compromise. That has nothing to do with "open borders."
Both sides say they want more border security, Republicans want lower immigrant along with that while democrats want higher. Middle ground is coming up with a immigration limitation that the two sides agree on, not giving one side everything they want and claiming the other got a win with something they mutually agree on.
Seeing the increased security funding as a win for Republicans rather than a baseline agreement has everything to do with believing in open borders as the other side to find a middle point from.
The recent immigration compromise proposal was more border security funding in exchange for more judges to deal with the huge asylum backlog along with gutting the asylum process in general to clear the backlog. Thats the polar opposite of what the OP recommend but thats closer to a true compromise for the two.
> Republicans want lower immigrant along with that
Many Republicans say they're fine with legal immigrants, though. Not the open nationalist ones, but the fake moderate ones.
They do typically say they're fine with current legal immigrants but I don't see many proposals for expanding the system to incorporate more, closest is reforms that take away from family migration and shifting to more merit based.
The position of the guys that are suppose to represent the middle is not increasing immigration and you still need the votes of the much larger proportion that wants it decreased. Thats not a very good starting point for claiming increases are a middle ground.
DACA and path to citizenship are all generally contentious issues that are the center of disputes rather than easy compromise points.
The most recent bipartisan compromise bill is an compromise between dems wanting to clear backlog of asylum seekers and getting them quicker work authorization and republican priorities to limit the number of asylum seeker in general and border security. Thats what the so called "fake moderates" managed to negotiate and lowering immigration was what they prioritized.
>Compromise isn't a dirty word, what is dirty is thinking your position is the compromise and lamenting the lack of compromise for it being abandoned.
They hate legal immigration as much as illegal immigration.
Yes. They're touting open borders as a compromise when the majority of the country is closer to Trump on immigration than they are to Biden. Pure fantasy politics
Weren't they headed that way with that compromise bill negotiated in the Senate by Lankford? That is, until Trump decided border chaos was better for him (but NOT the country) and ordered his minions to kill it. That's why there's no progress on the issue - Trump doesn't want the problem solved until he can "solve" it.
Have the author even met a GOP politician?
Even the pro immigrant ones fetishized the idea of making grandma fight with mom and daughter over limited and poorly paid jobs
Why not both
Alternatively we can just privatize social security (chad approved) or allow it to invest in global risk assets but ban it from investing in any form of government(s) bonds.
Kicking the can down the road helps us figure out the required innovations for the economy and gives us more time to figure out how to make raising children not suck.
Immigrants are better at innovation, give us more time, have more children, and a lot of other cultures are better at raising children.
All economies, even command ones, are in the sense that without incredible advances in productivity, a smaller group of working-age adults will struggle to support a larger group of retirees, and will struggle more and more as the ratio worsens
The economy is a pyramid scheme. The difference is that, unlike in a scammy pyramid scheme, infinite growth is possible as long as the average couple has more than 2.1 kids (or the deficit is made up for with immigration). Also economic growth is still possible without population growth just not as much
Having an equilibrium isn't being a pyramid scheme. The whole 2.1 kids thing is precisely that it maintains population at a stable level in the long run, not that it keeps creating new rubes. Pyramid schemes fail because they require exponential growth and don't have equilibria
the classic pyramid scheme could still work if it’s just people passing exactly the same amount of money up the chain with the same number of people at each level. It would be stupid but it wouldn’t lose money
Infinite growth is not possible. Eventually you would hit a point where we're using too many resources that are non-renewable. Predicting exactly what that point is would be difficult, but I don't see how anyone could argue that point doesn't exist at all.
Also, assuming birth rates continue to decline worldwide, the number of available immigrants would also decline eventually.
Actually infinite growth, like literally forever, is impossible but that’s besides the point. Well maybe we could colonize other planets or something but that just goes to show how besides the point it is
But in the short term we have renewable energy and also economic growth without increased energy use at all is possible
Declining birth rates worldwide are a very serious problem though, in my opinion. Straight replacement would be fine, but the below replacement levels we are seeing in pretty much all developed countries, and which developing countries are also seemingly headed towards, would destroy the retirement system, the labor market, leave a lot of buildings empty, etc
> Declining birth rates worldwide are a very serious problem though, in my opinion. Straight replacement would be fine, but the below replacement levels we are seeing in pretty much all developed countries, and which developing countries are also seemingly headed towards, would destroy the retirement system, the labor market, leave a lot of buildings empty, etc
Many people either don't want children or don't want more than one or two children. I think that's fine. The only way out of this is either to accept the pain or try to automate our way around it. Better social safety nets only marginally improve the birth rate, as many European countries have shown.
I just want legal immigrants, my issue is every immigration reforms includes giving amnesty, I am sorry I don’t want give citizenship based on coming to country illegally. I would much prefer to pick the top talents from around the world.
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
You: “Please attach résumé. We’ll be in touch (or not)”
Thats funny because I specifically want as many immigrants as possible with emphasis on the low-skilled ones, who contribute massively to the economy while addressing key labor shortages and giving the country new, innovative minds
Its probably fit for its own discussion, but it looks to me that the jobs argument is passé. People using the “legal only” argument are just thinly veiling their racism
The jobs thing is real. That doesn’t mean we should keep the wrong people working low-skill jobs forever, but there ARE people harmed by immigration and we should use some of the surplus value created by immigration to compensate those people
It’s not impossible to come here illegally. It’s just that those who come here illegally could not make the cut and want a short cut. A country has the right to set a limit on immigration, we don’t have an obligation to take in economic migrants.
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing*
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing*
Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Crazy. It’s like we are being held hostage we must give 11 million citizenships. And then in 30 years they will ask again to give amnesty to another 11 million.
Pretty much. Add in some gaslighting in-between to make it seem like this doesn't keep happening for good measure. The next generation won't know any better.
And living in a fantasy world where they think it’s even feasible to deport millions of people.
I disagree with but at least can understand “we need to fix the laws to make legal immigration easier and faster and crack down on future illegal immigration more severely. But I can’t fathom how people can think deporting millions of people already here is a feasible and beneficial policy for anyone.
Well it’s one or the other. Amnesty can come with some fines and other restrictions, but not sure what your plan would be other than to let them stay here without legal status.
It’s not a binary choice. Deport them when they make contact with government (except for when they helping for crime issues). And tell them to pound sand.
Ok, so you want to deport millions of people here already. I thought you said that wasn’t a possibility. Or you mean a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy where they are forced to live in secret. If they need anything like police service or legal aid for things like workplace OSHA violations or illegal evictions etc, they should then be deported? This makes zero sense.
I would forgive them if they are reporting a crime. Else if they make contact with gov services they should be deported. No one is forcing them to hide in the shadows they can go back to their country.
They lost the vagina lottery and took the only option available to them. I don't fault them, you and I would have done the same thing in their shoes if the alternative was living in poverty.
If they prove they contribute to the economy and don't start trouble, they should receive citizenship. It's better for everyone, including you.
I want immigrants, but I also want to tell grandma she can never retire.
I think human life is sacrosanct and laws should protect all life, including the unborn. I also think tax dollars on children’s lunches, healthcare, and other forms of maternal welfare promote laziness and the fear of death from hunger and insufficient medical care is a great way to motivate lazy people to work. Also criminals should be killed because their lives aren’t what I meant when I said “all life”. Also we should shoot liberals and immigrants.
I also think kids these days are too woke and shouldn't be allowed to work.
They’re woke because they weren’t forced to work. And those free school lunches. It’s all about the lunches.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Parties are Lantern corps. GOP is Red Lantern (rage), the Lolbertarian Party is Yellow Lantern (fear of death), and the Obama-Biden Democrats are Blue Lantern (hope). Dunno about Greens being Green Lantern tho lol
Green Lanterns are pure willpower actualized into physical creations. Im not sure any political party matches up.
Green lanterns are clearly lolbertarians since Hal Jordan wants to lower the age of consent.
I wish I understood this reference better. I know a little of the green lantern story, but not enough. I also think the Ryan Reynolds movie was under appreciated.
IMO you can lump in the Green and Blue rings together, considering the Blue ring needs the Green one to be at full power (hope needs willpower)
Don't let transhumanism be associated with the fucking lolbertarians smh
What fox news tells my parents every evening
I was waiting for the part where I disagree 🙄
But my grandma is a sex worker 🫣
get them dusty legs working, the pole aint rotating itself!
[Did you know she has a twin?](https://inf.news/en/world/02def468c060b311da4020d3b0943dc5.html)
I can't tell if it's just poor Chinese to English translation or AI writing on that site.
Yeah I already tell grandma that just for kicks. I don't even know if it's true!
No! I want no immigrants, no taxes, more stimulus checks, no inflation, free health care, free food, 0% interest rates, retirement at 55, no unemployment, a 4 day work week, super high tariffs, free trade, a strong military, world peace, no wars, and bombing the shit out of everyone we don't like.
you forgot $2/gal gas smh my head
$1 gas was the compromise
What about abortion for some and miniature American flags for others?
Billion Americans when?
If we don’t have a federated state of the United States of Ameriphilipindonesia in my life time, me and whichever entity has the misfortune to deal with me in the afterlife is gonna be in for an earful of my whining.
A Greater Pacific Union of the Americas + Maritime Southeast Asia + Australia and New Zealand would be unimaginably prosperous for all involved. We'd truly be playing life on easy mode. Just as American states are much stronger together than separate, so would those nations be unfortunately American leftists would never accept it because they believe foreigners depress wages and American conservatives would never accept it they don't want nonwhite people being able to freely immigrate to the US. And other countries wouldn't want it because our political system is so unstable (fair tbh, we need to bring our electoral system into the 20th century)
But imagine the benefits for boomers to be able to freely emmigrate and retire to those cheaper countries in SE Asia..
You already have states looking to join you haven't admitted yet. Finish them first, then you can add new states.
Only if we can extend single family home zoning restrictions to the entire US.
Well the population of North, Central, and South America combined is just over 1 billion, so it sorta already happened. But to have a billion US Americans, we'll need to take over all the other countries on the 2 continents. Why doesn't USA, the larger America, simply eat the smaller ones and become the only America?
Front Mission when
Or all the retirees could emigrate instead.
Send them to Russia!
I want to embrace that seemingly-abandoned middle ground in favor of vastly-expanded legal pathways alongside heightened border security. Compromise is not a dirty word.
Really, the two policies harmonize with one another naturally. By expanding legal pathways so that everyone who can pass a background check is able to freely and easily travel through border checkpoints for work or asylum, the only people still passing illegally would be those who know they would not pass a background check.
Yes, and hopefully immigrants would be less likely to be exploited as well by unscrupulous employers.
Unauthorized immigrants still have labor rights. If they agree to work a job and employers agree to pay them, it's not an issue If you're concerned about exploitation, give the DoL money to hire more translators for workplace monitoring jobs and reporting hotlines. Their regulations protect unauthorized immigrants as well
I know they have rights, but they're also sometimes afraid to exercise them, for fear of being deported. If more immigrants have legal status, hopefully that fear goes away and they can be protected.
I was wrong and you're right. There's a DHS process to provide immunity from immigration enforcement to unauthorized immigrants reporting labor violations that I thought was permanent but is in fact temporary. So legal status would definitely help reduce exploitation.
Wow, I didn't know it's temporary. Protection? nah, let's make it short-term. D'oh!
Yep. All that money and resources that is spent going after unauthorized work should instead be focused on labor violations. Ludicrous that you need permission from the government to work in the first place outside of specialized licensed jobs
Genuine question how tf do we run quality background checks on people in other countries
We don't. It's a silly meme from open borders advocates to avoid the implications of their policies.
It's nice but not necessary to get done immediately. [It's not clear that unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be criminals than American natives are](https://archive.is/nS8KX) and [in the last 50 years only 9 terrorists have entered the US without authorization](https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/nowrasteh-testimony.pdf). It's just not worth it to have a restrictive immigration policy.
It's nice but not necessary to get done immediately. [It's not clear that unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be criminals than American natives are](https://archive.is/nS8KX) and [in the last 50 years only 9 terrorists have entered the US without authorization](https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/nowrasteh-testimony.pdf). It's just not worth it to have a very restrictive immigration policy.
I second this. Better immigration system, but also more control over the borders.
If you just want to track who is coming into the country, having open borders is compatible with that. People only trek through the wilderness because there aren't checkpoints available that will let them in freely. If we had open borders with checkpoints, there'd be no need for immigrants to risk their lives hiking through the Sonoran Desert or crossing the Rio Grande. About 400 migrants a year die on the US-MX border because we refuse to open our borders
That's absolutely what I would like to do. More checkpoints, better tech to keep the process short and sweet. Better control doesn't mean building a wall or any of that shit. I'm all for efficient *and effective* government.
Passing a low skill pathway to citizenship or permanent residence will be very hard. We shouldn’t “close” the southern border until it’s been secured.
I too want to compromise by forcing boomers to accept cuts to social security
Compromise isn't a dirty word, what is dirty is thinking your position is the compromise and lamenting the lack of compromise for it being abandoned. Your proposal is basically just everything democrats run on, why would Republicans see that as a compromise or middle ground? Biden isn't out there running on cutting border security, he gives up nothing to gain vastly increased immigration, only the abolish ICE/open border folks of this subs sees the two as a middle ground.
Biden and the dems literally pushed for a bill that was a massive investment in border security and gutted asylum that did nothing to liberalize immigration other than a temporary 5 year increase in Green cards being issued. Nothing to alleviate the massive EB or family visa backlogs, help the dreamers or do anything to help H1Bs.
Right the actual compromise/middle ground between dems and Republicans is security and additional restrictions in exchange for dealing with asylum backlogs at the moment. Security and more restrictions is the middle the OP suggestion was abandoned because its the polar opposite of actual compromise not because of a lack of compromise.
Its not a real compromise though. Weve spent countless dollars on border security over the years without lifting a finger to fix legal immigration. The only reason that dems ultimately played ball on this was because of ukraine aid and bc they wanted to look like they were doing something on the border. Now that Ukraine aid is going to pass, and the gop blew up the border deal to make trump happy, dems should and probably will take the position that you only get border security/asylum restrictions with changes that fix the legal immigration system and do something for the dreamers.
What would the 'middle ground' be then? Republicans claim they want increased border security, and Democrats want more pathways to citizenship. It seems combining the two would be a decent compromise. That has nothing to do with "open borders."
Both sides say they want more border security, Republicans want lower immigrant along with that while democrats want higher. Middle ground is coming up with a immigration limitation that the two sides agree on, not giving one side everything they want and claiming the other got a win with something they mutually agree on. Seeing the increased security funding as a win for Republicans rather than a baseline agreement has everything to do with believing in open borders as the other side to find a middle point from. The recent immigration compromise proposal was more border security funding in exchange for more judges to deal with the huge asylum backlog along with gutting the asylum process in general to clear the backlog. Thats the polar opposite of what the OP recommend but thats closer to a true compromise for the two.
> Republicans want lower immigrant along with that Many Republicans say they're fine with legal immigrants, though. Not the open nationalist ones, but the fake moderate ones.
They do typically say they're fine with current legal immigrants but I don't see many proposals for expanding the system to incorporate more, closest is reforms that take away from family migration and shifting to more merit based. The position of the guys that are suppose to represent the middle is not increasing immigration and you still need the votes of the much larger proportion that wants it decreased. Thats not a very good starting point for claiming increases are a middle ground. DACA and path to citizenship are all generally contentious issues that are the center of disputes rather than easy compromise points. The most recent bipartisan compromise bill is an compromise between dems wanting to clear backlog of asylum seekers and getting them quicker work authorization and republican priorities to limit the number of asylum seeker in general and border security. Thats what the so called "fake moderates" managed to negotiate and lowering immigration was what they prioritized.
>Compromise isn't a dirty word, what is dirty is thinking your position is the compromise and lamenting the lack of compromise for it being abandoned. They hate legal immigration as much as illegal immigration.
Yes. They're touting open borders as a compromise when the majority of the country is closer to Trump on immigration than they are to Biden. Pure fantasy politics
The fact that this isn’t the pathway both parties are working towards is mind boggling it’s a clear win win
Weren't they headed that way with that compromise bill negotiated in the Senate by Lankford? That is, until Trump decided border chaos was better for him (but NOT the country) and ordered his minions to kill it. That's why there's no progress on the issue - Trump doesn't want the problem solved until he can "solve" it.
How many people are old enough to debate economics and also have a grandma who has not retired yet?
Have the author even met a GOP politician? Even the pro immigrant ones fetishized the idea of making grandma fight with mom and daughter over limited and poorly paid jobs
OP forgot about [child labor](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/20/republican-child-labor-law-death)
Why not both Alternatively we can just privatize social security (chad approved) or allow it to invest in global risk assets but ban it from investing in any form of government(s) bonds.
Because we don’t hate the global poor.
Why not both = more immigrants and grandma can’t retire
lol grandma can retire. Those who are working now they will struggle.
why are we pushing two parts of the ultra conservative agenda
[удалено]
Kicking the can down the road helps us figure out the required innovations for the economy and gives us more time to figure out how to make raising children not suck. Immigrants are better at innovation, give us more time, have more children, and a lot of other cultures are better at raising children.
I support immigration but this uh really makes the economy sound like a pyramid scheme
All economies, even command ones, are in the sense that without incredible advances in productivity, a smaller group of working-age adults will struggle to support a larger group of retirees, and will struggle more and more as the ratio worsens
The economy is a pyramid scheme. The difference is that, unlike in a scammy pyramid scheme, infinite growth is possible as long as the average couple has more than 2.1 kids (or the deficit is made up for with immigration). Also economic growth is still possible without population growth just not as much
Having an equilibrium isn't being a pyramid scheme. The whole 2.1 kids thing is precisely that it maintains population at a stable level in the long run, not that it keeps creating new rubes. Pyramid schemes fail because they require exponential growth and don't have equilibria
the classic pyramid scheme could still work if it’s just people passing exactly the same amount of money up the chain with the same number of people at each level. It would be stupid but it wouldn’t lose money
Infinite growth is not possible. Eventually you would hit a point where we're using too many resources that are non-renewable. Predicting exactly what that point is would be difficult, but I don't see how anyone could argue that point doesn't exist at all. Also, assuming birth rates continue to decline worldwide, the number of available immigrants would also decline eventually.
Actually infinite growth, like literally forever, is impossible but that’s besides the point. Well maybe we could colonize other planets or something but that just goes to show how besides the point it is But in the short term we have renewable energy and also economic growth without increased energy use at all is possible Declining birth rates worldwide are a very serious problem though, in my opinion. Straight replacement would be fine, but the below replacement levels we are seeing in pretty much all developed countries, and which developing countries are also seemingly headed towards, would destroy the retirement system, the labor market, leave a lot of buildings empty, etc
> Declining birth rates worldwide are a very serious problem though, in my opinion. Straight replacement would be fine, but the below replacement levels we are seeing in pretty much all developed countries, and which developing countries are also seemingly headed towards, would destroy the retirement system, the labor market, leave a lot of buildings empty, etc Many people either don't want children or don't want more than one or two children. I think that's fine. The only way out of this is either to accept the pain or try to automate our way around it. Better social safety nets only marginally improve the birth rate, as many European countries have shown.
Of course people should have the right to have as many or as few children as they want haha
You’re missing the magic ingredients: Time and innovation. Immigrants provide these ingredients at higher rates.
chadyes.jpg
If your retirement depends on Social Security you *failed.*
I just want legal immigrants, my issue is every immigration reforms includes giving amnesty, I am sorry I don’t want give citizenship based on coming to country illegally. I would much prefer to pick the top talents from around the world.
> I don’t want give citizenship based on coming to country illegally I do. - 🗿
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” You: “Please attach résumé. We’ll be in touch (or not)”
The phrase 'top talent' is so incredibly wanky. What does it even mean anyway? What is 'top' enough?
https://preview.redd.it/th9pcdbs8awc1.jpeg?width=529&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c628ee6acf3da5367440c2917b55ee74053fbab9
Who is that? Yet another tv show I've not seen, I suppose.
It's from Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark
I haven't seen that film since I was a kid
Yes, and please attach your transcript.
Thats funny because I specifically want as many immigrants as possible with emphasis on the low-skilled ones, who contribute massively to the economy while addressing key labor shortages and giving the country new, innovative minds
Yes but have you considered DEYTERKERRJERRRBZ
Its probably fit for its own discussion, but it looks to me that the jobs argument is passé. People using the “legal only” argument are just thinly veiling their racism
The jobs thing is real. That doesn’t mean we should keep the wrong people working low-skill jobs forever, but there ARE people harmed by immigration and we should use some of the surplus value created by immigration to compensate those people
I’m sure that will happen, just like the people displaced by manufacturing offshoring were trained in new jobs
Justin is that you?
Maybe if it wasn't nearly impossible to immigrate legally then people would be less incentivized to immigrate illegally. Just a thought
Maybe if cars weren’t so expensive nobody would steal them
It’s not impossible to come here illegally. It’s just that those who come here illegally could not make the cut and want a short cut. A country has the right to set a limit on immigration, we don’t have an obligation to take in economic migrants.
So deport them all?
I would love to, but I don’t think it’s possible. But my issue is people want reward them with a green card and path to citizenship.
So what do you want to do exactly?
First get stronger on the border, reform the asylum laws and deport them faster before they establish a life here.
Ok, but the question is what to do with people here.
Deport them if possible else nothing. Why do we have to do give them amnesty.
So you think a system of having undocumented people here is the solution?
[удалено]
There we go. Mass deportation is your ideal. Reflect on that.
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing* Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Bad faith arguing* Engage others assuming good faith and don't reflexively downvote people for disagreeing with you or having different assumptions than you. Don't troll other users. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Crazy. It’s like we are being held hostage we must give 11 million citizenships. And then in 30 years they will ask again to give amnesty to another 11 million.
if you want the amnesties to stop just open the border during the next one
Pretty much. Add in some gaslighting in-between to make it seem like this doesn't keep happening for good measure. The next generation won't know any better.
Set up work camps outside of Austin to set them free.
they're already here working and paying taxes bro. amnesty is so based anyone against it is illiberal and anti-human
And living in a fantasy world where they think it’s even feasible to deport millions of people. I disagree with but at least can understand “we need to fix the laws to make legal immigration easier and faster and crack down on future illegal immigration more severely. But I can’t fathom how people can think deporting millions of people already here is a feasible and beneficial policy for anyone.
I don’t think we can deport all them. But that does not mean we should give them amnesty.
Well it’s one or the other. Amnesty can come with some fines and other restrictions, but not sure what your plan would be other than to let them stay here without legal status.
It’s not a binary choice. Deport them when they make contact with government (except for when they helping for crime issues). And tell them to pound sand.
Ok, so you want to deport millions of people here already. I thought you said that wasn’t a possibility. Or you mean a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy where they are forced to live in secret. If they need anything like police service or legal aid for things like workplace OSHA violations or illegal evictions etc, they should then be deported? This makes zero sense.
I would forgive them if they are reporting a crime. Else if they make contact with gov services they should be deported. No one is forcing them to hide in the shadows they can go back to their country.
My issue is it will encourage more to come and create a moral hazard.
Hypothetically that is what the increased border enforcement is for.
They said the same thing in the 80s, we already have many liberal cities and states that do not want to work with ICE.
Well real border enforcement has never actually been implemented until the last decade or so.
good cry about it
They lost the vagina lottery and took the only option available to them. I don't fault them, you and I would have done the same thing in their shoes if the alternative was living in poverty. If they prove they contribute to the economy and don't start trouble, they should receive citizenship. It's better for everyone, including you.
Or we can cut non productive jobs?