Lets have a discussion that isnt OMG GASSING CHILDREN or OMG ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE CRIMINALS. This subject has a lot of nuance and ill present both sides.
Anti caravan- there are many MANY more safe ports of entry such as consulates, embassies, airports, border checkpoints, etc to surrender at so muh children and muh came so far is all bullshit. The parents are neglectful and endangering their children in such a dangerous city and by bringing them to the border instead of claiming asylum in a consulate. Most probably dont have a claim to asylum but dont know it because they were lied to and told that the US border is very soft. Throwing rocks and bottles is lethal force, the gas used on them was non lethal. Children and women argument falls apart when you consider how dangerous the parents are for bringing children to a militarized border and aiding people running across the border instead of surrendering. These people are even being deported by mexico now because of their violent and criminal behavior, if mexico doesnt even want them why should we? Asylum seekers were not the people storming he border, those were illegals. Their asylum seeking is opportunistic in nature since they rejected mexican offers of asylum and employment. The media labels them as people with no where left to go, that is untrue, mexico offered them jobs and criminal activity (especially felonies) get you deported in any civilized country.
Centrism thread on the caravan
Pro caravan- they are within legal rights to surrender to customs enforcement and be processed if they are truely asylum seekers. The migrants dont have to stop in the first country that offers them asylum, thats not written anywhere in US law. They cant even vote once accepted into the US so demographic replacement is fear mongering. The caravan is not the cartel and the asylum seekers arent the same as the people who stormed the border. Mexico is violent and very discriminatory towards the caravan, asylum there would be dangerous.
FOR GAS FAGS:
m.washingtontimes.com
Tear gas is standard operating proceedure and is non lethal.
Economic migrants aren't refugees. Can I go to Canada for free healthcare? If I drove across the bridge with no passport and demanded asylum the Canucks would tell me to fuck straight off and pay my Obamacare premiums on my home country.
They have a claim of asylum and you dont. False equivalence
>claim of asylum
in mexico, the first country to offer it?
Yo, I'm not a Nazi or a Communist.
I'd still shoot the bejesus out of every last one of them, and impale their corpses along the perimiter of a brand new border wall.
If one were to set out to impale immigrants in an evenly spaced line all along the southern US boarder, how far apart will they have to be for the caravanners to cover the whole thing?
>They cant even vote once accepted into the US so demographic replacement is fear mongering.
I don't even care whether or not they ever vote, beaners are too lazy to fill out their own ballots anyway. The problem is they're not white, so they don't belong here. I don't want to pay for their existence and I don't want them in my country or god forbid, my neighborhood, leaving trash and nastly little goblinas all over the place. Fuck off and die, redskins suck.
>in mexico, the first country to offer it?
that has no bearing on US law. while opportunistic, it makes sense they dont want to stay in a shithole like mexico where they fucking hate them and chant trump was right.
>inb4 america hates them too
they probably until today had no fear of americans.
About one a mile, might be more impressive it was filled in with other undesirables.
They were within their rights until they began attacking border officers. Its going to be a hard case for asylum when youre literally attempting to force yourself into the nation and attacking those who are attempting to stop you.
What does US law have to do with anything? These alleged people have Honduran citizenship and are (illegally) located in Mexico.
Better alternate them with Antifags then.
>no bearing on u.s. law
it kinda does there are international laws that this thing kinda dictates and we need to observe those laws since cuz treaties n such.
it really doesnt matter, if they were asylum seekers they should take any nation that will accept them, you dont get to pick and choose.
the people who attacked the border are being deported for felonies right now. the asylum seekers still in mexico dont lose their claim to asylum just because a band of 500-600 idiots attacked our border. fuck every one of them that did try to cross the border tho
yes there are international laws but they dont determine our acceptance of refugees. if the law specifically stated no other country can accept them after they reject refuge in the first country they arrive in then you would have a point.
Honestly, I think the best solution would either be to 1) streamline the legal immigration process to make it easier for people to come here. or 2) Create a more robust guest worker's program to allow for people to freely travel here on permits.
Granted, the average nationalist would never stand for it because to them anything short of a fascist ethnostate is a loss. But I think most Americans in the middle would go for something like that.
Americans don't like lawbreakers, but they love a good story of the successful immigrant. Many of our grandparents had such stories.
Libertarian checking in. These people seeking asylum should have stopped as soon as they crossed the border of the country they fled. Instead they are proudly flying the flag of the nation they are fleeing and desecrating the flag of the nation they wish to reside in. Fuck 'em.
You're also right , we are well within our rights to accept them. We are alternatively within our rights to refuse them as well.
Theres issues with this though, who and how many people do we accept? Is there racial quotas? A guest worker program would literally create a class of illegals who just come get the pass and never leave.
I agree that greater respect should be shown. But the libertarian in you must also accept the economic benefits of migration and the moral argument that people should be allowed to freely travel so long as they are not bringing imminent harm to the nation.
When I say a guest worker program, I don't mean sneaking people in and paying them under the table. Rather, they would be federally recognized, and would be entitled a market wage.
I would say we would accept whatever the market demands. In some years, this would mean many migrants, in others, it would mean few. Kind of how we used to do things.
Fuck off. Borders are to be respected, there is no common middle ground.
what economic benefit? we have plenty of unskilled labor
there are benefits of having skilled, educated immigrants though but we have immigration paths for those people.
what im saying is those guest workers just never leave, much like those who come here on a visa do
"Plenty" should be decided by market means though. There were farms in California and across the South that could not staff properly. Why not allow in guests to work the farms? This has a lot of precedent in American history.
We don't have to give them citizenship. But rather a legal recognition to work here as guests.
>This subject has a lot of nuance and ill present both sides.
wrong. gtfo
The reason they don't leave is because we do not keep good track of them. In addition, many would be afraid to leave for fear of legal trouble. Once caught, they can't come back - and some of them would leave behind family.
If you create a legal means, such as a guest worker program, you encourage people to register because they have nothing to lose.
Don't illegally cross a border, how fucking hard is that?
yes indeed we are
>1) streamline the legal immigration process to make it easier for people to come here
Why, the voting, healthcare, financial, and legal procedures of our nation are really bad for this. Even between states, there are growing conflicts. Tbqh, a better answer is the exact opposite, especially because our nation is so big and our infrastructure is so hostile to the poor (not including liberal gibsmedats).
>2) more guest workers
We need to revise our citizenship/birthright laws and rules for this. For the reasons above and the lack of good control over the situation, we should still continue to tighten our borders until we have better surveillance of any kind of immigrant or guest and more control over the number of guests we end up inviting and the rights these guests hold. Again, i would almost think that this should be at an interstate level too. The Californian exodus is a fucking mess on its own.
I don't think there's any reason to allow corporations a "right" to employ non-citizens. If you really need foreign workers, you should have to pay them double what you would pay an American and be responsible for any crimes they commit while they're here.
We have this. It's the H1B program, and it's a mess. It needs better definitions and qualifications. A vast majority of entry level tech work has been taken by H1Bs because they can be abused to death and former H1Bs are fucking curryfags that demand you speak 2 or 3 types of fucking obscure indian language. It's fucked and anyone coming on an h1b needs to be getting paid at least 80k adjusted for inflation and cost of living.
I don't see why you would do that. A worker is a worker, and should be paid at market value.
Corporations should be responsible if they encourage misbehavior but they cannot help if a person does wrong. Plenty of native born Americans do wrong - we don't hold their employer liable if the employer was not at fault.
Illegal aliens are trespassing. They don't need to sign the guest book and get paid for their trouble, they need to be removed from the premises and/or killed.
I assume you are talking about welfare and illegal votes. There are two solutions - reform the welfare state by cutting spending, and require voter ID. That solves all the fears of nativists and helps select for better immigrants. Also, I'd agree on reforming birthright citizenship, and require at least one American parent for a person to claim citizenship rather than just being born within the land.
Believe me, I am totally against handouts. But I don't want to pull up the ladder. My ancestors came here for the better life - I can't hold that from someone who can truly benefit this nation.
I like that idea a lot. It should be evaluated earnestly. A nations sovernty and the safety of the people should absolutely supercede these faggot businesses (of all sizes) need for cheaper labor. Increase the cost and get over it. Americans will realize that nothing is getting done, eventually, and pay more, learn to do the work themselves, innovate, or let it rot.
Never going to happen, but you are free to have your Turner Diary daydreams as long as you like. Most Americans like immigration and feel it benefits our country. What people are concerned about for the most part is oversight, which we are lacking. But that could be improved upon greatly without punishing would be migrants.
>gassing children
No one was even gassed though?
Those clothes were probably donated. Plenty of Africans get clothing like that from free donation.
How about we don't let them into the country because they're not White? We have enough shitskins as it is.
If the farms can't find enough labor then they'll have to raise their wages to attract Americans. I'd rather pay $5 for a tomato than become a minority in my own fucking country.
America is not a white country. If you want that, I'd suggest moving to one of the European states, if they'll have you.
Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. I'm not concerned about whites being a minority. They already are in Texas, and Texas is probably one of the best places on Earth if you've ever visited.
I'd rather let the market determine wages that advocate for what is essentially socialism and unionism.
>A worker is a worker, and should be paid at market value.
The free market is utopian nonsense. Manipulation of markets is done by everyone with any power and I want my team to have an advantage.
>Corporations should be responsible if they encourage misbehavior but they cannot help if a person does wrong.
Tough shit. If you want to employ foreigners, you should be forced to ensure they are superior specimens.
It's insane that all mainstream political figures accept the race to the bottom, back when I was more of a commie this bullshit turned me into a protectionist.
>Most Americans like immigration and feel it benefits our country.
Maybe. They're wrong.
> that could be improved upon greatly without punishing would be migrants.
We have no responsibility for the well-being of foreigners.
It was founded as a White country and will be again. Things will go much better for you and your ilk if you leave my homeland voluntarily.
Without white people, there would be no such thing as America.
>I can't hold that from someone who can truly benefit this nation.
People are too complicated to select for this. Based on the current state of our nation, and people that would truly benefit it with near certainty, we should accept no one without a Master's or PhD from an institution under a global top 100 ranking. We do not need any more people qualified for entry level or menial work. It hurts Americans, innovation, and there development of our laws. It causes awkward interruptions to the cost of our labor and services. We're at a bad limit here, where things are only affordable because we've sent most of our production of good to the poorest places possible so businesses can continue to keep pay stagnant. More labor supply = bad unless it's the hyper specialized shit no one can do. And not shit that businesses bitch and wine that they can't find (in an attempt to get more h1bs)
The free market is no more nonsense that hardcore fascist nationalism. Hitler's thousand year Reich was 987 years short lived. Meanwhile, the free market has been the primary system of wealth creation in America since our foundation. It has made us the most powerful and prosperous nation of them all.
Employing foreigners should only happen on market demand, I agree. But I don't think there should be a higher cost. Plenty of our fellow Americans are not "superior specimens" but are still great people. Ned down at Burger King flipping burgers still plays a role in society, even if he isn't doing quantum physics.
You have no responsibility but to yourself and your rights. But you also have to allow others to exercise those same rights.
No. You have me confused with a left leaning libertarian. I'm a centrist. And there are absolutely no benefits whatsoever to the usa letting in unskilled, illiterate, foreigners. The best that could happen is that they obtain gainful employment (working at a job an unemployed american should be doing). The worst (excepting criminal behavior) is that they and their children will be parasitically leeching my paychecks federal deductions. Maybe Soros will offer them a flight to germany or sweden to add spics to the multiculturalistic mix of africans and sandniggers over there. But we've had enough of it over here. In other words "fuck off. we're full"
What do you say of natives who leech your paycheck? Is that ok? Seems your problem is with welfare, not immigrants.
Perhaps it was at one point. But this has never been a 100% white ethnic state. And it never will be. America today is based on common values that most of us hold dear.
youtube.com
Guy was jacked, they took shit out of his backpack.
>muh claim of asylum because muh poverty and muh war
WHY NOT COSTA RICA OR PANAMA THEN, WHICH ARE LITERALLY RICH, SPANISH-SPEAKING, SO PEACEFUL THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE AN ARMY AND WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE? OH WAIT, THEY WON'T BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CARAVAN IS TO UNDERMINE AND MONGRELIZE WHITE NATIONS MORE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE, NOT ABOUT CARING ABOUT "MUH REFUGEES".
Who is most? How dearly does one have to hold a value to be allowed residence and constitutional rights?
Twice today i have agreed with a leaf. What deciduous sorcery is this?
We do citizenship tests. I think we should continue those. Many immigrants know more about our Constitution than the average American - talk about a sad state of affairs!
The problem is you won't pay that much.
You won't pay extra for milk, you won't pay extra for veggies and you won't pay extra for meat.
In australia a level 1 farm worker earns $22.50 per hour.
That is no skills, no training, first day on the job.
Does anyone have a source for those gas usage numbers? I'd like to send them to someone but would prefer the actual DHS report if possible.
How do you test how dearly a person holds a value or values? Granting that you can, how do you assure they hold that value or values after the test is over?
>The free market is no more nonsense that hardcore fascist nationalism
The free market is hot garbage if you've ever taken a real look at "the free market." Talk with an economist that isn't a shitty neoclassical dunderhead and you'll realize how stupid you sound in a hot second. The assumptions for a free market are absurd. That's not to say anything about nat soc, because that's not my area of expertise
t. econ degree
>You have no responsibility but to yourself and your rights. But you also have to allow others to exercise those same rights.
>Sounds a lot like pic related
No, he has a problem with a limited number of employment offerings in a given area (labor is not mobile as the free markets would assume) and that importing labor is at the expense of native labor, regardless of whether it is low or high skill labor. Beyond that, you're right to note about welfare because there are overwhelming odds that an average or low skill migrant will need it because:
>no credit
>no transport outside of cities
>no family
>no work history
>language barrier
>culture shock/differences
How the hell do you expect these people to integrate except in their own little cluster where they spurn Americans because they need to help each other?
Someone want to tell me why petrol cost more nor than it did in 2008 when it was $110 per barrel?
>$40-$50 per barrel atm
>American dollar is weaker than it was in 2008
>They cant even vote once accepted into the US so demographic replacement is fear mongering
They will have children (At a much higher rate than white americans) who can vote, dummy.
Let them apply for entry the normal way, until then shoot anyone who enters illegally
Fak, forgot pic
...what if they aimed for canada? would they have the legal basis to claim asylum there? may be safer than mexico and the us
Many economists agree with me though. You are just playing your own fiddle here.
Again, I did say I was for migration with market demand. There would be times of low migration, times of high migration, dependent on the economy.
The fact that you are for welfare for natives but not migrants is telling. This is just basic nationalist economics. You think the pie is only so big and that by sharing we are destroying our own. But rather, what is happening, is through migration and job creation, the pie is growing. Just as it has continued to do so.
There is no way of doing so. Plenty of native born Americans hold values that I'm sure you and I would find repugnant. But we don't take away their citizenship do we?
We just have to be good salesman of freedom. If we can't sell freedom, then we don't deserve to win in my opinion. We have an easy sell.
Yeah, they wouldn't need to have their welcome gunshot to the chest for being "hispanics (black)" fuck these gay quotas
>This subject has a lot of nuance
No it doesn't. Follow the law or fuck off.
If there is no way of doing so, there is no assurance that they hold a value or values dear, and thus that is no criteria at all for allowing them constitutional rights and residence.
Why is this standard held for migrants, but not for natives? If you don't agree with me on something, does that mean I can file a petition to have your citizenship revoked?
Migrants come in all shapes and sizes, and hold many beliefs. All humans do. The best we can do is convince people to our line of thinking. Isn't that what politics is all about?
You're baiting me. 7/10 cause I'm irritated
>Many economists agree with me
Bandwagon.
>I was for migration with market demand. There would be times of low migration, times of high migration, dependent on the economy.
There are competing wants here. Businesses always want to have more migrants period. They want lower costs, it's in your stupid free market assumptions. Businesses are cost minimizing PERIOD. Immigration always lowers costs.
>The fact that you are for welfare for natives but not migrants is telling
I never said this. I agree with that statement however.
>This is just basic nationalist economics.
Oversimplification
>You think the pie is only so big and that by sharing we are destroying our own
Innovation increases the size of the pie, we don't live in a net zero world, and it has been this way since the Renaissance.
>through migration and job creation, the pie is growing
This is not a sound relationship. I'm going to cut to the chase like you did and outright claim that you're mixing assumptions and not considering offshoring.
>Market demand
Stupid fucking runaway capitalist
You create more underclass sucking up taxes to save corporations money on training your own people
Don't ask me, user. It's your bad and vague standard.
No. Politics is war by other means, as it is the exercise of power. What you're talking about is philosophy.
Cost minimization has lots of benefits. It leads to cheaper goods, so that working classes can afford them. Hell, many at the low income level own iPhones. How else could that happen without capitalism?
You do agree with me - innovation increases the size of the pie. And we innovate by bringing in new people, this creates opportunities for Americans as well, this enables them to work other jobs and search in other fields.
What you say about migration is similar to what people say about automation. "If we have automatic cash registers, there will be no more clerks!" But it ignores that this frees up more work for clerks to do otherwise. There will always be things to do. Humans have a way of finding it.
We have never held a political test to come here, other than perhaps banning known terrorists. Nor a religious test, which would be unconstitutional.
Politics is, I'll admit, "peaceful war". It is the war of ideas. We can win this, I have good faith. It is you who has none.
The short sightedness and/or the unfortunate situation for some other businesses is just too fucking much. They've literally done what you've said and now there's no one to fill those tier 2 and up positions. It's ridiculous (and stupid because a lot of the corporate tier 2 and 3 jobs can be learned in one quarter by a good candidate with a 4 year degree)
And yet the underclass here has access to iPhones, affordable food, and many more amenities that people in socialist and nationalist countries won't have.
In those types of countries, you get what the commissar or the Fuhrer gives you. Not interested in that type of leadership, thanks.
Uh ok?
Crude oil probably cheaper lately and something about speculative market. idk and I also don't know what this has to do with my question.
They need to be prevented from forcing their way in through mob tactics, which is what they tried the other day. Now that law and order has been enforced, they should have the opportunity to apply for asylum as individuals.
they may not be able to "vote" but the demographic argument is quite real. those people will be moved to urban areas and counted in the census.
the census is what matters because it gives the democrats more seats in the house. if only citizens were counted then rural areas and states that didn't have high number of illegals or foreigners would have more political power.
it isn't just fear mongering
Thoughts on a points based immigration system similar to Australia or Canada?
So once again, defining America as a "nation of ideas" is not possible or feasible.
You can only win or lose a war of ideas if people want to fight it. I'm not interested in arguing with invaders who only want money and resources, nor do I want them in my country.
But America is indeed a nation of ideas. Look at our Constitution - that forms our basis far more than having European genetics does. We promote and encourage a common culture.
The fact that someone wants to come here in the first place is quite telling. It takes a special person to do that. It is unfortunate that you assume everyone coming here just wants free stuff. The evidence is not in your favor.
sickening
just for that i hope none of them get in
The Constitution was written by Anglos who limited immigration to Europeans of good character. "Ourselves and our posterity" is not any Tom, Dick, and Pablo that floats over on a wooden door and pinky swears to be a good civic nationalist.
[Citation needed]
Centrism is just a modest way of describing "high cuckery."
aka Mexicans who live in the US debate who their true allegiance is too. Fuck all of you. My parents made a big mistake letting your spic parents in for free.
Ok, I'm officially untriggered. I appreciate your reply. Here's where we disagree in the case of America. More people does not mean more innovation (or less) because there are real bottom lines that people need to deal with. Economies are an "infrastructure" through which resources are distributed, and America is structured as a relativity capitalistic economy. "Offer thing, get capital." That said, the ability to produce such a thing (especially if it is novel) is dependent on the starting capital/savings of the innovator. In a system with UBI where all basic needs are met for citizens by redistribution of capital, you are right by all accounts. More people (working) means more innovation. But, given America's "economic infrastructure" it becomes difficult to innovate without a decent amount of household capital inflows or savings - especially for those with the work ethic to effectively do so (since they likely aren't on welfare). Therefore, because immigration is likely to correlate with downward pressure on wages because they are assumed workers - even if they are innovators, they need capital, in America immigrants apply downward pressure on innovation.
The Founders were very wise, but not perfect. They probably didn't foresee America becoming the vast power that it is today.
Even if you hold white nationalism as an ideal, you do realize the freedom that will be lost? Look at so many on here, wanting to ban things they don't like.
Then it depends if the US cares enough about them to give them safe passage or if they just say fuck off and fly to canada. Most likely we would tell them to fuck off