Turn off the welfare printers, both individual and corporate, and the government wouldn't have to make one booking. They'd show themselves the door. And those that wouldn't, well, make sure the real citizens are armed so they can practice some healthy self-defense.
A fairly immediate consequence of turning off welfare payment will be taking a bunch of kids from their mothers.
There are a whole subset of strong, independent women (especially in the 13 % demographic) with no job and no job skills. When their kids start to starve, they need to be put in state care.
We can argue why this happened and what kind of state care is best, but right now these kids are literal hostages to continuing welfare payments.
No one said reduce foster care payments. You act kind of like it's cutting welfare that caused this problem. Nah it exposed it. If you're actually trying to solve shit you prrobably do need to take kids from terrible parents.
I don't disagree with you. Welfare has been fantastically destructive, especially to the sections of the community it is supposed to help. They are stuck in the welfare trap and are going on to experience intergenerational poverty and fatherlessness.
That said, the opponents to removing the welfare payments are going to scream: "Think of the children! Why do you hate poor women and children? Why do you hate black single mothers!"
In the past, this tactic has been fantastically effective on normies.
The only people who benefit from immigration are the immigrants hoovering resources and the businesses hiring them at cheaper rates. Immigration has always been a negative, and everyone always hated it. The only time it was ever necessary was the fucking Mayflower.
Immigration is not a permanent negative, and last time I checked the crew of the Mayflower weren't necessary migrants either.
Immigration does have the ability to bring in better workers and practices, but it's also an admission that your own society already has an underlying and unresolved problem of worse workers and practices that is not likely to be fixed by immigration.
I wonder how it's possible to complete that thought without setting off SOMETHING in his brain.
Like "hmm. Bunch of Indian individuals committing fraud to enter a foreign country in order to scab the population, and several extended families risking their lives to build houses and farms on their own in nthe wilderness. THESE ARE SIMILAR!"
For 2 it seems like he's doing the opposite, which I see from a lot of political keyboard warriors, in trying to keep his moral rationales internally consistent. To that end he has determined that both what the pilgrims did and what "refugee" migrants are doing are forms of colonization, and colonization = bad so he must condemn it. This can help convince others who are thinking within a liberal framework that they are being hypocritical, but sounds foreign and forced to anyone not of that mindset.
I mean maybe, but it's a bit like saying retarded shit flinging is difficult to understand to any non-afficianados.
Like if you cannot objectively recognize the difference bewtween fraudulent useless foreigners and people who made everything out of nothing, then your ideology isn't worth much, since it only exists after other people did all the work.
Congrats on consitenting yourself into an early grave.
Colonization is a bad idea all on it's own. I don't need to associate it with mass migration, that's just what mass migration happens to be. Colonization, like all imperial endeavors, is almost never worth it in the long run to the colonizers. It's never a good thing for the colonized.
If this is true (I always view polls with skepticism) that's damning.
The sad thing is, most people wouldn't even care if it was rare and sane. It's the sheer numbers that are alarming, the huge impact that has on Americans, and of course the deeply hostile politics surrounding it.
If it was rare, most migrants would have no choice but to acculturate and become proper Americans. That would be the system working as intended by our founders.
It is those sheer numbers that let them settle into dual societies where they basically create their home country in entire neighborhoods or even offices and refuse to become American whatsoever. And then they can mono-breed with each other to keep that spreading without ever joining America proper.
It's not really that surprising. Most people aren't immigration simps. The Democrats just don't care because they can re-word issues to make their constituents vote for it. It's like with abortion. Most people oppose 8 month abortions, and think "when the fetus has a heart beat" is perfectly fine. But that's not the laws that get passed.
Its probably wording of these polls "do you agree in having immigrants taking your job?" Or "do you agree with more immigrants if they come from white european countries?".
Versus "do you agree with more immigrants, and if you dont, care to explain your bigoted views?"
"Don't have children. It's selfish because Earth is overpopulated and we need to slow down climate change."
"We have to bring in a million+ foreigners every year because there just aren't enough Americans to fill all the jobs. Maybe you should have had more children."
People who don't see how this is straight up abusive are clueless.
Not to mention toxic shit all over our education system. While our boys are being taught to hate themselves for their skin color, China is teaching advanced math.
Immigration has been the #1 driving force behind the Republican voting base since the 1990s, but the Republican PARTY refuses to listen. Immigration is what got Trump elected BOTH TIMES, but TRUMP apparently refuses to listen.
Woe be unto the professional class when the working class decide enough is enough, and takes things into their own hands...
Should Congress increase the number of foreign workers taking higher-skill U.S. jobs or does the country already have enough talented people to train and recruit for most of those jobs?
OP isn't stating the result correctly. Original Tweeter is mis-stating the question.
"Ban work visas" is not the same as "Do we have enough talent". Those are different questions that would generate different results.
i want net negative immigration. i want remigration.
to pre-1965 population.
Stop giving me hope.
Turn off the welfare printers, both individual and corporate, and the government wouldn't have to make one booking. They'd show themselves the door. And those that wouldn't, well, make sure the real citizens are armed so they can practice some healthy self-defense.
A fairly immediate consequence of turning off welfare payment will be taking a bunch of kids from their mothers.
There are a whole subset of strong, independent women (especially in the 13 % demographic) with no job and no job skills. When their kids start to starve, they need to be put in state care.
We can argue why this happened and what kind of state care is best, but right now these kids are literal hostages to continuing welfare payments.
No one said reduce foster care payments. You act kind of like it's cutting welfare that caused this problem. Nah it exposed it. If you're actually trying to solve shit you prrobably do need to take kids from terrible parents.
I don't disagree with you. Welfare has been fantastically destructive, especially to the sections of the community it is supposed to help. They are stuck in the welfare trap and are going on to experience intergenerational poverty and fatherlessness.
That said, the opponents to removing the welfare payments are going to scream: "Think of the children! Why do you hate poor women and children? Why do you hate black single mothers!"
In the past, this tactic has been fantastically effective on normies.
If I were in charge, we'd be rolling shit back, so black single mothers would have to work. Or homestead for all I care.
What if they are white?
what, like rhodesians or south africans?
Such as, yeah.
The only people who benefit from immigration are the immigrants hoovering resources and the businesses hiring them at cheaper rates. Immigration has always been a negative, and everyone always hated it. The only time it was ever necessary was the fucking Mayflower.
Immigration is not a permanent negative, and last time I checked the crew of the Mayflower weren't necessary migrants either.
Immigration does have the ability to bring in better workers and practices, but it's also an admission that your own society already has an underlying and unresolved problem of worse workers and practices that is not likely to be fixed by immigration.
I wonder how it's possible to complete that thought without setting off SOMETHING in his brain.
Like "hmm. Bunch of Indian individuals committing fraud to enter a foreign country in order to scab the population, and several extended families risking their lives to build houses and farms on their own in nthe wilderness. THESE ARE SIMILAR!"
Who's wilderness was that again?
Nobody's. They settled on uninhabited land. Because they weren't idiots.
Best thing to do right after landing in new territory? Surely it's to pick a fight with the natives.
Hey, The norse raiders did nothing wrong, and we would have gotten away with it if we had logostics to support it, haha
Try again. You might take the claims of the locals seriously, but hey, neither to any of the Boat Migrants.
I see you are unaware of the Vikings, the Spanish, and again: the boat people.
Yeah, because raiding parties and settlements are exactly the same thing.
I mean for fuck's sake, this is a stretch, even for you.
Nobody's.
Indians didn't conceptualize land ownership.
Even if they did, what's your point? "Ooooo you justify your own people conquring others but don't want to be conqured yourself oooooo"
For 2 it seems like he's doing the opposite, which I see from a lot of political keyboard warriors, in trying to keep his moral rationales internally consistent. To that end he has determined that both what the pilgrims did and what "refugee" migrants are doing are forms of colonization, and colonization = bad so he must condemn it. This can help convince others who are thinking within a liberal framework that they are being hypocritical, but sounds foreign and forced to anyone not of that mindset.
I mean maybe, but it's a bit like saying retarded shit flinging is difficult to understand to any non-afficianados.
Like if you cannot objectively recognize the difference bewtween fraudulent useless foreigners and people who made everything out of nothing, then your ideology isn't worth much, since it only exists after other people did all the work.
Congrats on consitenting yourself into an early grave.
Colonization is a bad idea all on it's own. I don't need to associate it with mass migration, that's just what mass migration happens to be. Colonization, like all imperial endeavors, is almost never worth it in the long run to the colonizers. It's never a good thing for the colonized.
Leftist garbage. Yes, all people understand ownership. That's what happens when they say "Get off my land".
Don't steal other people's shit.
Your ignorance of history isn't my fault.
Womp to the womp. Cause AGAIN even if you were right it wouldnt be relevent.
No, there isn't. You don't have a right to other people's shit as they don't have a right to yours.
You do not have the right to other people's things you fucking commie
You are what you are.
Stfu you fucking Jew.
"Everyone who I don't like is a jew"
47% of Democrats?
If this is true (I always view polls with skepticism) that's damning.
The sad thing is, most people wouldn't even care if it was rare and sane. It's the sheer numbers that are alarming, the huge impact that has on Americans, and of course the deeply hostile politics surrounding it.
If it was rare, most migrants would have no choice but to acculturate and become proper Americans. That would be the system working as intended by our founders.
It is those sheer numbers that let them settle into dual societies where they basically create their home country in entire neighborhoods or even offices and refuse to become American whatsoever. And then they can mono-breed with each other to keep that spreading without ever joining America proper.
It's not really that surprising. Most people aren't immigration simps. The Democrats just don't care because they can re-word issues to make their constituents vote for it. It's like with abortion. Most people oppose 8 month abortions, and think "when the fetus has a heart beat" is perfectly fine. But that's not the laws that get passed.
Its probably wording of these polls "do you agree in having immigrants taking your job?" Or "do you agree with more immigrants if they come from white european countries?".
Versus "do you agree with more immigrants, and if you dont, care to explain your bigoted views?"
"Don't have children. It's selfish because Earth is overpopulated and we need to slow down climate change."
"We have to bring in a million+ foreigners every year because there just aren't enough Americans to fill all the jobs. Maybe you should have had more children."
People who don't see how this is straight up abusive are clueless.
Not to mention toxic shit all over our education system. While our boys are being taught to hate themselves for their skin color, China is teaching advanced math.
Considering how much China lies about pretty much everything, I'm doubtful they're education system is that effective.
But at least they're trying and aren't being held back by teacher's who care way too much about "muh racisms".
Immigration has been the #1 driving force behind the Republican voting base since the 1990s, but the Republican PARTY refuses to listen. Immigration is what got Trump elected BOTH TIMES, but TRUMP apparently refuses to listen.
Woe be unto the professional class when the working class decide enough is enough, and takes things into their own hands...
Who and where did they poll?
My guess, inner city of deep blue states.
That's typically not a trait of Rasmussen, but you can see the population differences in their survey.
47% of democrats? I'd love to know what they asked.
OP isn't stating the result correctly. Original Tweeter is mis-stating the question.
"Ban work visas" is not the same as "Do we have enough talent". Those are different questions that would generate different results.
Are you White?
You know he isn't lol
And American.