I don't even disagree. Repatriation isn't a terrible idea. Thing is, we probably don't even need to do that if we have a better immigration system, and enforce the shit we already have.
The most effective deportation program is: a recession.
Well, the planet's about to have a global economic catastrophe, so just close the door behind them.
What people fail to realize is that economically illegal immigrants are disastrous. The constant negative revenue cycle combined with ever expanding government spending on illegal immigrants is draining communities that would otherwise thrive.
It's theoretically possible to make an argument that some kind of very specific illegal immigration could be good, but there's a reason why we have immigration controls in the first place. The borders are there, because people weaponize humans.
Put it like this. I'm a pretty huge supporter of the 2nd amendment. Even if you have a tank, that's fine by me. However, if I saw a line of privately owned tanks rolling down the road, that's hugely alarming. I might even argue that it's legitimate to engage them with force depending on what they are doing.
The nature of collectivism is that the only reason you do it is to overcome individual resistance, because you've rejected the voluntary agreement between you and another person, so the collective can coerce them into compliance. Collectivism is, in and of itself, hostile intent. Even if they haven't acted, the only reason you collectivize yourselves into a force, is to overwhelm your opponent, whether they know it or not.
A border exists because that collectivism may need to be met with some force to rebuff it. Illegal immigration works exactly the same way. The number of individuals who are being gladly welcomed into the US by other individuals, while coming with the support of many other individuals, and then integrating into a community is relatively small.
Instead, we have the mass importation of voters and corporate slaves so that power can be enshrined to systems, rather than individuals. A public corporation, with no accountability to any particular person, with massive protections from the state, is allowed to construct slave plantations for foreigners on American soil, regardless of the consequences to the local population.
And slavery is identical to mass migration programs. It is one. The consequences of slavery were stunting to the individual Southerners (and to the southern economy generally), who just like today, were priced out from being competitive labor markets by people who thought themselves noble for 'civilizing savages'.
Even the concept of a massive spending for welfare is the same. While slaves were treated badly, it doesn't change the fact that slaves were also insanely expensive, and that Masters spent huge volumes of money on populations of people who had no incentive to work or improve, and were playacted with a welfare system that only differed from the current era by being privately funded. At least to a degree considering the subsidization of the plantation owners anyway.
All the wealth of a community, concentrated into a ruling aristocracy, protected by the state, that imported massive swaths of humanity to maintain their power and control, all while telling everyone that they were doing it for the greater good of everyone involved.
The consequences of slavery were stunting to the individual Southerners (and to the southern economy generally), who just like today, were priced out from being competitive labor markets by people who thought themselves noble for 'civilizing savages'.
I think a lot of people forget about this about the Slavery debate during its own time. I know I brought up with you before my states history of Bleeding Kansas where we started shooting people trying to force us to become a Slave State against our will when we wanted to be a Free State. Well, what doesnt get talked about a lot is that the people who were actually abolitionist were a fairly tiny amount of the population here, and were generally regarded as the fringe crazies who were unstable and itching for a fight (and to be fair, the Abolitionist movement spawned the nations first domestic terrorist in the form of John Brown).
But the overwhelming majority of the state was Free-Soilers, not out of any sort of desire to see blacks liberated from Slavery. Most didnt care. It was 100% a case of "You expect me and my farmstead to compete with some mega-plantation running on free labor?! Fat chance!"
Additionally, for all the talk the Black Supremist types have about how "Our ancestors built this country in chains!", America during the time of Southern slavery was a global backwater, and the South itself was woefully behind the times (Insert Sherman's Pre-Civil War speech in Louisiana here). It wasnt until after the end of the Civil War and Slavery, as well as a few decades to shake off the rust, that the US became the powerhouse it would eventually become. So quite the opposite, their ancestors were merely here, and had little to do with the nations rise, other than they were part of the rise because they could work like most others.
I don't even disagree. Repatriation isn't a terrible idea. Thing is, we probably don't even need to do that if we have a better immigration system, and enforce the shit we already have.
The most effective deportation program is: a recession.
Well, the planet's about to have a global economic catastrophe, so just close the door behind them.
What people fail to realize is that economically illegal immigrants are disastrous. The constant negative revenue cycle combined with ever expanding government spending on illegal immigrants is draining communities that would otherwise thrive.
It's theoretically possible to make an argument that some kind of very specific illegal immigration could be good, but there's a reason why we have immigration controls in the first place. The borders are there, because people weaponize humans.
Put it like this. I'm a pretty huge supporter of the 2nd amendment. Even if you have a tank, that's fine by me. However, if I saw a line of privately owned tanks rolling down the road, that's hugely alarming. I might even argue that it's legitimate to engage them with force depending on what they are doing.
The nature of collectivism is that the only reason you do it is to overcome individual resistance, because you've rejected the voluntary agreement between you and another person, so the collective can coerce them into compliance. Collectivism is, in and of itself, hostile intent. Even if they haven't acted, the only reason you collectivize yourselves into a force, is to overwhelm your opponent, whether they know it or not.
A border exists because that collectivism may need to be met with some force to rebuff it. Illegal immigration works exactly the same way. The number of individuals who are being gladly welcomed into the US by other individuals, while coming with the support of many other individuals, and then integrating into a community is relatively small.
Instead, we have the mass importation of voters and corporate slaves so that power can be enshrined to systems, rather than individuals. A public corporation, with no accountability to any particular person, with massive protections from the state, is allowed to construct slave plantations for foreigners on American soil, regardless of the consequences to the local population.
And slavery is identical to mass migration programs. It is one. The consequences of slavery were stunting to the individual Southerners (and to the southern economy generally), who just like today, were priced out from being competitive labor markets by people who thought themselves noble for 'civilizing savages'.
Even the concept of a massive spending for welfare is the same. While slaves were treated badly, it doesn't change the fact that slaves were also insanely expensive, and that Masters spent huge volumes of money on populations of people who had no incentive to work or improve, and were playacted with a welfare system that only differed from the current era by being privately funded. At least to a degree considering the subsidization of the plantation owners anyway.
All the wealth of a community, concentrated into a ruling aristocracy, protected by the state, that imported massive swaths of humanity to maintain their power and control, all while telling everyone that they were doing it for the greater good of everyone involved.
I think a lot of people forget about this about the Slavery debate during its own time. I know I brought up with you before my states history of Bleeding Kansas where we started shooting people trying to force us to become a Slave State against our will when we wanted to be a Free State. Well, what doesnt get talked about a lot is that the people who were actually abolitionist were a fairly tiny amount of the population here, and were generally regarded as the fringe crazies who were unstable and itching for a fight (and to be fair, the Abolitionist movement spawned the nations first domestic terrorist in the form of John Brown).
But the overwhelming majority of the state was Free-Soilers, not out of any sort of desire to see blacks liberated from Slavery. Most didnt care. It was 100% a case of "You expect me and my farmstead to compete with some mega-plantation running on free labor?! Fat chance!"
Additionally, for all the talk the Black Supremist types have about how "Our ancestors built this country in chains!", America during the time of Southern slavery was a global backwater, and the South itself was woefully behind the times (Insert Sherman's Pre-Civil War speech in Louisiana here). It wasnt until after the end of the Civil War and Slavery, as well as a few decades to shake off the rust, that the US became the powerhouse it would eventually become. So quite the opposite, their ancestors were merely here, and had little to do with the nations rise, other than they were part of the rise because they could work like most others.