File: Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs.swf-(9.99 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:23:36 No.3301002
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:32:41 No.3301003
>>3301002
thanks for this OP. This is the ultimate redpill. If after you show this to your countrymen they
still call for open borders, they are with the enemy.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:49:39 No.3301007
>>3301002
Thoughtful of you to stop by, /pol/, but I can't help but think that this argument is misleading
in a number of ways.
For example, Mr. Jacket phrases immigration into the United States a couple of times in terms of
how many people "Congress lets in." This seems disingenuous to me. As far as I'm aware, Congress
doesn't sign a bunch of little forms for each John Doe who wants to enter the country, nor do
they pass measures that, for example, set a quota or limit to the number of immigrants to the
United States.
Secondly, it assumes that immigration to the United States is exclusively an issue of global
humanitarianism, leading to the Nirvana fallacy illustrated by the use of gumballs here that I
will re-state here: "There's no way we can handle everyone in the world who is desperately poor,
so allowing the desperately poor to immigrate here is a waste of time/a mistake." He also makes
some sadly unsubstantiated claims about how many immigrants would strain our natural resources
etc. The conclusions do not follow, and the weakest part of Mr. Jacket's argument is where he
assumes them by framing the issue in terms of what will fail to "make a dent" etc.
This leads me into a third complaint: Mr. Jacket regularly and dramatically drops additional
gumballs into the small glass representing the United States, and acknowledges that these
gumballs likely represent the brightest and best of their home countries. He does not, however,
treat them as such. Instead, they stay "gumballs" like the rest, despite the fact that, over the
course of the years he purports to represent, those gumballs (if they have the potential he
suggests they have) ought to have acclimated to the rest of the population and no longer
represent a population "strain" on the American economy (as the rest of the gumballs represent).
Like the rest of the speech, if this is not necessarily manipulative, it is carelessly misleading.
Now please return to your containment board.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:51:09 No.3301008
>>3301007
I'm far too drunk to read that right now.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:57:15 No.3301011
>>3301008
That may explain why you're so easily persuaded by an old man with some props, but to be fair it
was a bit long winded. I'll break it down a bit.
>1. Congress doesn't directly control immigration numbers, so why is he acting like they do? This
is misleading.
>2. Just because "only" taking in a certain number of immigrants may fail to "make a dent" in the
world population of desperately poor does not have bearing on whether or not it is the right
thing to do.
>3. The gumballs represent portions of the extremely poor population, but the gumballs dropped
into the glass representing the United States are supposed to represent portions with notable
talents and/or potential. Why do they continue to be represented as a strain on the population as
he adds more marbles, when they should be assimilating?
I have more complaints, and probably better ones, but these are the ones I've already stated.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:58:45 No.3301012
>>3301011
Still too much. I'm going to need you to break it down to no more than four words.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)00:59:13 No.3301013
>>3301012
The argument is misleading.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)01:01:45 No.3301014
>>3301013
It was tough, but I stopped the room from spinning long enough to read that one.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)02:07:40 No.3301021
>>3301011
>1. Congress doesn't directly control immigration numbers, so why is he acting like they do? This
is misleading.
Congress can pass stronger/weaker immigration reforms and controls the "purse strings".
>Just because "only" taking in a certain number of immigrants may fail to "make a dent" in the
world population of desperately poor does not have bearing on whether or not it is the right
thing to do.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Soviet Union tried to create true equality of
outcome and we all know how that turned out.
>The gumballs represent portions of the extremely poor population, but the gumballs dropped into
the glass representing the United States are supposed to represent portions with notable talents
and/or potential. Why do they continue to be represented as a strain on the population as he adds
more marbles, when they should be assimilating?
Operative phrase here is "should be assimilating"
Let's here those better complaints.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)02:40:07 No.3301025
>>3301021
>The Soviet Union tried to create true equality of outcome and we all know how that turned out.
It's worthwhile to note that the United States' immigration policy does not prioritize the
creation of "true equality of outcome," either.
>Operative phrase here is "should be assimilating"
Mr. Jacket's argument does not attempt to claim that these individuals are not assimilating:
neither does he substantiate an implied claim that they are not. In effect, he cedes this ground
without contest. I'm willing to interpret his arguments in good faith, not make them for him.
In claiming that desperately poor population members with high potential ought to "bloom where
they are sown," Mr. Jacket echoes a sentiment that one ought to always "pull oneself up by one's
bootstraps." This sentiment has been rightly mocked because of its cruel absurdity for
individuals faced with impossible circumstances, which can occur even in first-world countries.
Is it possible for a physics savant born in a third-world country to develop and apply his
talents in an environment devoid of opportunities for higher education? Enabling talented
individuals to immigrate to the United States enriches our country and actually allows their
talents to bear fruit: to follow through on the farming metaphor, it's a stupid farmer who leaves
prize plants to wither in abandoned fields.
Mr. Jacket claims that this is unethical, that we are in some way stealing these talented people
from their countries: I contend that these individuals ought to have freedom of movement, the
better to develop their talents and apply them to better the world. The suggestion that certain
individuals have some sort of transcendent, universal "potential" that enables them to succeed in
any field against any odds is a Randian farce. This does not obviate the possibility,
conveniently ignored here, that these individuals might CHOOSE to return to their home countries
and enrich them.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)03:13:43 No.3301028
>>3301025
I thought he said let's help them where they are at. Not necessarily just let them fail aid them
in a way so they can succeed that doesn't involve filling up our own country.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)04:10:40 No.3301037
>>3301025
I don't understand why countries are poor. Or more accurately. I don't understand why countries
continue to be poor, are things getting better very slowly or am I right in assuming something
drastic needs to change. Or has the "solution" to poverty already underway, just not in a
timescale that's convenient for everyone who is poor right now?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)04:27:12 No.3301038
>>3301037
Poverty is a cycle for anyone, including countries. Terrible living conditions create terrible
workers which create terrible businesses, the main draw that "fixes" countries are Businesses
from other countries (USA) coming in for workers, but with terrible workers there's no reason.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)04:31:18 No.3301039
>>3301028
He did, and that's a great idea. The thing is, I don't think that idea conflicts with the idea
that some people can help themselves over here better than we'd be able to help them over there:
to follow my earlier example, airlifting food for starving people is great, but it's not going to
enable that physics savant to get his Ph.D. if there still isn't any education.
The mistake is in thinking of "helping people who come here" and "helping people over there" in
terms of a dichotomy, which I don't think is justified.
>>3301037
I can tell you now that there are plenty of theorists who would argue that it's because rich
countries like the US sort of prop up systems that make it harder for developing countries to get
out ahead (e.g., American companies that run sweatshops so American consumers can continue to buy
t-shirts on the cheap, at the expense of the workers who made them), but even if that's true,
it's probably only one factor of a really complicated problem. TL;DR: IDK
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)05:07:51 No.3301041
>>3301007
>>3301025
>Mr. Jacket
You can say whatever you want; I've already seen threads discussing this before. The thing I
can't let go of is that his name is right there in the beginning and you keep typing Mr. Jacket.
Maybe I'm autistic
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)05:20:16 No.3301042
>>3301041
Fuck me, really? Somehow I completely skipped over that. That really makes me look like a real
asshole, but I swear it really was because I only watched the video the one time and I didn't
remember that it mentioned his name. I really should've double-checked, so that's totally my
fault. Thanks for pointing that out.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)05:41:06 No.3301045
>majority of world population makes less than 2$usd a day
>spend 2000$ on gumballs for a 10 minute presentation about poor people
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)06:20:13 No.3301047
>>3301045
so sad
https://i.imgur.com/6LoM4c7.gif
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)09:29:06 No.3301062
>>3301007
>the United States is exclusively an issue of global humanitarianism, leading to the Nirvana
fallacy
That's not a nirvana fallacy. He's, merely pointing out the futility of immigration as a means of
reducing poverty.
>I will re-state here: "There's no way we can handle everyone in the world who is desperately
poor, so allowing the desperately poor to immigrate here is a waste of time/a mistake."
You're creating a bit of a straw-man there.
He advocated that accepting what few immigrants that they do makes no noticeable affect on world
poverty, is likely counter productive.
He also asserts that doubling their intake would overwhelm the US's capacity to
process/assimilate them.
>He does not, however, treat them as such. Instead, they stay "gumballs"
Hes making a demonstration of whats happening over 1 years growth. It would be utterly
disingenuous to suggest that immigrants can be assimilated within one year.
Housing, schools, roads, healthcare, and all other infrastructure needs to grow to accommodate
the new population.
Honestly i think you've utterly missed the point of this video, and are instead defending the
freedom of people to go where they please. This video was about how ineffective immigration is at
reducing poverty. If you chose to argue outside that scope, i'd suggest you take it to /pol/
because its not related to this video.
Also stop being so god damned stuck up when you're so shit at making an arguement.
I suppose i should tell you to return to your containment board /b/, you'd find
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)09:46:57 No.3301063
also this guy is assuming that money is the ultimate factor in letting people from war ravaged,
poverty stricken, dictatorial countries immigrate here when the truth is that its quite simply
giving people who dont have a chance to have a good quality of life where they are actually have
a chance in america regardless of the hit we take economically to assimilate these poor souls
i dont think anybody really believes that a us mandated 2 million immigrant quota is going to
solve world poverty because of course that isnt feasible
what is feasible is that 2 million more people who may have otherwise been executed, ostracized,
ect. for their skills and intelligence that are not valued in poor countries can come over here
and at least have the possibility of a good life
keep in mind the kinds of people immigrating here who can change their own countries for the
better are also the people who get shit on and executed pricely because they go against the
status quo and can rise to the top
in cambodia these people were the subject of mass killings
all throughout history this has been true
all this really boils down to is if you actually care about your fellow human beings or if you
care about money
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)09:48:12 No.3301064
>>3301002
>Most immigrants coming to Western countries are poor and we welcome them from the kindness of
our hearts
Yeah, sure.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)09:48:24 No.3301065
>>3301063
*precisely lol still waking up sorry
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)09:51:46 No.3301066
>>3301025
>Mr. Jacket claims that this is unethical, that we are in some way stealing these talented people
from their countries
Another Straw-man.
Not once does Roy bring ethics into the equation, nor does he suggest they are stealing.
He does however argue that by taking the best and brightest they are making it harder for those
countries to develop.
At face value i'd completely agree. However immigrants have a huge tendency to send money back
home. This would help bolster the local economy improving things for the home country.
So without more data i can't comment on that.
>I contend that these individuals ought to have freedom of movement
Freedom of movement isn't a human right, and you're making it sound like it is.
Countries have the rights to establish borders and define what is and is not acceptable within
those borders.
You could argue that freedom of movement is whats best for them, and you'd probably be right.
Still doesn't mean they deserve freedom of movement.
>The suggestion that certain individuals have some sort of transcendent, universal "potential"
that enables them to succeed in any field against any odds is a Randian farce.
Hahaha, still at university huh.
Also another straw-man, hes suggesting that leaving entrepreneurs and other talented individuals
behind would help the home country. Its a valid point, because obviously it would.
>This does not obviate the possibility, conveniently ignored here, that these individuals might
CHOOSE to return to their home countries and enrich them.
I notice that you have conveniently ignored the fact that these individuals might CHOOSE to never
return to their home countries, instead having been a net drain.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)09:54:20 No.3301067
OP has a small white dick
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)10:01:59 No.3301068
>>3301063
>e ultimate factor in letting people from war ravaged, poverty stricken, dictatorial countries
immigrate here when the truth is that its quite simply giving people who dont have a chance to
have a good quality of life where they are actually have a chance in america reg
What a load of shit.
First up, immigration is about letting skilled and compatible people into your country.
What you are talking about about is accepting refugees.
>what is feasible is that 2 million more people who may have otherwise been executed, ostracized,
ect. for their skills and intelligence that are not valued in poor countries
Ignoring how inaccurate and stupid that statement is, i'll ask you what did that achieve?
There are still 2 billion other peopel looking for a better life, why did you pick those 2
million.
And why not let those other 2 billion in, all at once.
As for improving the life of those million, why was it improved. Because they found high paid
work in the US.
Do you think there are enough jobs in the US to support 2 million, 5, million, 1 billion new
people?
If not where do you draw the line.
I have zero doubt you have no ability to reason, let alone understand the ramifications of those
questions.
Please take your virtual signaling elsewhere. Let the real adults manage the real affairs of
state.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)10:10:50 No.3301069
Glad to see we're all getting along.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)10:13:45 No.3301071
>>3301068
i only brought up the khmer rouge as an extreme example believe it or not refugees are immigrants
too and is handled under immigration so your first attempt to dismiss my point is already flawed
but lets be thorough and really lay into you
the reason we dont let 2 billion people into our country at once goes without saying of course
itd be an incredible burden however letting comparatively minuscule amounts in at a time lets our
country roll with that burden
its still a burden ultimately regardless but its a burden we shoulder to give people better lives
regardless if they currently experiencing a country wide genocide or just have the absolute
poorest living conditions with no room for expansion because their skills and intelligence arent
valued like they would be here
on top of that even if we have a net loss in profits and are technically bleeding money from
these immigration policies that doesnt mean we dont make at least some money back so its not a
complete waste and if you value people over money then all the money we get from immigrants
bettering themselves in america is just the icing on top
you draw the line at how much the country can possibly handle without going under and this
alarmist "congress says we are going to be letting in 2 million people instead of 1 million this
year and now our country is going to buckle and be destroyed!!!!' has no statistical backing
which is another point the speaker in the video sheepishly didn't bring up
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)11:13:09 No.3301072
>>3301071
> refugees are immigrants too and is handled under immigration
What on earth do you mean handled under immigration?
Did you mean that refugees apply with your countries visa program to gain access whereby the host
country decides if they are beneficial to their country and only then are they let in?
No? Oh so i guess while refugees might immigrate, to lump refugees into the same bandwagon as
legal immigrants that go through the visa process is just disingenuous.
>lets be thorough and really lay into you
You can't even make an argument without creating strawmen and going off-topic.
>we dont let 2 billion people into our country [because it'd] be an incredible burden however
letting comparatively minuscule amounts in at a time lets our country roll with that burden
At what cost.
Just because shit happens doesn't mean you get an automatic pass to make your problems someone
elses. Life isn't fair, and in my experience, people who try and make life fair only create
hellholes.
You give the best possible reason for accepting refugees which is genocide. It'd be a good thing
to provide them a safe place and/or help them work towards resolving the conflict. But i'd still
argue that doesn't mean you have to provide citizenship.
As for your other reason, that because life is better in the US, its justification to allow free
entry.
That is so fucking stupid you should know better.
Even if the US had the best universities, that doesn't mean that everyone has the right to study
there.
cont...
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)11:24:09 No.3301073
>>3301072
...on top of that even if we have a net loss in profits and are technically bleeding money from
these immigration policies that doesnt mean we dont make at least some money back so its not a
complete waste.
Spoken like a true business man. One that goes bankrupt very quickly.
If you spend $100, and only get $10 in return, and then proclaim to the world that its not a
complete loss, well, do i need to explain how stupid that is.
>if you value people over money then all the money we get from immigrants bettering themselves in
america is just the icing on top
What the hell is that. You're not even trying to make sense now, but are instead arguing with
feelings.
I value my countrymen who share my values, hold the same social values, and work hard to make a
living for themselves.
I don't value someone from the US, who is socially naive, and has such little respect for money
that they will throw it away to feel good about themselves.
>you draw the line at how much the country can possibly handle
And how do you define that. The US if it *really* wanted to, could accept 50 million next year.
Your school systems would grow from what, 1 teacher per 25 children to 1 teacher to 80.
Tented ghetto communities would spring up to accommodate the influx.
Crime would skyrocket as the unemployed masses would resort to any means possible to make ends
meet.
Tax and borrowing would also skyrocket to provide food and additional services that'd be needed
The peaceful america as you know it would cease to exist.
It'd still be able to accommodate 50 million. So does that mean you support accepting 50 million?
>our country is going to buckle and be destroyed!!!!' has no statistical backing which is another
point the speaker in the video sheepishly didn't bring up
Roy said the services would be "OVERWHELMED", perhaps you should listen to waht he said rather
than creating all these strawmen. And look at europe if you want to see what happens to social
services when overwhelmed!
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)11:36:21 No.3301075
>>3301071
I'm going to go to bed, so if you do reply, you'll have the last word. I've set it to refresh so
when i wake up, this thread will be dead, but i'll see the response.
Saying that, if you want to virtual signal so much, i'll give you a hypothetical choice.
Its really hypothetical, because the US has such a horrible healthcare system.
But the choice is thus:
Would you rather have a refuge family as a neighbor, one that would always be a net drain to the
tax payer.
Or
Would you rather provide free healthcare to your other neighbor who needed needs expensive heart
medication to survive.
Pick one.
If you try to pick both: you're a coward.
If you pick the refugee: you're a heartless traitor to your nation
If you pick the free healthcare: you've made the best choice, but people will call you heartless
for not doing both (despite it not being a choice).
Welcome to being an adult. There are consequences to your actions, and people will suffer
regardless of what you do.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)11:51:06 No.3301077
>>3301075
just bookmark this page and check it out tomorrow
http://archive.4plebs.org/f/thread/3301002/#3301002
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:26:09 No.3301081
>>3301062
>He's, merely pointing out the futility of immigration as a means of reducing poverty.
>He advocated that accepting what few immigrants that they do makes no noticeable affect on world
poverty...
I'm going to maintain that this is Nirvana fallacy. Individual donations to aids groups don't
make dents in world poverty, either, but that doesn't mean they're not efficacious as a group.
>Hes making a demonstration of whats happening over 1 years growth.
That's incorrect. Mr. Beck is emphatic in stating that one gumball is the average immigrant
population EACH YEAR: he continues to add more and more as he goes, meaning that he is actually
representing a period much longer than one year.
>You missed the point...
Restrictive immigration policy limits rightful and beneficial freedom of movement: the fact that
this is not addressed only underlines the limitations of the video's argument.
>i'd suggest you take it to /pol/ because its not related to this video.
Ha! That's rich. Why don't you leave it there instead of dragging it out here and posting this
shit in the first place? I'm only here for [H] and 2hus.
>>3301066
>Not once does Roy bring ethics into the equation, nor does he suggest they are stealing.
I believe you are confused about who he says is doing the stealing. Re-read my comment.
>Freedom of movement isn't a human right, and you're making it sound like it is.
Without freedom of movement or the ability to opt-out, social contracts of countries are invalid.
Therefore it ought to be a right.
>hes suggesting that leaving entrepreneurs and other talented individuals behind would help the
home country.
This implicitly makes the "bootstraps" argument by implicitly claiming that these talented
individuals have the capacity to do so in environments devoid of necessary resources.
>I notice that you have ... ignored ... that these individuals might CHOOSE to never return
Correct. Freedom of movement is a right.
>>3301067
>white
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:36:22 No.3301084
>>3301072
i guess ill start here
>What on earth do you mean handled under immigration?
>Did you mean that refugees apply with your countries visa program to gain access whereby the
host country decides if they are beneficial to their country and only then are they let in?
>No? Oh so i guess while refugees might immigrate, to lump refugees into the same bandwagon as
legal immigrants that go through the visa process is just disingenuous.
refugees and immigrants both immigrate to america to leave the turmoil of their country and for
brighter futures im sorry if you still dont understand that its not disingenuous to group people
who immigrate as such when we are talking about immigration
me saying im going to lay into you is not a strawman and you say this throughout your retort as a
way to deflect and distract. if anything its ad hominem but it barely qualifies as that if at all
>Just because shit happens doesn't mean you get an automatic pass to make your problems someone
elses. Life isn't fair, and in my experience, people who try and make life fair only create
hellholes.
america isnt a hellhole currently and we already accept a million immigrants every year so i
guess "trying to make life fair" doesnt create hellholes.
>You give the best possible reason for accepting refugees which is genocide. It'd be a good thing
to provide them a safe place and/or help them work towards resolving the conflict. But i'd still
argue that doesn't mean you have to provide citizenship.
and i have already said regardless if the reason for immigration is genocide or just abysmal
living conditions people have the right to leave their country of origin in search of a better
one. thats exactly how this country was founded.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:37:10 No.3301086
>>3301068
>There are still 2 billion other peopel looking for a better life, why did you pick those 2
million.
>And why not let those other 2 billion in, all at once.
This is Nirvana fallacy at its core. "Helping everyone is impossible, so why help anyone?" It is
indicative of nihilism and moral cowardice.
>>3301075
This question is kind of baffling, frankly. These options don't seem mutually exclusive. Picking
the best option for everyone is "cowardice"? Why? I could accept saying that it's financially
untenable, but why is that cowardly? Because I'm refusing to prioritize? Fair enough, but why am
I prioritizing between these things in the first place? If I accept that choice, then I must
simply accepting your earlier arguments without complaint, and you haven't earned that yet.
Picking a refugee doesn't make me heartless, unless you consider "nations" to be more important
than actual human beings. Nationalists can get fucked as far as I'm concerned.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:45:14 No.3301090
>>3301073
>Spoken like a true business man. One that goes bankrupt very quickly.
If you spend $100, and only get $10 in return, and then proclaim to the world that its not a
complete loss, well, do i need to explain how stupid that is.
>What the hell is that. You're not even trying to make sense now, but are instead arguing with
feelings.
>I value my countrymen who share my values, hold the same social values, and work hard to make a
living for themselves.
you still do not comprehend the words im saying. i already fully admitted that we are shouldering
burden and taking in immigrants at a loss. however if you value people over money then you must
realize that saving and improving as many human lives as you can is a reward in its own. you cant
write it down in your profit ledger but its a plus all the same. i realize this may be the
hardest pill to swallow of them all and probably where we differ the most. i value human life the
world over and see it as an asset. you do not. you can call it intangible and touchy feely if you
like. if that is the hill you want to die on go for it.
>I don't value someone from the US, who is socially naive, and has such little respect for money
that they will throw it away to feel good about themselves.
i dont do it to feel good about myself. i do it because its the right thing to do. and its not
thrown away because again it goes to something that is tangible to me. you may think its thrown
away. i do not.
>It'd still be able to accommodate 50 million. So does that mean you support accepting 50 million?
i dont support letting in 50 million immigrants in all at once since that would be an insane
shock to our system. however 1 million has not been a shock. 2 million wont either. and this ties
into this part
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:46:27 No.3301091
>>3301075
>Roy said the services would be "OVERWHELMED", perhaps you should listen to waht he said rather
than creating all these strawmen. And look at europe if you want to see what happens to social
services when overwhelmed!
overwhelmed is not a statistic. its an alarmist reaction that has no basis in reality. he gives
no sources for this wild claim. and europe is doing fine. you may not have noticed it, but europe
was not in the list of countries that the majority of their citizens make less than 2 dollars a
day. it is in no danger from a wellfare standpoint.
>I'm going to go to bed, so if you do reply, you'll have the last word. I've set it to refresh so
when i wake up, this thread will be dead, but i'll see the response.
i dont care about last words and i hope you wake up before the thread dies.
and you have already decided the answer to the hypothetical as evidenced by your rationale behind
each one of the "choices" i have despite the fact your hypothetical has more facets to it than
you would want to believe. however within the scope of your question the answer is i am a coward
apparently. something of which is also "feeling" based and doesnt phase me in the slightest if
you think of me as such.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:49:58 No.3301094
>>3301086
hokay, importing those people takes resources. America does not have infinite resources. Why not
spend those resources on things that make a difference? Your logic is poorly thought through
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)12:51:36 No.3301097
>>3301094
it does make a difference to 1-2 million people who need a difference made in their lives
the quantity of difference does not detract from the quality of difference
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:07:47 No.3301100
>>3301094
Not to go all 'no u' on things, but my logic is not flawed. Yours is.
>1. Importing people takes resources.
>2. America does not have infinite resources.
>Conclusion: Resources would be better spent elsewhere than importing people.
The conclusion does not follow the premises, so unless you modify your premises heavily the
conclusion is unsound. I can't find a more charitable way to put your argument, and I'm running
out of ways to say "just because you can't help everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't help anyone."
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:11:24 No.3301101
lol you guys are fuckin stupid
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:13:05 No.3301103
>>3301101
wow nice argument fagtron way to convince me with those hot opinions
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:14:53 No.3301104
>>3301081
>Freedom of Movement is a right
No.
I'm willing to concede that freedom of movement FROM a given country should not be completely
forbidden, but travel between countries is not in any way a right.
Nobody, for example, who is not a US citizen has a right to enter the United States. Nobody.
In fact, the leadership of the US has both the right and the responsibility to mandate
limitations and standards to determine who is allowed into the country for any reason, whether as
immigrant, refugee, traveler, or temporary visa holder. And they also have the right to refuse
anyone they want.
I do think that well regulated international travel and immigration is fine, the system as it
exists now is functional, if far from perfect, but the idea that anyone, from anywhere in the
world, regardless of personal circumstances and history, could just go "Hey, i wanna come live
where you do, shove over." is utterly ludicrous.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:18:28 No.3301106
>>3301103
thanks i put a lot of thought into it
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:21:35 No.3301107
>>3301104
>the idea that anyone, from anywhere in the world, regardless of personal circumstances and
history, could just go "Hey, i wanna come live where you do, shove over." is utterly ludicrous.
I think that's a far cry from a reasonable interpretation of "freedom of movement." "Shove over,"
in particular, implies a right to DISPLACE other people that is not included in the phrase
"freedom of movement": that's something else entirely. The fact is that if people have the
resolve and the capacity to move to somewhere that benefits both them and the place they are
moving to, they ought to be able to do that: to deny it arbitrarily is plainly foolish.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)13:58:26 No.3301109
The real problem with what this guy is saying is that we don't take in immigrants to help them
out, we take them to help us out. If the United States did not accept immigrants, our population
would be both shrinking and rapidly aging. An elderly population leads to a stagnant economy, and
a shrinking population leads to a shrinking economy. The alternative, a growing, youthful
population, creates economic growth, not just at the rate that population is growing, but an even
higher rate, so that a growing population means that even the people who were there previously
are better off. Immigrant labor and taxes a major component of why Social Security is not
currently bankrupt. Immigrants and their children already make up 25% of our population, and they
don't seem to have caused some sort of "societal breakdown". Our immigrants tend to be more
highly educated, more productive, and less likely to commit crimes than the average US citizen.
So how are they a burden?
The answer is that immigrants are not, and have never been, a burden. If you dislike immigrants,
the reason is either because you are an idiot or a racist, and nothing else. They are a net
benefit to our society, no matter how you state it. Immigration to the United States helps
immigrants, helps the United States, and, at least in some ways, hurts the people in the
countries where the immigrants came from. Americans benefit from immigration to America, at the
detriment of others. Immigration is not a humanitarian cause, and that's okay. People should not
be prevented from moving because someone else is an idiot and thinks that they will hurt them.
Anyway, the criminals and the poor in these other countries are typically not able to emigrate
from their countries, so we're not even getting them. We get the middle class and the
well-educated.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)14:06:48 No.3301112
Fuck you guys I have a big heart. I will take it onto myself to chew all those gumballs! None
will be left behind.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)14:09:01 No.3301113
it's not everyday that there's a debate on /f/
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)14:15:54 No.3301115
>>3301007
Not from /pol/ but I noticed some flaws there.
>nor do they pass measures that, for example, set a quota or limit to the number of immigrants to
the United States.
But they do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
"average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year"
>The conclusions do not follow, and the weakest part of Mr. Jacket's argument is where he assumes
them by framing the issue in terms of what will fail to "make a dent" etc.
You are taking the quotes are taken out of context. He's refuting the assertion that mass
immigration into the US can be a tool to reduce world poverty.
>He also makes some sadly unsubstantiated claims about how many immigrants would strain our
natural resources etc.
Nobody knows for certain what would happen if immigration suddenly doubled, he is weak on this
point; I'm not sure if there are any studies done that investigate immigration's effects on
natural/social resources.
>Instead, they stay "gumballs" like the rest, despite the fact that, over the course of the years
he purports to represent, those gumballs (if they have the potential he suggests they have) ought
to have acclimated to the rest of the population and no longer represent a population "strain" on
the American economy (as the rest of the gumballs represent).
I think you might be reading too much into it and have somehow misinterpreted the simple
demonstration. The gumballs never represented strain on the American economy. Each gumball in the
USA glass represents an average of a million legal immigrants; The other gumballs represent a
million people who make less than $2 per day and later on a million people where the average
income is lower than mexico. He said earlier in his speech that doubling immigration would cause
the strain. It is true he never said anything about immigrants acclimating to the US which is
another flaw in the speech.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)14:21:15 No.3301117
I'm here too
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)14:22:42 No.3301118
>>3301039
>airlifting food for starving people is great
That's a bad idea in the long run. If they're unable to get food for themselves and get airlift
food instead of finding a way to get their own food, many more would die (from mothers having
more children etc.) if the airlift program gets canceled.
>> [_] Anomynous 12/13/17(Wed)14:36:41 No.3301119
>>3301113
Wrong
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)14:42:03 No.3301122
>>3301042
I thought it was a DFWism, like Joe Briefcase
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)15:20:57 No.3301126
>>3301090
not him, but
you don't though, and thats the issue. No one would ever tell you you cannot take your own money,
and give it all to someone else, or that you cannot open up your house and let someone live
there. You can do that, but you cannot compel others to do so as well. If every American had
equal wealth, and every American lived a comfortable life, then maybe you would have a better
argument, but at this point in time any argument for moral immigration is grandstanding, because
it ignores the impoverished and poor here. And when a country pursues such a course of
immigration, then it is not the few willing who must pay, but every member of the nation, no
matter how poor, that must absorb the costs. Further more, you lack perspective of the future. We
can absorb more and more impoverished people, but when systems built upon having a specific
population buckle and fail, then the amount of suffering will be much more than if you had not
put such strain on the systems in the first place.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)15:21:53 No.3301127
>52 posts over a /f/lash
holy shit should I read all this?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)15:27:08 No.3301128
>>3301100
but that conclusion is sound, you imply like there is not a single way those resources could be
spent on this country that does not have immigration at the top of the list. Across the US
infrastructure is failing, even in city centers roads are in disrepair. The loss of jobs in
various sectors has created a massive lower class of poor in rural areas, who in many cases lack
modern amenities. A governments first and only prerogative is to its people, and any government
that fails to support it's people at the expense of others is a sham.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)16:09:48 No.3301136
>>3301126
thats why poor people shouldnt be as taxed as rich people so the burden is equal relative to the
amount of wealth each individual has
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)16:29:40 No.3301139
>>3301136
but now you are compelling anyone under your definition of 'rich' to pay for something they don't
want. And every cent that a rich person pays to ship someone here I would rather see go to the
boonies or inner city ghettos to help the people there. If you can show me that there are no
ghetto's, and that the rust belt isn't real, then ship in as many immigrants as you want.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/13/17(Wed)16:35:19 No.3301141
>57 posts
imagine even watching this flash and discussing it on a board dedicated to deprecated software
held within a website dedicated to taiwanese picture shows
