This, to me, is the heart of what is wrong with the "open boarders" argument, as opposed to "open borders".
"If lots of people love living in (or visiting) your area ..."
I'd love to have more immigrants and tourists, but only of the voluntary category. When they are enticed by welfare, free room and board and spending cash, and absolution of their past, present, and future crimes, and brag how their allegiance is to their home country and not their new country -- they do not "love" living in my area.
The worst are the refugees who are flown in and "settled" without being given a lot of choice, don't like where they end up, and their end-result communities don't get any say either. They seem to make no effort to adjust to their new community, in fact just the opposite.
I don't want them, and they don't actually want to be here either, they are just in it for other people's money -- my money. I am especially disgusted with them getting elected and bragging that they are in office with the express goal of helping their home country, not their new country, the one they swore allegiance to, the one whose constitution they swore to uphold.
I am no big fan of "my country above all others" but I sure as heck am a fan of not giving my taxes to disruptive bums and criminals and foreigners whose only interest is my tax dollars and their home country.
This is not legal vs illegal immigrants. This is bums, criminals, and foreign loyalty against the natives.
NO. You did not read my comment. You do not distinguish between "open borders" and "open boarders", or between bums, criminals, and foreigners.
If you read nothing else in my comment, at least try the first sentence of the third paragraph. I can only assume from your inapt reply that you didn't even read that much.
he is thinks illegal immigrants are mostly criminals, bases his entire argument on this, but then i send research showing that they're not likely to be criminals... how is this irrelevant
There's one externality rarely considered, and its effect is oblique: as communities get larger, the impulse to central government service, and thus blue-city governance, increases.
This, to me, is the heart of what is wrong with the "open boarders" argument, as opposed to "open borders".
"If lots of people love living in (or visiting) your area ..."
I'd love to have more immigrants and tourists, but only of the voluntary category. When they are enticed by welfare, free room and board and spending cash, and absolution of their past, present, and future crimes, and brag how their allegiance is to their home country and not their new country -- they do not "love" living in my area.
The worst are the refugees who are flown in and "settled" without being given a lot of choice, don't like where they end up, and their end-result communities don't get any say either. They seem to make no effort to adjust to their new community, in fact just the opposite.
I don't want them, and they don't actually want to be here either, they are just in it for other people's money -- my money. I am especially disgusted with them getting elected and bragging that they are in office with the express goal of helping their home country, not their new country, the one they swore allegiance to, the one whose constitution they swore to uphold.
I am no big fan of "my country above all others" but I sure as heck am a fan of not giving my taxes to disruptive bums and criminals and foreigners whose only interest is my tax dollars and their home country.
This is not legal vs illegal immigrants. This is bums, criminals, and foreign loyalty against the natives.
the crux of your argument is a false narrarive that migrants are more likely to be criminals. this is simply incorrect.
read here:
https://news.wisc.edu/undocumented-immigrants-far-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-in-u-s-than-citizens/
NO. You did not read my comment. You do not distinguish between "open borders" and "open boarders", or between bums, criminals, and foreigners.
If you read nothing else in my comment, at least try the first sentence of the third paragraph. I can only assume from your inapt reply that you didn't even read that much.
"inapt" lmao
It means "inappropriate". Perhaps you were confused on that point.
he is thinks illegal immigrants are mostly criminals, bases his entire argument on this, but then i send research showing that they're not likely to be criminals... how is this irrelevant
He does not base his argument on immigrants being criminals. You ought to read more carefully.
Also, it is not at all clear that immigrants are as a group less criminal. It seems to depend a great deal on where they are from. For example, see https://open.substack.com/pub/inquisitivebird/p/how-many-are-criminals?r=ftu8p&utm_medium=ios
Without the will and ability to maintain social order, people who live in safe areas will rationally resist growth.
It’s all about supply. We need more supply
There's one externality rarely considered, and its effect is oblique: as communities get larger, the impulse to central government service, and thus blue-city governance, increases.