And that is why I wish this country would split. I cannot live with people (Mostly republicans) who want to use force against immigrants. These people (mostly republicans) do not want to live with me. I wish we could live in different countries.
> Illegal immigration is a crime against public order
I'm horrified anyone thinks this way.
I've heard it suggested that psychopaths simply treat everybody the way normal people treat the outgroup. My outgroup is everyone who has dark triad personality, not foreigners legal or otherwise.
And even if you're set on this, look at what work is done today by undocumented immigrants in the US, and ask yourself how many Americans will starve if this happened.
Well i am not against immigration or foreigners. Even a dumbest racist must understand that with TFR being <2.0, a country must have immigration or it will eventually collapse. There's no denying that immigration is necessary, both in US and EU (i live in EU).
I am against people who insist that the country should not have the ability to pick who gets in and who doesn't. And that's what illegal immigration is.
Here in EU, we don't really have illegal immigration as a large problem. There are some but they are really few in numbers (about 0.8% of population according to the most recent estimates vs ~4% in the USA) and no political force in any of EU countries, even the most leftist ones, claims that they are OK and not a problem. They exist because it's technically difficult to solve them (country of origin is often unknowable, they burned their passports and won't tell where they came from, so there's nowhere to deport them). But EVERY political force accepts that they are a problem, no one OKs their existence.
It's hard to understand why in the US many people see it as norm. Just have a legal immigration system that works.
> It's hard to understand why in the US many people see it as norm.
Immigration is the norm in the U.S. because the country’s entire history is built on immigration, unlike the EU. I don’t know that undocumented immigration is the norm though.
If you look at the history of any major city in the US, it is a history of demographic shifts based on immigration. That immigration had largely been from Europe since the 17th century (along with the forced migration of enslaved Africans). Only since the 1960s has there been large scale immigration from non-European nations. Over that history, each generation of assimilated Americans has looked down on newer immigrants and sought to limit or prevent their ability to remain and become citizens. The English settlers of the 1600s enslaved forced African migrants and they looked down on the German and Dutch immigrants who followed them. The English/German/Dutch who after a generation or two begin to think of themselves as American looked down on the immigrants from Scandinavia who began to settle the American midwest in the early 1800s. The nascent Americans fought numerous wars and skirmishes with Mexico until a new border meant that vast territory that was once Mexico was now the US and Mexicans were now foreigners in the US. Chinese workers were imported to the west coast as essentially indentured labor to built the railroads in the 1800s. The Spanish American War led to immigration from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines. The assimilated Americans of the 1800s vehemently opposed the mass immigration of Irish people in the mid 1800s and the assimilated Irish in turn vehemently opposed the mass immigration of Italians in the late 1800s. Both groups worked to stop immigration from Poland in the 1920s, and it was then that the US enacted its first immigration restrictions. Those restrictions were relaxed in the late 1960s, which led to large migrations from South America, the Caribbean, and India.
Immigration is the norm for the entirety of the US’s history. Also the norm (unfortunately) is each assimilated group wanting to prevent others who arrive after them from having the same opportunities that they did.
> It's hard to understand why in the US many people see it as norm. Just have a legal immigration system that works.
Historically there's all kinds of things going on, but the industrial revolution massively increased travel and softened national borders almost worldwide right up until around WW1. This time period coincides with the US becoming a global power.
In the modern time, there's two more reasons, both cynical:
1. It lets them have an underclass such that they can away with lower pay and lower rights, which conversely also allows all the native-born to earn more than they otherwise would have because someone has to do these jobs that have yet to be automated.
2. while also demonising that group for bonus points in elections.
Everything breaks hard the moment anyone with power mistakes the kayfabe (demonising the vitally important underclass) for reality.
Letting yourself be one whom politicians can score points out of, encourages the election of politicians more likely to make that mistake.
The people anyone really needs to worry about? They've got official passports and visas and naturalisation (in the US's case, Musk) or are native born citizens (Trump), and yet are working against the national interests, and in some cases even directly for foreign governments (e.g. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/active-duty-soldier-arrested-...).
> No Americans will starve without illegal workers.
US farm labor is heavily undocumented-immigrant-dependent. Estimates vary, but undocumented workers make up something like 25–50% of the agricultural workforce, especially in crop production. (In specialty crops this percentage can be much higher, but those won't matter for "starvation").
Remove all of them, fruit and veg production falls 15–20%, dairy & animal products 10-20%. Calorie production has higher variation in estimates, I've seen anything from 10% reduction to 40% reduction, but the whole "undocumented" thing makes it harder to be sure.
In any event, you get double-digit percentage price hikes, and a lot of Americans are already struggling with the current prices.
> If you don't believe in us-and-them remove your front door and replace it with a bead curtain and cook for whoever turns up.
You may call your country your home colloquially, but if you can't tell the difference, if you really genuinely can't differentiate, then you must accept that everyone who welcomes them into their country has already welcomed them into their home.
To your specific list, this sarcasm: sure, because there's no such thing as local sociopaths, I don't live next to a forest with wild boar that I've witnessed breaking into neighbour's gardens, I'm fully aware of local laws about professional cooking, and also I'm funded sufficiently to be a charity.
And for that last point, I will remind you that you've already used the word "illegal workers". They, by definition, work. They pay for themselves.
Without the sarcasm: I live in a smaller nation than the US, which welcomed in a million refugees who weren't even allowed to work (if they did, they'd be… illegal workers). Then the places they had fled from got better and they mostly went back.
> Every $1 taken by illegal workers is $1 stolen from Americans.
You say "taken", I say "earned".
> Every $1 not paid in tax by illgal workers and their employers is $1 stolen from Americans.
So find the employers and punish them, not the workers.
(Hint: the IRS already knows the farmers have a lot of them).
> They do not pay for themselves. They are a net negative on the economy.
They absolutely pay for themselves. They also feed you.
> I am not being sarcastic
I didn't say you were, I said my response was.
> It is even worse by your model, you invite people in my home and force me to cook for them.
You're not being forced to cook for anyone. Rather the opposite: a sizeable part of the people who grow and harvest your crops, the basic ingredients in your meals, who allow you to eat, they're the people who you're complaining about.
Kick them all out of the US? America. Will. Starve.
If you really can't tell the difference between your home and your country, then you must accept that everyone else in your country has as much ownership of it as you, as much right to decide who to invite in.
If you think your analogy is worth anything, you must open your door to all others of your nation, cook for them, like you think you're being forced to do by letting in immigrants.
$1 illegally taken by foreign national is $1 taken from an American.
It might be in exchange for labor but that opportunity is removed from the opportunity pool, by an illegal alien.
They are a net drain on the economy.
The US loses over $200 billion annually in the form of remittances sent by both legal immigrants and illegal aliens.
The top five recipient countries from US remittances in 2021 were:
Mexico ($52.6 billion), India ($15.8 billion), Guatemala ($14.7 billion), the Philippines ($12.8 billion), and China ($12.7 billion).
More recent data shows the numbers have continued growing — in just 2024, $62.5 billion were remitted from the US to Mexico alone, up from $52.6 billion in 2021.
To put that $200+ billion in perspective, that sum would be more than enough to operate the Department of Homeland Security ($140.6 billion) and the State Department ($57.6 billion) combined, and is almost four times the Department of Justice budget ($52 billion).
It is impossible to separate legal and illegals in those figures, of course.
We haven't even scratched other drains such as healthcare and crime.
The majority of US citizens want the illegals gone. Something it sounds like you haven't come to terms with yet.
And that is why I wish this country would split. I cannot live with people (Mostly republicans) who want to use force against immigrants. These people (mostly republicans) do not want to live with me. I wish we could live in different countries.
> And that is why I wish this country would split.
Splitting is worse than surrender.
> These people (mostly republicans) do not want to live with me. I wish we could live in different countries.
That's what states are for.
0,47 * 0,59 = 28% of US voters, which is higher than the percentage of far-right MEPs in europe, but not by much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_European_Parliament#Curr...
> higher than the percentage of far-right MEPs in europe
not hard as that's 0%
[flagged]
> Illegal immigration is a crime against public order
I'm horrified anyone thinks this way.
I've heard it suggested that psychopaths simply treat everybody the way normal people treat the outgroup. My outgroup is everyone who has dark triad personality, not foreigners legal or otherwise.
And even if you're set on this, look at what work is done today by undocumented immigrants in the US, and ask yourself how many Americans will starve if this happened.
Well i am not against immigration or foreigners. Even a dumbest racist must understand that with TFR being <2.0, a country must have immigration or it will eventually collapse. There's no denying that immigration is necessary, both in US and EU (i live in EU).
I am against people who insist that the country should not have the ability to pick who gets in and who doesn't. And that's what illegal immigration is.
Here in EU, we don't really have illegal immigration as a large problem. There are some but they are really few in numbers (about 0.8% of population according to the most recent estimates vs ~4% in the USA) and no political force in any of EU countries, even the most leftist ones, claims that they are OK and not a problem. They exist because it's technically difficult to solve them (country of origin is often unknowable, they burned their passports and won't tell where they came from, so there's nowhere to deport them). But EVERY political force accepts that they are a problem, no one OKs their existence.
It's hard to understand why in the US many people see it as norm. Just have a legal immigration system that works.
> It's hard to understand why in the US many people see it as norm.
Immigration is the norm in the U.S. because the country’s entire history is built on immigration, unlike the EU. I don’t know that undocumented immigration is the norm though.
If you look at the history of any major city in the US, it is a history of demographic shifts based on immigration. That immigration had largely been from Europe since the 17th century (along with the forced migration of enslaved Africans). Only since the 1960s has there been large scale immigration from non-European nations. Over that history, each generation of assimilated Americans has looked down on newer immigrants and sought to limit or prevent their ability to remain and become citizens. The English settlers of the 1600s enslaved forced African migrants and they looked down on the German and Dutch immigrants who followed them. The English/German/Dutch who after a generation or two begin to think of themselves as American looked down on the immigrants from Scandinavia who began to settle the American midwest in the early 1800s. The nascent Americans fought numerous wars and skirmishes with Mexico until a new border meant that vast territory that was once Mexico was now the US and Mexicans were now foreigners in the US. Chinese workers were imported to the west coast as essentially indentured labor to built the railroads in the 1800s. The Spanish American War led to immigration from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines. The assimilated Americans of the 1800s vehemently opposed the mass immigration of Irish people in the mid 1800s and the assimilated Irish in turn vehemently opposed the mass immigration of Italians in the late 1800s. Both groups worked to stop immigration from Poland in the 1920s, and it was then that the US enacted its first immigration restrictions. Those restrictions were relaxed in the late 1960s, which led to large migrations from South America, the Caribbean, and India.
Immigration is the norm for the entirety of the US’s history. Also the norm (unfortunately) is each assimilated group wanting to prevent others who arrive after them from having the same opportunities that they did.
> It's hard to understand why in the US many people see it as norm. Just have a legal immigration system that works.
Historically there's all kinds of things going on, but the industrial revolution massively increased travel and softened national borders almost worldwide right up until around WW1. This time period coincides with the US becoming a global power.
In the modern time, there's two more reasons, both cynical:
1. It lets them have an underclass such that they can away with lower pay and lower rights, which conversely also allows all the native-born to earn more than they otherwise would have because someone has to do these jobs that have yet to be automated.
2. while also demonising that group for bonus points in elections.
Everything breaks hard the moment anyone with power mistakes the kayfabe (demonising the vitally important underclass) for reality.
Letting yourself be one whom politicians can score points out of, encourages the election of politicians more likely to make that mistake.
The people anyone really needs to worry about? They've got official passports and visas and naturalisation (in the US's case, Musk) or are native born citizens (Trump), and yet are working against the national interests, and in some cases even directly for foreign governments (e.g. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/active-duty-soldier-arrested-...).
[flagged]
> No Americans will starve without illegal workers.
US farm labor is heavily undocumented-immigrant-dependent. Estimates vary, but undocumented workers make up something like 25–50% of the agricultural workforce, especially in crop production. (In specialty crops this percentage can be much higher, but those won't matter for "starvation").
Remove all of them, fruit and veg production falls 15–20%, dairy & animal products 10-20%. Calorie production has higher variation in estimates, I've seen anything from 10% reduction to 40% reduction, but the whole "undocumented" thing makes it harder to be sure.
In any event, you get double-digit percentage price hikes, and a lot of Americans are already struggling with the current prices.
> If you don't believe in us-and-them remove your front door and replace it with a bead curtain and cook for whoever turns up.
You may call your country your home colloquially, but if you can't tell the difference, if you really genuinely can't differentiate, then you must accept that everyone who welcomes them into their country has already welcomed them into their home.
To your specific list, this sarcasm: sure, because there's no such thing as local sociopaths, I don't live next to a forest with wild boar that I've witnessed breaking into neighbour's gardens, I'm fully aware of local laws about professional cooking, and also I'm funded sufficiently to be a charity.
And for that last point, I will remind you that you've already used the word "illegal workers". They, by definition, work. They pay for themselves.
Without the sarcasm: I live in a smaller nation than the US, which welcomed in a million refugees who weren't even allowed to work (if they did, they'd be… illegal workers). Then the places they had fled from got better and they mostly went back.
[flagged]
> Every $1 taken by illegal workers is $1 stolen from Americans.
You say "taken", I say "earned".
> Every $1 not paid in tax by illgal workers and their employers is $1 stolen from Americans.
So find the employers and punish them, not the workers.
(Hint: the IRS already knows the farmers have a lot of them).
> They do not pay for themselves. They are a net negative on the economy.
They absolutely pay for themselves. They also feed you.
> I am not being sarcastic
I didn't say you were, I said my response was.
> It is even worse by your model, you invite people in my home and force me to cook for them.
You're not being forced to cook for anyone. Rather the opposite: a sizeable part of the people who grow and harvest your crops, the basic ingredients in your meals, who allow you to eat, they're the people who you're complaining about.
Kick them all out of the US? America. Will. Starve.
If you really can't tell the difference between your home and your country, then you must accept that everyone else in your country has as much ownership of it as you, as much right to decide who to invite in.
If you think your analogy is worth anything, you must open your door to all others of your nation, cook for them, like you think you're being forced to do by letting in immigrants.
$1 illegally taken by foreign national is $1 taken from an American.
It might be in exchange for labor but that opportunity is removed from the opportunity pool, by an illegal alien.
They are a net drain on the economy.
The US loses over $200 billion annually in the form of remittances sent by both legal immigrants and illegal aliens.
The top five recipient countries from US remittances in 2021 were:
Mexico ($52.6 billion), India ($15.8 billion), Guatemala ($14.7 billion), the Philippines ($12.8 billion), and China ($12.7 billion).
More recent data shows the numbers have continued growing — in just 2024, $62.5 billion were remitted from the US to Mexico alone, up from $52.6 billion in 2021.
To put that $200+ billion in perspective, that sum would be more than enough to operate the Department of Homeland Security ($140.6 billion) and the State Department ($57.6 billion) combined, and is almost four times the Department of Justice budget ($52 billion).
It is impossible to separate legal and illegals in those figures, of course.
We haven't even scratched other drains such as healthcare and crime.
The majority of US citizens want the illegals gone. Something it sounds like you haven't come to terms with yet.