Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm tired of those using any actions or so-called faults on the part of our government as an excuse to bring in millions of immigrants and refugees into our country. How is doing that humane or moral to our own citizens? Or don't they count?
Seriously, look at Germany. Their own citizens seem to count less than the immigrants. There is the same sentiment among many people in the US, a kind of guilt that our own citizens should suffer in the name of humanitarianism but that compassion only applies to the non-citizens.
There is massive inequality on The Planet so we just have to make everyone equally poor, and take from the richer ones until everything is all, like, equal.
Thank you for helping me understand BHC's doctrine!!
So what does that have to do with the fact that most liberals fear job displacement by robotics/automation, yet are giddy about brining in millions of illegals and Muslims from Syria.
Which is it?
1. The reduction in jobs due to automation/robotics is wrong?
2. Millions more illegals and Muslims are therefore good?
OR
1. The reduction in jobs due to automation/robotics is correct
2. Stopping the importation of millions of illegals and Muslims is therefore good
I know you already know this, but no one is giddy about either automation or bringing in Syrian refugees. Syrian refugees are a human rights issue, we should help the less fortunate, I dont think you can stop humanitarian efforts until you make sure you a have a job for every refugee you bring in. As far as automation goes that is just a technological advance I dont think thats a right/left issue I do see some people on the right with the whole "make america great again" who think Trump can bring back manufacturing jobs that are already replaced by slave wage labor or robots and somehow wave a magic stick and make them be middle class jobs, it seems to me that a large part of that demographic had high paying blue collar jobs and blame Obama for their loss or the fact that their kids wont be able to do the same.
And then I will explain to you the difference between mechanical automation, and what we're looking at in the near future. Mechanical automation was never going to replace us, however it DID give us a lot more free time. 40 hr work weeks are possible because of it. The future automation is going to devastate the foundations of our ideas about work. I'm certain that not all of the changes that will occur will be positive.
Thats not really the primary topic here however. So lets get this out of the way, I'm probably considered a far left liberal by folks here. I DO NOT support illegal immigration, I do not even support much of the LEGAL immigration. People committing crimes belong in jail, and deported. By definition that is all illegal aliens.
The thinking I have seen from my friends on the left who I argue with about this in vicious facebook conversations (We're all friends in real life, but we also enjoy debate) is that we are a nation of immigrants. Thats the foundation of our country, taking the poor unwashed etc etc etc.
The other arguments are things such as the economic benefits of letting them in has clear beneficial results. And to be fair this is a decent argument that takes some serious effort to respond too.
And even a few that are just plain ol bleeding hearts.
That seems to be the thinking on the left that I have observed.
You need to tell Oak for Monday that. For some reason he thanks it is ridiculous when a conservative follows your viewpoint but not when you present it.
What your theory ignores is man's overwhelming desire to consume. While Say's Law is not fully correct it is not fully wrong either.
What I was really pointing out is partisan crapola that goes on at this site.
I am a classical liberal who believes liberal (in the classical sense of the word) immigration policies were a no brainer before the growth of the welfare state. It is a bit more difficult to accept those poor, huddled masses yearning to be free (or have decent pay) when you have a welfare state. I basically believe you can have open borders if you do not engage in misadventures overseas and if no immigrant or their children ever receive a dime of government assistance. Of course that ain't possible so what we need are high numbers of legal immigrants who are not highly likely to be a net drain on the welfare state. The purpose of an immigration policy should be to benefit the nation's current citizens.
To quote the greatest American of the 20th Century "You can have a welfare state or you can have open borders. You can't have both".
Many libs have posted threads about the threats of automation and robotics and its effect on labor and the social structure of the nation.
I tend to agree with some of these notions. I remember in the '60s being told that automation would simply "free up leisure time" for workers and it would be great!
Now if one believes that advances in robotics and automation reduce the need for workers (these tend to be higher paying jobs), why in the world do we need massive illegal immigration from Mexico and all these Syrian refugees?
Are the illegals and the Syrian, Somali, and Libyan immigrants immune from the pressures of robotics and innovation? Like most liberal agendas, it appears not to be well thought out................. unless the objective is to have a very large cohort of dependent citizens, which means more democrats.
Too bad you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I think most "liberals" like myself are soft on these issues because we look at it as a humanitarian issue primarily. Taking in refugees from a situation that is partly the fault of the US government may also be the moral thing to do.
Humanitarian?
So how about-
1. you taking in 4 or 5 illegals? If YOU do nothing, it is not "humanitarian" unless there is a personal sacrifice.
2. why not ask that funds simply be sent to thier home nations, which could actually buy more for them there?
3. where is the "humanity" for all of the coal miners displaced by "cap and trade" and Obama?
4. where is the "humanity" for all of the middle class citizens whose jobs have been shipped to Mexico or China, courtesy of liberal trade policy?
5. where is the "humanity" for those who are victims of crime at the hands of the illegals?
Your "morality" is quite thin when you are not willing to bear the brunt of your "humanitarian" sentiments, yet simply ask others to do so.
You need to tell Oak for Monday that. For some reason he thanks it is ridiculous when a conservative follows your viewpoint but not when you present it.
What your theory ignores is man's overwhelming desire to consume. While Say's Law is not fully correct it is not fully wrong either.
What I was really pointing out is partisan crapola that goes on at this site.
I am a classical liberal who believes liberal (in the classical sense of the word) immigration policies were a no brainer before the growth of the welfare state. It is a bit more difficult to accept those poor, huddled masses yearning to be free (or have decent pay) when you have a welfare state. I basically believe you can have open borders if you do not engage in misadventures overseas and if no immigrant or their children ever receive a dime of government assistance. Of course that ain't possible so what we need are high numbers of legal immigrants who are not highly likely to be a net drain on the welfare state. The purpose of an immigration policy should be to benefit the nation's current citizens.
To quote the greatest American of the 20th Century "You can have a welfare state or you can have open borders. You can't have both".
A breath of fresh air.
The statue of liberty does not say, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to recieve public benefits, housing and food at the expense of US citizens."
You do not even know the meaning of the word liberal in that context.
The one thing Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama all strongly support is liberal trade policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
