NZ man has airguns and crossbow confiscated because he's a right wing Trump supporter

[SpaceCritter]

I don't think most of them (immigrants, legal or otherwise) give a shit about that (making a political stand based from birthing kids) explicitly, but pumping out a unit every 9 months increases the $$$$$ of the government gravy train in this country. "Dowanna Worka's" lifestyle scales up radically from going from 1 to like 4 kids or more at once.

This part of the deal is a f***ed up tax/welfare problem more than an immigration one. That "gov paying people to have children" bullshit should have ended in the 80s, not still be going today. That bullshit is 1000 times worse than farm subsidies and other gov handouts. IMHO it's even worse than welfare because the scope is wider. It made sense when we needed bodies to power the industrial revolution, but now its just f***ing stupid, considering that not long from now we're looking at like 1 out of every 3 kids produced is virtually guaranteed to be a lifetime oxygen thief right out of the womb.

-Mike

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSz0bA9CiE

 

[Dadstoys]

Let's just look at Europe and their "open borders" policy and see how well that's working out.

Well other than the thousand man rape sprees , the no go zones , the beheadings in the middle of the streets, the nightclub massacres , the truck bowling for pedestrians and grooming gangs, it seems to be doing ok.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Well other than the thousand man rape sprees , the no go zones , the beheadings in the middle of the streets, the nightclub massacres , the truck bowling for pedestrians and grooming gangs, it seems to be doing ok.

exactly

 

[falcon123]

You're getting hung up on a position you think I have, but haven't stated.

Or maybe you're making my point for me.

You can't say "I'm only against illegal immigration" and then point to places that don't have any illegal immigration because it's all legal as an example of how bad illegal immigration is.

If all immigration were legal, there would be no illegal immigration. Right? Just like if there were no gun laws, there would be no illegal guns, or if all drugs were legal there would be no drug crime, or if there were no speed limits nobody could get a speeding ticket. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument to be sure, but I'm doing it to make a point.

If you don't like what would happen without any immigration laws, you're not against illegal immigration, you're against *all* immigration. (with whatever exceptions please you)

Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. You're comparing illegals who come here uninvited, become a burden on our social programs and committing other crimes as well to owning a gun or driving fast.

 

[milktree]

Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. You're comparing illegals who come here uninvited, become a burden on our social programs and committing other crimes as well to owning a gun or driving fast.

No, I’m not.

I’m comparing the imaginary lack of laws about each of them with the resulting lack of illegality of each of them. I’m making a logical analogy between them, not a moral comparison.

I’m saying that anyone who claims to only be against illegal immigration is actually against all immigration (with limited exceptions) if they object to Euro style open borders.

I’m not judging that position, just pointing out the inconsistency.

 

[Boston4567]

No, I’m not.

I’m comparing the imaginary lack of laws about each of them with the resulting lack of illegality of each of them. I’m making a logical analogy between them, not a moral comparison.

I’m saying that anyone who claims to only be against illegal immigration is actually against all immigration (with limited exceptions) if they object to Euro style open borders.

I’m not judging that position, just pointing out the inconsistency.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think what you're saying is quite accurate.

I think many people have a problem with illegal immigration in America because they believe that the people that are coming to America illegally are of a different character than the people who would come here legally, even under increased legal immigration quotas.

I think there is reason to believe that the type of people that come here legally are much more likely to embody the sort of values - a spirit of adventure, a desire to work hard and play by the rules, etc - that make America great and preserve the social fabric.

I think there's also a lot of reason to believe that the sort of people who come here illegally or play the victim don't embody that same spirit, are looking to be taken care of rather than to take care of themselves, and are more likely to contribute to the destruction of America's social fabric.

That's to say nothing of the fact that with legal immigration, we can actually alter the criteria to guarantee, or at least make it substantially more likely, that we only allow the right sort of people that will contribute to American values and social fabric. Whereas with illegal immigration, not only can we not specify who we're allowing in, we're actually more likely to attract the wrong sort - people who are ready, willing, and able to break our laws.

So overall, I think the problem people have is not with immigrants, but with the wrong sort of immigrants - and the fact that the current system creates perverse incentives that block people who would help build a better and more socially cohesive American society, but allows in people who seem likely to break it apart.

 

[PappyM3]

No, I’m not.

I’m comparing the imaginary lack of laws about each of them with the resulting lack of illegality of each of them. I’m making a logical analogy between them, not a moral comparison.

I’m saying that anyone who claims to only be against illegal immigration is actually against all immigration (with limited exceptions) if they object to Euro style open borders.

I’m not judging that position, just pointing out the inconsistency.

I’m not sure I agree with you. What do you mean by open euro-style borders? Are you referring to the Schengen zone for travel? Or are you referring to openness in regards to immigration? I agree with legal immigration, and we likely could increase the authorized numbers. However I’m against illegal immigration because, aside from essentially cutting the line for people waiting their turn, results in immigration numbers potentially greater than our nation can handle, from a population increase rate standpoint. I’m also against wide open Euro-style borders for the U.S. We should do away with passport requirements with Canada, but we still need border stations. Schengen works for EU, but their mass immigration is a different problem (EU legislation). The mass immigration in Europe is a prime example of immigration rates being too high. Immigration is generally good, but it needs to be structured and regulated(as in flow control) for it to work well.

 

[milktree]

I’m not sure I agree with you. What do you mean by open euro-style borders? Are you referring to the Schengen zone for travel? Or are you referring to openness in regards to immigration? I agree with legal immigration, and we likely could increase the authorized numbers. However I’m against illegal immigration because, aside from essentially cutting the line for people waiting their turn, results in immigration numbers potentially greater than our nation can handle, from a population increase rate standpoint. I’m also against wide open Euro-style borders for the U.S. We should do away with passport requirements with Canada, but we still need border stations. Schengen works for EU, but their mass immigration is a different problem (EU legislation). The mass immigration in Europe is a prime example of immigration rates being too high. Immigration is generally good, but it needs to be structured and regulated(as in flow control) for it to work well.

That's fair.

I'm using the definition used by others, in the context of, "look at Europe! It's terrible there!" Europe is being used by some as a bludgeon against more open borders.

If you're (one is, I don't mean anyone in particular) against immigration, that's a defensible position. If you're using the "illegal" modifier as a moral hedge against xenophobia, you're being intellectually dishonest.

What I see is people using "I'm only against illegal immigration" to justify an anti-immigrant position, as if the "illegal" part is most important. But that's not (I think) what people who use that phrase actually mean.

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say we simply allowed as many guest workers to come to the states as wanted to, with the requirements that they had to get a shall-issue visa (assuming no criminal record etc), get a guest-worker tax ID number (and pay taxes), were required to go home once every year (six months, two years, whatever) and weren't allowed to own businesses or real property in the US. This would have the advantage of getting the labor required by seasonal employers like farmers, vetting of everyone, and the bar to entry would be low enough that it wouldn't make sense to cross the border illegally.

How many "I'm only against illegal immigration" people would find that policy objectionable?

 

[PappyM3]

Put that way, I agree that there would be some percentage of “only illegal immigration is bad” people who would also oppose that reasonable immigration policy. And for those that do, would likely indicate underlying beliefs. But there’s not really much of a way validate that hypothesis, even with widespread polling.

That's fair.

I'm using the definition used by others, in the context of, "look at Europe! It's terrible there!" Europe is being used by some as a bludgeon against more open borders.

If you're (one is, I don't mean anyone in particular) against immigration, that's a defensible position. If you're using the "illegal" modifier as a moral hedge against xenophobia, you're being intellectually dishonest.

What I see is people using "I'm only against illegal immigration" to justify an anti-immigrant position, as if the "illegal" part is most important. But that's not (I think) what people who use that phrase actually mean.

Here's a thought experiment: Let's say we simply allowed as many guest workers to come to the states as wanted to, with the requirements that they had to get a shall-issue visa (assuming no criminal record etc), get a guest-worker tax ID number (and pay taxes), were required to go home once every year (six months, two years, whatever) and weren't allowed to own businesses or real property in the US. This would have the advantage of getting the labor required by seasonal employers like farmers, vetting of everyone, and the bar to entry would be low enough that it wouldn't make sense to cross the border illegally.

How many "I'm only against illegal immigration" people would find that policy objectionable?

 

[headednorth]

You guys realize that this thread started out as a "NZ man..." thread and was steered into a US immigration thread by a couple of posters right?

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies