News

The only point you’ve made that has any real practical weight is the issue of labor exploitation of undocumented immigrants

All of my points are both true and perfectly valid. You not liking them doesn't invalidate them nor does it make them any less significant.

even then you seem to not care as much about the inequity of it as much as that it “devalues citizenship,”

I'm against the exploitation because it's exploitation, but the solution people like you come up with is not even remotely practical. Your solution to make illegal immigrants have the same benefits of citizens without them actually being citizens. f anybody, anywhere can come into this country without approval or documentation, and start working and getting benefits from the state... then it doesn't take genius to see how this opens up other types of exploitation.

Not only that, but since there are no controls to regulate the flow of people, then what's there from stopping the billions of people out there who have live in places with worse economic conditions from just packing up and moving here? The answer is nothing, and with any massive influx of people, you start heavily over burdening the nation's already stressed systems and start losing social cohesiveness. In other words this is a textbook recipe that leads to collapse.

This type of thinking sounds just and moral on the surface level, but it's in reality surface level is all it is. The idea falls apart the moment you start looking into the consequences, there's a reason why unchecked borders haven't worked well throughout history. The one and only real, practical solution is to overhaul the immigration system to make it more consistent, efficient, quick, and have it work to the benefit of the nation. Once you have that in place, then you make sure that it's strictly enforced. The only people who are allowed to come here are the people we want to be here. This is common sense.

Your argument about the legal ramifications is circular and based on nothing more than post hoc mental gymnastics to reach the unsupported conclusion you started with.

Your economic argument is hollow and literally concludes that it isn’t important because your circular legal argument is what is important.

The moral argument assumes a zero sum game and, again, is not based on anything factual.

Finally, your security threat argument is evidenced by effectively nothing–the things you raise are threats regardless of immigration and are most actively guarded against at other points throughout their respective threat trajectory.

These are all meaningless buzzword salads. It's fine if you disagree, but you actually have to put in the effort to explain both your disagreement and your position, otherwise your words hold no weight. Simply saying things like "hollow" and "mental gymnastics" means nothing, and the same goes for insisting that my points are ciruclar and not factual. You saying they are doesn't make them so, if you aren't capable of explaining yourself or aren't able to critique my points on their own merits, then perhaps this conversation isn't for you.

The only semi-argument you made here is that you think there's no need to do anything about immigration, because the security threats that I brought up also happen outside of immigration and these issues are being countered elsewhere, but the problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that the way our immigration is handled a big part of why these issues are much bigger threats than they should be. These threats need to be countered within and outside of immigration.

I think before you flap about complaining about education quality, you should reflect on your own reasoning as presented. You have applied zero logical process and effectively thrown a heap of conclusory axioms in the air and sputtered with indignation. You have effectively argued nothing and only shown your own severe lack of self-reflection.

This honestly proves my point more than anything.